Friday, 11 October 2013

Paul Together Now

This is truly just re-emphasising to one and all. 

To be the same person, certain things have to be consistent. And in these two images, one from 1972, the other from 1970, the INCONSISTENCIES are too many to not bring up question as to who this is supposed to be. Especially if he "died" in 1966. 

Our source images. 

The 1972 image has been converted to black & white. The 1970 image has been rotated so that his face will fall in line with where things are supposed to be on Paul McCartney. The dimensions are set by his right iris, but also can be set by the width of the eye, his nostrils, or his lips. 

So what's wrong with 1972 Paul and 1970 Paul? A lot. For one, 1972's ear is massive. Their ears don't match outright. We then get to that right eyebrow. How that's achieved, without 1970 Paul appearing scrunch faced and scowling I don't know. And even if 1972 Paul is raising his eyebrow, the shape it makes is inconsistent with the eyebrow he's got back in 1970. The nostrils don't match up. They are farther apart in 1970. He could be "flaring his nostrils" but this would only widen the shape of the nostrils themselves, not the connecting cartilage between them, which as said, is wider in 1970 than 1972. 1970 also has a wider mouth, and you can tell this even with the beard. 

It's the ear that should concern everyone. It's totally wrong. 


  1. You can't compare his ears in those 2 photos. On the 1972 photo on the left, his hair is short on the sides so you can clearly see both of his ears. On the 1970 photo on the right, his hair is long on the sides so you can only see his earlobe on his right ear - you can't see his left ear at all.

    1. Even though you say I can't, I did anyway! And I think your reasons of compromise with the photos are pretty moot. He'd have to tape back his right ear in 1970 to make it be that flush against his skull. So really, the only thing you're addressing is whether his hair is hiding the magic tape that's holding his ear down. But just ignore his high arcing right eyebrow, his thinner nose, and his smaller mouth - go for the ears I say when all else fails. ;)

      (ahhh sweet reminders of the good old days.)

  2. Notwithstanding all of this, my problem with the concept of multiple Pauls AFTER 1966 is a very basic one: Which of them married Linda Eastman? Whose children did she give birth to?

    After their marriage in 1968, was "Paul McCartney" ever seen without his wife in tow?

    Surely, she didn't agree to a surreptitious marriage to two men pretending to be one.

  3. Perhaps, she didn't know there was more than one. Have you seen The Prestige? Perhaps she knew but was willing to go along for the fame.
    And, I hate to use a cliche, but Heather Mills did say the public can't handle the truth about The Beatles (paraphrased).

  4. Oh, and yeah, the eyebrows. When I first saw this post I thought it was going to be about the glaringly different eyebrows.

  5. "You can be replaced chicky baby" - to quote A Hard Day's Night. Maybe the Lovely Linda had to play along, because if you're witness to how easily deceived the populace can be, and the type of power the industry yields, you just might say, okay, I'll go along with this. You might. They prevented Jimmy McCulloch from leaving Wings, even though he wasn't getting paid and wasn't performing with them for nearly a year. If they can do that when he's got other lucrative offers coming in, then think what can be done by those that actually have the power.

    I think Heather Mills is spot on. I don't think she's lying. She may be a puppet like all the rest, but she's a talking puppet.

    I want to do a whole eyebrow expose in technicolour! His eyebrows are the stuff of legend. ;)

    1. "They prevented Jimmy McCulloch from leaving Wings" They did ?? Why in the world would they care ( they being Paul and Linda ?) what Jimmy McCulloch did or didn't do ? To the world, Wings was Paul McCartney and some other guys who weren't The Beatles, plus his wife. And why wouldn't he get paid for playing in Wings ? And why would he be getting lucrative offers ? Because he's in Paul McCartney's band ? Doesn't make sense.

    2. They did. You can check the history of Wings for confirmation that McCartney paid that band next to nothing. McCulloch's complaint was not outlandish. You can find Denny Seiwell saying the same thing. He paid them next to nothing.

      In 1974 (into 1975) McCulloch was helping the James Gang find a guitarist to replace Tommy Bolin, who had just joined Deep Purple. In the end, McCulloch said, why don't I just join? I'm getting paid nothing, I haven't performed in a year with Wings, why don't I just join the James Gang. And he was. But McCartney got word of it, and put a stop to it.

      See Jim Fox, interview, Tommy Bolin website. He says it point blank. If I hadn't seen Denny Seiwell's account of his time in Wings and getting paid nothing I'd question it. He's not the first to say it.


      AW: Did he leave before Tommy.

      JF: No, I guess we sort of let him go After Tommy was gone.

      AW: Did the band break up at this point?

      JF: No. Its interesting. I’ve read that said about us but its completely not true. We went immediately on. It didn’t take long to find new musicians We went and formed a really interesting band that never came to be. We had a really interesting band. The first thing Dale and I did was go to England to find a guitar player, and we must have listened to 75 players over there and did not find anyone who made sense. We had decided that Bubba Keith and Richards Stack would be the nucleus of the next version of the Gang, but I felt we were missing something. We needed a true lead guitarist, but weren’t sure Richard was up to the task . We had tried 75 guitar players, this guy Jimmie McCullough was helping us find people. He had been in the Thunderclap Newman band and was at a that time playing with Wings (Paul McCartney), and Jimmy was a friend and played for Paul so we never thought of offering him the job. He called when we returned and asked if we would consider him? In a year with McCartney, he had never rehearsed, toured or cut a record. He was frustrated, and he wasn’t getting paid. They agreed he would join, but Paul caught wind of it and Linda called him and talked him out of it, and Jimmy made what turned out to be the right decision. He stayed with Paul. We would have a very interesting band with 5 people, Bubba Keith, Richard Stack and Jimmy. James Gang would have been a quintet! So we didn’t break up because we embarked on that very quickly after Tommy left.

      After Mike Belkin mentioned that Tommy had left I let it sit for a few weeks. I called to talk to Tommy on a personal level to let him know I wasn’t angry with him. So I waited a few weeks, called and Karen answered the phone and we talked for a few minutes. When Tommy got on the phone I said “Hey, you’re missing rehearsals every fuckin’ day, man! What’s wrong with you?” We had a big laugh and went on from there. Unfortunately we didn’t get to spend a lot of time with him before his death because we were busy and he was busy. We got together only maybe a few times between his leaving the band and the time he died.

    4. Google's being a bitch tonight. I write something, it signs me out, I lose what I've written.

      It was not the right decision in the end because McCulloch died under very suspicious circumstances after departing Wings. His death was ruled open verdict, enough evidence of foul play. He died of morphine poisoning, not a heroin overdose.

      Considering Wings carried on lets get the party started with barely a word about their recently departed guitarist is not strange in the land of Paul. He doesn't attend his father's funeral, he has little to say when Brian Epstein dies, and came out with something totally flippant when Lennon died. So McCulloch departing this mortal coil without McCartney batting an eyelash is not rare. It's actually typical. But he did not pay that band well, if at all. In fact you can find an interview with Laurence Juber directly asking him if he was paid well because the legend of McCartney being a cheapskate had its merits. Or find that Youtube interview with Denny Seiwell. He states the same thing. Or even Joe English. McCartney didn't pay them barely anything.

  6. I don't buy into the replacment theory, but it is interesting that they use the image of McCartney's eye, including the arched eyebrow, on the cover of the McCartney Years DVD. It is almost as though that is being incorporated into the McCartney brand.

  7. But there's nothing to buy. You've already been sold it.

  8. I don't buy the replacement theory either.
    It is the Multiples theory; multiples used to pull off the PID motif, that resonates with me.
    If they went through the trouble to put all those metaphorical death clues in their work, why not also have more than one Paul, to complete the goal at least subconsciously in the minds of the public. (More consciously to PIDers).

    The replacement theory being the superficial answer to the enigma.

    Of course, there are those that say the Multiples theory beggars belief, and I don't blame them for saying that. Nor do I expect people to believe me. However, truth is stranger than fiction. And there is abundant evidence of multiples, as I see it.

    1. Replacement/Multiples: I just thought that was what was meant. He's replaced with another. I don't buy the Paul Is Dead 1966, REAL JPM, FAKE PM tag.

      The problem with photos is this, and I rarely go that route if I have to because a number of things occur.

      The photos could be tampered with in the first place. Especially within the last 10 years or so. When you go the photo route you run into the people that come in out of nowhere saying No no no what about the ..... paying attention to one singular thing while 4 other things escape their attention. Where they come from I am unsure, but they come out in droves. It's one reason I avoid the photo route. And I believe there's enough in the Beatles Mythology to tell everyone SOMETHING'S GOING ON HERE. So I'd rather pay attention to the stories that don't make sense, the tales told that can't be true, and the inconsistencies coming from those around to tell them. That I find more interesting than photos of PID. Yes they're important, but they're also the most susceptible to tampering. Whether it's the PM crowd purposefully doing so (and the Coming UP video is suspect to me, even though spotting attached/detached earlobes on the "same" person in that video is pretty easy. Well, WAS it like that back in 1980. Has someone re-touched it to play the PID myth? Who would think to mess with his earlobes in the first place? Just to see if people pay attention?) Well I'm a very observant person by nature, but I didn't start thinking there was anything to PID until about 10 years ago. Before that I didn't think a thing of it, other than I didn't like Paul McCartney anyway!

    2. I also think messing around with photos upon photos brings out the Halliday/Unwin/Aspinall/Stanshall/etc.which I don't "buy" at all. I honestly don't know what to make of all that, which is again, why I'd rather pay attention to something like why did Paul McCartney not attend his father's funeral? When did he get time to do The Family Way soundtrack? Why is Tara Browne's steering wheel OUTSIDE of the car? Why was Mal Evans shot down? Did The Beatles know Charles Manson?

      These are the questions I'd rather address about PID, because I think something's there. On the odd occasion I will go the photo route, and I do think those height discrepancies throughout their whole career is something that does need to be addressed. Otherwise, I wouldn't post about it. Multiples? I don't NOT consider it. How do we know the technology/science ISN'T there? When I think about the current situation in America, especially about guns and the right to arm oneself, I think --- the weapons the military have at their disposal makes guns pointless, If they want to take you out, it doesn't matter if you have a gun or not. They most likely have some sort of hallucinogenic that will make you think you're a duck for 5 weeks and render you powerless (and unable to lay eggs. Which would probably be frustrating more than demoralising.) But to what I know of the experiments undertaken by that military, I know that whether you have a gun or not, you're screwed. They have ways of blowing up the world a hundred times over. So to think that you and a pistol is going to make a difference is, well good old fashioned 1776 Spin. It won't make a damn bit of difference. Not if they have control of your water supply. Of your power supply. Anyway I digressed. The possibility of clones/multiples I never ever disregard. I think they could do it. I think they can do a lot of things unknown to the populace. Who knows, it could be an advanced form of Magic. Or an advanced technology. It could be anything, but my belief is Religion and Science are just the children of Magick. It is as prevalent today as it was back then.

      I may have gotten confused as to the meaning of "replacement." I view any version of McCartney as a replacement. But i don't necessarily trust photos. But then someone comes in straight away in that Icke/NIR fashion very very quickly, and I have to pay attention to that turnaround. Photo evidence is like bait. What or who it pulls in has always interested me. And as said, I'd rather stick to things like why are Mal Evans accounts of Africa, and McCartney's accounts, stories that don't match. And they don't match with other people's stories either. And you go across the board and no one's stories match up. It's like they had a plan, and then lost it when everyone forgot what they were supposed to stick with. That interests me greatly. And the symbolism.

  9. Just going by Vintage pre-67 magazines and album covers alone, I see multiples. The rest is icing. Whether it was made to look like there were multiples, or there really were, I guess I can't say. But I wonder why it would be made to look like that.
    Not to mention all of the films. They would have to work on every frame and get it to look perfect.

    What is the PM crowd?

  10. With that being said, yes I have also moved away from photos. You can never satisfy anyone with them. Besides I think I've already analyzed every photo & video that can be found.
    People can't deny the facts provided by unalterable evidence.
    Though that doesn't stop them from turning a blind eye to them.
    (Though I'm certain little to no photos & videos have been altered, at least not in 'that' way. Cosmetically some magazines yes, but even then they didn't even make the fake ears look real. Just thinking out loud).

    Right as I was hitting the 'publish' button on my last comment I realized "PM crowd" probably means Paul McCartney, right?

    1. Yea, but an overall PM Crowd -- as in Apple, MPL, Capitol/EMI etc. When his website had a timeline that only started in 1966, one has to say, surely this is deliberate and playing into it. I just don't see where the money comes from it, the sales. No one has to buy anything anymore, whether he's dead or not, so putting a 1966 start timeline comes off as an in-joke. But it's one that's been played for 40+ years. It's just not funny anymore.

  11. Paul is Dead, multiple Pauls - it's all too much really. Is it magick ? Was the world under a spell ? I was a teenager 1966-1969 and had lots of friends who, like me, loved The Beatles. No youtube or internet or cable TV but we did see them in promo films on TV, in magazines like Teen Set and on rare occasion an interview show like Johnny Carson ( who was off that day) - the thing is - NOBODY, not one person, ever thought Paul wasn't Paul. Nobody. Not until after Abbey Road came out and the rumor hit. And it hit big but before that - 1967, 1968 - nobody ever thought Paul didn't look or sound like Paul. Too bad Iamaphoney turned out to really be a phoney - revelation ? Can anything be a "final indisputable" proof ? Now the internet has many sites claiming all 4 Beatles were replaced (!!??) Yikes !!!!

    1. Actually, regardless of what you and your friends thought, there were certainly people who thought that Paul appeared "different".

      But why would anyone -- including those people - think (without further encouragement) that "Paul wasn't Paul"? If "no one thought" that Paul wasn't Paul, what would that prove?

      If four people are being credibly presented to you as "the Beatles", you are naturally going to accept them as "the Beatles" and any feeling that something or someone seems to be a little off is going to be subordinated to your common sense.

      You're not going to leap to the conclusion that Paul isn't Paul; you're going to simply conclude that he's "changed" somehow. A number of people did conclude that.

      The Beatles famous rendition of "Hey Jude" in front of their friends and closest groupies was performed on the David Frost Show.

      The piano is being played and the lead is being sung by a particularly waxy weird-looking McCartney, but if David Frost has just introduced the band as a whole as "the Beatles -- well, NATURALLY, the first thing that comes to your mind isn't going to be "Damn it, that's not Paul on the piano."

      But not everyone initially took to the post-Candlestick Park Beatles, and there was more than a little disconcertment with the change (check out the Dick Clark interview with a teenage audience following the release of "Strawberry Fields"), but OF COURSE, the notion that "Paul wasn't Paul" wasn't going to rise to the top of anyone's mind without further inducement.

      What rose to the top of the minds of some was simply that the Beatles were "strange". They were "different". Especially Paul.

      But, mind you, there ARE people who will tell you TODAY that they heard rumors about Paul McCartney's death -- or at any rate, about the death of a Beatle -- before October 1969 -- rumors that pretty much follow the urban legendary car accident.

      I have run into more than one person online who swears that an announcement to this effect was broadcast during a televised broadcast of "The Monkees" in 1966 -- and that this news item was never followed up upon.

      Are their memories being edited by the actual rumor that made its way around the world -- after the fact -- in October 1969?

      Possibly, though an author named Ernst Schultze was impressed enough with his memory to write a fictitious novel entitled "Carry That Weight" which faithfully records the story of the death of Paul McCartney by car accident and his replacement by an estranged twin brother named William.

      Schultze wrote an afterword, in which he describes his own childhood experience of having heard the rumor over the radio in 1966 and of never having his curiosity satisfied after the story disappeared.

    2. Here is another fact: On November 2, 1969, a story appeared in the New York Times that was attributed to a reporter named "J. Marks". Who in the world is/was J. Marks? How do you doubt a byline like that?

      The title of the story was "No, No, No, Paul McCartney Is Not Dead". The story largely ridicules the world-wide rumor and, in the body of the story, the writer murmurs something about death wishes and Greek mythology.

      Yet also, incredibly enough, in this November 1969 story, the writer ALSO talks about having visited London in the fall of 1967 with a young photographer named Linda Eastman who bemoaned the fact that Paul McCartney's engagement to Jane Asher had made him unavailable.

      Much to their surprise -- remember this is the fall of 1967 -- someone described as "a friend of the Beatles" (not as a crazed rumor-monging groupie) responds by telling Marks and Eastman that the real Paul McCartney had died last November and this guy who you see in Jane Asher's company is a replacement who is just helping her keep up appearances for a while until it becomes time to announce a breakup.

      The writer didn't see fit to print (or further investigate) that story when he first heard it in 1967 or when Linda Eastman married Paul McCartney in 1968 and he seems to completely disregard its significance when he writes a contrarian story under a contrarian headline in November 1969.

      But the bottom line is that whether you want to regard the car crash/replacement story as a hoax; as a marketing ploy; as bottled-up truth, or as a smokescreen or cover story for something much much bigger (i.e., doubles, clones, shape-shifting aliens, etc.) -- there is just too much provenance to disregard it altogether as far as I'm concerned.

    3. Almost forgot to mention that Roby Younge -- better known as the DJ who broke the story and described some of the more famous clues over New York radio -- later told a story based on personal experience similar to the New York Times story written under the byline "J. Marks".

    4. Thanks Mark for all that information -- the "J.Marks" was brand new to me.

      There's just too many stories floating around on the fringes and within the camp proper to ignore that SOMETHING is going on with The Beatles, and some of it is so elaborate and tightly woven that attributing its creation to 4 "moptops from Liverpool" is giving them way way way too much credit. This is elaborate, but at the same time no ones stories match up. It all falls apart when they speak.

    5. You're welcome, Gerard.

      The original NYT story is accessible online and downloadable for a small fee. I am always puzzled every time I look at it. I just don't know what to make of it.

      The author ridicules the public for...what exactly? For following some album and lyrical clues into some wild, crazy, ridiculous rumor that...that...that...that pretty much matches what a reliable source had told him some two years earlier which he didn't bother to publish.

      I simply cannot follow his reasoning. Who was he and why did he write this story in the first place? Why did the Times publish it?