Saturday, June 4, 2016

Breaking Down Plastic Macca : An Interview with Tina Foster


While listening to a conversation between Greg Carlwood and Mark Devlin on Carlwood’s wonderful podcast The Higherside Chats, the discussion at one point moved into the infamous Paul Is Dead/Faul material.  Like many of us who have actually taken the time to look into the construct that is Paul McCartney post 1966, Devlin mentions that he initially had skepticism regarding the possible Great Beatles Conspiracy, but the more he researched the information, the more plausible he found the idea of a replacement Paul McCartney having been inserted into the Beatles @ late 1966.  Devlin also mentioned the work of Tina Foster and her website, PlasticMacca, as a great resource to those interested in the material.  Always appreciative of the wonderful work of other bloggers, I immediately read Tina’s work, took the time to take some notes, and reached out to her for a written interview. Fortunately for me, Tina was able to accommodate my request (again, thank you Tina!).
This interview was concluded on June 2, 2016.
Q: You have done a lot of fantastic analysis regarding the use of body doubles in the 20th century.  Could you provide a quick synopsis of the history of known uses of body doubles for a baseline of your analysis on Plastic Macca?
TF: Doubles have been used as political tools for centuries. Once that reality is accepted, recognizing impostors becomes much easier. There have been a number of body and voice doubles in the past 100 years. Mata Hari, Stalin, Monty, Saddam Hussein, Churchill, Kim Jong Il, and Osama bin Laden are some of the better known examples. Their doubles all served a political purpose. Some were used in psyops to spread disinformation. Some were replaced by impostors to serve as puppets by others who pulled the strings. People have become aware of these tactics. Once it is known that political figures can be used in such a fashion, it is a simple deduction to see that other public figures could be used in such a way. That was my conclusion with Paul McCartney. Namely, that his impostor served a political agenda. 
Q: I think this is important to understand in the context of celebrities/public figures and the use of body doubles.  This ultimately leads into the crux of your hypothesis: you mention on your site and in interviews that you believe that Paul was replaced by a double between August 25-28th 1966.  What has led you to that hypothesis?
TF: After studying hundreds of pictures of Paul, I came to believe he was replaced on or about Aug. 28, 1966. Pretty much everyone involved in PID research agrees he was replaced by Nov. 1966. I think it happened at the end of the US tour – in LA or Seattle. The LA press conference was Faul’s debut as “Paul McCartney.” The press conference was very odd. Reporters made mention of doubles, John and Faul made cryptic remarks about not being the real deals, and of course, Faul just does not look or act like Paul. Please study several interviews with Paul before watching the LA press conference. The differences will be obvious.
Q: I picked up on that press conference in LA too and the random question regarding doubles…What is the key piece evidence, or pieces of evidence, in your opinion, that a false Paul was inserted into the Beatles?  Is it pre-67’ versus post-66’ facial features, voice differences, ear lobes, etc?
TF: In my opinion, the forensic analysis by the Italian scientists, Carlesi and Gavazzeni, is irrefutable proof that Paul was replaced. There is just no way Paul’s skull shape, ears, nose, mouth, and jawline changed so considerably in the space of four months. Any one of those would have been enough to prove Faul was a double. The next most compelling evidence is the three sets of voice prints Dr. Truby identified for “Yesterday,” “Penny Lane,” and “Hey Jude.”
Q: The great Beatles mystery, to me, is the song “Woman,” written allegedly by Paul McCartney under the pseudonym Bernard Webb, and then was given to the pop group Peter and Gordon in early 1966.  To me, that song is absolutely amazing, and could have at least have been a B-side, yet the official story is something along the lines of  “We had written too many love songs, so we gave that one away…”  Has this song ever been brought up on the context of a Paul vs Faul scenario?
TF:” I have not considered that song as a PID clue. However, Paul wrote many songs that were received very well. Faul, on the other hand, has really struggled to gain even positive reviews of his songs. Paul’s song-writing ability surpassed Faul’s by miles (in my opinion). Paul had a natural gift that Faul just cannot duplicate. One should analyze the different song-writing styles as part of the PID evidence. 
Q: Did Jane Asher, Paul’s first significant love interest, ever provide clues regarding a possible Paul McCartney double inserted into the public’s consciousness subsequent to her breakup with Paul McCartney?
TF: I believe Jane and Paul’s relationship was an arranged relationship to further their careers. It would explain why Jane dated Faul until she was replaced by Linda. Since it was just for show, Jane kept quiet about Paul’s disappearance. She has refused to speak publicly about her relationship with Paul. I think it was just safer that way.  
Q: Do you think the Tavistock Institute was involved with either the A) engineering of the Beatles in the 1960’s or B) the creation of Faul?
TF: Yes, I think Tavistock engineered the replacement Beatles, aka Sgt. Pepper Beatles. Tavistock leveraged the Beatles’ popularity to serve the NWO agenda. When the replacements came on board, the music and the message changed. The focus shifted from ascension to descent. Light was replaced with Dark. 
Q:You have also mentioned that the popular theory that Paul McCartney died in an automobile accident in the fall/winter of 1966 was/is possibly disinformation.  Do you believe Paul McCartney actually died in 1966, or that he possible “retired” from public exposure?
TF: Yes, I think the car accident is disinformation. Unfortunately, the messages seem to indicate that Paul was assassinated. So many references to head injuries, both pictorial, in song lyrics, and reverse speech, indicate a shot to the head and not an accidental death. Remember that the time of death was probably late August 1966 while the Beatles were on the West Coast of USA. Disinformation about a car crash months later confuses the issue. It also helps to conceal a sinister plot to hijack a popular band to serve the ruling Elite’s agenda. Should someone discover that Paul died, it is preferable for them to think it was an accident and not an assassination.  
Q: Do you have any ideas on the motivation to execute Paul McCartney?  I’ve personally always thought John to be the spiritual leader of the Beatles, but is there a sense that Paul ultimately was?
TF: Paul McCartney was the musical genius. John Lennon was the wordsmith. Both collaborated to bring in songs of high spiritual frequency. Love and Light were “funneled” to the world through their songs. People recognized real unconditional love emanating from the Beatles and returned that love. John and Paul were essentially changing the world through music. 
The Illuminati decided the Beatles had to be stopped. John and Paul were executed; George and Ringo fled. In their stead, an Illuminati-controlled puppet band was installed. “Sgt. Pepper” is betraying this secret for those with the eyes to see.
The replacements set out to undo what the originals had achieved. The music was purposefully written to resonate at an unhealthy frequency. What was also done was to recast Paul as an inept, weak character. This was done to discredit him and devalue his considerable contribution to humanity.
Q: Do you think all of the original Beatles were executed as well?
As mentioned previously, it seems that Paul was executed in late August 1966. John and the others must have been replaced sometime between Sept.-Dec. 1966. Paul is the one most people have noticed was replaced. Most research has been focused on him, including forensic analysis. Not nearly as much energy has been spent exposing the other Beatles’ doubles. However, if one is discerning, one will notice subtle differences in physiognomy and personality. More detailed analysis needs to be carried out.
There is really no proof that anyone but the John Lennon double was killed (if he really were killed). However, based on my analysis of song clues, pictures, back-masked messages, and reverse-speech, it seems they are telling a tale of the murder and replacement of Paul McCartney. It does not necessarily follow that the others were killed. It is my impression that George and Ringo either fled for their lives, or took a payout to live in seclusion. Since John’s double was publicly executed, it stands to reason that that could be a big clue about what happened to John. 
Q:Personally, I have always appreciated the Beatles work up to their 1966 album Revolver.  Help!, to me, is the quintessential Beatles album.  You have mentioned in interviews that Help! was recorded with the A=432 HZ tuning.  Do you know if other albums and/or tracks were also recorded at the 432 HZ frequency?  Do you think this album possibly led to the demise of the original Beatles?
TF: “Help!,” to my knowledge, was the only album recorded in A=432 Hz. However, other albums (pre-replacement) channeled Source Light into the music. Songs that lift one’s spirits are examples of those containing Source Light. Quite a few Beatles’ songs did this. To answer the question as to whether this was a motivation to replace Paul, I would have to say yes. In fact, this was the biggest reason. If people integrated Source Light into their bodies from listening to the music, it would raise their frequency. Realize that the powers that be rely on low frequency vibration to maintain control. The low frequency makes it difficult to discern the truth. It is like being surrounded by a thick fog. One cannot see clearly. As the frequency rises, the fog lifts, and the truth is revealed. The Beatles were raising the frequency and freeing people. The powers that be had to stop the Beatles before they lost control.
Q: Also of interest Paul McCartney was to have provided a sound track to a film regarding the Kennedy assassination of 1963.  What is the backstory on that situation?
TF: Yes, Mark Lane said Paul wanted to write the score for the movie, “Rush to Judgment.” Lane’s book raised many questions about the official story of the JFK assassination. If Paul had been involved, many more people would have seen the movie. The more people who questioned the official story, the harder it would have been for the powers that be to keep the lie alive. I think the Elite panicked when they found out Paul wanted to be involved in exposing the truth. I think they decided Paul could not be allowed to write the score. Of course, the Illuminati-controlled puppet bowed out of the project. As a result, the movie had much less attention from the public than it could have had. 
Q: I’ve been collecting all of the new Beatle mono vinyl LP’s, and at some point would like to compare the covers to the original issues in the 1960’s.  Have you seen or found any evidence that highlights altered images of the Paul, or any other Beatles for that matter, on rereleased album covers post the 1960’s?
TF: I have found evidence of altered photos of Paul post-replacement, as did the forensic scientists, Carlesi and Gavazzeni. I noticed the photo of Paul from the Aug. 19, 1966 Memphis interview was a composite of Paul and Faul. In other photos, Paul has had his face elongated to match Faul, while Faul has had his head made rounder to match Paul. The clue to the former is “you’ve been a naughty boy, you let your face grow long” in “I am the Walrus.” Other people have noticed other photo-composites of Paul and Faul, some of which can be found on the Plastic Macca blog.
Q: Have you, or anyone in your research group, analyzed the chord structures of songs composed by Paul vs Faul?  Is there anything revealing in the chord structures of Paul McCartney majority composed songs 1966 versus post 1967?
TF: I have not personally analyzed chord structure. However, I have had several musicians mention this clue, saying that Paul’s chord structures were more complex and interesting than Faul’s. One said it was a point of great confusion among music scholars. The confusion arises because they cannot understand why the music became simpler rather than more complex, which is more usual with composers. Of course, it makes sense if you factor in PID. 
Q: Paul McCartney and the Wings – what an interesting moment in the context of the larger Beatle Universe. Have you found any evidence in the Wings material, lyrics, cover art, videos, etc, that suggest or hint at the fact that Macca is indeed Faul?
TF: The biggest clue, in my opinion, is when Faul approached Isaac Asimov about writing a book about a rock band that had been replaced by alien impostors (“Five and Five and One”). Other than that, “Wings” could have a couple of meanings. One could be that Paul now has wings because he is an angel. Another could be a reference to Faul waiting in the wings to replace Paul in the Beatles.
Q: Could you rattle off your top 5 least favorite Faul songs?
TF: “Frog Chorus,” “Silly Love Songs,” “Helter Skelter”… he wrote too many terrible songs to mention them all. 
Q: Do you have a top 5 favorite Faul songs?  Are there any songs that come close to the original spirit of Paul McCartney, in your opinion?
TF: Paul probably penned most songs Faul sang in the Beatles. Of course, they were altered a bit to serve the Agenda, but they still sounded pretty good. “Penny Lane,” “Hey Jude,” even “Maybe I’m Amazed” come to mind.
Q: Who do you think ultimately is Faul?  There is quite a bit of speculation on who became Paul McCartney in August of 1966, or shortly thereafter.  Do you sense there is a high probable candidate that fits your research and findings?
TF: It seems Denny Laine was a Faul, at least for a time immediately following Paul’s disappearance. The song, “Penny Lane,” seems to be a big clue to that. In addition, December 1966 Faul looks a lot like Denny Laine. Remember that several stand-ins may have played the role of “Paul McCartney.”
Q: In respect to Faul and interviews after 1966, do you get the sense he is more hateful, arrogant, and/or egocentric?  I’ve seen a few clips on your site and he apparently likes to “inadvertently” flip off the interviewer.  Is that a consistent trend seen with interviews with Faul?
TF: Faul seems to be very uncomfortable playing the part of Paul. He probably hates being compared to Paul, even though it is usually an honest mistake on the part of the interviewer. For example, if someone refers to “Yesterday,” or another one of Paul’s hit songs, Faul will get annoyed. Faul’s songs have never received the public acclaim Paul’s did. It must be irritating being stuck being someone, but knowing you could never really fill their shoes. Anyone would be unhappy in that situation. Faul displays his unhappiness by his generally unpleasant disposition. Thus, you see him make rude gestures at interviewers, etc. 
Q: If you take the idea of the original Beatles and their music, replacement Beatles, and the impact of these Beatles’ changes on the grander population, and extrapolate this change on to a larger world view, what is your philosophy?  Are we ultimately sheep at the command of an elite minority?  What do you think is the ultimate outcome of humanity through the manipulation of popular music acts, such as the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, etc?
TF: People are not sheep, but sometimes their eyes need to be opened. Yes, it is true the powers that be have been able to manipulate them in the past, but many are seeing reality much more clearly now. In the larger context, Paul has exposed the impostor-replacement agenda. Many people have no doubt been switched out to serve a political purpose, but PID has really focused attention on this tactic. In the future, it will be much more difficult to impostor-replace someone, because people now know to be on the lookout for doubles. The powers that be will now have a more difficult time manipulating the public in this way.
Q: Do you believe the truth of Paul McCartney will ever be released?  What are you thoughts on possible leaks of the truth through items such as the Youtube’s the Rotten Apple series and the book Memoirs of Billy Shears?
TF: I think the truth has already been leaked, at least to the extent that Paul was replaced. I do not think any insiders have leaked any information in a meaningful way. Mal Evans seems to have been murdered to prevent his biography about the Beatles from coming out. Heather Mills was threatened. Obscure references to PID are tolerated, but nothing transparent from insiders. The powers that be seem to tolerate people like me who formulate their own theories about PID, because we are not insiders. Everyone who contributes to PID research is making a difference. 
Q: What is your take on the Rotten Apple series/ Aleister Crowley references to Faul?
TF: Aleister Crowley was a co-founder of the Tavistock Institute. I think that is what Iamaphoney was getting at – his involvement in the manufactured Beatles. 
Q: What’s up next for you?  Do you have any new veins of research in the works?  Have you considered publishing a book with your research?
TF: I still have research I plan to publish on the blog. I have decided not to publish a book on PID because of copyright complications. I would appreciate it if people who want to support my PID research would visit my sponsors’ sites, i.e. click on the ads. I feel PID gets more exposure from the blog that it would from a book. This has been a labor of love and was not something I set out to profit from.  [I changed my mind and published the definitive PID book, Plastic Macca: The Secret Death and Replacement of Beatle Paul McCartney, in 2019].
JA: Well, thank you so much for taking the time to chat with me, Tina.  I’ve really enjoyed reading the work published on your website, PlasticMacca.  I recommend it to all who are interested in the Beatles and McCartney.  The Beatles, to me,  are still as enigmatic and mysterious as ever before, and I am excited to see where your upcoming research leads you.


  1. Nice Q and A. Good answers as well as good questions. I would have a hard time thinking George and Ringo were replaced since their early photos and personalities seem to match their latter years'. Also, although I heartily agree that Paul was a conduit for (en)light(ened) music, the rather dramatic shift in musical style as represented by Sgt. Pepper's album could be explained away if a new musical influence came into the group--that is, Faul. From a music theory perspective, pre-'66 music was heavily influenced by blues and rather simple chord progressions that are rather conventional throughout the-then music world. In other words: Nothing extraordinary. The Sgt. Pepper's compositions introduce quite a different musical theoretical approach: more departure from the traditional blues, more complex, innovative chord progressions, and an entirely psychedelic and melancholic context that is a radical departure from Beatles' earlier music. My impression is that the introduction of a Faul could not have been able to have the influence to have made that radical change because his solo work did not reflect that type of genius. Whether or not it was Faul or other unknown/unnamed musical artists who are responsible for that radical change maybe we may never know, but from a musical theory perspective: 1) From 1966 onward their music takes a dramatic shift in music complexity from more simple to more complex; 2) an argument can be made that it was not the same musicians writing the music, at least in part, which would also support the idea that Paul was replaced (although there may be little argument about that, at this point).

  2. So, either the music went from more complex to simple or more basic to complicated. The last Beatles album would be Revolver, which DavyJones of the Monkees preferred over Pepper. Rock journalist Lester Bangs wrote a cover piece for Creem magazine in the '70's explaining why they hated the Beatles. He even said The Rolling Stones' Flower (1967), was better than Sgt. Pepper. You would need original artifacts like albums, photos and magazine to compare the differences in the newer reproduced images and recently remastered recordings. Not so surprisingly, that has become increasingly more difficult in recent years. With a crashed economy and a WiFi surveillance state, people have thrown out or sold much of their stuff. Try finding a YouTube of original vinyl Beatles recordings. It is much easier with other artists. Beatles or Featles at the LA press conference, admitted witch, David Crosby (Van Cortland) served as their handler/stalker/fan/friend. Faul's debut vocals were on the "Lady Madonna" and "Hey Jude" singles and the White Album. The voice imitators (who looked like George Martin) handled the 1967 releases. However, it is Paul's voice singing "very strange" on "Penny Lane" and "sing it again" on "Your Mother Should Know." Faul sings the first two verses on Abbey Road's "Golden Slumbers." The man who did voice prints in 1969 discovered no discrepancies between John's, George's and Ringo's with that of their replacements other than "With a Little Help from My Friends," which was sung by the same voice imitator who sang on the 1967 songs. Faul did not even play bass on Pepper, it was a woman. Denny Laine said the genius of Faul was in his simple guitar playing, like that on "Blackbird." Faul was a piano player and so was Paul. On the "Wings Over America" album, Faul does not stick with bass, and plays acoustic guitar and piano as well. He sounds nothing like Paul as he attempts to sing "I've Just Seen a Face." You would think that all of the screaming fans of The Beatles would have known that Faul was not Paul And that Fennon was not Lennon and that the others were not George and Ringo either. Perhaps The Beatles were replaced with the entire Swingin' Blue Jeans. They must have been groomed to be their shadow band from the time Tavistock declared a second British invasion on the United States of America, if not the third (World War I.) The Beatles were blue collar rebels. Then Brian Epstein came along. Then Tavistock got involved. Then The Beatles started defying authority at the Royal Command Performance, speaking out against the Vietnam War, growing their hair longer, Lennon's "Jesus" statement and the original Yesterday and Today album cover.

    1. I meant to say Paul not Faul sang at the beginning of "Golden Slumbers." Of course, by now, Sir Paul has overdubbed his vocals. So who is Sir Paul? Phil Ackryll? Wee Willie Campbell? I don't know who he is, but I know who he aint! And he aint no Paul McCartney!

  3. The "new" Beatles outed themselves (or were outed) in their animated feature film of Yellow Submarine. On the surface of course its the tale of Parallel Universes/realities which in itself is fascinating. (Sadly they show Paul's metaphorical tombstone.)
    It also blatantly exposes the bigger picture including the effects of dissonance/dissonant music on consciousness, the viral spread of the internet and its influence on ppl, the NWO-jesuit-"jew"-agenda, the hijacking of love, the dominance of Apple-driven computer products, the use of pseudo-science as a tool of mind-control, the watery world above the firmament of our contained world...

    and so much more!--not least of all the replacement of our beloved Beatles--if one cares to read between the holes.

    on a side note: if the only replacement evidence I'd been presented with was Faul's infamous "LSD interview", it'd be enough for my eyes and sensibilities to know the truth.

    "Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see..."

  4. Interesting.

    Good to see Tina re-engaging
    in the fray while the troll
    Clare Kuehn spends her time
    talking to her many alias trolls on YouTube and on her assorted and unreadable gibberish oriented blogspots.

  5. Wouldn't it be an easier explanation if the real Paul just decided in '66 to retire and someone took his place with the full consent of all the band members? This would explain why everyone fell into line - including family members - with the hoax. Maybe the real Paul helped Faul out for awhile with some tracks until he found his feet. No point criticising Faul too much anyway as he has been responsible for some great music. 'Mull of Killtyre?'..

    1. "Mull of Kin-Tyre " was written By Denny Lane of The Moody Blues in 1966.

    2. Yes, but still co-written by Paul/Faul.

    3. I have had that thought also. What if original Paul wanted a quieter life? I swear I hear both Paul and Faul on Sgt Pepper Album.

  6. They killed Henry McCullough.

  7. I find it interesting that the interviewer listens up to REVOLVER. REVOLVER for me is the last album I listen to before stopping short at SGT PEPPER and the later albums. For me, this album still had The Beatles spirit with "She Said She Said," "And Your Bird Can Sing," "Got To Get You Into My Life," etc., and still has their vibrant energy.

    But, again, to each their own. I believe REVOLVER was recorded with the original four members. And it is one of my personal favorite of theirs.

    I still count it as early Beatles before the changes came in.

    I'm curious, Tina, where do you ultimately fall with REVOLVER?

    (A HARD DAY'S NIGHT is my favorite album. But I believe RUBBER SOUL and REVOLVER were their peak albums.)

    1. I agree that Revolver was the last Beatles' album. In my opinion, it was the best.

    2. Thank you. I was just curious about your thoughts on this album.

      Also do you believe there are some artists out there that are safe to listen to, read, watch, etc?

      I've been reading this site for awhile, and I love the arts, but now I'm a little paranoid about it.

      For myself, musically, I love Nirvana, The Byrds, Amy Winehouse, The Animals, etc., and listen to alot of music and try to find the best (most pure?) of these things. Do you have any recommendations for doing this? Because I want to be careful, but I don't want to take music, movies, books, etc. out of my life.

      The comment about The Beatles music theory is very interesting. And I agree with you that you're definitely onto something. Their early music definitely sounds like nothing else I've ever heard before.

    3. Probably any classical music - Western or Eastern - would be good. I think the Beatles were wonderful, except for the social engineering stuff of the post-Paul Beatles (after Revolver. Maybe when you listen to music, movies, etc, see if you can detect an agenda... could be a fun exercise. lol

  8. Actually, the early Beatles music according to some music theorists/teachers was extraordinary (see Listen Up: Music of the Beatles by Devlyn Case and another one I don't remember the name of (who also does an analysis of Cole Porter), both on You Tube), contrary to the 1st comment. But, of course, there were many others who were just as extraordinary, such as the Beach Boys, the Fabulous 4 Seasons, Spanky n Our Gang, the Shadows, Elvis, the Big Bands, and easy listening orchestras and choruses, which have jazz/swing/Big Band roots.

  9. Is it just me, or does it seem odd that there was the album, "Help!", then "Rubber Soul", then "Revolver"--with all the titles seemingly linked to what seemed to be going on in their lives, with that Tavistock institute's occult-linked skullduggery going on behind the scenes. It suddenly hit me a few days ago, that the titles really may have been 'saying something' to us all that they couldn't come right out and tell everyone due to the danger they were actually in.

  10. Tina, I have research on many George photos and can not find the similar differenсes in appearance as with Faul and Paul. Specialy ears looks natural and the same for both. And also what do you think about music of George which seems such original? Of course, with Faul I have no doubs, but with John and George and specialy with their music is not so clear for me. And it is difficult to imagine that the voice of John Lennon also was a counterfeit. And how we can explain all that hints of John and George about PID? So many questions.


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

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