You Can't Fix Stupid

The Questions of 9/11        

   
        There is little mystery in my own mind concerning what 9/11 actually was. Its foundations can be traced back through our history, to a time when the American government surrendered its sovereignty to corporate and foreign interests, to a time when the covert and hidden began to take precedence over the open and honest, and when the American people were deceived into believing that all was as it should be. The transition has been a gradual one, and like the proverbial frog in the pot, we have been largely unaware of the growing dangers surrounding us. So when something as traumatizing as 9/11 occurs, we have no context in which to place it. It is a senseless act of evil in an otherwise jolly daydream of consumerism and routine. Only when a face is put to the darkness do we experience some form of catharsis, and then it is back to business as usual. In essence, we do what we are told and think how we are told to think. Any inclination to the contrary is ridiculed and despised, revealing the sham behind the label of 'a free and open society'. Our society is as free as it is permitted to be and not one iota more. For many, the concept of freedom has been reduced to a right to choose what hamburger you want, or what new gadget to purchase. In reality we are fed the illusion of choice while a prison of lies closes in around us. Sound like paranoia? Well, perhaps the real paranoia is our paranoia of paranoia. It is time to open our eyes to history--not accepted history mind, but to what boils beneath it, to truths so often concealed. 9/11, like the Kennedy assassinations, the Gulf of Tonkin, Watergate, and Iran-Contra, represents those hidden truths and points to a darkness the common man has little desire to glimpse, much less look into full-on. But he must overcome his fear if any positive advancement is to be made. He must learn to stare into the shadows boldly--face them down and call their bluff. Evil is, after all, merely a parasite which feeds off of the good, and the light of truth dispels it completely. It is time to light our torches!


1. Magical Fires and Pixie Dust Concrete 

The Twin Towers turned to dust on 9/11. No, that is not really an exaggeration, given the overall mass of the actual buildings. Of course, everyone is familiar with the debris field at ground zero, but what they do not grasp is the relatively small size of said rubble in comparison to what should have been there. As it is, the majority of the Twin Towers' concrete was reduced to a fine powder and either carried away on the wind or spread over Lower Manhattan like a blanket of apocalyptic snow. This begs the obvious question: how was it done? What force was great enough to pulverize so much material? Oh yeah, I forgot...how silly of me... It all started with jet fuel. Yes! That is correct. The jet fuel that was consumed in giant fireballs outside the buildings when the planes struck the towers, and which then somehow managed to induce fires inside them hot enough to compromise steel! These magically consistent and concentrated blazes initiated mirror collapse sequences in both buildings, which produced enough accumulated force to render the steel and concrete structures little more than powder and a few twisted steel beams--Gee, I knew desktops were heavy back then, but not that heavy! Oh yeah, and the second tower that was hit actually fell first. Hmm, the second magical fire must have been hotter than the first magical fire! Now, those who might question the utter inanity of the above and ask me why on earth I believe it, I will simply respond with: "Why? Because Popular Mechanics and Scientific American told me so! And how could two such unquestionable authorities tell me anything but the truth? There were even TV programs that described how it all happened! FEMA and NIST conducted "official" expert studies as well. So there you have it! Signed and sealed! Of course, Popular Mechanics, in what as been touted as a "conspiracy theory debunking" piece, did almost solely address the far-fringe theories concerning 9/11. They constructed straw-men and then proceeded to knock them down one by one. Yeah, and I guess FEMA and NIST kind of contradicted each other...well, kind of more than kind of. And I suppose NIST never actually analyzed the collapse sequences themselves, only the airliner crashes and the moments leading up to collapse initiation. Oh well, they spent millions of dollars, so their report must be thorough on those prestigious grounds alone! And like I said, all of these people are experts, and "experts" are always entirely unbiased and of course never lie or obfuscate the truth! What counts is that the professionals and smart people have told me how to think, and so I am content, even though I might not understand how the laws of physics could have been suspended for only one day in history. But that is all well and good. After all, I am just a silly plebeian and not scientific at all. Was I silly enough to mention that many eyewitnesses heard bombs, or that debris from the rubble was analyzed and found to contain active traces of nano-thermite, a powerful explosive substance? Forgive me...I forgot that I have no business thinking. Tell me, what's on HBO tonight?"

According to NIST, the Twin Towers were in fact gigantic pixie sticks!

2. Cardboard Skyscrapers 101

And how could anyone forget World Trade Center 7, a forty-seven story building that virtually collapsed into its own footprint in the late afternoon of September 11th? Well, I guess the 9/11 Commission forgot, at least partially, because they did mention it in a footnote. This skyscraper was not hit by an aircraft, and so any theory involving magic jet fuel cannot apply here. The video coverage of the collapse depicts what can only be described as an absolutely perfect controlled demolition. And yet, the NIST report would have the American public believe that WTC 7 collapsed due to fires and falling debris from Towers 1 and 2. An extraordinary series of coincidences supposedly all worked in tandem to produce what has rather "scientifically" been dubbed a "progressive collapse". Yeah, who's living in a fantasy world again? Compare the collapse of WTC 7 with video footage from controlled demolitions--they appear to be one and the same. The destruction of 7 depicts a near-flawless vertical collapse, with pulverization of building material into a nice little pile--hardly what I would call open and shut evidence for an entirely random structural collapse! Had one actually occurred, it would have left chunks of the building intact and standing. Similar to what would have been present had the Twin Towers actually "pancaked" (as FEMA called it)--except in their cases the rubble would have looked like a mangled mass of stacked steel flapjacks many stories high. But the truth of the matter is that WTC 7, like the towers, was destroyed as a result of tremendous explosive power.  Oh yeah, did I mention that the BBC reported that Building 7 had collapsed a half hour before it actually did? Whoa! The mainstream news is now employing psychics! Who knew?

Hey, nice work on WTC 7's demolition guys! Looks like an easy clean-up! 

3. War Games and Stand-Downs all Around! 

Apparently, someone in the upper echelons of the military and air force had the bright idea of scheduling war games around the time, and on the actual day of, 9/11. What is a war game, you ask? It is when the military responds to a mock war/terrorism/emergency event(s). Curiously, on September 11th, 2001 multiple war game scenarios were underway, one of them involving the simulation of an airplane crashing into a building! One war game was so like the actual events of 9/11, it prompted much confusion among NORAD officials. There exists a recording in which a confused operator responds to the news of a 9/11 plane hijacking with, "is this real world or simulated?". Now, I'm not too bright, but doesn't all of that sort of stretch the limits of coincidence? Obviously, these war game scenarios played a role in delaying the military's response to the events of 9/11. In addition to them, the hands of military personnel were effectively tied as far as decisively responding to the attack. How? A bizarre precedent set by the Department of Defense required that military commanders gain the permission of the Secretary of Defense before proceeding with any interceptive action in regards to a hijacked aircraft. A June 1, 2001, addition allowed the immediate assistance of victims in such a scenario, but the permission requirement for lethal intervention remained. Hmm...As we all know, our Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld quite literally did nothing on 9/11 save walk around the Pentagon's lawn and get his picture taken. A convenient way to deny permission for military intervention is to simply *drumroll*  be unavailable when that permission is needed. Thanks Donald. As it stands, the failure of America's high-tech defense infrastructure on 9/11 appears to hardly have been an accident. Hey, if it had been, many military personnel would have actually gotten, I don't know, fired maybe! But in reality it was promotions all around! What an age-old method of keeping mouths shut: RAISE SALARIES. Anyway, the combination of the 9/11 war games with the veiled stand-down policy served to effectively neuter the military response to the attacks.

Rumsfeld, keeping us safe. 

4. Taking Out the Crime Scene Trash

Was anyone else ignorant of the fact that it is apparently standard practice for authorities to withhold or destroy crime-scene evidence? Only on 9/11 of course. As we have seen, that clear September day saw many unprecedented "firsts". After the WTC complex was destroyed like a sandbox castle, what remained of the structural steel was very quickly shipped off to China to be melted down... "Hey, um, guys? That stuff just happens to be crime-scene evidence. Yeah, we'll need that steel to determine how these buildings fell. You see, we can analyze it to ascertain how it was compromised. And furthermore, you...What was that? Huh? You're just following orders? Oh, well, that's different then! Sorry... carry on boys." My sympathies are somewhat with FEMA and NIST and their lame attempts (or non-attempts rather) at studying how the buildings collapsed. They really didn't have much to work with. The "clean-up" of 9/11 proceeded as if the entire event were a mere clinical controlled demolition of unwanted structures, rather than the horrific tragedy and crime that it actually was.

How many people realize that the attack on the Pentagon was captured by numerous security cameras? In addition to the Pentagon's own systems, there was footage taken by a nearby gas station and hotel. Yet, all such videos were immediately confiscated by the FBI and have not been glimpsed by anyone within the public sector. Yes I know... a few measly frames were released, supposedly captured from a security booth on the Pentagon grounds. The frames, each one curiously marked with an identical time stamp, depict...well, it is not really clear what they depict. Certainly not a Boeing 757 ramming into the building. We see what is supposedly the upper portion of an aircraft's tail--the size of which is nowhere near that of a passenger jet-- and behind it a vapor trail. These details, coupled with an absurd Hollywood explosion, renders the footage practically useless as a piece of evidence. Well, what can one expect from a video of such dubious origin--it was not even released by the military! Indeed, why would it have been? There are numerous other and undoubtedly better security videos to choose from! At least let us have our pick of them, so we can decide which one is the best! After all, numerous eyewitnesses saw the approach of the American Airlines jetliner, as well as its crash. So what do you all have to gain by withholding the video evidence? I don't know, you tell me. The classic excuse given to explain away government obfuscation is "national security". Ironic how that seems to apply the most when the authorities have absolutely nothing to lose by revealing the information. After all, their official explanations of the crimes themselves leave little to be guessed. We either have lone-nuts working exclusively from their own initiative or, as in this case, a conspiracy of Islamic extremists under orders from a man in a cave somewhere. Simple enough. So why should evidence of these crimes remain hidden after they have already been committed? Would not revealing the information actually aid rather than hinder national security? Would we not receive a more thorough knowledge of how the crimes occurred so as to take steps to prevent further incidents? Of course, if the authorities in question are themselves implicated by the evidence, well, we can see why they would then choose to conceal it. Who knows, maybe the Pentagon security videos depict men in black suits running around with smoke machines and pieces of airplane. Hard to say with our government.

"No, wait Bill! It looks better over here!"

Conclusion

There you have it ladies and gents! Several reasons why there is more to the events of 9/11 than you were told. I have merely scratched the surface, good people. These are but a few in hundreds of unanswered questions. In truth, 9/11 has all the trappings of what is known as a "false flag" event, in which a government stages acts of war or terror for the purpose of furthering an agenda. As with any such event, one need only look at who gained the most from 9/11 to discover the true culprits. In 2000, a Washington D.C. think-tank called, 'Project for the New American Century' published a paper titled, 'Rebuilding America's Defenses'. Among the authors were future core members of the Bush Administration. In short, their paper takes American Imperialism to the extreme, calling for nothing less than the domination of the Middle-East. What, do the authors suggest, would facilitate America's transformation into a global military behemoth? In their words, only a "new Pearl Harbor" would bring about the change in a timely manner. Well, one year later, they got just that, a catastrophic event that was used as a pretext to thrust America into a series of Middle-Eastern conflicts. The so-called "War on Terror" has generated tremendous profits for military and corporate interests alike, and has expanded America's global military presence dramatically. The elite of the world have always understood that war=gain for them, and so what better than an endless self-perpetuating conflict against a shadowy unseen enemy? The Soviets were the bogeymen of old, and now it is the terrorist, in every form, shape, and size. 9/11 was the catalyst for an unprecedented wave of fear in America. Fear was peddled and sold to the masses, and we've now forfeited our freedoms for vague promises of security. When we witnessed the towers fall and experienced the pain of great human loss, our emotions were channeled in a fashion that furthered a specific agenda. Our blind lust for revenge endorsed a war which had nothing to do with terrorists, or more specifically with those who were supposedly behind the 9/11 attacks. And so ten years on we stand around blinking stupidly, wondering how it is we got to where we are now. Fingers are pointed at George W. Bush, but he was nothing but a dupe, a pawn of interests far above him. When our country was being attacked, he remained seated in a Florida classroom pretending to read an upside down book while staring off into space. If anything can be read in his non-expression on the video footage it is this: "I've passed the point of no return." And indeed it was, not only for him, but for America and the world as well.

"ABCDEFG..."

Shall We Conspire?

        To question the "official" line of any major American event is a sure method of earning one the title "conspiracy theorist". Rather nonsensically, the title is linked in the cultural mindset with buck-toothed dope smokers, racists, traitors, domestic terrorists, and any number of demeaning images. The profile of the stereotypical conspiracy theorist, complete with his tin-foil hat and stockpile of spam, has long been firmly embedded into the American cultural consciousness. The media has done its job well over the last 50 years. While some within that great bastion of truth known as the MSM (Mainstream Media) no doubt feel it is their sacred duty to protect and safeguard the institutions of America, no matter how corrupt or diseased are said institutions, there are still others who represent another agenda altogether. William Colby, one-time director of the CIA, once said that the CIA owns anyone of significance within the mainstream media. In his autobiography, David Rockefeller also thanked several mainstream news outlets for protecting the interests of both himself as well as other elites. There can be no question then, that the major media in this country hardly epitomizes the search for objective truth, especially where major history influencing events are concerned.    

While many may never give their suspicions voice, there is a large (and ever growing) percentage of the population who do question what they are told by the media's talking heads. Such individuals realize that something is wrong, though they may not be able to lay their finger upon it. They will undoubtedly take the mainline when confronted, or play devil's advocate, but inside there are questions...many questions.

Despite what those at the top of the pyramid claim, conspiracists (or critical thinkers) are far from being a fringe minority. We are, in fact, the majority. Though there have been "scholarly" papers written that attempt to equate an inquiring mind with some type of disease, conspiracy theorists remain alive, well, and growing in number with each passing year. Do we have our lunatics? Sure. Like in every group, there are the crazies--those who form theories using the most convoluted methods of connecting-the-dots known to man. The media and psychologists have a field day with the type, and attempt to cast a net that would label all those who question the reality they've been fed as lunatics. It is a simple psychological ploy as old as the sun, used by leaders the world over to control their citizenry: The common man must be silenced and belittled into subjection, humiliated by the "enlightened ones", or the priest class, those who have been given an endorsement and credentialed by the powers that be. Your mainstream news anchor or political official has become the voice of the gods, and we had better bow in subjection lest we be shunned.

What the honest conspiracy theorist represents is nothing less than the voice of the people. He stands in opposition to unquestioning acquiescence, viewing as his creed the avid pursuit of truth. By a process of elimination, he seeks to yank back the curtains of concealment and subterfuge one by one. Do his efforts always meet with success? No. Even the greatest detective can pick up and follow false leads, trails that lead him a merry chase only to abandon him no better off than before. But occasionally, via a disciplined search for evidence, he succeeds in revealing a hidden truth, a revelation that will commonly earn him the scorn of the media. Attacks against him are not marked by their systematic evaluation of his evidence, but rather by the schoolyard tactics of name calling and brain-dead dismissal. Ironically enough, when an occasional defense of the official line is mustered, it comes off looking like the most absurd conspiracy theory imaginable. Again, an ancient example of hypocritical accusations cast at a populace by their rulers, who themselves are guilty of the very sins they judge those "beneath them" of. It amounts to little more than mind-control, and We the People must cease to be cowed by it. To search for truth is no sin: it is not an act of terrorism and it is not unpatriotic. In fact, there exists no greater patriotism than to safeguard the purity and honesty of one's own government by holding it accountable to the truth. So, join the merry ranks! Become a conspiracy theorist.                      

I'm Looking Through You: Part 2

     
       
          For this researcher, there can be little doubt that the man now known as James Paul McCartney is, in fact, an impostor. Both he and those who installed him over four decades ago have succeeded in deceiving the world in a way scarcely imaginable. In the view of mainstream history, the Beatles story is signed, sealed, and stamped: Four bright lads from Liverpool make it big, taking the world by storm in an unprecedented wave of musical celebrity. These same four lads become men, get fed up with stardom, retreat to the recording studio, get turned on and turned off, and then break up in a tizzy of arguments concerning girlfriends, producers, and money... Seems simple enough, and everyone who was involved has more or less confirmed the narrative over the last forty years, with a few notable exceptions by way of bizarre asides. But what rests beneath the surface? And what is to be made of truths plainly seen, but which go against the grain of what is accepted and taken at face value?
       
There can be little doubt that Paul McCartney changed dramatically, both physically and otherwise, after the summer of 1966. Some chalk it up to any number of causes: weight loss, drug use, an ego trip; a sudden interest in the avant garde art scene, etc. But such excuses, while acceptable to those who merely seek a shallow confirmation of a pre-conceived view, simply do not stand the evidence test. No amount of weight loss or drug use can account for a sudden drastic change in facial structure and height. No mere ego trip or changing interests can explain an about-face in personality and in personal tastes. Yet, we are led to believe that the McCartney changes occurred naturally within less than a six-month time frame! I am utterly flabbergasted by the fact that no journalist, TV host, etc. has ever questioned "McCartney" concerning this period. Even if the idea of a Beatle being replaced is totally absurd to you, one must concede the oddity of the above. What the official record would have the public believe is that "Paul" went from lovable moptop to greasy-haired hippie without so much as blinking. Well, reality points to a different story, regardless of the mainstream reluctance to confront it.
       
At the end of the Beatles' summer '66 tour, anomalies began to appear in Paul McCartney's appearance, and footage from those final days in August is hard to come by. Almost none remains (in the public sphere at least) from the band's last performance at Candlestick Park. Why?  After the tour, the Beatles quite suddenly go on hiatus, and Paul disappears from public view. He supposedly takes a safari in Kenya with Beatles' roadie Mal Evans, and returns in November to begin work on the groundbreaking Sgt. Pepper album. All of the above would be well and good, or at least partly suspicious, if "McCartney" had not come out of that autumn looking and acting like a different person. To illustrate, one might view the 'Paperback Writer' (1966) promotional video and that of 'Strawberry Fields' (1967) back to back. They were produced less than a year apart, but I defy any who would claim that McCartney is unchanged from one to the other. "He has a mustache and his hair is shorter," say some, who I cannot possibly take seriously. For starters, they might compare the widely different facial features between the "Paul" in Strawberry Fields and the McCartney of Paperback Writer. The faces are of a different structure, the two noses are of a differing shape and length, the ears do not match, and the eyes are not the same color.

"Paul" on his Kenyan safari

There are more than just physical differences to be noted in McCartney during the closing months of 1966 and after. Upon returning from the Kenya trip,  Mal Evans was sent by Brian Epstein to McCartney's Cavendish Avenue residence to fire his long-time housekeeper, ordering the man to gather his things and be out within an hour. The event, so uncharacteristic of the well-mannered and polite McCartney, was only the beginning of the dramatic and unprecedented character changes that would follow. The man currently known as "Paul McCartney" has, over the course of four decades, made himself a reputation for being obnoxious, petty, rude, and egotistical in the extreme. The current image has almost entirely engulfed the memory of the pre-'66 McCartney, who, though certainly no moral angel, was of a soft-spoken and thoughtful disposition, who displayed a fine taste in everything from music to clothing, and whose interests ranged widely, even to conspiracy research--he was the first reader to review attorney Mark Lane's groundbreaking manuscript on the JFK assassination, Rush to Judgement.

       
In 2009, a group of Italian researchers conducted a forensic investigation into PID. Comparing full-on photographs, they analyzed Paul McCartney's face both before and after 1966. Their conclusion: the images depict two different men, i.e, the original Paul was replaced by a lookalike sometime during '66. The results of the study were officially published in Italy's Wired magazine.




The obvious question we now face is simply: Why? Why was Paul McCartney replaced, and by whom. Further, did his replacement result from a mere accident, as the original rumor suggests? Or was he murdered by forces unknown? Additionally, why did the remaining Beatles keep their silence and continue to propagate the lie that the impostor was and is the genuine article? In light of their resilience, it is difficult initially to accept the obvious truth that Paul McCartney was replaced--the full force of psychological manipulation is at play here. As I mentioned above, the Beatle mythos is virtually set in stone. The public sphere has seen a myriad of information over the past forty years, fed to them via books, interviews, and the supposedly definitive Beatles Anthology. The man who has gone by the name "Paul McCartney" for so long has the art of deception down to a science. He lounges during interviews, casually firing off anecdotes about those "good old Beatlemania days", complete with bits of snark and lame attempts at jokes--The word "anecdotes" ought to be emphasized here, specifically in reference to "Paul's" recollection of events prior to 1966. If one looks past his slick delivery, it is not difficult to recognize that he may as well be quoting from a Beatles trivia book. His "memories" simply do not have the ring of authenticity one would expect from someone who had actually lived them. Tellingly, his more consistent and vivid recollections come from the years after 1966, and it is only when speaking of those years that his stories even out and form some semblance of an actual life's narrative-- "Paul" has, on several occasions, been asked about the rumors concerning his death. His responses have been cagey at best, and never in the form of direct denials. On one occasion he said that, no he was not dead, but just a "good replica". He has also repeatedly revealed an ignorance of how the death rumors first came to public light, claiming it was because he was barefooted on the Abbey Road album cover. Is he serious, or merely trying to confuse things further?        
       
Given the darker, more chaotic turn the Beatles' music took after 1966, it is tempting to recognize in the replacement of Paul the black hand-print of powerful elite interests. After all, the Beatles did not exist in a vacuum, nor can it be truthfully claimed (no matter what the official line) that their rise to fame was purely an organic phenomenon. There is a chance that the Beatles were a manufactured entity, a brainchild of England's psychological intelligence program via the mysterious Tavistock Institute. We now know that our own CIA was an instigator and manipulator of the hippie drug culture, and that the agency's efforts helped create many of the supposedly "rebel" musical acts of the 60's. John Lennon himself admitted in a 1980 interview for Playboy, that we had the CIA to "thank" for LSD. He also admitted that the Beatles set out with a specific cultural agenda. Could it be that the real James Paul McCartney grew tired of the game and wanted out? What if he desired freedom from his controllers? It is interesting to note that, prior to 1966, Paul was not heavily into drugs. We know that all the Beatles smoked pot, but Paul himself eschewed the use of psychedelics.  All that changed in 1968, when suddenly "he" confesses to LSD use, and gives an obstinate interview for all the world to see. Was McCartney cut from the loop for refusing to endorse the mascot drug of the hippie movement? We may never know for sure. But why the sudden change in the Beatles' music and style after the summer '66 tour? Was it merely innocent artistic growth, or the result of an ultimatum from on high? The Beatles were far from squeaky clean before the period in question, but it cannot be denied that their music took an unprecedented turn toward the psychedelic and the occult after 1966. Whatever the reason, all arrows seem to point to the possibility of James Paul McCartney's replacement being anything but an accident.
       
The idea of a sinister hand behind the scenes is given further credence when one discovers telltale signs surrounding PID. With this case, as with JFK's assassination and other such cover-ups, there is a high rate of suspicious deaths involving eyewitnesses and those who might have known too much. In relation to PID, two deaths of note would be the alleged "suicide" of Brian Epstein, the Beatles' manager, in 1967, and the murder of Mal Evans, the band's long-time roadie and the man who seems to have taken an active part in Paul's replacement. Evans was set to publish a tell-all memoir of his time with the Beatles, but was bizarrely killed by Los Angeles police in the early 70's for supposedly waving a BB gun around. His manuscript has never been found.
       
November 9th of this year marked the would-be release date of two new documentaries purporting to finally reveal the truth about Paul McCartney's replacement. Curiously enough, both distributors claimed to be embroiled in lawsuits and cease and desist letters which prevented them from releasing their films on the promised day. Cheap attention grab, or dark conspiracy? Who can say? The most recent PID film was the laughable 'Paul McCartney Really is Dead,' which was essentially a composite of several old theories, all presented by an obviously phony narrator pretending to be the voice of the real George Harrison. The creators of the film were evidently out to soil the creek even more than it already was previously, but their work has managed to bring PID to more people's attention, either in a negative or positive sense.
   
One of the new yet-to-be-released films was made by an entity calling itself "Iamaphoney," though at least one of the individuals involved is known by name. The new film is a sequel to an earlier work entitled The Winged Beatle, which reiterated the classic PID clues on Beatles albums, but also managed to present some enticing new tidbits previously unknown to this case. It seems Iamaphoney has pieced together an intricate web that links the Beatles with renowned satanist Aleister Crowley, and hints that Paul's replacement held a dark spiritual significance. Iamaphoney hopes to sort out the legal issues soon and then release the film. However, there is some reason to suspect that the Iamaphoney project is being secretly backed by none other than Apple Corp., the Beatles' own company. Is "Paul" anonymously confessing to the truth? Or are the videos merely another disinformation tool?  
     
PID, while remaining one of the more nebulous theories, is by no means devoid of concrete attributes. The most obvious is, of course, the physical differences between the Paul McCartney of early Beatles fame and the man who was photographed outside Abbey Road studios in November 1966, and who bears the "McCartney" name to this day. Secondly, there are the personality and stylistic differences to be noted, neither of which can be written off as easily as some would like. These two aspects of the case must serve as the foundation for all further inquiry. There are some researchers who have left the evidence field on this matter and gone off into the high grass. They claim that all the Beatles were replaced, or that there were three or five Paul McCartneys prior to 1966! Their reasons are far-ranging and fantastical, but all have one thing in common: they have latched onto flotsam instead of the lifeboat. Only by means of the lifeboat will we reach the shore in this case, otherwise we are left forever bobbing around it.


AL, 2012