Thursday, June 30, 2016

Secrets of Saturn - Paul Is Dead Roundtable - Tina Foster, Jim Fetzer, Nicholas Kollerstrom

Secrets of Saturn - Episode - 28 - Paul Is Dead Roundtable - June 15, 2016

This was a discussion of the secret death of Beatle Paul McCartney (PID/Paul is Dead) with Tina Foster, Dr. Jim Fetzer, and Nicholas Kollerstrom, hosted by Jason Lindgren (June 15. 2016).


Tina Foster
Author of The Splitting Image: Exposing the Secret World of Doubles, Decoys, and Impostor-Replacements
Add me as a friend on Facebook


  1. Hi Tina,
    Have you seen these links about Faul. It looks to me he had suffered brain damage after the car accident.... he was replaced but did not die.... check out this link or or
    How is this explained by your theory.....?? Are the other guests aware of these posts on youtube...??

    1. I watched your links. IF Halliday IS Paul, then he probably underwent shock therapy or possibly even a lobotomy during the time of the replacement, and then it wasn't until years later that he began to recover and resurface. If he is JPM, he probably has no memory of being a Beatle. I personally don't think Halliday is Paul, but possibly a cousin or 1/2 brother.

  2. The Bee Gees wrote dozens of clue songs about The Beatles in the 1960's. Steven King shot John Lennon's double. Yoko Ono is a liar!

    1. Are these all able to be found on the Internet?

    2. Whoa!!!! Where do you get your information? I'd love to look at all of it.

    3. The Bee Gees recorded several albums in the late 60's. They were featured in magazines along with the Beatles during that era. They appeared on television programs and in live concerts behind the same shadow management that burst onto the scene at the time. They only became their own band in the '70's when they helped pioneer disco music.

    4. You also must remember, Maurice Gibb was Ringo Starr neighbor in late 60s. They hung out & drank together, so I'm sure Ringo talked about Faul and the conspiracy to Maurice and Bee Gee's were managed by Stigwood who started as Epteins partner at NEMs.

    5. Bee Gee's were originally managed by Stigwood,Brian Epstein's NEMS partner. Also, Maurice Gibb was very good friends with and next door neighbors w/Ringo Starr in the late 60's. I'm sure Ringo relayed the Faul conspiracy story to Maurice. Alot of the music industry were aware of Paul's replacement, such as the Rolling Stones, The Who, Cream, Donovan, Bob Dylan, Elton John, Eric Clapton etc.

  3. Many are like; "in the summer of his years" and "the singer sang his song". both songs from 68 should be made into YouTube videos dedicated to James Paul McCartney June 18, 1942 (Liverpool, England) - august 28, 1966 (Eugene, Oregon.)

    1. By mentioning Eugene, Oregon in August of 1966, are you insinuating that Eugene was where Paul was murdered? And, I'm a huge Bee Gees fan, so I'll need to go and listen more closely to the words they placed in the songs from 1968. So, you honestly believe the Gibb brothers were giving out genuine clues as to what happened to Paul? If that's true, that might help explain the video the Bee Gees made of their song, "ESP". In it, I think it shows Barry being killed, yet brought back to life by what appears to be an angel, I guess. That one always puzzled me! However, if the 'powersthatbe' got wind of what they were doing by what they were saying in their songs, that could help explain what happened to Barry. as portrayed in their video--hopefully, at least!

    2. I took a look at the lyrics to some of the Bee Gees songs from their albums of 1968, and one that struck me was "Kilburn Towers", so I did some checking on not just the song itself, but the name "Kilburn Towers". I really couldn't discern anything in the Bee Gees lyrics to that song that might apply to what had happened to Paul, but then I noticed that a movie had been made using that same title, "Kilburn Towers". Something told me to look more closely into the movie, and what I found was that the date of it's release smacked of numerology, which is a favorite tool of the illuminist/satanists. It's release date was on 6/12/12[June 12, 2012], and by breaking that down as they might intend, it becomes, 6 66 66, or even 666 33 33, by splitting the 66 is half. 666 applies to their false Christ figure better known as the anti-Christ, or pseudo-Christ, whom they plan to unveil on the world scene as soon as God allows them to do so.

      So, that date triggered my inner suspicions, and so did the plot, in a way. It's a mystery involving a pot-smoking, lonely recluse, who meets a pretty girl, but who is tormented by a stranger who moves into the attic where he lives, and tries to drive him insane. Sounds like it doesn't really apply to the situation with Paul, but why did they chose the title of that Bee Gees song for the title of that movie, and why was it released on a date filled with numerological meaning for the occult-adherents in the illuminati?! Also, why choose Barry's song by the same name for that movie?!

      I'm sure if I am able to do some more digging around I could find other things that might pertain to Paul's demise, though, within the Bee Gees early songs, if things are there to be found. What I'd like to know though is why you believe those two songs by the Bee Gees, "In The Summer of His Years", and "The Singer Sang His Song" should be made into videos dedicated to Paul, and by whom should they be made?

    3. "in the summer of his year" fue dedicaday pruducida a bryan epstein ,por su amistad con bee gees

  4. This interview brings to mind, what the wonderfully qualified and authentic conspiracy researcher, Andrew Johnson has to say about James Fetzer, to wit: Fetzer is just a "gatekeeper" for the Illuminati New World Order crew... Kollestrom. is one for whom I have become increasingly skeptical also - especially after examining his highly questionable Holocaust revisionist research and stance. Fetzer & Kollestrom both seemed to try to undermine your (Tina's) accurate and solid research - and both seemed to want to derail the discussion, when it came too close to revealing the Illuminati's fingerprints all over JPM's murder and replacement - and also, the influential part that the main stream media played in the cover-up.

    1. Thank you for saying what you did about Fetzer, because I came to that same conclusion after listening to the way he behaved towards Tina during that interview.

  5. True, true, Christie and thank you! What I found utterly amazing is how Fetzer seemed to be totally ignorant of the ways in which music can be used to shape social consciousness, in line with the Illuminati's dark agenda! Of course, music can be a powerful tool to undermine the nefarious aims of the Illuminati, which is exactly why, I believe, the Beatles were targeted for elimination, replacement and control. Wasn't it very telling how Fetzer was so complimentary about Dave McGowan's outstanding research, when, in point of fact, Dave's books exposed how the Intelligence community essentially controlled much, if not all, of the California rock scene back in the 60's and 70's? Yet Fetzer could not, or would not, grasp that killing Paul, was exactly the same sort of Intelligence operation, aimed at controlling the very positive influence that the Beatle's music was having on mass consciousness! I'm sorry for misspelling Nick Kollerstrom's name, but not sorry about being somewhat skeptical about him also.. Why was Kollerstrom so naive as to keep pushing the theory that Paul must have been killed in a car crash, and then replaced? The reasons that theory is ludicrous has been covered here, on this blog by Tina, so many times - and she did an admirable job of trying to point this all out to Kollerstrom. He remained unable to grasp these points, and kept on with the car crash story.. This is another reason I find him suspicious, since the car crash story dodges so many important aspects in this very shocking and sad story of what happened to Paul, all the Beatles, the people surrounding them - and how the whole of society was (and still is) being manipulated for dark ends!

    1. I'm with you about both men and how they suspiciously tried to steer Tina away from her views about Paul's replacement through him being killed by those serving the illuminati, and who were working towards their goals. What bothers me at times is when I hear, or read, something by someone who claims the Beatles were nothing more than a construct band, ala The Monkees. As though that means they all worked for the 'dark forces' prior to bursting onto the music scene. Because, John and Paul met when they were 13, and played together for years, and years. That sort of throws cold water onto any idea that someone belonging to the illuminsts gather them both up, then placed them with George, and finally Ringo, to comprise The Beatles. I consider anyone who claims to know anything about this subject, yet makes assertions like that, a sort of 'gate keeper' as well. It's tough sometimes these days to know who is genuine, and who is only trying to cloud up the issue, and take everyone down a rabbit trail away from the truth. So, to hear Kollerstrom as well as Fetzer doing that type of thing was really disconcerting.

      The whole idea of the car accident had to be just a ruse, to throw everyone off the track, as well as to add in something that would lead to public ridicule, such as the idea of the backward-masking, or playing the songs in reverse, to quell any actual investigation into what happen to the real Paul. Also, I believe now that at least some of those clues, that most people attribute to John trying to get the truth out, were thrown in by those in charge who actually saw what John[and, maybe George and Ringo] was/were trying to do--[I do believe some of those 'clues' were from John, and he really was trying to get the truth out through them, just not the car crash 'clues']--but, they couldn't allow him to do that. So, to counter what he was doing, they decided to throw in some 'clues' of their own, but false 'clues' just to mix everyone all up, and cause people to become so confused as to what in the world really did happen, that many people would simply give up investigating the subject.

      I love the song, "St. Paul" as sung by a man who made a video that's on YouTube, in which he seems to be showing us all types of clues, while the song plays during it all. It made me cry. It was so obvious that he was showing that satanists are involved, through the footage that is run backwards, with him walking backwards, etc. Anything involving reading backwards, walking backwards, writing backwards, etc.--except for what is known as 'Reverse Speech'--has it's roots in satanism. Back-masking might be a skill a satanist can learn, but 'Reverse Speech' is something that is not consciously controlled, so is not faked, as back-masking can be faked. In the 'Reverse Speech', what comes out comes from within the heart and/or soul and is the truth, but no one on this earth or anywhere else can stop it, or change it, except the Almighty. So if any real truth can be found in clues within the recordings I think it will come from 'Reverse Speech'. Back-masking is a construct, so might be worthless so far as containing the truth.

      The 'elitists' were showing, through killing Paul, that, even though he was the most popular member of that group, and helped them earn a largess so completely unmatched at that time by any other group in Rock 'n Roll, they were the ones who wanted to be in total control, and what mattered most of all was their own agenda, not Paul's popularity. Because, they would have 'killed the goose that laid the golden egg', thus cutting their own financial throats, by killing Paul. The fact they killed him anyway shows what was most important, and money was not 'it'.

    2. Absolutely Fabulous post, Christie - so chock full of such accurate and thought-provoking info.. Agree totally with you about the authenticity and importance of Reverse Speech.. Yes, the satanic involvement in Paul's murder and replacement is so troubling. Your pointing out that doing things "backwards" is the satanic way, and that is a very important detail. I have to thank you for also pointing out that "back-masking" may indeed also be another satanic art.. I had never considered that, but now that you bring that up, I can't help but agree with you there, also.. Thank you!

    3. Hi spo616, you're very welcome, and thank you, too! Yes, it's the 'back masking' that is man-made, so could be useful to those who follow Crowley, and do what he said to do, which is to try speaking backwards, reading backwards, walking backwards, writing backwards, which are all things associated with satanism. That's all pretty creepy.

      It's the 'reverse speech' though that isn't man-made, and what is found to be 'said' by the speaker when the audio is played backwards is totally amazing. The truth comes out every time, it seems! There is an audio, or was awhile back, that played the words of a little girl backwards, and she is heard to say clearly that she loves her mother--it was so heartwarming! It's thought that, whatever is truly within the human heart can be demonstrated by playing audio recordings backwards, which sounds like a contradiction, and that it should fall under the category of 'back masking' that Crowley promoted. However, what is displayed in the 'reverse speech' seems to be the truth of what someone is honestly thinking/feeling in their hearts, in spite of what might come out of their mouths. I think that it's more related to the idea of "The truth will out", as an antidote to lies. As though the truth must come out, so liars can't be allowed to stand on their lies minus any truth at all being presented to people in some way.

      I keep wondering what we might hear if any of the songs sung by Paul[prior to 1966] were played backwards to hear the reverse speech that's there, if any. Or, any interviews[prior to 1966] of Paul's were played backwards what we might hear about his true, heart-felt thoughts, especially on what was taking place not long before he was literally removed from our sight, never to return.

      What I never want to hear is any reverse speech that might be contained on any recording made by his replacement! When I look at Paul's eyes in pictures, I honestly get this impression of genuinely angelic-type happiness that just seems to be there naturally--so sweet, almost innocence by nature--adorable-ness even.:) However, when I look into the eyes of the impostor in his pictures, I feel repulsed by something inside that man. I know that's all subjective, and even just a personal observation on my part, but since it does effect me I take it quite seriously! :/

    4. "Yellow Submarine" on Revolver seems to have some reverse speech that foretells what I think happened to Paul...

    5. Tina, you are braver than I am to have played anything from that album backwards! Can you convey to us what you heard?!

      I just watched a video on YouTube, with the Beatles, of the song, "We Can Work It Out", and from what I saw going on during that video, something seemed to be going south between John and Paul, maybe only in a small way, but to me it still looked significant. Especially at the end of the song, in the way Paul reacted to what John did, or said. Paul smiled at John, but it wasn't returned, and you could see that it upset Paul even just a bit, and he objected. I haven't seen many of these videos before, so watching them now is not just fun, it's eye-opening for me. It's giving me a chance to finally study Paul's and John's personal mannerisms, and distinctive ways of moving, while singing. I am now certain that there is NO way in the world an impostor could ever have gotten away with replacing either Paul or John, due to their completely distinctive ways. I watched that awful video containing one song sung during that roof top fiasco in which the faker stood in where Paul should have been, and I even braved watching it without a barf bag--it stunk. And, that 'Faul' could no more be Paul McCartney than the man in the moon, yet there he was attempting the impossible--ugh!

    6. yes, from MONDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2009

      Paul, they had him murdered

      There's a video of "Yellow Submarine" in reverse ("Paul is Dead Mythos"). This is what we heard:
      ...Go ahead kill him...
      Help me out here
      Just kill him (air line...pull it) [Scream]
      Is that it? He's dead [Screams continue]
      All hear me, dead ...
      Paul, they had him murdered

    7. Thanks, Tina--I listened to that horrifying recording twice, and it was almost like being an ear-witness to a terrible murder! I wanted so badly to help him!!! It tore my heart out! I left a comment on the channel on which the video of "Paul is Dead Mythos" is posted on YouTube. God help us all, is all I can think of to say. To be sure, there seemed to be far more than just a couple of witnesses at the scene when it happened, too. Yet, the song was written by Paul, himself, and they recorded it two months prior to what apparently happened. Genuine precognition, all not known at all, consciously, by it's soon-to-be victim!:( [I wonder now if that type of crime was not committed against the all at some point.]

    8. Today, I found a video in which the composition called, "Revolution 9" is played backwards, and it's as bad, if not worse, than what was captured on the "Yellow Submarine" when it's played backwards. Just horrific! However, I don't believe Paul was killed in some car crash, either, even if the 'reverse speech' found on "Revolution 9" seems to indicate one took place, and people were killed.

      I also had this strange idea fly into my brain while watching a old movie today, called "Gas Light", in which a man deliberately tries to drive his wife insane, because he feared she would finally remember something she'd blocked out of her mind--the fact that he had murdered her aunt when she was a young girl. Guess what number the house in which the murder took place had on it? Right--Number 9!

      Murder took place in a house that bore the address of Number 9, and I just had a thought that maybe 'Faul' had chosen the number 9 as a satanic-style cynical joke, or something, knowing full well what it was snidely pointing to--murder. When "Revolution 9" is played backwards, death by murder is it's true, main subject matter, and there is so much cheering over the fact that people are clearly being murdered that it's more than sickening! The screaming of the victim[s], and the cheering of the hell-bound, who are witnessing it all with absolutely glee--I've never in my life heard anything like that, or like what's found on the "Yellow Submarine" reversal, either--that one seems to be purely precognition, since it hadn't happened as yet when the recording was made.

      I'm wondering now if David Oakes, who runs the "Reverse Speech" website, might be persuaded to take a closer look into Beatles songs. He has examined a few of them, but this needs a longer, closer, in depth examination, and I believe he'd do a great job, since he's been looking into speech reversals for 20-30 long years now. He did a terrific job on the JFK assassination revelations!

    9. I'm with those who see something in the real Paul McCartney that can only be described as an angelic quality.:)

      Yesterday, I began watching a few videos by someone on YouTube who goes by the name of "Grendoza", and after viewing the one video of his/hers containing comparisons Paul's teeth with those of 'Faul's', while proclaiming that there were far more than just two Pauls to begin with--by the time I finished watching "Grendoza's" videos, I was so confused!:/

      The palate/teeth comparisons used in his/her videos showed that at least two separate men, both going by the name of Paul McCartney, had two completely different palate shapes, and that both men posing as JPM showed up in various videos all the way from 1963, to at least 1990--that information so confounded me that I almost threw in the towel on figuring this whole thing out! I was stunned at the evidence provided, and thought maybe I'd jumped into this subject with both feet, but hadn't looked to be sure there was actually water in the pool! I felt so foolish. Then I remembered what you'd said concerning photo-shopping of pictures, and that snapped me out of it.

      I began to wonder if video could also be tampered with, in order to make someone in the video appear to be different looking, by changing the shape of their teeth, or their eye color, etc., including their height[?]. So, due to that, I'm back on track, now, and realized that there was no way I was wrong about what I now believe happened to Paul, and that those who caused his death would go to endless lengths to try and stop others from finding out enough about it, including doctoring photos, and videos if need be.

      One thing that just doesn't sound right to me, however, is the idea of cloned replacements, or cranked out DNA duplicates of people. A 'clone' is actually someone's twin, since 'twinning' is a type of cloning, only it's done naturally in the mother's womb. A 'clone' duplicates the donor of the DNA found within the nucleus of a cell taken from only one donor, and replicates that same donor.

      However, that would mean that ALL the DNA contained in each clone would MATCH each other perfectly. Sir Paul's DNA did not match that of Paul McCartney's daughter, which means he is NOT a clone, but merely a doppelganger/look-alike, either by nature, or through plastic surgery. One other thing: twins do not have the same fingerprints, even though they have the same DNA.

      I read, in an article I came across online, that Terry Knight first published that song, "Saint Paul", through Capital Records, and it was longer than the version we now hear. The reason seems to be because those at Maclen insisted the original recording be pulled. Once that happened, they worked out a deal with Knight, then re-released the song with a few minutes of it cut out. Those few minutes contained someone singing verses from 4 Beatles songs in the background, such as "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds", and "Hello/Good-bye", that could clearly be heard--Maclen didn't want those songs' verses to be in the recording of "Saint Paul"--so, Knight accepted their terms, allowed them to cut out the song verses, which shortened up the song considerably, then allowed the song to be re-released under it's banner, Maclen.

      That's why I now don't think anyone put Knight up to writing the song, but that he did realize the man he'd been talking to that day had obviously not been Paul McCartney. And, he placed those particular Beatles songs in the background of "Saint Paul", to let everyone know that he had figured it all out. I think he and Paul might have talked about what Paul had found out about the plot by the elitists, and he seemed to know that there was no way Paul, at least, would go along with what they wanted him, and the other Beatles, to do.

    10. It is weird that “Saint Paul” was not published by Knight’s publishing company, Storybook Music, which published everything else he wrote, but rather by Maclen Music, Inc., which only published the words and melodies of Lennon and McCartney.

    11. One or two more things that crossed my mind last night was how obvious the title, "Revolver" was, if it's considered that someone may have shot Paul. The word totally blew right passed me until yesterday. But, the same thing happened with the Bee Gees album called, "ESP". It wasn't until I was actually playing that it suddenly hit me how apropos it's title really was to something I knew was going on at that time. So, I'm pretty slow on the uptake at times.

      I asked my husband, who is a former Army M.P., about guns, and if revolvers came in a number 9 size. A revolver has a cylinder in which bullets are placed, and as the gun is fired, the cylinder turns in order to place each bullet in the chamber of the gun. But, he told me the only gun he knew of with that particular number was a 9mm[millimeter] pistol that is cartridge-loaded, not a revolver. An example, he said, of a revolver would be a .44 Magnum, the one supposedly used by 'Dirty Harry'[Clint Eastwood]. However, one of the most famous lines delivered by Eastwood in a 'Dirty Harry' movie is this:

      "...But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya, punk?" [ ]

      Notice the phrase, "...would blow your head clean off..." That's how powerful that hand gun really is, and how it dawned on me what's been bantered about concerning Paul losing his 'hair'/head, etc., that really seemed to fit. If a .44 Magnum was the revolver used. However, since the elitists love numerology, I've heard that one of their favorite numbers is "44", but also "8", which is 4+4.

      But, there is also a hand gun round/bullet with a powerful reputation, called a .357 Smith and Wesson Magnum. The reason that particular round caught my interest is due to how the breakdown of the .357 caliber is written out:
      [9x33mmR] The "R" probably stands for 'Round'. But, it's the numbers that would mean something to occult-adherents/elitists, especially "33". And, that round can be fired from more lightweight handguns, yet it's said to have a reputation for 'stopping power'.

      Also, something about the term "Gas Lighting", keeps bothering me. Are we all being "gas lighted" by those behind what happened to Paul, and possibly the rest of the Beatles? Too many 'clues', too many different directions, that seem to be taking us in circles, or out into left field. Add in those who follow along behind, in order to tell us were 'crazy', that "Paul" is still "Paul", etc. it almost seems so hopeless that we'll ever discover the 'who/what/when/where/why', that could bring justice for Paul and them all.

      And, yet, that movie by the same name{Gas Light}, with the "Number 9" house number, where a murder took place, and where the killer tried to drive the only witness to that murder insane, through causing her to begin to doubt her own sanity, still keeps making me think there's something within it that could help.

      I almost stopped looking at that movie, though, until I remembered something said by "Faul", and I hope I can find where it's quoted. He said something like this: "Her name was MacGille[sp?], and they called her 'Lil', but [really] her name was 'Nancy'" A character from that movie, who helped the murderer to try driving his wife/the witness crazy is named "Nancy"! This whole thing is being made to appear to be so convoluted, though, that it's no wonder more people are not taking the time to delve into it. Thank you, Tina, for taking the time. :)

    12. It was originally published as a "Good Knight Production", through Capital Records, and also "Storybook Music":

      That's a video containing the original recording, or at least it says it is anyway.
      Someone really needs to dig into this recording, and find whatever Knight managed to secret within this song, since I fully believe he really did 'figure it out'. I also believe his death had to be an illuminati hit, since the guy was said to have stabbed him 17 times, and 17 is a number dear to the black hearts of the illuminatists, who are dyed-in-the-wool numerologists. What 17 means to them I don't know yet.

      {Creepy side note: I had just been looking at homes online in Temple, Texas, right before I found out that Knight had been murdered there in Temple--that shocked me!}

      I wonder if David Oakes could be persuaded to play that original version of the song backwards, to see if he can pick anything up that might be of some help.

    13. OMG; that whole "Gaslight," Nancy, No. 9, etc. thing; amazing... And wasn't McGill a Canadian university specializing in mind control studies (I could be wrong)? I, too, clearly see Paul's "angelic" aspect; this alone may have driven them to distraction, for they hate anything Godly.

      Keep digging, Christie; you're good!

  6. I too knew that he was shill. Perhaps this is why she denies the "illuminati" has attempted to hurt her unlike in her earliest interviews a few years back. I notice Garry Marshall ("Happy Days") is dead and that a new unreleased Beatles "Hollywood Bowl" concert album is going to be released to coincide with a documentary about the band directed by Ron Howard ("Happy Days.")

  7. I don't believe he died in a car crash because all the professionally made YouTube videos back this up. A friend of mind was in Peru recently and she asked a notable mystic about Paul and took along a photo of the original, he said "he was taken by friends and killed so they could have a party, which we think is sacrificed. He also said three men who knew him well were there that night but he couldn't see them clearly but it was somewhere on the sea because he could see a cliff but was certain it wasn't England and further away. Paul was given something to drink, swords were used in the ceremony and a High Priest was involved. The mystic lives on a mountain and has no access to media or would know who the Beatles were, I'm open minded but he could be right.

    1. Oh wow, I hope she's wrong about that! I can't even imagine that happening! However, I do believe the people involved in what happened to him do have a hierarchy that does include 'priests', and even human sacrifice, because they are satanists, who worship false gods, and do the bidding of those false gods.

    2. whoa. That Peruvian Fool on the Hill may be on to something. How horrific. I wish in these shows they'd mention 'Sir' George Martin's bizarre coat-of- arms w/the 3 beetles, Egyptian symbology, etc. I think Iamaphoney features it in one of the Rotten Apples.

      I too consulted a seer re: PID and she said: "I cannot locate his spirit on the otherside to inquire about the matter..."


    3. Brian Epstein had links to a secret occult club that had gay men beat each other up in a kind of kinky sadistic way. I heard this on YouTube, somebody who escaped from the group, a street guy, said they were going to sacrifice him on a cross and he got away and blew the whistle on Epstein and friends. There were lots of important people in this group and I wonder if they took Paul because I'm convinced this double was trained for a long time before he took over. Maybe Paul was going to be the sacrifice for the beginning of the psy-op of getting the American kids to grow their hair and then the LSD etc and the things Dave McGowan discovered in the hippie movement?

    4. I am calling for the immediate arrest and incarceration of George W. Bush. 911 was absolutely a 1000 percent inside job. That is why your son is dead.

    5. About the gay occult men's club:
      Remember this line from "I am the Walrus", that I'm pretty sure must have been written by John, in which he says this:
      "Boy, you've been a naughty girl
      You let your knickers down."

      Notice, he says "boy", then he says, 'he's' been a 'naughty girl' who let 'her' 'knickers down'. I honestly believe it was John's way of pointing out the homosexuality, or homosexual rape, that the satanists use to control men, and keep them in line. A 'boy' who is used as a 'girl'. Ugly stuff, especially because it involves rape of those men. But, because the verse also includes the words, "YOU let YOUR knickers down", the author of that verse is implying that it didn't have to happen, that courage on the part of the 'boy'-'girl' could have stopped it from happening.

      So, if it's John who wrote those words, and he was not just upset over what happened to Paul, but also disliking the guy sent to replace Paul, he's telling him, [and us], that the guy didn't have to allow himself to be raped, and used, by those demonically-inspired henchmen of the nwo. The guy showed no courage by allowing them to push him around, use him sexually, and allow himself to be used to fill in for poor Paul, who did show courage and who did stand up to those people.

      At least, that's how I've come to view what is said in that verse, and why, and who probably penned the words to it.

      A second view of what is said in that verse,that has crossed my mind, is that, all 4 Beatles were replaced at one time, because they were all decent men who did not want to go along with what was planned. So, who wrote the 'clues' included in verses like that one from, "I am the Walrus"? Why, the illuminists did, as a type of mockery, to rub it in the faces of any and all of us who would eventually begin to uncover what really went on.

      I just hope the second idea is not true, since it would mean they all died at the same time, and we never saw one of them ever again, only their replacements. Wasn't there a movie entitled "The Replacements"? Does anyone know what the plot line was in that movie, and if it points in any way at all to what we suspect happened to the Beatles?

    6. Another thought provoking post, Christie! You have raised another two unique aspects in this mystery.. Again, I had never considered what you have revealed here - but again, I find both views to be very thought-provoking and compelling.. I have kind of espoused the idea that all the Beatles were replaced - so sadly, I'm leaning towards your second view.. :'(

    7. Hi, and thank you once again! This is the very first time I've given any real thought to all of this, and I'm finding that what may have taken place fits right in with all that I've learned about that one world order group behind the idea of the new world order, and the idea of a group called Tavistock having had a hand in what went on with the Beatles as well.

      Personally, I now believe that, if John was still alive, and not replaced immediately at least, he must have riddled all the songs that he could with 'clues' as to what had taken place. Some 'clues' are just in there to throw everything into confusion of course, but I suspect there are enough clues left by John that would help point to what happened to Paul, and possibly what eventually happened to them all, I fear. Unfortunately, I no longer believe the man claiming to be Ringo is actually the man we saw back in the early '60's. So, when he and Faul exclaimed that they are the only Beatle left, they are both joking, and probably laughing at all the fans who still care about whom they believe to be the actual Paul and Ringo. They're just causing more confusion, so I dismiss everything said by either one when it comes to who's left and who's not. They aren't worth the effort. Or, rather, taking anything they say seriously is not.

      I want to finally take a nice, close look at John next, back when the group first came on the Rock scene in the early 1960's, then at him after 1967. Because, I had no trouble with spotting the real Paul from Faul, once I heard about all of this, probably because I had such a huge crush on him as a teen, but John is someone I never took much notice of, partly because I read his book, and thought, "What a snobby cynic!" :D John could have been my brother! :D So, I need to take a good look at him 'before' and 'after', to see if I can see any changes that might back up your suspicions about John, as well as the other two, having gone "M.I.A." at around the same time as Paul.

      It all makes me very sad, too, but what makes me hopeful is the idea that none of those wonderful Beatles need to be thought as having died in vain, if indeed they did die at the hands of such unjust people as it appears they did. Just as my son never died in vain, nor has any genuinely brave soldier, in or out of uniform, who has ever given his/her life in defense of their country. Like the old saying goes, "A coward dies a thousand deaths, a brave man/woman dies but once." Amen to that. :)

    8. I wish I could spend more time right now, but I am beyond super busy, but here is a link to, what I believe, is a post from this blog (from our Tina) that covers some of the info on the replacement of John Lennon:

      Is there a search function here on PlasticMacca? If so, Tina has posted some compelling info..

      Here's another good link:

      It's been great commenting back and forth with you here, Christie - and I certainly got some valuable insights from you! Thank you!

    9. I just had to say one more thing, which is in total agreement with you, Christie: that guy, walking around purporting to be Ringo Starr, is also certainly NOT the original Beatle Ringo! Needless to say, as Tina & this blog has proved over and over (along with other great authentic researchers) - that guy, calling himself Paul, is indeed only a fake Paul --- the pale imitation, forever known here as Faul!

    10. Hi spo616--I've enjoyed exchanging ideas with you, too, and I do understand about being busy! Tina just posted an answer to my question as to whether or not she heard some telling information when the Beatle's song, "Yellow Submarine" was played in reverse, and she said yes. Her post on this is located above this post, and it's dates July 28, 2016 by Plastic Macca/Tina. What she says they heard is CHILLING! It hurts me to think of what may have gone on, and how poor Paul might have suffered. The reasons they wanted him out of the way might be many, but as Agatha Christie said, if it was "Murder Most Foul[!]", then there is no statute of limitations on it, and they will forever be pursued by those who want to see justice done. God help us to find out what went on, and where they 'buried' him! Not to mention helping us to find out just "who" they were that did that to Paul! Did he know them, so trusted them? If so, they betrayed him! Are they now dead themselves, and if so, would their names be familiar to any of us? I'd love to have those questions answered, and quite a few more!

    11. Today, I came across some comments concerning Bob Dylan, who, it's believed by some people, actually died on July 29, 1966, only a few short weeks before Paul 'disappeared', then a suitable 'stand-in' was inserted to play the part of Dylan after that.
      Since that sounded so close to what is suspected as having happened to Paul[him being killed]I wanted to see if I could find any corroborating information on that idea, or at least something that might pass as such, and I think I may have found it.

      Wiki has a long, but very informative article on Dylan's career, in which quite a bit of very interesting things are said about him:

      Also, a sort of biographical movie was made about Dylan's career in 2007, titled "I'm Not There":

      In it, several different actors portray Dylan at various times during his career, because, as the movie's description mentions, it's "inspired by the music and many lives of Bob Dylan". What was more interesting was when I read the description of the 5th character in the movie, named "Jude Quinn". "Jude" supposedly 'hung out' with the Beatles and did some gambling with them at one point. Later on, "Jude" is on stage, and is booed by the audience who is calling him "Judas".[?!] After that, "Jude" reveals his 'true' identity as the son of a well-off, Jewish dept. store owner, then begins taking drugs, and ends up being killed[!] in a motorcycle accident.
      Then, the next character to be a portrayal of Dylan is named, "Billy McCarty", of all things!

      That's fascinating to me, since Dylan was reported to have been in a serious motorcycle accident in Woodstock, NY. on July 29, 1966, but no ambulance was ever called, and there are no hospital records to show that the accident even occurred. Later, Dylan claimed that he'd broken 'several vertebra in his neck, but had recovered[?] [He 'recovered' all by himself from a broken neck?!] He went into 'seclusion' after that, only making a few public appearances for about 8 years[!]
      Once 'recovered' but before making public appearances again, he released an album in 1969 entitled, "Nashville Skyline", about which a reviewer from "Variety" said that, "Dylan is definitely doing something that can be called singing. Somehow he has managed to add an octave to his range." The idea that it was noticed that something had changed with Dylan's voice made my heart race, because it just might be a very worthwhile clue that, just perhaps, he sounded different because it really wasn't Dylan at all[!].

      Also, Dylan supposedly had become a Christian AFTER that 'accident', as well, but later, he is shown, during one interview in 2004, telling the interviewer that he'd sold his soul to the devil for a successful career:
      {here is a link to another video in which Dylan's remarks on this subject are looked at in greater detail--it's a Christian video, so skip to the relevant parts if you like--I watched it all and agree with the conclusions of the video's author: ]
      [Continued in Next Note]

    12. Parallels between Bob Dylan and Paul McCartney
      [Part 2]

      Also, Dylan supposedly had become a Christian AFTER that 'accident', as well, but later, he is shown, during one interview, in 2004 on the CBS network, telling the interviewer that he'd sold his soul to the devil for a successful career:
      {here is a link to another video in which Dylan's remarks on this subject are looked at in greater detail--it's a Christian video, so skip to the relevant parts if you'd like--I watched it all and agree with the conclusions of the video's author]:

      It's very interesting, especially with what's happened with Dylan, as he's growing older yet still having to perform all the time. It reminds me of what seems to have happened with "f"aul. Someone recently questioned why "f"aul keeps on working even at his advanced age, when he could easily retire and enjoy the rest of his days--I'm beginning to think I know why now.

      I also think that Dylan's replacement pretended to become a Christian, so that, later on, he could make people believe that he'd decided to switch back to being whatever he was before that[a satan worshiper], to help discourage Christians, and bring discredit to the Lord, due to Dylan being such a public figure.
      Due to all of that, I honestly now believe that it's possible that the Dylan we see today is no longer the real Dylan, just as "f"aul is not our Paul! And, for the same sorts of reasons.

  8. Tina, I hope you see this comment if you haven't already heard about this.

    Jim Fetzer in the last 10 days interviewed a man on his Real Deal show named Steven. Steven claims to be one of JPM's illegitimate children. The video is on YouTube, posted by a "Gary King" who seems to be a very recent YouTube subscriber. However, it does not appear that Jim Fetzer himself has posted the show yet. I never was suspicious of Fetzer until your recent interview with him where he pretended not to know that musicians were used to promote drug use in the 1960s.

    How Gary King got hold of the show, and had time to inter-splice it with his own notes and video clips then post it so quickly – at least before Jim Fetzer posted the interview –is odd. I'm scared for Stephen for obvious reasons- but I also fear that he's being handled right now.

    Unlike the other people who claim to be JPM's children, Stephen says that he always suspected that his father had died, and told his young friends as much. In 1975, he claims, the Fab Three, Faul, and oddly, Faul's mother, paid Stephen a visit, warning him to let the matter go. There's much more, but the details of this man's story and his demeanor, along with the fact that he is not barking up the wrong DNA tree as previous claimants have, make this a watershed moment.

    Here's why I'm very worried about this young man. It appears he is being "represented" by Claire Kuehn, who has turned PID into her own cottage industry. Ms. Kuehn was on the show, and along with Jim Fetzer, could not seem to stop talking over Stephen. Bear in mind that Steven is a 50-year-old man, very well spoken, and in possession of an excellent memory. At one point, Kuehn actually tried to persuade him that some of his recollection was in accurate. Fortunately, the man insisted, but one wonders what could end up being watered down or obscured because of her heavy-handed involvement.

    Fetzer was no better, constantly talking over the guest, asking redundant questions and "forgetting" what the guest had just said a moment before. Near the end of the show, Steven said, "May I say just one more thing?" Now that's a Columbo moment that any real interviewer would say "absolutely!" to. But Jim Fetzer said oh no no, we'll talk again soon. EXCUSE me?

    The behavior of Fetzer and Kuehn made me fearful that this man is being handled. If they do not succeed in altering his memory of what went on, I would not be surprised if that interview vanishes from YouTube entirely, and God forbid, something may happen to this man Steven. He reported that his mother died of a mysterious, fast acting cancer very shortly after the visit from the Beatles, so he needs our prayers.

    Check out -and I'd say download – the interview while it's still available. I'd be curious to know what you think.

  9. Karey: I'm open minded, too. I understand a lot of people think it could be France. I think it would be England (but unsure); however, I believe they set up a car crash for the Beatles to find. That's what I currently think. It would be *clear* to them that it was murder otherwise, and it would be harder to get them to feel natural afterward. And the cars issue is consistent -- until suggestions of murder (and general mayhem) in Cream of the Beatles. --- Now, I am open (and I am no troll; some fear me, as if I don't change my mind or can't be wrong for a while and not be a troll). Same about "Fetzer as a gatekeeper". He has his beliefs and might keep certain people from the right path but unintentionally. Anything else is ludicrous. --- I have several friends who suggest a torture, elsewhere than England or in a more remote part. Some in a house (abandoned-like), and you, here, saying by the sea like this. I am open to visions issues, and anyone calling me a troll (paid or not) never asked me. But I do think the Beatles -- if they knew of sacrifice options --- believed it was a crash. George wouldn't say "suspicions" to Stephen, for instance, if he was *utterly* trying to keep a *known sacrifice* from Stephen. He didn't have time to think. Instead: I think Paul was a sacrificial victim, one way or another; visions can pick up on that; and maybe there were other events or contemporaneous ones. I feel we have nothing to go on evidentially (except visions, which I sort of count) for all of this yet, except the Abbey Rd and Liverpool Abbey Rd (and triangle streets possible kill zone) connection, near Stephen Dickinson's mother's family home -- on Dewsbury road or nearby, in Liverpool, where (according to his neighbour, who told him there was a day the papers didn't come, at 7 years old, when he asked because he was interested in the clues; note that Liverpool had only 2 newspapers then, now merged). You may not know of this stuff yet. You would need to watch and study the slides and testimonies at Best wishes.

    1. Hi--if the timeline of Paul's last days with the Beatles places him out in California with them in L.A., after they flew down there from Seattle towards the end of August 1966, then, if that is correct, and he was not present during the fiasco of a concert in San Francisco shortly after L.A., could that not suggest that someone sidelined Paul somewhere down in the L.A. area, and an impostor took his place during that S.F. concert? And, if that is correct, then would it be logical to presume that "those what did 'im in"[Audrey Hepburn as Eliza Doolittle, My Fair Lady]might be loathe to transport his dead body all the way back to England, but might instead have buried him right there in California?

      Have you listened to the reverse speech found on both "Yellow Submarine" and "Revolver #9"? I wish the authorities would pick this up, because a proper investigation needs to be made, including DNA samples and forensic comparisons of what can be told about Paul McCartney prior to August 26-28, 1966, and of the current man calling himself Paul McCartney. This subject is that serious, yet here we are 50 years later still trying to understand all of this.

    2. Paul did not die in Seattle; there are tons of arguments against it and the photo mistaken for "Faul" is still beaming Paul, just in an odd angle, and with sunlight shadows throwing you off. Paul remains -- as we all do -- many different "looks" for the same person if you stare hard enough, are willing to postulate doubles when there is a bad photo. The difference between Faul and Paul is consistent and in good conditions and in all facets of life. Circumstances such as the relaxed interview after the supposed death of Paul in Seattle in your timeline idea also argue against it; as well as the witnesses brought forward through the video above, which show a Sept 13 death around midnight. Also, if you are going to take the hypothesis to the ultimate, and not see Paul is annoyed but ebullient in the final interview, no-one is freaking or nervous (though even in December 1966 John is and George and Ringo are all defensive, walking into the EMI studios after Paul had died. But if you fail to see (work to see, then) the plausibility of Paul for the one photo among many, in Seattle, and continue to somehow see Faul in the interview (how?!), I can't take this further for you. I hope that you realize it's quite understandable, someday soon.

    3. Thanks Clare I will. Another two things I've noticed is that I'm pretty sure Faul is a red head and I'm a little suspicious of whether the father in the later photos is the same with the young McCartney. Here in the UK we had a tv reporter called Jill Dando killed and the man who was witnessed had a bowler hat that people on alternative sites link to a Saturian dark Freemason groups with links to pedophillia, Jill was investigating them according to her friends. I've noticed his later father has the same hat and was wondering if you or Tina have examined the family photos to see if the father is the same?

  10. Stephen not only suspected Paul died (though when speaking under pressure -- interview -- he emphasized how clever he was to figure it out as we have, but as a young boy); his mother told him ... after. And then she said to John "I didn't tell him," which is a half truth; she didn't inform him to start with, and it got her off the hook with John Lennon in the moment.

    Gary King is a longtime JFK researcher, been doing shows on that with Jim for a while now, and Vince Palomara, a very serious student of JFK (in all of Jim's science books on the subject); Gary knew Mrs. Jim Garrison, and is now editing the shows. Dr Jim Fetzer had a cold and always has moments he does not quickly absorb things, while remaining in general the most widely openminded major thinker/ researcher in the world, for conspiracies, among those generally known for helping pull people together for discussion. Does other material surface and does Jim accept and even understand all of it? No. But is he deserving your vituperations and venom, or I? Hardly.

    Get a grip.

    The name is Stephen John Dickinson, not Steven. Maybe contact me before saying some things like that. -- They're not his notes (obviously); I made them all. He is the new producer for The Real Deal, on his own time.

    Worried about my "representing" him? Goodness gracious. I got this to happen, dear Anonymous and am his friend. Others now know more about him. As well, my name is Clare, not Claire. Do you spell anyone's name correctly? I am miffed because of your attitude, not your spelling. Bless you for caring that Paul died.

    1. Hi--about Mr. Fetzer--I think more than a few of us were upset at hearing the way Mr. Fetzer spoke so condescendingly to Tina, concerning her ideas on the motives surrounding the usage of the Beatles to help change teenagers into becoming far more rebellious than they already were, as well as to help steer them into taking illegal drugs.

      Fortunately, LSD became illegal on Oct. 6, 1966 in California, and illegal U.S. wide on Oct. 24, 1968, so law enforcement could step in and begin helping to put a stop to much of it, especially open sales of the drug. There's always been an 'underground' drug culture world-wide, but without a formal law against both the sale, and personal consumption of drugs like LSD, there would be no stopping the wholesale ingestion of them, and that would lead to complete disaster, both personally and societally.

      Those who work towards their utopian ideal, called a one world govt., know laws against those types of drugs will come, but they seem to have had alternative plans to help steer the teens into using even illegal drugs like LSD. And, they seem to have wanted the Beatles to spearhead that effort on their behalf. It's said that Paul "had other ideas", and refused ultimately to help them. Ergo--people are now searching for evidence to prove that he was eliminated in order to coerce the others into doing as the elitists wanted. They 'killed the goose that laid the golden egg' for them, showing that their agenda was far more wide-reaching, and might have also involved money, but on a much larger scale that just what the Beatles could ever earn for them on their own.

    2. Dr Jim was less condescending than impatient at times, in that broadcast with Tina. He fulminated at me for being careful at one point in a broadcast which was taken out by the editor. He gets his feelings up. He kept asking Tina things, not all of which did she answer in ways and timely manners for him to grasp in context; as well, he opened up the floor to her many times and disagreed only sometimes. I think sensitivities have to be kept to a minimum in a round table, always.

  11. A final thought: the idea that I "changed his memories" is ludicrous; his memories are what they are and he posted about them in basic form before I met him. Second, whether one likes that Fetzer doesn't always agree with or comprehend in the moment something which is said to him, neither he nor I should be linked in the same idea as "handlers" or as Anonymous suggests, murderers, since "if something happens to Steven [Stephen]" and how supposedly I'm some formal "handler" (connected to killers) is utterly irresponsible and threatening to my reputation (if dimwits want to believe it) and is disgusting. It should be obvious to anyone (whatever hypotheses they temporarily adopt for intellectual thoroughness), that I am no such thing, as the best likelihood and thus true.

    Being a poor and dedicated intellectual for years, I not only resent the implication, but repudiate it thoroughly.


  12. Jim has never understood the "music itself makes drug use more prevalent" argument; he understands that some musicians might have died in suspicious circumstances and been spies. At the point in the discussion with Tina where he asked for clarification, Tina was in fact the one describing eloquently but -- for Jim -- unhelpfully, the Hertz frequency issue. In many broadcasts I have done with him, certain problems like this occur. These rushed or missed attention moments, for Jim -- and heck, anyone can have some. The Hertz issue is not one Jim, as less spiritual-emotionally inclined in his interests, has connected with the music. General good or bad feelings from music, he seems to understand well, but Tina did not take that as a launching point. This paranoia about Jim -- and that's what it is -- really is off base, as paranoia and hypotheses uncorrected are.

    Note that when Tina was brought on topic for the need of the questioner (Jim as questioner, and another as reminding her what maybe the issue is he was really wondering about), the power of the moment was already gone.

    Tina is great but not perfect, as anyone can be. Let's not have a lemming -- yes, I know that was Disney's lies about lemmings, but it's a common expression -- a lemming-like attitude about Tina Foster, Clare Kuehn, Jim Fetzer, Nick Kollerstrom or *anyone*, that they are just great or just flawed.

    And Anonymous, why not post in your own name, given your intense accusations?

  13. Gary King has been helping "The Real Deal" since Chance George of MBC stopped (unsure how long that will be for).

    King is a music teacher and dealer in guitars in New Orleans, and helped with Firehorse Radio, Patriot Radio, etc.

    His student of 9 years posted here:
    Ann St Pierre
    over a year ago

    Progressive Guitar Studio ROCKS!!! – I have been taking guitar lessons with Gary King for 9 years, yes that's right 9 years.(one student named Johnathan has been coming for 12 years) Gary is the most patient teacher on earth, and one of the nicest most caring person I have ever met. Why would I take lessons for 9 years if the school wasn't great? Excuse me but I have some open tuning finger style song arranging to do.


    Replying to Anonymous accusers and spies is so much fun -- not. Tina must know that, too. Why not boost your quality of discourse, Anonymous? We would all appreciate it, I'm sure. Paranoia may be catchy, but hopefully it's not catching.

    1. I agree with you about hoping paranoia is not catching, and understand how upsetting it is to read something written by someone who doesn't just disagree with you, but also either fears you, or ridicules you for what you say and believe. Just understand that, this subject, if there truly is anything to it, must involve those who would literally stop at nothing to keep knowledge of what took place as secret as they possibly can, which adds in a bit of danger to the mix. I'm sure most of us are not full-time investigators with credentials of any sort, but are those who loved Paul, and have now discovered that something possibly truly is amiss, and we now would like to find out what, and why, and so on.

      However, I'm pretty sure quite a few of us have found ourselves being warned by others to be on the look-out for those who might be pretending to be helpful, and 'just like us', but who are actually 'spies' of sorts, working for the new world order/one world govt. people, who only want to steer us wrong, and help throw mud onto each and every bit of evidence that might be found. They also wish to misdirect us onto side trails, and keep us running in circles, or enmeshed in tons of useless minutia that will get us no closer to the truth at all.

      So, please excuse what might sound like paranoia on any of our parts. We are simply learning to try and be far more cautious at times. I don't know you, nor anything about you, nor do I have a clue who "Anonymous" was, but I can sympathize with both of you, and with all of us really. We can get pretty kicked around at times, by those trying to keep something hidden, as well as those who just think we're all a bit daft to be pursuing any of this.

      I hope we can all work together to find out what really happened to Paul, so justice can be served if possible, and to find some helpful bit of closure, and even comfort, for his loved ones, such as Stephen.

    2. Right, Christie. I am well aware of what certain kinds of conspiracy (the criminal and deadly kinds) entail. And of suspicions.

      "Anonymous" however is known to me, as a reasonable likelihood of who it is: I was talking to him directly after months of being out of touch, right before this was posted. I posted something which shocked him and which he attempted to be calm about. But he was not. He likes to spread paranoia about me and his manner and wording and working in all these threatening and contradictory ideas is typical, let us say. He -- who claims sometimes to be a she -- has, in effect, threatened Stephen by implication, and me and Jim, by suggesting Jim and I are handlers -- which we obviously, upon deep knowledge of what we do, are not, no matter what people like or don't like about each of us -- and to have the video pulled ... or, shall we say, that it all "could be". Gary's account is 2009, not a recent account (so this person lies -- or, shall we say, "could be" lying), and insults Jim who has many flaws, but breaking for a break and interrupting Stephen is not one of them. The person I know is likely the poster "Anonymous" here, is very good, shall we say, at doing what he did there: riling people. But anyway, if it is not the person I know it so likely to be

      Fyi: we've figured out internal corroboration of Stephen's claims about the Beatles' visit. Stephen now says it occurred for him but he wasn't sure, and I certainly never thought it that, when Ringo commented about Stephen's being a clever kid, or at least seeming to be (joking), he may have meant "Jeremy", the character (not person but persona) in Yellow Submarine films. It fits.

      I have a post about it here:

    3. In case it didn't occur to you, there are MULTIPLE individuals selecting the "Anonymous" designation here. Why are you lumping all people who prefer anonymity into one gross generalization? And assuming that we have anything to hide OTHER THAN our identities is ridiculous. Having said that, I can also completely understand (as Christie pointed out) people's trepidation in exploring this topic. Why would you, Clare, care one way or another who is behind the discussion?

      I'm far more dubious of people who proffer postulations as if they are hardcore fact. Or who make the discussion about themselves and their own ego agenda rather than the subject matter.

      It ought to be obvious who is a time-wasting troll or disinfo agent based on content -vs- someone who really gives a damn about PID. On the other hand? freedom of speech is a bitch.

      As to why Tina does not filter out or block the people who spew unrelated bullshit--anon or not--? I cannot surmise.

      To those who genuinely investigate, research and seek the Truth in earnest? (including Tina Foster):

      Keep Calm and 'Carry that Weight'... it may be a 'Long Time'.

    4. There are various "Anonymous" posters on this blog spot and page, but I can assure you all that I do not know the other ones from Eve. I understand that somebody criticized someone who I was not familiar with. My only criticisms have been speaking out against what I perceived to be controlled opposition seeping its way into a healthy discussion. I am sorry if I have offended you in any way, shape or form. I thank you for your insights and contributions. Getting back to the Paul is Dead theory. I would say there is much emphasis on Paul and Faul because those clues were deliberately planted in the records and media since late '66-67. Today, Ringo Starr and Yoko Ono promote PID in their ways because it takes the heat off of them. However, Sir Paul McCartney plants clues too. Why? Because he does not love you or me or his fans. He loves his fame, fortune, glory, pussy and booze. He is a master of puppets and an infiltrator of the illuminati. He has stamped out The Real Beatles and paved the way for the likes of "American Idol" and karaoke pop and hip-hop. Sir Paul McCartney and Yoko Ono are each worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Yet the price they both pay for disinformation is very cheap. He is the Donald Trump of the music industry and she is the Hillary Clinton of the occult movement.

    5. For the record... I post as Anonymous (although I'm not the anonymous poster to whom you refer) because I couldn't figure out how to post as anything else, not being very technologically savvy. It was the easiest and quickest option when I very happily found this site. I'm sure that applies to any number of us who are sincere seekers after the truth and not up to anything nefarious.

  14. Hi--I found this song by Terry Knight that was recorded prior to him going to see who he thought was Paul in London, before he wrote "Saint Paul". The lyrics seem to indicate that Knight really did think a change was coming, and the song is all about that:

    It's titled, "A Change On The Way", which fits in with what he said in "Saint Paul" about it taking him too long to make 'the change'. I guess he thought Paul was far more powerful than a mere man would be, or something. If Paul insisted that a change would come if certain things happened, such as keeping the music at 432 hertz, instead of what the 'elite' wanted it to be, which was 440hz, and if Knight perhaps thought what George Harrison might have thought about Paul, which was that Paul was "Hare Krishna", as George is heard to say about him in reverse speech on a song I think is called, "My Guitar Gently Weeps"[?], Knight may very well have believed that Paul could bring about what was needed. That might be why he wrote the words in "Saint Paul", that go, "It's taking you too long to change the world". Was Paul a member of Hare Krishna, and was Knight also a member, along with George?

    The songs that Knight wrote that are on that same album seem to speak about right and wrong and good and bad, which I'm finding very interesting now. Especially this one, in which he says something about someone who believes a man must die 'for Queen and country', but unjustly so, and that really amazed me:

    I think Terry Knight was truly a good friend of Paul's, and to Paul, and must have though the world of Paul.

  15. I watched the YouTube interview and he's lying. Early on he says that when the Beatles came round they were in the living room and then he says they spoke to him outside when he was playing marbles. Clare was flappy about reading out his statement for him to get it right on his behalf and there's a handling situation going on there and even Fetzer goes red over the obvious discrepancies. Either this is to entrap the wandering son who contacted Clare or its to purposely discredit the other children of Paul or those who talk about them online. The shaved head is suspicious, used to change the appearance, and he's wearing stage make-up which suggests he's an actor.

  16. I watched it and find the story really fishy.

    1. What bothers me about Stephen's birth date is that he would have had to have been conceived on the 10th-11th of November 1966, or onwards, otherwise his mother would have carried him at least 10 days past her due date, which would have been prior to July 10th, 1967. That's very possible, though, but that would mean his father was what?--able to visit his mother before his untimely death, which, according to the information presented on the "Sgt. Pepper's" album was either 11-9/November 9th, or 9-11/September 11th, 1966. If Paul was actually ritualistically killed by the satanists/luciferians/elitists on 9/11/1966, then there is no way Paul is Stephen's father, since he was already dead by the date of Stephen's conception in early to mid November.

      However, if Stephen was conceived prior to November 11th, 1966, that would mean that Paul was up and moving about during that time period, so was not killed on September 11th, and also was not being held captive by the nwo people, who seemed to have whisked him away from L.A., and back to England, right before the Candlestick Park concert in San Francisco on August 28th--yes?--no?

      I've learned as I study the Bible, that, unless every single piece of information fits perfectly together, whatever conclusion you come to will, by necessity, be wrong. The same thing applies here. If one part of this story is off even just a bit, no conclusion arrived at will be correct.

      I will probably need to watch that video at least twice, and take notes, before I say another word about it.

    2. One last comment, and until I have done far more research into this mess concerning McCartney, I'll hold off saying another word. It's because of the series of videos being put on YouTube in which is offered pictorial proof that McCartney never died at all:

      Watch several of the videos to see what is presented, and why, to me, this all appears to really have been one gigantic 'April Fool's' style joke, with him allowing it all to continue on all these years without bothering to clear it all up once and for all. Talk about feeling like I have egg all over my face. Seeing what I did in those videos made me realize how easily we can all be fooled these days. Photo-shopping, tampering with videos, make-up, and so forth, can really make it tough for us to see through things like that, to what might really be taking place.

      Feeling foolish is one thing, and that's how I truly feel right this minute, since I honestly did believe he'd been killed, and replaced, after seeing all the evidence that clearly does show that. But, that aside, this was a good lesson in how well deception is now being pulled off these days, and just how extremely careful we all need to remember to be, including what we believe about what's taking place all around us, since news has been proven to be too often skewed, or falsified, as well.

      Well, if I wasn't completely wrong about the character of that man, I hope he has some mercy on us all and finds it within his heart to begin providing enough evidence that he never died, so we can stop being so concerned over his hide, and get on with a more important job--resisting and fighting against the nwo, on behalf of us all.

      Thanks, Tina, for all you've already done on this. If you watch those videos, but still believe McCartney might have been murdered and replaced, I will greatly appreciate hearing what you have to say about it all. :)

    3. Hi, PlasticMacca--I did more 'homework' on all of this, and finally got a chance to read through all of the report by the two Italian forensic people that you've posted on here, and did allot of asking for help from God about it all, because I fell apart on all of this way too easily once I saw those YouTube videos, in which comparisons were made of Paul before 1966, and onwards up until 1990--I couldn't believe what they were showing, as to his 'teeth' before 1966, and his 'teeth' even up to 1990--but, the real thing it showed me was just how much more I need to learn about this subject, or I'll never be of any use in helping to solve this mystery surrounding what truly did happen to Paul!

      I found a great video interview that Dick Cavett conducted with John back around 1970:

      And, one of the things I took away from watching it was, that, that was truly John, and not a stand-in. But, more importantly, was what was said about Ringo. Cavett mentioned that, "Ringo spelled inside-out is 'Groin'", and to that, John said, "'Starr' spelled backwards is 'Rat'"--that's when I realized that, the "Judas" mentioned by Terry Knight in his song, "Saint Paul", might very well have been Ringo!

      In the song, Knight says, "Did Judas really talk to you, or did you put us on?" And, I couldn't for the life of me figure out what in the world Knight meant by that until I was watching that interview with Cavett just a few minutes ago. As soon as John said what he did about 'Starr' being 'Rat' spelled backwards, it all fell right into place, as to who "Judas" must have been!

      And, about "I Am The Walrus", and the genuine clues left in the lyrics by John:

      I want to do a bit more research into it before I put together all of my thoughts on it, but that story was written by Lewis Carroll, and it's a genuine slap at Christianity:

      Apparently Carroll was not a believer--and in the story, the Carpenter seems to represent Jesus Christ to Carroll, and the Walrus, whose actions towards the Oysters seem to indicate that he was closer to Judas, than to "saint" Paul, or any of the Lord's true followers, so that, to me, shows Carroll's contempt for the Lord and His followers/Christians.

      So, since John apparently came right out and told us that the reference to the Walrus was a reference to Paul, something's truly amiss there, if what is referenced is that story by Lewis Carroll! Unless, at the time, somehow John thought that Paul had led them down a path that managed to get himself killed, and place the rest of them in jeopardy--or, as Terry Knight says, in "Saint Paul":

      "I think there's something wrong; it's taking you too long to change the world."
      "Sir Isaac Newton told you it would fall;
      You didn't listen, Saint Paul!"

      There is NO way in the world I will ever believe that Paul misled them all, but I can believe that they somehow may have misunderstood what he had been telling them about the situation. So, it may have appeared that Paul really had been representative of that fantasy-dwelling Walrus in Carroll's story, and perhaps Paul's talk of changing the world, and making things better, may have begun to sound like the empty promises given to the poor, little Oysters by the Walrus, in Carroll's story, as well.

      At least that's where I'm at with it right now, but I realize it needs some work, and I need to get busy! :)

    4. Hi Christine, I watched the YT video you linked, "50 Years Later." Can you not see that the facial shape and cranial morphology (head shape) of the two are entirely different? "Modern-day Paul" has a LONG face and elongated, narrow skull shape. The original/real Paul McCartney had a rounder, shorter facial shape.

    5. Hi JusticeMe--yes, I finally did enough research to be able to recognize the differences far better than before--it was the video about his teeth, though, that threw me for a huge loop, and made me wonder what in the world was going on! But, I now realize it had to be a slick fake, with someone doing some deceptive work on changing the pictures of Paul so that it appeared he was still alive all the way up to 1990. I didn't take into consideration just how vile those who want to keep his murder a deep, dark secret would actually be, by stooping so low as to alter his original photos, as well as alter the sound of his voice, to try hiding the differences between him and 'f'aul, even after 50 years of constantly lying through their teeth! So, yes, that faker 'f'aul is now far easier for me to spot!

      Also--one other thing that just can't be faked is the difference in their shoe sizes--plastic surgery might work well on the face, but there's just no way that, at one time, Paul wore size 8 shoes, and the next he wore a 9 1/2 or 10! :)

  17. I searched around YouTube and finally found an audio of the fake Beatles at Candlestick Park that August of 1966:

    I say fake because you have to hear that concert to realize that not only was Paul not present during that awful performance, neither was John. Since I'm not that well versed in all of this, my ability to distinguish between 'f'aul, and Paul needed work, so I opened up a new window and found an audio-video on YouTube of Paul singing, "She's a Woman" on BBC radio:

    That way I could first listen to Paul singing it, then listen to 'f'aul singing it during the San Francisco concert in 1966. It took only listening through the concert rendition twice before I was so positive that what I was listening to was not Paul's voice at all. However, it wasn't until the song ended, and he spoke to the crowd that clinched things completely for me. It was the strange way he exaggerated the word "song" that exposed him--you need to hear him say that word to believe it!

    However, after re-listening to the concert's first three songs, and listening as carefully as I could, with headphones on, is when I realized that John was not John at that concert either. You have to hear it for yourself to believe it! He even forgot what year they had written and recorded "Day Tripper" for crying out loud! Instead, he blew the date off and said something about it having been a long, long time ago--tommy rot! :)

    Now, I understand that it was loud during that concert, and Candlestick is/was an open-air Baseball park on top of that, but honestly--they couldn't harmonize together properly, and they couldn't play in tune together either! It was a proper fiasco, as you'd expect with both John and Paul absent, and with the doppelgangers standing in, but it's a wonder those screaming teens didn't end up asking for their money back by the end of it all!

    So, yes, that concert was a bomb, and it's very easy to spot the fact that both John and Paul are not there at all, but those look-alikes are instead. I keep wondering if John was really ever heard from, or even seen, ever again, either, after Paul was killed--if they didn't just go ahead and kill them both at the same time, or nearly the same time? Otherwise, why use a stand-in for them both during the very last concert? It also makes me wonder why it is that only Paul's death is found mentioned in the reverse playing of any recordings, if John was also killed that night as well?

    One other thing: since "Paul is bloody" can be heard on some reversals, you'd tend to believe that the other Beatles would have to have seen Paul's body in order for them to be heard saying that on the reversals. Then, I realized why that didn't necessarily need to be the case: reverse speech seems to be coming not merely from within a person's heart and soul, but also seems to be paranormal, considering how many details show up in those reversals, including those that are present even in "Saint Paul" as recorded by Terry Knight, who didn't know what happened to Paul at the time it actually happened. I think we need to ask David Oakes to play Knight's longer version of "Saint Paul" backwards, to see if there is even more information present on it, that MacLen music tried to have removed from the shorter version. Here's the link again to the longer version:

    1. Hi--It's me, 'egg-on-face' again, and I'm posting this about the concert in San Francisco's Candlestick Park on August 29th, 1966--I now fully believe I was WRONG--Paul and John were there[!], and to show that's true, I'm going to post a link to a short audio-video from that concert that I came across a few minutes ago on YouTube, in which still shots are used, instead of regular video, and you can clearly see it IS Paul and John, and they are smiling, along with George, and having a great time in the photos. Also, from the stills, I recognize the venue[formerly known as Candlestick Park back then] clearly. I've been there before, since I grew up in the Bay Area:

      I'm now positive I was wrong about it not being their voices, as well, because in this video's audio, which is much clearer than in the one I first listened to before I posted the note, exclaiming what I did, [as to my thinking that it was not John and Paul], I could hear the proof that I was wrong![so, is my face ever red!] Paul does say the word "song" with an extra emphasis on the end of the word, that, on the other audio, made it sound so foreign to him. I watched a few of these videos containing stills from that concert, as well, and that's why I'm back here to take back what I said. I'm so sorry!

      So, I'm now totally realizing that Paul and John both were there, with Paul being alive and well, with them showing no signs that anything was amiss at all, smiling and having a good time. I think, since, if that is truly the case, it changes things a bit, and the time-line for him to have gone missing is pushed forwards some. If this is true, then Stephen might very well be the only living proof that his father was still alive up to November of 1966. There has to be some way it can be proven that Stephen really is Paul's child--without something like that, it seems as though all we'll ever have are our educated/semi-educated[as in my case] and wild guesses[also me, sorry to say] as to whether Paul was still alive, and around, long enough to be his dad at all.[!]

      Here's another link to stills from that same concert at Candlestick:

      Sorry about the way I'd not yet learned how to be far more cautious, and be as certain as I can be about something before I say something that I have to amend later, like this. I'll try not to let that happen again.

      So, thank you, and please carry on with all of this, because I'm now so sure there's far more we can learn about this just from things such as videos, song lyrics, interviews, DNA, and forensics, etc.:)

    2. You need to look again, Candlestick was Faul not Paul. And John Lennon was not murdered in 1981 he was already replaced back in 67.

    3. I have to disagree with you about Paul and Candlestick Park. Here is a link to a video containing stills from that concert, along with some audio:

      There is one still shot in particular that shows exactly which man it is, and it clearly looks like Paul, not 'f'aul. I am not of the theory that there were more than 2 "Pauls" ever involved with any deception prior to Paul's 'disappearance' that performed onstage instead of the real Paul. I understand that John made the comment about the person performing as Paul and how he sounded 'just like him', but things really become confused when people begin to think they spot doubles of Paul during performances nearly all the time. The "prancing" Paul, or the "wiggling" Paul, etc. All of that stems from misidentifying him in difference videos from 1966, and before. He did 'wiggle' to the beat of the music and I loved that! He was adorable. However, recently, I've had a chance to watch him closely in "A Hard Day's Night"[I DVR'd it, so have watched it allot lately], and he didn't move the same way during the songs they played in the movie. So, I'm still thinking that people are thinking they're seeing different Pauls performing at different times, when they're actually the same Paul.

      I still need to look into it all further, because I've just begun doing this in earnest recently. I tried looking into this a few years back, but got nowhere, probably because I'd not found Tina's blog as yet. I've spent so many years delving into the new world order, and the people behind it, which is what eventually led me back to Paul, and finding Tina's blog here.

      {That should be a direct link {above} to the still photo of Paul, George and John walking either to the stage or from it, at Candlestick in August 1966.

      Also, here is the link to the Pinterest page filled with photos of them taken in 1966:

  18. I came across this video interview of Ole Dammegard [a Danish author and investigator] on YouTube, entitled, "Assassins, Beatles, Bob Marley, Tavistock, & more", on the "pineconeutopia" channel, published on May 22, 2015:

    In it, he talks about an assassin organization that was begun during the 1950's.

    Apparently, Paul and John were on their list, and even Ringo[maybe], and then George, because Paul and John desperately wanted to expose the illuminati/elitists future disaster plans for the world. God bless the 3 of them--because their efforts cost them their lives--but they left a world of information behind in their song lyrics.

    I'm also convinced now that, even though I'm very sure that John was not present during the San Francisco concert in August of 1966, they didn't kill him, so we do see him again, until he was assassinated in NYC on 12/8/1980. The reason John acted so strangely after Paul's death, I'm sure, was due to what happened to Paul, coupled with threats against his family, himself, and anyone else he was close to, most likely. Not just LSD, coupled with Yoko.

    Also, the way he described what happened on Nov. 11, 1966, the day he met Yoko, really puzzled me at first, but I think I understand it now. He said he went over to the art gallery where she worked, and climbed up a ladder to read what was written on the ceiling. The word written there was "Yes", and he said that was all he needed to know--that totally flew right passed me! Until I realized that John, and even George, truly did believe there was something spiritually special about Paul. I don't remember the question John had been seeking an answer for, but it could have been whether Paul was really who they thought he was, since, in a reversal of "As My Guitar Gently Weeps"[I THINK that's it], George is heard to exclaim that Paul was "Hare Krishna!"--now, if those around John knew what he wanted so badly to know, they could have written that word up on the ceiling, then had Yoko encourage John to go and see if the answer was written there for him. That would explain why John said, in an interview years later, that by 2010[I think], he thought that "...the masses will be where we are now, and Paul will be Jesus by then". That always confused me completely as to why in the world he would think such a thing.

    However, since I'm a believer and follower of Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, I know they were mistaken about Paul's heavenly position, is all.:) Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and God in His own right, and Lord and Savior of mankind. He also will not return in disguise, but as He said, "every eye shall see" Him when He returns to destroy the armies of anti-Christ[satan's armies] at Armageddon. So, Paul was special alright, but just not Christ returned, nor will he ever become Jesus. The Lord Jesus is the Lord Jesus. :) However, I am more convinced than ever that Paul definitely was one of God's holy angels, among those who are mentioned here in the book of Hebrews:

    "Let brotherly love continue.
    2 Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares."[Hebrews 13:1,2 AKJV]

    So, since the apostle Paul spoke about our never failing to be kind to strangers, because we'd never know if one of them was one of God's holy angels, I think I can safely claim that Paul could very well have been one, and those not closest to him would probably never have known it. That could especially include family.

    At least John, and George recognized something in Paul that was special, I'm so sure of that now. God rest their souls, amen. :) [That's why I can completely recognize him in a video, and even in the photos, now, so long as I can see his beautiful eyes.]

  19. This is what I have to say to the global elite: "It's on."

  20. Fetzer is a Cass Sunstein shill. Reference articles on the web. Purpose is to provide absurd arguments that discredit those onto the truth such as Tina Foster.

    1. Here's a link to an article on Cass Sunstein, and his apparent co-shill, Adrian Vermeule:

      Here is a link to a video by Dr. Judy Wood, in which she presents the evidence as to what happened on 9-11-01, to those buildings in NYC:

      What happened on 9-11-01 was officially declared a true conspiracy by the U.S. govt. itself, but there are those who wonder as to exactly who was truly behind it all. Evidence is the best way to reach a final conclusion on that, and that's all that Dr. Judy presents to us in her talk on this subject.

      As for Dr. Fetzer being some kind of shill working for Sunstein, which seems to indicate, from the way you worded your note above, that everything said by him needs to be ignored. Why not listen to what he has to say on each and every matter he addresses as he speaks to his guest speakers on his shows, and do some homework on those subjects yourself, so that you might learn how to distinguish the truth from any misinformation presented, if any is presented at all? I did a search for articles as you suggested, and could only find one, and that one was written by someone who seemed far more of a slave, himself, to disinfo than anything else. Dr. Fetzer writes for Veterans Today, which comes as quite a recommendation of him, so far as I'm concerned. But, stop just trying to learn all you need to know from listening to others, and start doing the research for yourself. That would go along way in helping to put a stop to suspicions such as yours, about those like Dr. Fetzer.

  21. Hi Tina,

    I was wondering if you had seen this?

    This is fascinationg: Ashers are of royal lineage, the mysterious Dr. Stephen Ward, etc. Check it out!

    1. Hi--I read a couple entries on that blog you recommended. Thank you for that link.

      I honestly believe the reason that Mr.& Mrs. Asher never trusted Paul[since, at least Mr. Asher supposedly was a 'mind-reader'/'clairvoyant'-so-called]was not for the reason stated, which was that Paul's thoughts were all about Paul, "all the time". I seriously doubt that one. Because, if true, that would make him a genuine narcissist, who was completely incapable of caring about anyone but himself, period.

      Also, for one thing, 'mind-reading' is not a normal human ability, since it does not stem from the person, him/herself, alone, but those abilities actually come from the spiritual realm, and in the Asher's case, their spiritual 'informants' were of ill repute I'm quite sure, since they 'dabbled' in the occult, and possibly were either witches to boot, or consorted with them. So, if they picked up any thoughts from Paul, they were more than likely good ones that went again the rotten plans cooked up by the new world order/one world govt. cabal. That's why they probably distrusted him, and didn't want him associating with their daughter.

      Paul's worst faux pas apparently was moving into that house to be with her, in my opinion, due to what that family, along with their associate Dr. Ward, who lived so very close by to the Asher home, were involved with, when it came to the supernatural, and/or witchcraft, etc. They seem to have been related to those who believe their 'bloodline' traces back to Jesus Christ, which is total nonsense just on it's surface.

      Plus, where it's mentioned that Paul 'dreamed' the song, "Yesterday", what is said about that, in the blog entry, is only partially true. He said he woke up with the tune running through his mind, and he got up, went to the piano near his bed[he was staying at his parents' home at the time, in 1965], and played it:

      Paul explains all about what happened in the article at the link above.

      The writer of the blog entry speculated as to whether Dr. Ward, and his 'associates', had somehow placed that tune in Paul's head as he slept. The way they used to claim you could learn a foreign language while you slept, by playing a recording of the language over and over, while you were asleep. However, Paul was at his parents' home the night the tune ran through his dream. So, unless someone sneaked in, and put him in the trance spoken of in the blog entry, then placed a mic under his pillow which played that tune over and over while he slept, I seriously doubt Tavistock's people were responsible for it's creation.

      Also, Paul wrote the words to it, by himself.

      Not long ago, the current "Paul" claimed that he had wanted to title that beautiful song, "Scrambled Eggs"! That guy disgusts me no end.

      I am a huge Bee Gees fan, and I've heard Barry Gibb speak of having a tune running through his mind during the middle of the night, and he learned to keep a pad and pencil near his bed, or even a tape recorder, in order to write it down, or record the melody, in case it turned out to be worthwhile. So, song writers, and musicians, having that type of thing happen to them while they sleep is not all that rare a thing. And, to give credit to a satanically-inspired institute, like Tavistock, for songs such as "Yesterday", I think tarnishes the reputation, and diminishes the genuine abilities of an artist such as Paul.

  22. I hesitated waying in on this discussion because I've been researching the subject and have my own theory of when Paul was replaced which is at variance to all the ideas that I've heard and read here. But . . . I think Paul was replaced as early as the end of June, 1966. I found a Life magazine article dated July 15, 1966 (P. 73) that discusses The Beatles' tour in Japan in late June and early July, 1966. Near the end of the article--after talking about how The Beatles bought a lot of souvenirs and gifts brought to them by Japanese merchants--the author of the article says the following: "One bystander watched aghast as Paul's purchases piled up, finally asked, 'What are you collecting?' 'Just dust, he replied softly, 'just dust.'"

    If you take a really good look at photos of Paul from July, 1966-on, I think you'll see several other men, but NOT Paul.

    1. Well, the Yesterday and Today album was released in June of 1966. So was the church of satan. Paul would have turned 24. welcome the rolling stones and all the rest: the professor: (the bee gees) and Maryanne (the Monkees) here on gilligan's asshole!

    2. Well, I went to check out what you've said about Paul not being present during the tour in Japan in July 1966, and I came across pictures on this webpage, all of which were taken during that year, some from Japan as well:

      I looked at all of them posted there, and I couldn't find one in which Paul wasn't present--the genuine Paul. Maybe, his remark about collecting 'just dust' had more to do with the fact that knickknacks do nothing much but collect dust no matter how pretty they are, or dear to one's heart. I love them, but when it comes to dusting them that's a real pain! He might just have been saying what he did about the dust because he knew how much of a pain dusting was going to be, for him, or for anyone he gave some to. I'll look around further though, and see if I can spot any in which some other man is posing as Paul.

    3. But watch the brief interview of the "Beatles" in the Tokyo Hilton Hotel hallway on June 30, 1966. It's available on YouTube at: Even if you didn't take a good look at "Paul" you would notice that his demeanor was very Uncharacteristic of Paul. But when you look closely you'll notice that it's a FAUL. My theory is that both Paul and a Faul were present on the Japanese tour and at some point Paul was pulled out and replaced by this Faul on this tour.

    4. I finally saw your note on the subject of Paul vs 'f'aul in Japan, and went to youtube to view the video at the link you provided, but it said it was a "Private Video", so I couldn't view it. I think good, old 'f'aul and those he works for, are behind doing things like that. So, I can't comment any further on this, but to say you might very well be right. I just need to find some way for me to be able to view what you have, so I can settle it in my own mind is all. Thank you, though, for trying to help! I appreciate it very much.

  23. All of the motherbeatles were replaced once they exposed the illuminatis ritual infanticide back in 1966 on the butcher album cover.

    1. Is that comment concerning the "motherbeatles" being replaced all at once your own theory on this, or is there something you can share with us by way of even circumstantial evidence we might check out? I think many of us might agree that what they did by exposing that butchery didn't help matters for them, but just claiming they were all replaced like that isn't all that helpful unless there's something to back it up that we can use, or check on ourselves.


    3. Yes, I know that, Anonymous. :)

  24. Has anyone ever seen this particular picture of the Beatles before[?!]

    I just saw it over on Pinterest. I guess my inexperience at all of this is showing, if everyone else has already seen it. It surprised me, though!

  25. alex jones is ashill for the illumonarti.

    1. Penis Cheney, you are a piece of garbage and I am calling for your immediate arrest and incarceration.

    2. Two of you show up here, one right after the other--and, I don't even think the moon is full right now.


    3. You are a Gold Star mother being exploited by the Global Elite.

    4. And, you're not? The more aware, and 'awake' we become, the less they can do that to any of us.

  26. Hi--I just came across this interesting interview with Mark Devlin on the Kev Baker show from Scotland on YouTube, and if anyone's not heard it yet, I think it's worth a listen:

    Devlin mentions Tina, James Fetzer, and Nick Kollerstrom. He said that the longest chapter in his new book is on Paul, and what he now believes happened, and he agrees with Tina, concerning what happened to Paul as being planned ahead of time, etc.


    Laurel canyon, lookout mountain, intelligence community, the criminal film and music industry, cia actors, body doubles, anti-war psyops, time period Beatles connection all wrapped into one blockbuster false flag operation. Another incredible hoax and deception played on the American public consciousness. Props to the investigative journalist, one of the best I have ever come across.

    1. Thanks, Anonymous for that invaluable link to one of the best articles I've read in a long time, especially one that hits at the heart of the topics that are discussed here on Tina's blog. I am currently on page 41, and loving reading it all, and questions are now swirling through my head, which I really need to write down, and do some further investigation of them on my own.

      There is something though that I'd like to mention that showed up on several of the photos taken at the Tate/Polanski home after the 'murders' took place, that are found on pages 28 and 30. I honestly believe it to have been some kind of 'signal'/'clue' for those involved who were elsewhere, but who would understand it once they saw the pictures: It's the rocking chair.

      It's not like the one the president sat in while he worked in the White House:

      It's an Early American style rocker, more like the one the president gave to Cardinal Cushing as a gift:

      And/or, it's more like this one, which is said to be the very last rocking chair Kennedy sat in, and it was located in the Rice hotel in Houston:

      I formed a theory once I spotted that rocker at the Tate 'murder' scene in those photos: It was placed in there on purpose as a prop to show others the connection between what went on at Tate's, and how it somehow tied in with both Kennedy, and [this is where it gets a bit strange, I'm sure] with the Vatican/Catholic Cardinal Cushing/questionmark?[!!]

      I can easily buy into the idea of the CIA wanting to show a connection between what happened with Kennedy and Tate, but since it's a type of chair not used by Kennedy, yet given by Kennedy to his friend the Cardinal, that's the part that causes me to lose focus! Yet, I know there are people who claim a link between things like those 'murders', and the Vatican is perfectly normal! Maybe yes, maybe no? Either way, there is something about using that chair that I felt connected the Kennedy and Tate fiascos far, far more closely than I'd ever thought before! It's also an Early American style, which just might be linking what happened in both 'murder' cases to it having been an "All-American" style stage play, or something like it.

      I haven't read where the author [hopefully] goes into more detail about the connection to the Beatles "White Album", and what was going on with Manson, and the Tate, etc. 'murders'. But, if he doesn't, I will try doing some research into that on my own. Thanks, again, for that link.

    2. Symbolism is big with these folks but don't give them too much credit because sometimes they just aren't that bright hence all the clues they inevitable leave behind. When they do crimes they seem to think the audience will be to the left of the bell curve not the right. Maybe they are to the left of the curve. Just look at the idiots running the USA, its a kakistocracy. Or possible they don't care because they feel omnipotent and untouchable..

      Here's a humdinger from the Vatican who ran their own replacement program. Pope Paul IV was clearly replaced with an imposter. Not too many seem to know this one.

    3. Thank you for that link, Anonymous September 9, 2016 at 10:16 AM--I'll check it out as soon as I can. :)

    4. I went to that link you provided, "Anonymous September 9, 2016", and I totally believe they did replace him--I've also read accounts that, towards the end of her life, they did the same thing to Sister Lucia as well. Just horrific stuff.

  28. It is called Riker islands and that is where Sir Paul McCartney belongs for his role in the disinformation of 911.

  29. Hi "PlasticMacca"!--I was just listening to one of Tina's interviews over on, with Stephen Bamber[posted May 20, 2014 ], and reading through some of the comments about the interview, when two pieces of the puzzle surrounding why the 'new' 'f'eatles entitled the album they put out in the summer of 1967 what they did, plus the name of the last album on which the real Paul worked, and can be heard singing, simply fell right into place.

    Alright, here goes:

    The last album Paul actually had anything directly to do with was called "Revolver". A revolver is a gun.

    But, so is something called a "Pepper pot" which is a derringer that was used in Victorian times. Here's a link to a picture of one:

    Here's the link to the website on which are more pictures of that derringer, and they clearly show why it was call a "Pepper Pot", or a "Pepper Box"--it used air to propel whatever projectile was fired from the small gun:

    Someone who left comments on Stephen Bamber's channel on which he has posted the interview he did with Tina, made some extremely interesting comments concerning why he believes all 4 of the Beatles had been slated to become satanic sacrifices even before they were selected, then ushered into fame and fortune by the nwo 'illumined ones'/satanists, and that he believes the satanists behind the nwo have been replacing other celebrities right along. He believes they use the celebrities as a sort of ready-made crop to be harvested[so to speak] by them, to please their boss, satan.

    There is a photo that I came across online that really broke my heart, because it purports to show Paul's lifeless face, all beat up and battered. I was never sure that it was true before, but now I'm beginning to believe it was a genuine photo of what they did to him. The poster, who made the statements on Stephen Bamber's channel, about the human sacrifices carried out by the satanic nwo adherents/servants/slaves on many celebrities, while exchanging the real ones for 'body doubles', so to speak, also said that he believed that all the 'clues' left in the songs beginning with the "Sgt. Pepper's" album, were planted there by the nwo satanists, both to ease the 'consciences' of the ones who'd performed the sacrifices, as well as to get those, like us, all stirred up and running off in all directions while hunting down more information on those clues, just to taunt us, and keep us spending money buying the albums in order to find more clues--personally, once I'd thought about that, I agreed with him wholeheartedly.
    {To be continued}

  30. "Pepper Pot" derringer, continued.

    {sorry if this section of my comments about this is a repeat!}
    There is a photo that I came across online that really broke my heart, because it purports to show Paul's lifeless face, all beat up and battered. I was never sure that it was true before, but now I'm beginning to believe it was a genuine photo of what they did to him. The poster, who made the statements on Stephen Bamber's channel, about the human sacrifices carried out by the satanic nwo adherents/servants/slaves on many celebrities, while exchanging the real ones for 'body doubles', so to speak, also said that he believed that all the 'clues' left in the songs beginning with the "Sgt. Pepper's" album, were planted there by the nwo satanists, both to ease the 'consciences' of the ones who'd performed the sacrifices, as well as to get those, like us, all stirred up and running off in all directions while hunting down more information on those clues, just to taunt us, and keep us spending money buying the albums in order to find more clues--personally, once I'd thought about that, I agreed with him wholeheartedly. :(

    The Beatles, according to that poster, were literally captured by a group of blood-thirsty villains whom they thought they could trust, and that is how I'm now viewing things now, too. And, yes, they were betrayed by those whom they believed they could count on--by the flock of "Judas goats" that literally surrounded them--that's what those who led them to slaughter were, and still are, if they're still alive at this late date.

    I'm so sure that Terry Knight realized some of it, which accounts for his song "Saint Paul", in which he asks if Paul had really spoken to "Judas"--yes, he must have, and I believe he finally realized what they were up against right before they killed him. That's more than heartbreaking.

    So, from where I sit right now, the premeditation of at least Paul's murder can be found by connecting their album "Revolver" to the title of 'f'aul's fiasco of an album, entitled, "Sgt. Pepper's..." The fact that the rest of the title mentions "Lonely Hearts", makes me also wonder if some woman wasn't involved in what happened to Paul--like "OH NO!" was involved in what happened to John. Because, that "Pepper Pot" derringer was what a woman would use in Victorian times--it was small enough for her to conceal it in her hand bag, etc., and light enough for her to use it with some amount of ease.

  31. Kollestrom wrote "The Life and Death of Paul McCartney." Are you all saying he isn't to be trusted?

    1. No, not that he isn't to be trusted, but there are questions about whether Paul was really killed in some car accident, or if he was murdered. Mr. Kollerstrom seems to believe that Paul was killed in a car accident, that's all. There are serious questions though, as to whether that's true--that's all. :)

    2. You have just insulted Nick Kollerstrom and impugned his character. You are obviously some kind of anti-PID shill. Perhaps it would be a good idea if you deleted your blog membership account and left now before you cause any more embarrassment.

    3. I did, Stethson? How? I tried to explain that we, who disagree with his conclusion, meant no insult to Mr. Kollerstrom, but that some of us don't believe Paul was killed in a car accident. That's all.

    4. No, "car accident" story is disinfo, imo...

  32. Clare Kuehn is "representing" Stephen Dickinson? What a joke!! What qualifications has Clare Kuehn to "represent" anybody? Clare Kuehn couldn't represent a cat. I watched the video and noticed how she was shifting and squirming on her chair.
    For a moment there I thought she
    was going to take a dump.
    Jim Fetzer slapped her down when she attempted to speak for Stephen. Jim made it perfectly clear to Clare that he was in charge and asking the questions. I feel sorry for Stephen who has been conned by this Kuehn character into letting her "represent" him. My advice to Stephen is to steer clear of this Kuehn idiot.Tina Foster would be a far better person to look after Stephen's interests in this matter. After all Tina IS a lawyer. On the video Clare Kuehn looked like a dishevelled old bag woman.The type of old woman you see shuffling along any big city's streets shoving a shopping trolley full of her worldly goods. Hardly the type of individual anyone would chose to represent him or her. Clare Kuehn says she met Stephen by either chance or fluke.
    Yeah, a likely story. We can be sure that Clare Kuehn targeted Stephen.
    This was planned and was not
    by chance or a fluke.
    Kuehn is in this for her own self-aggrandizement. Again my advice to Stephen who seems sincere in his
    beliefs is to avoid Kuehn
    and find someone with
    the necessary qualifications to do a
    thorough and professional job.
    That person could be Tina Foster.
    Why are the comments disabled for this video on Gary King's YouTube channel?
    As for the truth of what Stephen is claiming, we need more
    information - a lot more.
    My advice to Stephen is to
    seek legal advice
    (from a qualified lawyer (Tina Foster?)
    and to go to the Main Police station on Merseyside, Liverpool with whatever qualified lawyer he wants
    to represent him.
    Stephen can present his claims verbally and in writing to the Merseyside Police who will then question Stephen thoroughly in the presence of his lawyer and under caution.
    If the police think Stephen's claims show merit and are worthy of
    further investigations AND after a
    comprehensive investigation of Stephen's personal history and circumstances has been carried out, the police will initiate criminal investigatory proceedings which may lead to a court case.

    Before he does any of this,however, Stephen must sever all links with the dubious Clare Kuehn.

  33. There is absolutely no need for such outrageous personal attacks against Clare Kuehn, Maitland.
    That said... There is no need for Stephen to seek legal help because his story is demonstrably false. It is interesting and sensational for sure, but false. Stephen's dubious claims are not a mark of their authenticity, rather they reflect a lack of due-diligence on his part in crafting his tale. Take the year 1975 for instance and Stephen's claim that he encountered the four Beatles on his street in Liverpool during March. Not only is it logically absurd that all four Beatles would be together for a trip to Liverpool at this late date, but a focused look at the historical record is also illuminating. John Lennon was heavily occupied in New York. He was promoting his new rock n' roll classics album and doing interviews. Yoko had just become pregnant with Sean. Paul was in New Orleans with Linda recording Venus and Mars. George was in LA. Ringo was possibly in England during March, but my point is made. To ignore this evidence and accept Stephen's mystical tale of all four men suddenly appearing on an empty street in Liverpool... well, such would be the height of folly. This doesn't mean Stephen has ill motives or set out to be deceitful. I think he has come to believe his own story. This is not uncommon. Remember how many women claimed to be the Anastasia? People lie to themselves all the time. Perhaps Stephen's mother did know Paul. She might even have had a fling with him. Who knows. Whatever precedent was there, Stephen D. has taken it and ran. The explosion of PID online since 2009 has brought many storytellers out of the woodwork, as these types of subjects always do. People attach themselves to these topics and ingratiate themselves into various online forums and groups. Stephen's personality seems to fit the profile of these types. Paul was not his father.

  34. Theodor Adorno birthday is said to be sept 11. I ONE IX HE ^ DIE = December 8, 1980 ,12+8+19+80= 119( also the day john met yoko ,nov. 11) Considering the elites obsession with all things twin (patty duke had a twin sister, samantha from bewitched had a twin, barbara eden or jenie also had a twin sister all with dark hair wigs. Curious the connection with paul's twin faul or FALL (Fall = 9 or september) losing his head in a crash and the Fall of the twin towers in which one of the two twin towers also lost its head in a crash as the top floor of the north tower (?) seemingly decapitated. also paul (faul) was supposedly sitting in a plane on a run way at jfk watching it as it all took place. Think this connection is too strong to ignore. ?


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

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