Why Ringo's Confession, "We replaced Paul!", appears to be authentic

by Jim Fetzer

[NOTE: This article was originally posted on Veterans Today on March 29, 2015. When I was sacked by Gordon Duff for speaking out about JADE HELM and his abusive treatment of Robert O'Dowd for an earlier article regarding JADE HELM, I discovered that he had taken down my four most recent articles about the Boston bombing and this article as well. In one of the most brutal media massacres of all time--where he has deleted 150 articles of mine on JFK, 9/11, Wellstone, Sandy Hook, the Boston bombing and more--I am going to do my best to restore the most important. He trashed me on Kevin Barrett's "Truth Jidad Radio" for having published this, but, as I observed in the original article, if Paul McCartney, the most publicly observed person in the world, could be replaced without notice, anyone could be replaced, which also happened with Saddam Hussein, as I reported in articles that Gordon Duff has now obliterated.] 

The blunder of drawing conclusions about truth or falsity based upon sources alone is called "the genetic fallacy"

First known photo of Ringo playing drums with the Beatles (22 August 1962)

"During our “False Flag Weekly News” on 5 March 2015, I had included an interesting report about Ringo Starr having claimed that Paul McCartney had died in 1966 and been replaced. Because I had done research on this subject for at least three years  (due to Clare Kuehn’s keen interest in the subject, about which she has an extensive blog), I thought it was an extremely clear explanation of what had happened and how Paul’s replacement had come about using a look-alike by the name of Billy Shears. Kevin, however, took strong exception and would even publish an article about it in VT:




What bothered me most was that, even though I explained that I had been studying this issue for some three years and that it was like most other complex and controversial questions (where, if you haven’t looked at the evidence, a conclusion that is actually well-supported might sound rather bizarre). But Kevin was supposed to know that already on the basis of JFK (where THE WARREN REPORT is anything but authoritative) or 9/11 (THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT is likewise a work of fiction). Authoritative sources are not necessarily right or non-authoritative wrong.

I mentioned during our (rather strenuous) exchange that he really needed to look at the evidence, but a conversation between us yesterday indicated to me that he had done no such thing, which I have found to be acutely disappointing. 

Clare’s blog has quite a lot about the subject, including a most intriguing diagram that John Lennon sketched, which portrays what appears to be a young man with his head split open and brains and gore running out of it – not the sort of thing one would expect a Beatle to doodle! But it clearly raises questions. 

Clare has a great deal to say about this it and offers quite a lot of evidence –most of which is highly circumstantial – that strongly suggests that Paul may have died in 1966 and been replaced. I have been after Clare for years to provide forensic proof that Paul had been replaced, which she has done (gradually, piece by piece), over the years. 

But it was the discovery of a study by two Italian forensic scientists that made me a believer, which is why I am publishing a synopsis of their research below. I may be unable to affect Kevin in his thinking, but others may be less closed-minded.

Undoubtedly, it was because I had done research on the subject and he had not that we had such a striking disagreement on the air, which like the show was spontaneous and unrehearsed. 

The Hollywoodinquirer.com

Indeed, if you listen to it even causally, you can see that I am very pissed off, because he is paying no attention at all to what I am saying about “Ringo’s confession”, which ties together all the loose ends of the case in a very tight package that I believe is complete, accurate and true. 

Kevin, however, was preoccupied with the source of the report, which he discovered to be HollywoodInquirer.com, a shell site. No doubt, the source is not notable; but it is an elementary fallacy to judge the truth or falsity of a claim on the basis of its source. (This is known as “the genetic fallacy”, as I explained during our exchange on “False Flag Weekly News”.)

Strictly speaking, of course, we could both be correct, where a source of no reputation nevertheless offers a story that is true, which, indeed, is my position about this matter. There might have been a variety of reasons for concealing its origins, but the article itself was substantial and offers proof on its own:

Not only does this explain away the mystery, but a very straightforward comparison of the two was provided as well:

In my opinion, this photographic comparison should have caused an acute mind like that of Kevin Barrett to pause and ask if he was not committing the premature rejection of the issue at stake, where Paul’s face is rounder and has a decidedly younger appearance, while Billy’s is longer and presents a more mature countenance.  (Many more features distinguishing them are presented below.) 

According to the article, Ringo explained they had sent out many clues:

One of the most interesting aspects of the story is that Ringo also explains the cover of “Abbey Road” as among the most important clues they had transmitted, where each of the four represented a crucial participant in a funeral service: the minister, the undertaker, the corpse and the grave digger, which I only understood from reading this explanation – and I have been a huge Beatles fan for virtually all of my adult life. This is embedded in the article:

Now if Kevin Barrett can commit a blunder of this magnitude, then most certainly mere mortals can commit it, too. I therefore offer this as an advisory to avoid the genetic fallacy. If he were to come back now and say that he only meant the source was of indeterminate origin and that he did not mean to impugn the truth of the contents of the article, he ought to have made that clear. Because several times I emphasized that the story (“Ringo’s confession”) appeared to me to be accurate and authentic, but even in his own article about it, Kevin continues to alluded to “the bogus quote”.

Paul and Jane (before and after)

And just for the sake of driving the point home, who other than a Beatle would have been in the position to explain what happened? Kevin would insist that I am taking for granted that it did happen, but there is a veritable mountain of proof to substantiate that Paul McCartney before the incident in 1966 is not the same “Paul McCartney” after 1966, where I would like to believe that he could still be convinced that we are talking about two different persons, no matter how difficult it may be to comprehend. If it took me three years to sort this out, perhaps we should check back with Kevin in 2018.

Paul is Dead: Chiedi chi era quel «Beatle» 

by Anonymous Student

The cover-story Chiedi chi era quel «Beatle» (literal translation: Ask who was that “Beatle”) for the issue of Wired Italia (July 15, 2009), the Italian edition of the US magazine Wired, describes the analysis of the McCartney conspiracy theory conducted by two Italians, Gabriella Carlesi and Francesco Gavazzeni (the man and woman in this photo):

Their purpose for analyzing this conspiracy theory was to provide indisputable, scientific evidence that would put an end to the persistent rumors that Paul McCartney had died in a car accident in 1966.

However, the results of their analysis surprised them. Instead of putting an end to the rumors, their analysis provides scientific evidence that the Paul McCartney of today is not the same man as the Paul McCartney prior to 1966.

By coincidence, on that same day that this article appeared in Italy, Paul McCartney was at the Ed Sullivan theater  in New York City to appear on the David Letterman television show and to give a free, outdoor performance on top of the marquee of the Ed Sullivan theater.

He and Letterman laughed about the silly rumor that Paul McCartney had died in 1966. We could interpret McCartney’s appearance in New York City as an attempt to distract Americans from the publication of the Italian article and to encourage Americans to laugh at the McCartney conspiracy theories.

I will use the name Paul to refer to Paul McCartney before the 1966 car accident, and Faul to refer to the Paul McCartney after the accident. So, are Paul and Faul the same person?

Who are Gabriella Carlesi and Francesco Gavazzeni?

Gabriella Carlesi is forensic pathologist who specializes in identification of people through craniometry (i.e. comparison of certain features of the skull) and forensic odontology (i.e. analysis of the teeth), while Francesco Gavazzeni is a specialist in computer analyses. By putting their talents together, they were able to use a computer to obtain high precision measurements of Paul McCartney’s skull from various photos of his face.

Certain features of our skull, teeth, and ears are extremely effective for identifying us; some of them cannot currently be modified by surgery. In fact, in Germany, the identification of the shape of the right ear has the same legal value of that of a DNA test or fingerprints detection.

Gabriella Carlesi has been a consultant for identification of people via digital image processing for various investigations, including:

• The identification of Sergei Antonov in the scenario of the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II, in relation to the “Mitrokhin Archive” (for an Italian Parliament Commission);

• The identification of Francesco Narducci, connected to the investigation of the so called “Monster of Florence”;

• The murder of journalist Ilaria Alpi and her camera operator Miran Hrovatin (for an Italian Parliament Commission); and,

• The assassination of Benito Mussolini and his mistress Claretta Petacci (for a historical reconstruction).

Forensic evidence based on photographs

The two researchers began their analysis by obtaining high quality photos of Paul McCartney before and after the car accident. Gavazzeni complained that some photos taken before 1966 were not properly dated (sometimes different photo agencies would have different dates for the same photo), and that some of the best photos were the property of photographers who were very reluctant to release them. However, they eventually found two good quality photos dated before 1966 and two after 1967.

Different photos of a human face, in order to be compared, have to be re-sized to match the same scale; to do this, one feature of the face must be used as a scaling factor . These two researchers opted for the distance between the pupils. In other words, the photos were scaled so that the distance between the pupils was exactly the same for all of them.

Once photos of a person have been scaled so that the eyes have identical locations, then if you lay the photos on top of each other, certain features will match exactly, such as the shape of the skull. The skin and hair may be very different, but the skulls should be identical.

Both of the photos taken prior to 1966 matched one another perfectly, and both of the photos taken after 1967 matched one another perfectly. However, the researchers were shocked to discover that the photos prior to 1966 did not match the photos taken after 1967.

For example, the frontal curvature of the jaw was different (i.e. the curve going from one ear to the other and passing through the chin, which you see when looking directly into a face, as in the photos on the right) and the jaw arc was also different (i.e. the curve of the jaw that you would see if looking downward at the head from above).

Gavazzeni noticed a common feature of Faul‘s early photos that is not seen in his recent photos: a dark area shadowing the external corner of the left eye. That area now shows something half-way between a scar and something that resembles skin that was stretched as a consequence of cosmetic surgery, or, as Gavazzeni suggests, of an imperfect cosmetic surgery.

Faul's head is more oblong than Paul's

Photos show that Faul’s head is more oblong than Paul’s head. Gavazzeni pointed out that some of the early printed photos of Faul must have been compressed in height in order to make his head appear shorter and more rounded. He said his conclusion is inescapable because the shape of the skull of an adult cannot be altered.

He said there was a simple trick for stretching or compressing photos during the printing process in those days before computer photo editing became available, so it would have been very easy for them to do this trick.

Carlesi pointed out that the line separating Faul’s lips is much wider, to the point that it was obvious even when Faul grew a mustache, perhaps in an attempt to hide that detail. Lips can be inflated and increased in volume, but the wideness of their separating line can be altered only to a small extent.

More interesting is the position, relative to the skull, of the point where the nose detaches from the face, because it can not modified by surgery. According to Carlesi, these points for Paul and Faul are considerably different.

Some features of the ear are also useful for identification purposes because these as well are not modifiable through surgery. Carlesi and Gavazzeni determined that the ears of Paul and Faul differed significantly.

Teeth can be altered… to a certain extent

Some features of the human body can be altered, such the position and slope of teeth (dental braces do this for millions of people). Carlesi noticed that the teeth configurations for Paul and Faul do not match, but in a very curious way.

In Paul’s mouth, his upper right canine tooth is pushed out of its normal position because there is not 

enough room in his jaw for all of his teeth to fit properly.

In Faul’s mouth, that same canine tooth is also crooked, but there is plenty of room in his jaw for all of his teeth. Since no other teeth are pushing against the crooked tooth, how did that tooth become crooked?

Carlesi concludes that the crooked tooth in Faul’s mouth was the result of a dental operation to simulate the crooked tooth in Paul’s mouth.

Carlesi was even more amazed at the difference in the shape of the palate. It was so narrow in Paul that some teeth were misaligned (such as the canine tooth mentioned above), but Faul’s palate was so wide that the front teeth did not rotate with respect to their axis, or tilt, as was happening for Paul, with the only exception of that upper right canine (mentioned above) which leans outward.

Carlesi points out that altering the shape of a person’s palate, although possible in the 1960s, would have required a traumatic surgical operation (the breaking of a bone. She doesn’t say which bone, but seems to refer to the hard palate), and it would have required the wearing of fixed dental braces for more than a year. 

Therefore, if the conspiracy theories are false – i.e., if the Paul McCartney that we see today with a large palate is the original Paul McCartney with a small palate – then Paul went through some very serious dental surgeries, and he would have suffered for a long time, and it would have had an effect on his voice.

The more logical conclusion is that the Paul McCartney of today is a substitute, and that Faul went through a much simpler dental operation to make one of his teeth crooked.

A DNA test!

Carlesi and Gavazzeni commented that if McCartney really wanted to put an end to these rumors, he could have offered to take a DNA test with his father or his younger brother, Mike, but he didn’t. McCartney took a DNA test only once, but the authors of the article point out that the DNA test created more confusion and suspicion of his true identity, not less.

In 1962, when the Beatles were living in Hamburg, Germany and still unknown to most people, Paul McCartney had a brief affair with a German woman named Erika Wohlers. She gave birth to a daughter, Bettina, in December 1962, which was during the time the Beatles were starting to become famous. The Beatles soon left Germany, and McCartney abandoned Erica. Around 1967 McCartney agreed to pay 30,000 deutsche marks to support Bettina, but he was not admitting to being her father, even though she claims her German birth certificate identifies him as her father!

 

Once Bettina became an adult, she asked a German court to have McCartney recognize her as his natural daughter. McCartney had to submit to a DNA test, and the test showed that he was not her father. Interestingly, based on an autograph signed by McCartney, together with some photos taken for the occasion, Bettina accused the person who took that DNA test of being a substitute for Paul, not the real Paul McCartney! The autograph, for instance, was signed by somebody right-handed (Paul was left-handed).

Carlesi and Gavazzeni do some damage control

Both of the Italian researchers were shocked to discover that the conspiracy theories appear valid, so at the end of the article they do some damage control by pointing out that since McCartney is a famous person, more analyses should be conducted before anybody makes these accusations so that we can be 100% certain about the conclusion.

Earlier in that article, Gavazzeni admitted that the more they were pressured to release the results of their analysis, the more they tried to stall for time because the evidence was pointing in the opposite direction of what they were hoping for. Unfortunately for them, the more the time they spent analyzing the evidence, the more certain they became that Paul McCartney really did die in 1966!

It’s also amusing to note that Carlesi said that she had agreed to get involved in the analysis because she assumed it would require only a few minutes of her time to prove that Paul and Faul are the same person!

Comments from readers of the Italian article

Some readers posted interesting comments at the bottom of the on-line version of the Wired Italia article:

• Reader frabot, on August 22, 2009 at 23:42:07 suggests to watch "The Late Show with David Letterman" for July 15, 2009 (is it a coincidence that this is the same date of the publication of that article by Wired Italia?), in which McCartney jokes about the idea that Paul died in 1966. That footage is interesting because Faul seems to lie in conversation with David Letterman:



• Reader Luca, on August 1, 2009 at 13:11:29 claims to have analyzed the voices of Paul and Faul and that their timbres differ. He also points out that after that accident the Beatles significantly changed their hair styles, especially McCartney, who conveniently had slightly longer hair on the right side of his head.

• Reader easytale, on July 30, 2009 at 9:53:35 points out that Faul played live only a very few times, songs like “Yesterday”, and that he played them only after the 1980s. And once, around the year 2000, he played in Canada using his right hand!

So, recapitulating:

• Forensic evidence shows that Faul is not Paul;

• Old photos were altered to make Faul more closely resemble Paul;

• Faul went through some dental operation(s) to have some of his teeth misaligned to mimic Paul’s particular defects;

• Faul had to learn to play left-handed.

How many people have been threatened, intimidated, killed, or bribed to keep quiet about this?

Acknowledgement: Special thanks to Eric Hufschmid, who published an earlier version in 2010 with this note: “Last year the cover-story of Wired Italia, the Italian edition of the US magazine Wired, was about two Italian researchers who tried to disprove the conspiracy theory that Paul McCartney had been replaced by an impostor. 

A man in Italy considered the article to have a lot of valuable information, and so he sent me a summary of it.” Eric did a bit of editing, where we have done a bit more, including the addition of several images for publication here."