Via photo-shop Billy & Paul are able to bridge the wide gap of many decades to be brought together.
And again below, they have both "come together...unnaturally"
Here I liked to explain my reasons for creating this blog, but first let me state that I have no axe to grind nor do I have any personal agenda with regards to the person who has played the role of James Paul McCartney for the last 57+years (a period which is more than double the length that James Paul McCartney's was seen in public) as I was a mere 7 years old at the time when the Beatles decided to call it quits, I have virtually no memory of them when they were still considered to be the world's most famous pop/rock group.
When one considers just how long the replacement has been playing his part as one of the world's most famous singer-songwriter, and in virtue of that fact, around two thirds of all internet pictures of McCartney are actually of his replacement, then it shouldn't come as a surprise that the substitute's face would naturally be the more recognizable of the two "McCartneys". However, this is an aspect that the majority of Beatles/McCartney fans seemed to have overlooked. Why might that be?
One possible explanation for it may be found in the below statement made by Wilson Brian Key PhD, who was an author of several books on the subject of subliminal messages and advertising. He once stated the following... "It is quite possible that societies, much like individuals, collectively repress information, concepts and ideas which would otherwise produce high levels of anxiety if dealt with consciously"
Cognitive dissonance is claimed to be even more pervasive in today's societies than it has been in the past. It is defined as the following...
When a person (or group of people) know that something is wrong but choose, consciously or unconsciously, not to see or recognise it. It is a defense mechanism whereby people avoid acknowledging that there is a problem or something is not as it should be. Which basically mirrors what Wilson Key stated. All that said, now getting back to why I have bothered to make this blog. The whole story about Paul McCartney dying and being replaced can be used as a kind of analogy or maybe a subplot. It is merely a microcosm of much of the news which we are exposed to today via mass media and alternative media. Meaning that what we are told and shown by such organisations is often not what really happened, or sometimes never even occurred at all.
Whoever the group, or whatever the organization is that was responsible for replacing James Paul McCartney with a substitute, who, when you study him, doesn't look close enough to the original to be accepted without question as that person, were successful in pulling off such an unbelievably audacious deception, especially when considering just how much the Beatles were in the main spotlight at that time, it begs the question...what other charades and machinations could "they" have also gotten away with in the intervening decades since those long ago swinging sixties?
It's more than likely that these days many things we see, via the various forms of media, may not be exactly...or at all, what they appear to be!
In the early months of 1967, a rumour sprang up in the UK that quickly spread throughout the rock & roll world. It was a story that would soon morph into an urban legend, one which has managed to persist...until the present day.
For those unfamiliar with it, the story goes that on, or around, the 11th of September, 1966, Paul James McCartney of The Beatles was involved in a serious automobile accident and died as a result of the injuries he sustained in it. By mid November he had been replaced by an unknown session musician, one who had undergone appearance modification surgery so as to resemble the world's most famous bassist.
It's said that this was done to give the band and its management some breathing space to assess the predicament which they found themselves in, and to give all involved enough time to figure out what should be done next.
This charade was originally meant to be kept in place for only a short period of time, however it, for reasons that can only be speculated at, has continued, like the "legend" itself, up until the present day.
At face value, the story seems to be extremely farfetched, and for that reason many who have come across it have been quick to dismiss it outright as an absurd fabrication. However, it seems self-evident that many of the debunkers of the PID (Paul is Dead) story haven't bothered to give it much more than just a cursory inspection. I mention this only because if anyone who is interested in doing research into this subject makes a reasonable effort to scratch away at its surface, it should then soon become apparent to them that not all is as it appears to be.
To say that there's a lot more to this "urban legend" than meets the eye, is truly an understatement!
The numerous claims that the remaining 3 Beatles left many clues in their songs' lyrics and on their album covers indicating that not only was Paul McCartney replaced towards the end of 1966, but that he had died in an automobile accident are most likely accurate assertions.
However, in this post I'm not going to cover any of those clues which are presented on the internet, but instead I'll focus on the many photographic comparisons and discrepancies between Paul McCartney and that of his replacement, Faul...a name derived from a meshing of the words False & Paul. I will also post exact quotes given over the decades by the person who assumed the identity of the most popular member of the Fab Four, and also people closely associated with him that strongly indicate that the person who is acknowledged as Sir Paul McCartney today is not the original Paul McCartney, co-founder of the Beatles.
In seems that via the internet the person masquerading as "Sir Paul McCartney" has finally been unmasked in a massive charade that he has somehow been able to "get by" his fans "with (more than just) a little help from his friends."
Please study the following photos carefully...
All pictures on the left were taken in the years and months prior to September 1966, when the disappearance of James Paul McCartney from the public occurred. All photos on the right are of the man who is today recognized as Sir Paul McCartney and begin from November 1966 through to the disbandment of the Beatles in April 1970 and then on into the decade with the band Wings.
As you can see, there are quite a few differences between the photos on the left and the ones on the right, differences which I'll cover in more detail further on. In the final comparison photos, which were both taken on the stairwell of EMI studio in London, 6 years apart, 1963 / 1969, at first glance the images of Paul seem to be of the same person, that is until you notice Paul's forearm in the latter picture is not as closely positioned to how it is in the first picture, unlike the other 3 Beatles, which have their arms or hands in more or less the same place.
The reason for "Paul's" forearm to be jutting further out than in the 1st picture is to obscure the lower part of his face, which seems to have become noticeably longer and bigger since the original taken there. In addition to that, his smile is not as wide as in the earlier picture, this may have been done to hide the different configuration of his teeth. Also, although all of them had longer hair, Paul's served to hide his ears so no comparison could be made there. Lastly, his nose is also noticeably longer than in the earlier photo. Looking at the below pictures you'll notice that he is the only one of the four who has covered part of his face with another part of his body.
Why would that have been done on an album cover? The reason I feel it was done was because he and the band's handlers would have realized that their fans would naturally compare the two images taken in exactly the same spot, but several years apart, to see how each band member had changed...and the changes in Paul's face, especially in its length (hence the obscuring elbow) would have been far too obvious to suggest anything other that he'd been replaced by another.
Below is what happens when the real Paul McCartney's face is aligned with that of the person who replaced him.
Below: An image of Faul's face on the right has been shrunk to fit within the outline of Paul's head on the left. The facial features do not align with each other because dimensionally they cannot.
Paul in the mid 60s ~ Faul in the mid 80s.
In the below two pictures the original Paul is on the right. In both photos there is a noticeable size difference with eyes, also left and right nostrils do not match, nor do the widths of the mouths or the thickness of the lips. With regards to the picture directly below, although I believe that the person on the left is definitely a stand-in, I don't think it is the person who goes these days by the name of Sir Paul McCartney. There seems to have been a few different people used to fill in for the real McCartney. They were even used before James Paul McCartney disappeared for good, when he, for whatever reasons, could not make a public appearance. They did not speak, and were often seen from a distance.
Below are quotes which are on record as having been said by "Paul McCartney" and from people who have been close to him.
Please listen to and watch carefully the below video.
Below quote by John Lennon
"I always sort of think they shouldn't being paying me this money. I'm not him. I'm some little kid masquerading as the guy who was the famous guy."
"There's me and there's the famous him. I don't want to sound schizophrenic, but I'm probably two people."
"I look in the mirror and just think, I, in this shell, am that guy I've read so much about. I try and disassociate myself from him a bit...and then Paul McCartney's the sort of successful bit of it all...but I don't imagine I'm him or I'd blow my head off." Interviewer:"Why do you think that the rumours come?"
McCartney: "Why do they come about? Because Paul McCartney's dead of course!"
"I'm not actually dead...I'm just a good replica."
Regarding songs written in the early years of the Beatles: "In a way someone else did write them...it was a 24 year old me. And I look back on him and think, I'm looking at his writing as if he's, like, another person, some of the lyrics thinking that wasn't bad...it was good the way he did that."
"I am neither Paul, nor his clone."
In 1988 Paul McCartney was conspicuous in his absence from the
ceremony for the Beatles induction into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. Prior to the event McCartney sent a telegram stating [in part] the following... "I would feel like a complete hypocrite waving and smiling with George and Ringo at a fake reunion." In 1969 when Mike McGear (Paul's brother) was in the audience on the Mike Douglas show, (a weekly US program) the compere asked him:"When was the last time you saw your brother?"to which McGear answers:"The last time? It was at his funeral." "No really, when was the last time?""I don't know!" "You don't know?""Yeah, I mean before I came, you know." "Oh, so that was what, fairly recently?"No answer given.
Given the circumstance under which McGear was present, I feel his reaction to that question was rather usual, but maybe also a good example of the adage:"Many a serious thing said in jest" I believe this to be the case based on the uncomfortable body language of McGear and more specifically that of his fellow "Scaffold" band member, John Gorman, seated beside him, as exemplified by him watching McGear intently when McGear answers "It was at his funeral." then waiting to see how the audience reacts by laughing before he joins in with a big grin. He then looks up and notices himself on the overhead monitor, as McGear continues with his next answer to the same question, saying "I don't know."
At this point Gorman seems to get more agitated as he engages in the nervous trait of 'false-tie-adjust'. To my way of reckoning, John Gorman is definitely in on whatever happened to McCartney. After watching this segmented video it seems obvious to me as if McGear tries twice to sidestep the question of when he last saw his brother, and then doesn't answer the last question, but of course these are only my own observations. Decide for yourself by watching the below link at: 46:43.
John Gorman & Mike (McCartney) McGear
Body language interpretation of "false-tie-adjust"
https://www.bodylanguagesuccess.com/2011/02/negotiation-secret-97-false-tie-adjust.html In a 1976 interview with Geraldo Rivera (see below video)the following was said: Geraldo: Do you feel any kind of....I guess resentment is much too strong a word, but any kind of hesitation about the fact that you will always, in all probability, be identified as a former Beatle? McCartney: No I don't mind it you know. I'm always going to be identified by my real name, also Paul McCartney, but that doesn't bother me. An ex-Beatle is another kind of tag, which doesn't bother me. No I'm proud of what I've done.
The fact that Geraldo did not follow up by asking"What do you mean by, you're always going to be identified by your real name?"indicates to me one of two things, either he is very poor at interviewing people, or he knows not to ask that question, and why he shouldn't.
On July 15th, 2009 Sir Paul McCartney was interviewed in New York on the David Letterman show. When it came to the part where Letterman asked him how the Paul is dead rumor came about, Sir Paul stated the following...
Notice that towards the end of this part of the interview he changes the personal pronoun from "I" to "he", which is a commonly used technique recognized by statement analysis specialists indicating that the speaker is purposely distancing himself from something which he is not comfortable discussing. (He noticeably doesn't do that anywhere else during the interview when speaking about himself.) Then Letterman goes on to say...
The last comment made here by Sir Paul is interesting, especially when you see his facial expression and in particular how he moves his eyes just after he says it. To me, he looks rather uncomfortable after "joking" about being that double. Watch the segment of the interview below from 9:24-9:42 (specifically 9:36-9:40 & slow it down via settings playback speed) to see what I'm referring to.
A glaring difference (one of many) between all the photos taken of Paul before September 1966, and those taken of "him" post-September 1966 is the height discrepancy between those two time periods. The following four pictures are of the highly collectible info-cards of the Fab Four originally released in the early years of the band. Note that, except for Ringo, all of them are the same height, at 5 feet 11 inches or 180cm.
Here are 3 photos of the 4 of them together taken at different times which confirms that Paul, John, and George were in fact the same height as each other.
In the below 2 pictures the two friends since
their teenage years show the same height.
Now, fast forward several years...
Above: Here he is not only noticeably taller but is holding a cigarette in his right hand instead of his left. All 3 are wearing flat shoes.
Within a few weeks or their return to the UK from touring the U.S. in August 1966, it was announced that the band would no longer perform live, this was at the pinnacle of their popularity. No clear reason was ever given for that decision having been made. It has been stated that since the 3 guitarists would often share only two microphones between them (as in the pictures below) the stand-in would stand out too much.
On some occasions, for just part of a song,
only one mike would be used between all three.
Clearly aware of the disparity between the heights, once the stand-in took the real Paul McCartney's place, it would have been all too apparent to their fans at a live concert, which the remaining Beatles, and all the others who were involved, must have realized they wouldn't have gotten away with such a deception, hence the decision to stop playing live was announced to the public.
In the 4th photo above, where you can see the two different Pauls playing alongside George, the right picture was taken from a music clip, not at a live performance.
Here is Paul (left) and a few years later Faul, with Paul's girlfriend, actress Jane Asher, who would have needed to be brought into the deception to give the replacement a greater level of credibility, at least during the transitional period.
As the difference in height is rather obvious between Paul and Faul I'll refrain from labeling the photos with their names from here on...
Below: Superimposed photos of the stand-in and the biological Paul McCartney.
All of the "Hofner 500" guitars in the below 6 photos have been scaled to exactly the same size, so it stands to reason that if the person holding them has always been the same musician then he too should be exactly the same size in relationship to the guitar he's playing, but that's not the case in these pictures.
The stand-in is not only noticeably taller, but overall a bigger man than Paul was. Take note of the difference in the head sizes, especially in the final photo.
At right: a 1980s Faul doing a
parody of the 1960s Paul
on the left.
Left-handed Paul~ Right-handed Faul
One of the hardest obstacles for the replacement to have overcome would have been imitating Paul McCartney's "left-handedness" convincingly, so often Faul didn't even bother with that part of the charade.
Left-handed Paul on the left side
and right-handed Faul on the right.
Below, Paul lighting fellow band members cigarettes naturally with his left hand.(circa 1964)
and here, several decades later, Faul...naturally using his dominant right hand to do the same thing!
Below: Perhaps the most blatant display
of Faul's "right-handedness".
Even when not smoking there were other indicators of the "right-handedness" of Faul the stand-in.
Above: A candid photo of right-handed Faul playing a left-handed guitar that must have had its strings reversed in their correct order to allow him to have been able to play it that way, as indicated by the black scratch-plate seen on the upper part of the instrument's body, which should be positioned below his picking hand if it were an actually right-handed guitar.
How many people would hold a hot beverage
using their less dominant hand?
A left-handed person never threads their belt counter-clockwise through the loops in their pants!
If you're right-handed, the next time you put on a pair of slacks, jeans or trousers, try looping your belt
