You are here

Jim Fetzer and callers (maybe including Paul McCartney?) on “Paul is dead”

Friday 4/10- Listen live – 8 to 10 pm Eastern on Revolution Radio:  – click on the “Studio B” button. To be rebroadcast Sunday 11 a.m. to 12:45 p.m. Eastern on  and then archived at the usual spot.

Jim Fetzer believes Paul McCartney died in 1966 and was replaced by a look-alike. I’m not convinced.  So I have invited Paul and anyone else who’s interested to call in to tonight’s live broadcast and share their views. See my new VT article:

Dear Paul McCartney: Please call in to my show tonight and PROVE you aren’t dead!

Paul is reputed to believe that reports of his death have been greatly exaggerated. But if he doesn’t call in and say so, we’ll just have to assume he really did die back in 1966, won’t we?

To call in, you will have to send a Skype contact request IN ADVANCE to my Skype handle, DrKevinBarrett. Talk soon, Paul!

* * *

Postscript: Paul McCartney did NOT call in – but his former bandmate “Lenn Johnston” did! See:

10 Thoughts to “Jim Fetzer and callers (maybe including Paul McCartney?) on “Paul is dead””

  1. Anonymous

    Well, I listened to your "debate" and (still) have to side with Jim on, this one., Not that there was any actual debate; it was more like a pot luck, argument with folks hurling pizzas at each other … but … I think the PREPONDERANCE of evidence favours Jim on this one. There are just too many factors to dismiss in order to support a small, prank or series of small pranks. The key factor is the total re-invention of the Beatles after 1966. Other groups change too … but the change is incremental … resulting, in a gradual evolution or transformation of the group. With the Beatles it was as if they disappeared from the earth and then, suddenly reappeared as something totally unrecognizable from the, original "fab four." I always wondered about that. What the heck happened to them? The death of Paul and a replacement … explains it all.

  2. Anonymous

    Great, funny picture of Jim Fetzer on Abbey Road!!!

  3. Anonymous

    Humor is wonderful. And parts of the show were very funny, especially Len. However, the second "James" came through as an annoying shill and a suck up. It also felt like you lost control of the show.

    I just don't think flip flopping between utterly serious journalism and what is basically a farce (except to Fetzer) enhances your credibility. I think it severely diminishes it.

  4. Anonymous

    To spend more than 10 minutes on this subject is a waste of everyone's time. As to Jim's ridiculous "evidence": Intermittently receding chin depending on his jaw tension? Dozens of photos on google images show it before 1966. Do your own "research" on this. It's easy. Height discrepancy? Scroll to the photo captioned Paul McCartney and Jane Asher: May 1964, Again, there are 100's of photos showing this. This show was truly a sad farce, except for the very creative caller, who showed more intelligence than either host or guest. You should have let him continue on the holohoax expose. Jim's idea of evidence is to shout as loudly as possible. You did, however, without trying successfully expose Jim Fetzer as the arrogant bombastic buffoon that he so clearly is. No google search or further evidence needed to confirm that. He calls you a CIA shill for not believing Paul is a replacement? Geez, by that token, your infatuation with Naomi Klein as a truth teller, rather than a high level disinformationist gatekeeper like Amy Goodman and Noam Chomsky practically makes you Wild Bill Donovan. Based on Jim's admitted lifelong desire actually to BE Paul (shades of Mark David Chapman's programming), it is hardly surprising that he could find his unconscious wish fulfillment by believing that Paul is dead. Have you ever heard of Capgras syndrome?, But why believe the Ringo parody? There's one from George too, ridiculously claiming to be a recording of his voice, the so-called Last Testament of George Harrison:, Jim was right about one thing, nonsense such as this truly discredits not only him but you. Are you a farceur, or a serious journalist? It is not possible to be both. This was great as comedy, but a complete disservice to truth in any form whatsoever. Perhaps you should try your hand at 9/11 stand-up on open mike night at the comedy cashbox. Sorry, my ten minutes are up. Remember, disinformation only needs to include 2% falsehood to be effective. You are over quota.

  5. Anonymous

    Thanks for the lighthearted letter to "Paul" or whoever it is that has assumed his persona. I needed the smile this morning. Very well written.

    If I were "Paul" and had actually read your amusing letter then I'd have been tempted to call in to the show – just for the fun of it. That show would have gone viral and would have been a hoot to listen to.

    Thanks again.

  6. As it turned out, the call-in from "Lenn Johnston" was even funnier than a call from Paul/Faul himself/nothimself would have been.

  7. Anonymous

    Hey Kevin !

    Don't fall out with lovely Jim Fetzer over Paul/Faul. I love you both dearly – you do such great work – and you're charming and witty too. I used to be on your side on the Paul question. No longer – and I am quite discombobulated by it I can tell you ! Consider the following :

    small nose – turns up
    narrow mouth – natural pout
    symmetrical jawline/ central indent
    small round face / head
    large brown eyes
    unevenly placed teeth
    protruding ears
    narrow palate
    not very tall

    long nose – turns down
    wide mouth – no pout (often purses lips to obscure
    asymmetrical jaw/ off centre indent
    long thinner face / head
    paler smaller eyes
    regular teeth placement
    no protrusion and different
    larger rounder palate
    several inches taller

    The above changes simply cannot be explained. To see them most clearly, take care to find the last photos of Paul and the first of Faul to ensure the least time has elapsed to account for changes. I believe we think we know what McCartneey looks like because we have had almost 50 years of Faul – we think we know him. We only had a few years of Paul and we imagine he just looks different because he was young. Also, back then there wasn't the same wall to wall celebrity media. Paul's image was known from being on stage, (at a distance ) and from occasional tv appearances and album covers. I think in those days the passing off of a look alike would have been easier. Also, they turned up with funny haircuts and moustaches on Sgt. Pepper's and stopped live appearances so the Faul image was now largely confined to album covers where differences could be obscured. Paul was a very cute boy in '66. A few months later he was a more manly, but not cute at all, man. I bet his female fans wondered why they didn't fancy him any more.

    Consider the differences :-

    the nose can be shortened – but lengthened ?!? The mouth cannot be widened. The curve of the jaw does not change. The face /head doesn't suddenly grow large/longer. Eyes don't change colour – and Paul had large puppy dog eyes. Irises don't get smaller. Teeth can be changed but it requires many months in braces. Ears can be pinned – but the actual shape of the ear is individual like a fingerprint – they don't match. The palate can only be changed by extreme surgery – only done in the case of cancer or deformity and again needing long months or even years of treatment / healing. No one gets taller after the age of 25. The changes cannot be accounted for. These changes are impossible – so they can't be actual.

  8. Anonymous

    I agree with you that dubious articles and clues in album covers is not evidence. Forensic evidence comparing the skull/ facial bone structure however, is evidence and is widely used to identify missing persons and as evidence in court. It is a tried and tested method because the proportions of the skull do not change by age or weight gain or plastic surgery. The dimensions of the face / the proportions between eyes to mouth to ears to nose to jawline – they are set in adulthood for life. If the face of Faul was superimposed on that of Paul by a forensic scientist in a court of law, I believe he would be declared an imposter. If it doesn't fit, you must admit – it is not Paul. There is also retinal and facial recognition, and what about fingerprints ? I believe there are some from the Hamburg days. The rumours could have been easily dispelled at any time – and by DNA. They haven't been.

    I was disturbed to read that Paul had been trying to get a film made of Mark Lane's Rush To Judgement. There's no doubt Paul, at the height of his fame, could have drawn world wide attention to the coup d'état. Could he have been gotten rid of ?!?! I have no idea if there is anything to this story, Jim would be the man to look into it.

    I resisted this story – it seemed too silly. Now I have been persuaded by the evidence it does make some sense to me. I wondered why Wings were so bad. These songs sounded like they were written by someone who couldn't write songs – but was just doing it anyway ! A Wings' song was typically an uninspired ramble that went nowhere. Some of Faul's songs are the worst ever written e.g. Wonderful Xmas Time or Someone Knocking at the Door or that awful thing he did with Michael Jackson. I don't believe they would have ever been heard without the McCartney name. Also, did you ever notice that he had a very strange accent – hardly Liverpool at all. I also think his voice is higher – Paul had more bass tones.

    Anyway, enough of my babbling. Make up with Jim. Keep up the good work. I love you dearly.

    Wishing you only good things.

  9. Anonymous

    With all due respect for the important work that you do: The debate with Professor Jim Fetzer on the Paul McCartney death, seems to remind me of the debate (albeit less aggressive) between Professor Fetzer and the TUT gang regarding Sandy Hook.
    You discount some evidence of Paul’s death because it was printed in a journal which you have decided is not qualified to print truth. It sounds like Professor Finkelstein not attending the Holocaust conference in Iran because he did not view the other attendees as being qualified to discuss the Holocaust.
    One should examine the facts presented not based where they are presented or who presents them. I attended a 911 conference, where they presented Bollyn as a white supremacist and anti-Semite, obviously concluding that his research has no validity, or the 911 debunkers who discount the ‘conspiracy theories’ because the premise is too absurd.

    In short you resort to the same tactics that non-truth seekers resort to, in order to subvert the truth, disparaging, ridiculing, or ignoring compelling evidence.

    If you are looking for sources regarding Paul’s death etc, they are out there, your view is that there is much misinformation on the internet, then should we better ignore all the false flag info that we find there?

    And that fellow who devoted his entire life to looking and sounding like someone else is in need of a reality check instead of being given an inordinate amount of airtime on your debate show.

    BTW there were no (commercial) planes that hit the towers simply because the evidence does not support that theory!!

    I saw David Copperfield walk on air- live!! Does that mean he really did it because I saw
    him do it???

  10. Anonymous

    Glad to see a preponderance of decent evidence sifting here, but unfortunately, it's not by Barrett, this time. Paul died.

Leave a Comment