The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Full ArchivesKevin Barrett Podcasts
Happy Birthday Paul McCartney! Philosophy Profs James Fetzer and Sterling Harwood Debate Your Existence.
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks


Philosophy professors James Fetzer and Sterling Harwood debate the existence of Paul McCartney on the occasion of his 79th birthday. Is the guy celebrating his 79th birthday today the original Paul, or an impostor known as Faul? Sterling Harwood isn’t buying James Fetzer’s “Paul is dead” theory…even though Harwood admits there are some interesting items of evidence. (Check out Prof. Harwood’s book The Greatest Mystery of the Beatles: Critical Thinking on Paul is Dead & the Skeptical Sixties.)

Though Paul McCartney presumably has better ways to celebrate his birthday, if he has a few free minutes, he is welcome to call in to Revolution Radio to try to convince Jim Fetzer that he really is himself. (See my 2015 letter inviting Paul to debate Jim Fetzer.)

Sterling Harwood sends these links:

*Pre-1966 photo of Tall Paul

*Tall Paul from Jan. 1, 1962

*Tall Paul before 1966

*Paul and Jane with their feet in the photo

*Paul and Jane without their feet showing—Jim Fetzer heavily relies on this photo

*Paul and Jane closer in height but it seems after 1966

*What do you make of this one? After 1966?

*Jane & Paul after 1966, at the same event as 1 of the photos that Jim relies on

*Tall Paul from Jan. 1, 1962

*Tall Paul from Jan. 1, 1962- Paul is standing further in the background than John is but is still taller than John

* Decisive photo that Paul was Taller than John on Jan. 1, 1962

*Tall Paul on Ed Sullivan Show

*More tall Paul on Ed Sullivan Show

*Tall Paul pre-1966

*Tall Paul circa 1967

Jim Fetzer sends these links:

The Real Deal (29 May 2021): The Assassination of Paul McCartney

Why Ringo’s Confession, “We Replaced Paul”, Appears to be Authentic

(Republished from Truth Jihad by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: History • Tags: Conspiracy Theories, Paul McCartney 
Hide 23 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Grimace says:

    Excellent pictures, but this question was definitively resolved by Chris Farley during his interview of Paul in 1993. Sir Paul said, “I wasn’t really dead.” Enough for me.

    • Replies: @Kevin Barrett
    , @Iris
  2. @Grimace

    I am also inclined to take Paul’s word for it. Too bad he didn’t call in to the show ; – )

  3. In ALL of the photos showing Paul’s feet he’s wearing American cowboy boots. These usually add a bit over two inches. He probably always had custom-made lifts inside them, which can add another two inches fairly comfortably. You can get lifts that add three inches, but it’s hard to walk in them. However, on stage Paul didn’t walk around that much, as Mick Jagger does. If he practiced a lot and didn’t move too much on stage, he could have added five inches, which made him at least as tall as John. John’s wearing boots in some of the shots, but they look more like regular English Lobb or Lobb-style boots than cowboy gear. Otherwise, the photographer’s angle and lens can change apparent proportions a LOT. And in one of the photos with Jane Asher, Paul’s obviously leaning forward. It’ll take a lot more than these photos to make him dead.

  4. Iris says:
    @Grimace

    It is pretty irrelevant to rely on people’s comparative height as an argument for the demonstration, since height cannot be ascertained from photos. Or may be it is a deliberate deflection?

    It is the Beatles themselves who gave rise to the rumour of PMC’s death, when they recorded secret messages about his passing, to be read backwards on their vinyl records.

    There is much more challenging evidence that PMC post-1966 wasn’t the same person. The original artist had dark brown eyes, but the one who replaced him has indisputably green eyes. There is no way such a change could have happened naturally in an adult person.

    Furthermore, the cranial and odontology analysis performed by an Italian forensic pathologist, published in the Italian version of Wired magazine, provided objective evidence that PMC pre-1966 and PMC post-1966 were not the same person.

    http://www.hugequestions.com/Eric/TFC/FromOthers/Paul-McCartney-Italian.html

    If biometrics data is so reliable as to allow billions of people pass through borders with just automated machine checks, than surely it is also reliable enough to determine Paul McCartney’s identity?

    For any rational person, it is more likely than not that Paul McCartney was replaced by a lookalike musician. The reason is economic: British pop music was an important contributor to the country’s GDP in the 1960’s. PMC dying in a car accident in Feb 1966 was an economic catastrophe, so “some people did something” about it.

    The PMC conspiracy is quite benign and harmless. But it shows how powerful the Anglo school of propaganda and psychological operations, a la Tavistock, really is, which was able to maintain the cover up for decades. People refuse to recognise to having been fooled because they can’t accept they are not that smart.

  5. Well, yes. Being a youth of that era, it had enough of its own nuttiness and weird beliefs going on. Along with the novel and truly creative stuff, some things almost matched the idiocy of the stuff that goes on today.

  6. A few years ago I read “The Life and Death of Paul McCartney” by Nicholas Kollerstrom.
    It convinced me that a deceased Paul was replaced by “Faul”.
    An interesting case.
    From a review on Goodreads —

    I didn’t realize this, but the number of unusual premature deaths of people who knew the pre-1966 McCartney is statistically improbable. Furthermore, the timing of such deaths could not be coincidental. For example, roadie Mal Evans’ manuscript Living the Beatles’ Legend was due to be submitted to the publisher on January 12, 1976, but he was killed on January 5. The suitcase containing the manuscript vanished and has never been recovered.

    Hmm …

    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/26714586-the-life-and-death-of-paul-mccartney-1942-1966

    • Thanks: Iris
  7. lloyd says: • Website

    MK Ultra were involved in turning Western youth into drug and sex addicted morons, instead of Soviet socialists. Teenagers said later, they were paid money to scream and go into hysteria. Paul McCartney in the last stage of his life, spoke out against drug usage and wanted to retire. That seems more likely for his death than this fanciful Vatican weapon. There is something very mysterious about the whole Beatles saga. Half the British police force was involved in guarding them from their fans instead of closing down the concerts. Clearly, they all had doubles as photographs demonstrate. The murdered Lennon bares no resemblance to the Lennon meeting his relatives in New Zealand in 1965. Lennon from a fostered home was said to appear to have limitless money to fund his education and his musical instruments. The death of his mother by a police car seems staged. If you want to be really paranoid, Lennon’s birth is listed a few months after the rumoured birth of Hitler and Nancy Mitfords child in England.

  8. lloyd says: • Website

    I am sorry. I meant Unity Mitford.

  9. Every time I think I got out, they pull me back in!- Michael Corleone (roughly)

    I straddle the fence on this seemingly ridiculous subject but somehow still lean toward hoax. I just can’t understand why Beatles Inc. felt the need to create and perpetuate this hoax.

    There are some very compelling photo collages that show different “Pauls.” Why?

    The clues embedded in songs and album covers are undeniable.

    The lads were almost surely freemasons and surrounded by occult symbolism from the early days. Why?

    My brother speculated that the differences in appearance could be attributed to plastic surgery (collaboration with MJ no accident) but that isn’t satisfying.

    The music is great but there is something very sinister about the Fab Four. Disappointing.

  10. Not only did Ringo say he died in a video, so did George Harrison. Other clues: in some 70s show -concert video I noticed he played bass with his right hand when as Paul he played with left hand; the Abby Road barefoot thing; the line from “A Day in the Life” saying he died in a car crash because “he didn’t notice that the light had changed”; the post 1966 Paul just looks different especially on album covers; the “Billy Shears” Sargent Pepper’s intro (Shears being “Faul” as they say); the “new Paul” suddenly seemed to not get along with Lennon…and maybe othe clues, but these are the ones I remember most. All stated on various videos. But then again, a lot of what the Beatles did was psy-op stuff….maybe they planned it that way, and he could very well still be alive after all. I just have my doubts.

  11. Thrills says:

    Anyone who thinks Paul McCartney’s stunning artistry can be duplicated by a talented look-alike knows absolutely nothing about the realities of professional songwriting and musicianship. “I wasn’t really dead.” Duh.

    • Replies: @Iris
    , @Commentator Mike
  12. Iris says:
    @Thrills

    Anyone who thinks Paul McCartney’s stunning artistry can be duplicated by a talented look-alike knows absolutely nothing about the realities of professional songwriting and musicianship. “I wasn’t really dead

    Many of Paul McCartney’s most successful songs were written in collaboration with John Lennon. They had already been composed, but were not yet recorded by the time PMC’s purported accidental death in a car crash was announced in the Beatles’ English fan magazine, on 7th Jan 1966.

    A lot of songs were ready in the pipeline, that would only have to be sung by his replacement. This is not unheard of: an exceptional artist such as Prince mentioned that he had hundreds of songs kept in a vault, that he left un-recorded by his untimely passing.

    PMC did not write anything remarkable with the Wings, after the Beatles broke up, unlike Lennon and Harrison who both wrote all-time classics in their solo career.

    • Replies: @Jefferson Temple
  13. @Iris

    The denial story was in a fan magazine published in January 1967, not 1966.

    In regards to the famous songwriting, Mike Williams has created a video of his analysis of whether some of their songs, including huge hits such as Yesterday, were ghost-written or plagiarized (something Harrison didn’t get away with when he stole the music for the lovely hit, My Sweet Lord).

    The video is on Bitchute, and maybe even on YouTube, on the Sage of Quay channels. It is long and at some points tedious, but also revelatory at other points.


    • Thanks: Iris
  14. @Thrills

    I thought Theo Adorno wrote all their songs and music, as well as most of the other bands. Or so it is claimed by John Coleman and others.

  15. @Jefferson Temple

    https://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/fc42.html

    Scroll down a bit to comparison photos of Paul and Jane Asher. Based on obvious height differences there are two possibilities: photo tampering or two Pauls.

  16. Paul isn’t dead….he’s a drunken douche….a globalist nitwit like Bono.

    Clapton seems to be the only one with a lick of sense.

    • Replies: @Iris
  17. Iris says:
    @Robert Dolan

    ….a globalist nitwit like Bono.

    Globalist, I don’t know, but “Paul McCartney” is definitely the greatest Israel sycophant among established British artists.

    He married Jewish ladies, so sympathy towards the Jewish people is very understandable, but he takes it to another level altogether by explicitely supporting the genocidal government in the concerts he regularly gives in Occupied Palestine. So maybe that’s his way of paying back the chance he was given in 1966.

    • Agree: Arthur MacBride
    • Replies: @anon
  18. lloyd says: • Website

    This radio debate sticks to Billy Shears as the imposter double. Blogs insist that Billy Shears, actually William Shears Campbell, was Canadian or American. Substituting a North American accent with a working class English accent without slip ups is really impossible in studio interviews. Rarely if ever achieved even in movies. Other blogs say the double was an English working class lad contemporary musician, Phil Ackrill. That seems plausible. Maybe Billy Shears, first chosen in a McCartney look alike contest, was brought in as an emergency. When media interviews were required, Phil Ackrill replaced him and is the present imposter. The original Paul McCartney looked exactly like a stereotype young white musician. They could have turned Charles Manson into Paul McCartney. The whole Beatles thing was clearly a Tavistock propaganda program. England was still a very bleak and class privileged place in the 1960s. Communism was potentially a magnet for the disaffected young. The name Lennon has consonance with Lenin. Lennon was charismatic like Lenin was less than fifty years before.

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  19. anon[825] • Disclaimer says:
    @Iris

    He married Jewish ladies, so sympathy towards the Jewish people is very understandable, but he takes it to another level altogether …

    Never paid much attention to McCartney past his
    poor taste in women. Your comment made me curious.

    Paul McCartney: The Jew-ish Beatle?

    https://jewishworldnews.org/paul-mccartney-jew-ish-beatle/

    5 dancing shlomos

  20. “Tall Paul” was Chairman Volcker. 6′ 7″.

  21. @lloyd

    If they needed to substitute a deal Paul why not substitute him with his own brother who was a successful pop musician himself with a string of hits including a No. 1 UK Christmas hit? Surely he would have been the best choice but then they would have had to fake his own death. Or perhaps run his own career in parallel.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_McGear

    And if Paul truly died why didn’t his brother spill the beans about it but went along with calling the fake his brother?

    • Replies: @Iris
  22. Iris says:
    @Commentator Mike

    And if Paul truly died why didn’t his brother spill the beans about it but went along with calling the fake his brother?

    Because the McCartney family was remunerated for keeping the legend going.

    Nobody would have won anything from making Paul’s passing public. Britain’s GDP, Her Majesty Revenue and Custom HMRC, the Beatles’ agent Brian Epstein, the tribal investors behind him, the surviving Beatles, Paul McCartney’s real family, everybody gained crazy money, fame and status from PMC’s career seemingly continuing its course.

    The only person who really lost to the scheme was PMC’s unique and illegitimate German daughter, but she got financial compensation paid even though her DNA didn’t match, so that was taken care of too.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
$
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Kevin Barrett Comments via RSS