Wikipedia says Ron Paul is still alive. That's good enough for me.

As a musician, it's hard for me to believe

Haven't looked into this too much, some of the photos do seem suspicious. What's the best presentation you have seen about it?

So you are saying that someone else wrote and performed Helter Skelter? Because if that's the case dude was more talented than Paul was.

That song fucking rules, no matter what Manson and Bono tried to do to it.

No, it's not that Paul died and was switched. "Paul" was twins from the beginning, and for many years they switched back and forth for many years: http://mileswmathis.com/paul8.pdf

Hmmm... hadn't considered that. Here is a great blog that has recently started to unearth all the twins in the media and pop culture: https://pieceofmindful.com/

Faul has been Paul longer than Paul was Paul. So whatever IT was it worked. And is still working. I don't necessarily think Paul died. I think he was unable to go on touring. I think he was aging rapidly and either quit or was replaced. I think the idea of a car crash is just an inside joke or possibly even viral marketing that JL and the rest just ran with. I have found that calling it "Paul is Dead" is pointlessly counter-productive. What I call it when i discuss it with people is Three Beatles. I have found that when i say Paul is dead people have an instant reaction and make up their minds right away. If refer to the Three Beatles they at least have to consider how the music and the personal chemistry between the Beatles changed. When i listen to Sgt. Peppers and later what i hear are songs by the Three Beatles or i hear songs by Faul and George Martin.

IMO: A showcase psyop to "blackwash" conspiracy theories in general (Kennedy assassinations, MLK, etc.)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_propaganda

Come on...You can't be serious. I know every possible clue there is, and they're all pretty clever (although some clues were imagined and turned out to "fit" nonetheless), but it's easy to see the motive.

Further, you know nothing about the band: nobody who has any interest in the Beatles, whether in their music or in your mock forensic efforts, or even just pop culture would spell John Lennon's name as "Jon". Secondly, the statement that John, George, Ringo couldn't carry the band demonstrates a misunderstanding of the band as a whole.

No fucking illuminati were involved: while globalists were gathering steam by the 1930s, this country was not fully relinquished to the deep state oligarchy until JFK. And the illuminati (whoever you imagine that is...the Jesuits or the Rothschilds, or whoever), never would begin to look at pop music bands. Elvis was a crazy sensation in America, but no one EVER expected the overnight fame that the Beatles had...their kind were not taken seriously...the equivalent of success back then were manufactured boy bands.

To be honest, while they were extremely talented, they had to practice for 2 years, then try and get someone to record them when no one existed like them...luck, perserverence, and their personalities opened doors. John and Paul's songwriting abilities turned them from a pop band into cultural icons.

It's fun to look at Paul is Dead clues, I agree...we did as kids in the 1980s. But it's such shite to believe its true, and crazier to think the illuminati were involved. That wasn't even in the theory when it first became popular.

James Fetzer, smart guy, but gullible of every thought he has because if his self-proclaimed omniscience actually claimed Paul McCartney was dead in a podcast 2 years ago. How anyone who wants credibility in JFK or 9/11 discussions would decide to promote one of the classic put-ons of the last 60 years is beyond me.

I like conspiracy theories, but I'm grounded in reason, or if not reason, I at least educate myself in the subject matter.

There is no reason why anyone would proactively create either Elvis or The Beatles. To what gain? To further the globalist agenda in the 1950s and early 1960s using a form of music that both America and Europe (and the World) thought was inconsequential?

Elvis became something no one had seen before in the U.S. Europe had their music (and singers and bands) trying to perform rock and roll coming out of America (whether Elvis, Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry), but neither country took the music seriously except for record companies who thought they could make a few bucks on some band while it was popular (which was ~6 months to maybe 1 year).

So what would the motive (and the means) behind creating Elvis, (who was irrelevant by 1960), and then the Beatles in Europe in 1963, and then America and the world by 1964?

[deleted]

But before was different. There was no market or influence prior to Elvis, and even Elvis was mostly sex appeal (he had nothing much to say). He started rock n roll, but it wasn't taken seriously. You still had songs betting churned out by the Brill Building and given to one-off singers or bands. Bob Dylan was the first to bring something serious to music speaking to young people, but it was folk music with a social conscience and it didn't have widespread appeal.

The Beatles weren't created. They barely made it as it was. As I said, their tightness as a band and their chemistry on stage (and their relatively good looks), coupled with Brian Epstein later outfitting them in stylish suits and ties. But pretty much everything that got them anywhere was their vocal harmonies (just luck that they meshed so well), their intelligence and charm. Later when they finally were given one chance by George Martin (to sing a song he picked out), they went out on a limb and insisted that they do "Please Please Me", to the chagrin of Martin, but he made a few suggestions and in in afternoon they recorded it, and it was their first #1.

Epstein promoted them, they recorded an album of covers and originals (also heavily promoted), and by 1963, they took on a life of their own. Nobody engineered it. Their breakthrough to fame was 50% luck, 30% charm, and 20% the early bond of John and Paul (back in 1956-57) which allowed them to write as one (in the early days).