Friday, November 29, 2013

Zappa and The Mothers', "Mother People"

Frank Zappa and The Mothers of Invention recorded a loosely satirical (as the Brits say) send-up of the B/Featles' Sgt. Pepper album.  (See the image of the album cover for We're Only In It For The Money on the right.)

Track #18 is a song called "Mother People".  You would think it's a song about Zappa's group, but Mother 
is never mentioned in the song.  (Hear the complete song at:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWFu7N4jknw  .)  Instead, Zappa and the boys sing:

     We are the other people  (x3)
     You're the other people, too.

And then in the most important passage of the song, they have one of the band do a John Lennon sound-alike to the lyrics:
     Let me take a minute and tell you my plan,
     Let me take a minute and tell who I am.
     If it doesn't show,
     Then you better know:
     I'm another person.

Frank Zappa knew.

The Beatles' Voices: Piecing Together The Meaning Of "Yellow Submarine"

In the November 23, 1966 edition of the British magazine Punch, our Paul was discussing his song, "Yellow Submarine":
"'The idea was just to do a children's song'" McCartney said, smiling calmly though perhaps a tiny bit peeved by people who insist on elaborate interpretations.  'But there is a Yellow Submarine place.  It's real even if it is only a hallucination.'"
It sounds as though if Paul was saying there was any complex interpretation of his song possible, it would be a drug-involved one.  But, of course, it wasn't simple and it also wasn't drug-inspired.  Paul was trying to get a message to his fans and had to hide it to the powers-that-be behind innocence or the p-t-b's drug pusher mentality.  Remember, the new, new Beatles who replaced our Paul and our John were pushing drugs hard and heavy to the Baby Boomer generation.

So what was the song about?  I reversed the song and heard the following:
     -  At ~ 0:05-0:30 into the reversed song you hear marching sounds and "Near a bus, alack" repeated 3 times.
     -  Beginning at 0:30-0:45 you hear:  "Here a bus . . . Here de water . . . Here battalion . . ."
     -  Again, beginning ~1:07-1:22 you hear "Near a bus, alack" and marching sounds repeated twice.
     -  In the forward song, Ringo introduces what I believe will be the Sergeant Pepper band with, "And the band begins to play."  At 1:24-1:27 you hear the reversed band music.
     -  Finally, at 1:41-1:46, the bus, alack and marching sounds are repeated two more times.

Geoff Emerick, the Beatles' recording engineer wrote a book in 2006 called, Here, There, and Everywhere:  A Life Recording The Beatles.  He went into a detailed discussion of "Yellow Submarine".  John wrote a spoken word introduction to the song that Emerick called medieval sounding.  The "alack" in the reversed song is taken from the medieval exclamation of sorrow, "Alas and Alack."  The intro was supposed to be a take-off on a much-publicized walk by an English woman between the two farthest points on the British mainland.  But Emerick said the intro couldn't be successfully worked into the song and was dropped. In the reversed song the "alack" is combined with marching sounds which implies the then Beatles (or some of them) were probably being marched out of the group.  Remember, the forward song sounded convivial and party-like.

Later, in the reversed song, they talk about a bus, the water and a battalion, like some of The Beatles were going to be taken away.  Was the B/Featles' Magical Mystery Tour a reference to that, and not--as some have said--just a compilation of English working class experiences?

The definitions for battalion according to the online Oxford English dictionary are:
1.)  A large body of troops ready for battle, especially an infantry unit forming part of a brigade typically commanded by a  Lieutenant Colonel.
                                                     --And--
2.)  A large, organized group of people pursuing a common aim or sharing a major undertaking.  

I believe the second meaning of battalion and Paul's statement in the magazine interview that a happy group enjoying the ride was an illusion were Paul's rueful comments on The Beatles.
 

Saturday, October 19, 2013

Again, More To Come

What I will be trying to do in the next month or two (or more) is find our Paul's true identity.  I've scattered some information I have found about it throughout my blog, but I think it's important to bear down and get the puzzle pieces together and that's what I'll be working on.  Stay tuned . . . and . . .

As I've asked several times before, if, dear reader, you have any comments, additions, information or speculation, PLEASE post it on the blog.


                                                            ---paulumbo

Was Our John Talking About Our Paul?

I was reading The Playboy Interviews with John Lennon and Yoko Ono.  It is my opinion that the Double Fantasy album was the work of Yoko Ono and our John, not the pinched nose John that made his debut in late 1966.

The interviewer David Sheff is talking to John about his and Paul's childhood:

LENNON:  Whereas Paul had lost his mother but he never lost his father.
PLAYBOY:  Yes, he lost his mother very young.  At about three.
LENNON:  Yeah . . .

It's possible that John misspoke or misremembered when Paul lost his mother.  Remember, the real Paul lost his mother when he was thirteen.  On the other hand, both the interviewer Sheff and our John might be accurately remembering when OUR Paul lost his mother.  This could be another bit of information to piece together the true identity of OUR Paul.

Saturday, September 14, 2013

New Info From A Very Interesting Book

I was reading a book by H.V. (Har Van) Fulpen, The Beatles:  An Illustrated Diary, first published in the U.S. in 1985.  Fulpen was former head of the Dutch Beatles fan club.  He said he had access to a very large collection of Beatles memorabilia that he himself had put together since 1963 and that he had also purchased other archival material.  He thanked Freda Kelly (who ran the English Beatles fan club), Allan Williams (who was the group's first manager), Bob Wooler (who was a host at the Cavern Club), Dezo Hoffmann (who photographed the early Beatles), and Piet Schreuders (who later wrote books about the Beatles.)

I'll put a small caveat in on this book -- I found several errors when I read his information about the years that interested me:  1964-1966 and his take on the 1969 Paul-Is-Dead rumor.  Still . . .

Fulpen's book had four extremely noteworthy additions to the Paul mystery.

1.)  Fulpen had a two-page feature about the Beatles cartoon series that ran in the U.S. on Saturdays in 1965.  He reprinted the drawings of artist Peter Sander who was commisssioned to design the character models of each Beatle.  Sander said his drawings were based on the Beatles' film, A Hard Day's Night. The movie definitely had our Paul in it, and in both the Paul and George studies, Sander says the the two men are the same height.  There have been dozens of comparisons shown on Paul dead/replaced discussion boards that prove that at varying times Paul was:  shorter, taller, or equal in height to George.  So this adds more proof that there had been MORE THAN ONE PAUL in the group.

2.)  In Fulpen's chronology for 1966, he has for the dates:

- October 14, 1966     "Paul begins writing the music for a film titled The Family Way; soon after he leaves
                                    for a vacation in Kenya."
- November 19, 1966  "Paul returns from Kenya."
 In between those two entries is the most extraordinary bit of information that--if true--is the first  confirmation of its kind I have read:
- November 9, 1966     "Paul is involved in an automobile accident.  Several years later, during the 'Paul is Dead' uproar, rumour will have it that he was fatally injured in this collision."
 Again, on the Paul dead/replaced boards, they show that the Paul in Kenya is NOT our Paul.  Take a look at two photos from film of "Paul"'s Kenyan trip.  It's not Paul,
 right?  The new, new Beatles began work on the Sgt. Pepper album November 24, 1966, a scant 40 days after "Paul" began his vacation.  There is no evidence from the photos of "Paul" from the Kenyan trip that he was injured in an automobile collision at all and no evidence in an interview given December 20, 1966 when the "Beatles" entered the EMI recording studio that "Paul" had in any way been injured in a accident. (Take a look at a photo below from the interview and you can see the whole interview on Youtube at:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exracy8Bsy4 .
 If it wasn't that Paul who had been injured, was it, instead, our Paul?  He could have died, he could have lived.  My guess is that he DID  have an accident and DID live.








3.)  Fulpen's Beatles diary entry of  April 5, 1966 talks about Jane Asher's birthday, and---
"John and Paul sell off a portion of their shares in Northern Songs, each receiving 146,000 pounds.  Their remaining shares are worth some 1,000,000 pounds."  This is a crucial time when, I believe, Paul (and John) were planning their exit (or were being told they were being replaced.)  Since Paul had already spent money on his London house and the renovations on it, and the farm in Scotland our Paul bought in June, 1966 only cost 35,000 pounds, Paul obviously wanted money for some other purpose.

4.)  Fulpen details the 1969 Paul-Is-Dead rumor and hints strongly that the Sgt. Pepper-on Paul wasn't the Paul of earlier in 1966:  "After all, all four members of the group had suddenly started to wear moustaches and beads at the end of that year, for no particular reason.  Unless of course it was to conceal the fact that one Beatle's face, the face of 'Paul McCartney' had undergone some subtle--and sinister--changes . . . ."

Friday, August 30, 2013

A Video Of Our Paul(?) At The Melody Maker Awards in 1966

I found a short video on YouTube that shows our Paul(?) and Ringo at the 1966 Melody Maker Awards ceremony.  See it at:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEQysGn4EdU .  The question is:  is this really our Paul?

The photos taken from the awards ceremony suggest it is.  For example, take a look at the three below.  (Courtesy of the blog, irreco.blogspot.com)



Photos are more easily doctored, but the video DOES look like our Paul.

Tuesday, July 23, 2013

Was The Octopus Paul?

In my April 27, 2012 post I talked about the English group Manfred Mann's 1968 song, Fox On The Run's references to Paul.  I found an October, 1966 Manfred Mann song that might have previewed Ringo Starr's 1969 song, Octopus's Garden.

At the beginning of the reversed song Semi-Detached Suburban Mr. James, you can hear the lead vocalist sing "you're an octopus" six times.  The song talks about a woman planning to marry a man and settle down to a routine English suburban life.

Ringo Starr's song was recorded in April and July, 1969 and released in September, 1969.  In it, he talks about an "octopus" living under the sea with lyrics very reminiscent of Paul's 1966 song, Yellow Submarine.

So in addition to the walrus being Paul, was the octopus Paul?

This Paul Might Be Irish

As I've researched the Paul mystery I've come to the conclusion that in the history of The Beatles there have been THREE active Pauls:  the real Paul McCartney, the Paul that American fans came to know from 1964-1966, and the final Paul from 1966 to the present.  It is difficult to wrap your mind around the idea that anyone would have the gall to try to deceive the world public, but, believe me, I'm not the only one to research this and come to that conclusion.

Occasionally, I'll come across some evidence to prove my theory and I've found another clue (for you all.)

In 1972, "Paul" wrote a song called Give Ireland Back To The Irish.  In a 1972 uncut ABC News interview I found of "Paul" and Linda "McCartney", [find it at:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3uD1hZaTXo ] "Paul" had the following exchange with the American reporter [at 10:49-11:00 in the interview]:

     Reporter:  And you say you're British, and, but, ah . . .
     "Paul":     Well, I'm British, yeah, of course I am.
     Reporter:  But with some Irish antecedents . . .
     "Paul":      I probably got some Irish background, yes, but, uh I feel British.

This is the answer of Paul McCartney who had an Irish mother with the maiden name of Mohin.

I don't know how much "airplay" this interview got, or even if it was ever broadcast in its entirety, but it didn't make an impression on Beatles' fans at the time, and, of course it should have.

Thursday, July 18, 2013

Has Anyone Seen These Videos?

If you've read any of my past posts, I have commented on many articles and interviews written for KRLA Beat, a fan magazine put out in the mid-1960's by Los Angeles radio station KRLA.  There are two more articles I found with noteworthy information.

The first was from a column written by Tony Barrow who was The Beatles press secretary.  In the June 4, 1966 column, Barrow talks about all four Beatles often meeting at John's Weybridge home during the recording of the Revolver album.  Barrow said:  "Quite frequently they give themselves a break from more serious work and shoot off some zany home movies in John's vast garden."

The second was a report on the Beatles mishap in the Phillipines.  The article said:  "The Beatles were victims of similar mob action in India where Paul suffered a black eye.  Paul said he was struck by the baton of a policeman who was attempting to protect the boys during the Indian riot." The black eye would have happened on July 6th. or 7th., 1966.  Oddly, of course, there are two interviews with the group when they arrived back in England on July 8th., 1966 and in both interviews you can see "Paul" WITHOUT a black eye.  (For example, check out the video on Youtube:  www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAOWaUSkqj4  at 0:04-0:18 for close-ups of "Paul" without a black eye.

 So . . . has anyone seen 1966 videos of The Beatles at Weybridge and Paul WITH a black eye?

Monday, June 24, 2013

More On My 12/15/12 Post--Paul's Yellow Submarine?

I talked in my 12/15/12 post about L.A. radio station KRLA's fan magazine article of 1966 that hinted that our Paul was from Leeds, Yorkshire.  Close to where Paul would have grown up, they built midget submarines for use by the British Navy in World War 2 and I speculated that Paul was drawing from his childhood memories when he wrote Yellow Submarine.

I found two more images to post on the subject.
The first on the right is from the cover of the sheet music of Yellow Submarine, printed in 1966.
The top image on the right is a drawing of a British X-craft midget submarine used during World War 2.
 I speculated in several posts that Paul was hinting about things that were happening--or about to happen--in his life in that song and it was very possible that he was also alluding to memories in his childhood.

Thursday, June 20, 2013

Other Voices, Part 12 (continued)

One of the lyrics from Paint It Black  is:

     I see a red door and it has been painted black.



Here is a photo of Paul's home at 7 Cavendish Avenue.  Note the front door.

Tuesday, June 18, 2013

Other Voices, Part 12: Paint It Black

I speculated in my April 22, 2013 post that Paul's real last name might be Black, so I started thinking about songs around the year 1966 that had the word "black" in them.  Of course, The Rolling Stones released the song Paint It Black in 1966--recorded March 6-9, 1966 and released May 7, 1966 in the US and May 13, 1966 in the UK, so I checked for backmasking in the song and I found some.

The song is on Youtube at:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?fPVUa29kHu8  .

Beginning about 2:47 in the reversed song, you can here Jagger sing something about "out."
At 3:08-3:11, you can hear:  "He was from us . . . but he's out."

If you remember the Christmas Time Is Here Again song from the Beatles' 1967 Christmas fan club record--which I believe chronicled the selection of our Paul's replacement--Ringo sings, "O-U-T spells OUT" several times in the song.

Was Mr. Black on his way out in early 1966?

Friday, June 14, 2013

Those "Other" Beatles

It's my contention that our Paul and our John never made it to the 1966 American concerts:  in 1966, we were seeing half of the Beatles that American fans came to love.  I found a Youtube video that suggests that the John that toured in 1966 was not our John.

The video is at:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLxBcALNE6c  .

Beginning at 1:44 in the video, the 1966 American tour John was explaining "his" comment on the "Beatles-as-more-popular-than-Jesus" controversy.  He said:
I was talking to the effect the word "Beatles" as a remote thing.  Not what I think as Beatles:  as those, those other Beatles, like other people said.  I just said they are having more, more influence on kids and things than anything else, including Jesus."
 
It's pretty clear that he was saying that he was not a part of those "other Beatles."  What I think happened is that our Paul and our John knew they were going to be ousted from the group and decided that if they were going to go, they were going to try to take the group down with them.  Hence the "butcher" cover, the "more popular than Jesus" statement, Paul allowing his broken tooth to be shown in the Rain and Paperback Writer videos, etc. 

The music press was scrambling to neutralize the damage, but, as original fans know, Paul's and John's efforts took their toll on The Beatles' popularity in America in 1966.  I also think that is why the music press fell over their faces to try to convince the world public that the Sgt. Pepper album was a classic (I'll print some of the gasping praise of the album in a future post).  That massive Cash Cow called The Beatles was too good of a thing to lose.

Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Our Paul, Older

I found an age progression tool at the University of St. Andrews website that gives an interesting look at Paul as an older man.
Find the tool at www.st-andrews.ac.uk  .  And, note:  I found the image on the left at www.abovetopsecret.com  .
 
 
P.S.  Doesn't look much like the current Paul, does it?
 

Monday, April 22, 2013

Is This Paul's Birth Record?

In trying to find the real identity of our Paul, you have to try to piece together bits of clues and you have to SPECULATE.  And I'm telling you people if you're researching the mystery and you DON'T speculate, you or I or we will NEVER find the truth because the attitudes that led to the decimation of The Beatles and the cover-ups that followed each "personnel replacement" of them are the same now as in 1966, or 1963, 1970 or 1980.

With that in mind, I pieced together three relevant clues and went looking for a birth record using them.

The first clue was Paul's stating that he saw Bill Haley and His Comets when he (Paul) was 12 years old.  Paul said that in the Tokyo press conference of June 30, 1966.  (See my post of March 6, 2013.)  Since Bill Haley first toured England in February of 1957, Paul was most likely born in 1944

The second clue I used was from the "Paul Exposed" article from the April 16, 1966 KRLA Beat magazine that I talked about in my September 28, 2012 post.  When Paul used the pseudonym Bernard Webb for his song, Woman, he detailed a background for the composer that gave Bernard Webb's hometown as Leeds, Yorkshire.  I believe he was hinting that Leeds was HIS hometown.

The third clue I found was from The Who's March, 1966 song, Substitute.  Here are the lyrics to the song:
                    You think we look pretty good together.
                    You think my shoes are made of leather.
                    But I'm a substitute for another guy.
                    I look pretty tall but my heels are high.
                    The simple things you see are all complicated.
                    I look pretty young, but I'm just back-dated, yeah.

                    Substitute your lies for fact.
                    I can see right through your plastic mac.
                    I look all white, but my dad was black.
                    My fine-looking suit is really made out of sack.

                    I was born with a plastic spoon in my mouth.
                    The north side of my town faced east, and the east was facing south.
                    And now you dare to look me in the eye.
                    Those crocodile tears are what you cry.
                    It's a genuine problem, you won't try.
                    To work it out at all you just pass it by, pass it by.

                    Substitute me for him.
                    Substitute my coke for gin.
                    Substitute you for my mum.
                    At least I'll get my washing done.

I speculated on a Paul-Was-Replaced board that the man currently (and for the past 45 years) known as Paul McCartney is of ROMANY--GYPSY-- heritage.  I still believe that.  I think Substitute's lyrics were supposed to be a conversation between our Paul and that man.  The relevant clue in the song is the line:  "I look all white, but my dad was black."  The line might point to the current Paul's Gypsy background (because Romanies call themselves "black blooded"), but I DEFINITELY think that the line was meant as a pun on our Paul's real last name:  BLACK.

SO, with the 1944, Leeds, and last name, Black clues, I went looking in the UK's Free Birth, Marriage, Death database (find it at:  www.freebmd.org.uk  ).

I found the following listing:

          SURNAME          Black
          FIRST NAME      David
          REGISTERED     Sep 1944  (Note:  They register vital statistics in England in three month intervals:  January-March, April-June, July-September, and October-December.  So without the actual birth certificate, you can't tell if the birth occurred in July, August, or September.)

But, what really got my interest on this listing was the mother's surname:  APPLESON.

The collective Beatles began making all kinds of references to APPLES beginning in 1966.  A few examples:
     1.)  George's working title of GRANNY SMITH for his song, Love You To from the 1966 Revolver album.
     2.)  The Beatles' Revolver album producer Geoff Emerick's working title of LAXTON'S SUPERB for George's song, I Want To Tell You.
     3.) Paul or Faul's ~ August, 1966 purchase of the artist Magritte's painting Le Jeu de Mourre--THE GUESSING GAME.  See photo on right and notice, of course, that the APPLE has AU REVOIR--GOOD BYE--printed across it.
     4.)  And the reconstituted Beatles' forming in 1968 of the APPLE label.

Pretty impressive punning.

 The entire name is listed as David M. Black.  I did a search on the UKBMD for a death record and there was none.  I also did a quick Google search for "David M. Black"+"Leeds" and didn't find any info on a man with that name and city and age. 

SO . . . this might be our Paul's birth listing.

I'll do more searching and, meanwhile, if anyone is researching our Paul's background, please let me know.

                                                                  ---paulumbo



Monday, April 15, 2013

More To Come Shortly

I'm attempting to track down the identity of our Paul through the UK's free birth, marriage, death database (available at:  www.freebmd.org.uk ).  I have a very interesting speculation that I'll detail in the next few days.

                                                                 ---paulumbo 


                                                

Wednesday, March 6, 2013

IMPORTANT--Our Paul's Hint At His Age and Where He Grew Up

In the same hour-long press conference in Tokyo on June 30, 1966 that I mentioned in my last post  there was an important exchange between our Paul and a reporter that narrows down our Paul's true age and where he grew up. (Read the entire interview at:  www.beatlesinterviews.org .) Here's what Paul said:  

     KEN GARY:  "Would you pay two or three pounds to go and see people like yourselves and
                                that sort of music?"

     PAUL:             "Yes, if we like them.  Yeah.  I paid seventeen-and-six to see Bill Haley.  I was
                                 twelve.  It broke me."

Bill Haley and his Comets first toured England from February 6-24, 1957This would put Paul's year of birth at--most likely--1944 and an outside chance of 1945. 

He said he paid 17 and 6 for the ticket and I am still trying to track down which city the ticket price would be from.

But we know that Paul was born in 1944 or 1945.  An IMPORTANT clue!

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

John's Small Hint Of Different Beatles

In one of the Japanese interviews---the news conference of June 30, 1966---[listen to it on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3LGZOymkQY ], a Japanese reporter asked John [in part]:

     0:45-0:49  "Do your families associate with one another?  With one another socially?"
     And John answered:
     1:00-1:04  "Which families?  I mean, the old Beatles?"

A small "slip",  but telling.

Thursday, February 7, 2013

Why Didn't The Beatles Record In America in 1966? (continued)

In my December 18, 2010 post I mentioned a book that stated The Beatles planned to record in Nashville in 1966.  I haven't found that city mentioned in any other references, but I have found six references that describe Brian Epstein's visit to Memphis in March, 1966 with the intent of having The Beatles record an album and single there.  They are:
     1.)  Soulville, U.S.A.: The Story of Stax Records by Rob Bowman (1997)
     2.)  The Beatles As Musicians:  Revolver Through The Anthology by Walter Everett (1999)
     3.)  Memphisflyer.com (the online version of The Memphis Flyer newsweekly), May 3, 2007
     4.)  Revolver:  How The Beatles Reimagined Rock 'N' Roll by Robert Rodriguez (2012)
     5.)  Reference #2 quotes The Beatles Monthly Book, no. 33:  April, 1966, p. 29 as its news
           source.
     6.)  References #3 and #4 mention an article dated March 31, 1966 from The Memphis Press-
           Scimitar newspaper as their source.

So, it looks as though Brian Epstein was investigating having The Beatles record in America.

The Press-Scimitar article quoted said that "The Beatles were to arrive at Stax Record Studios on April 9, 1966 and were to stay two weeks, recording an LP and one single."

There were different conclusions in the articles as to why The Beatles never came to the U.S.  The fourth reference said it was because Epstein cited security concerns and possibly also because of inflated rates for studio time.  The first reference agrees with the "security concerns" conclusion.  The third reference concluded that there were squabbles about getting The Beatles from the airport and where they would have stayed for the two weeks they would have been in Memphis and that Epstein didn't want to get in the middle of it.  Do any of the conclusions make sense?  Think about it. 1.) As I said in the December, 2010 post, The Beatles were multi-millionaire producing stars.  They could command unlimited studio time at EMI in England, so I don't believe U.S. studio rates would have been an issue.  2.)  Epstein had a long, successful history of negotiating tours for The Beatles in and out of dozens of cities throughout the world, so I don't believe he would have been discouraged by problems in Memphis.  3.)  Epstein also had a long, successful history of coordinating movement of The Beatles in and out of the same dozens of cities, so security issues don't seem a plausible excuse.  Also, remember the "bigger than Jesus" controversy started by John that began stirring up trouble in the south in late July, 1966?  Epstein did not cancel the last American tour despite threats on The Beatles' lives.  And one of the concerts planned and completed was in Memphis. I read the details of The Beatles visit to Memphis in the 1996 book, Goin' Back To Memphis:  A Century of Blues, Rock 'N' Roll and Glorious Soul by James Dickerson.  He described The Beatles' visit to Memphis:
     "Word was out:  the Beatles were going to get their asses kicked.  By the time they took the stage, John, Paul, George, and Ringo were basket cases.  Halfway through the performance, someone threw a firecracker onto the stage.  George Harrison nearly fainted."

So much for security concerns.

Here is my speculation on The Beatles staying in England to record Revolver from April to June, 1966.  I believe that Paul was out of the group on July 1, 1966.  I think his last concert (and, possibly, public) appearance was in Japan on June 30th. They sent a Paul (and a John) replacement to America in August, 1966.  I think Paul might have been casting around looking for an escape route because I think he saw "the handwriting on the wall" and feared for his life.  It's possible that he either wanted to make clandestine arrangements to come over to America when he was officially ousted from the group or it's possible that he even contemplated what would have amounted to a defection to America in April, 1966.  My guess is that he thought he'd be safe in the U.S.  If he didn't just disappear here, he might have had plans to finally tell the truth about being a replacement for the real Paul McCartney.  It's my firm belief that OUR John did come over to America and settled quietly in Palm Beach, Florida.  I think he "came out of retirement" in 1980 and recorded the Double Fantasy album with Yoko Ono.  It is our John's photo on the front of that album.

But Paul's American escape route was blocked in April, 1966.







 

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

The Russian Revolver Cover Is Different and Revealing

When the former Soviet Union released the Revolver album, it had the large drawn images of the four Beatles BUT the small photos interspersed between the drawings are different.

Take a look at the two album covers.  The American and British release is on the left.  The Russian release is below on the right.  The US/Brit release appears to have only our Paul and our John on it, except for the curious photo of a "Paul" with a sharp nose and long sharp chin--seen just behind and below the Paul drawing's ear.  I've commented on this before:  the same sharp-faced "Paul" shows up in a photo from George Harrison's autobiography that was supposedly taken when the Beatles were originally in Hamburg around 1961.
It appears as though that photo is the only one that survives in the Russian cover.  The photos that grace the Russian Revolver show the spectrum of the various Pauls and Johns from the original real Paul and John, through our Paul and John, and then the John that replaced our John.  The only original photo of "Paul" that survives from the US/Brit cover is that sharp-faced Paul and the replacement for our Paul is not seen in any of the photos.  So the question to ask is:  was the Russian cover's sharp-faced "Paul" a photo of the man who was retooled into our Paul's replacement?
 
 

Friday, January 4, 2013

How Old Is Paul In This Photo and Why Are They Claiming He Was Alive And Six Years' Older?

I found an article at BBC Leeds online that gives you an idea of the length they'll go to perpetuate the farce that Paul of early 1966 is the same Paul that was around and kicking in 1972.

First, take a look at the photo from the article. If you are a Beatles fan you know that this is our Paul from 1966. But the article--at:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/leeds/features/radio_leeds/macca.shtml leads you to believe that the Paul in the photo is our Paul in 1972.  (NOTE:  You will need to type the website info above directly in your computer's address box to link to the article;  I tried the link, and BBC gives an error message.)

The gist of the article is that the teenage reporter got a phone call from "Paul" in 1972 and "Paul" told him that he was going out on the road with wife Linda and a new band called Wings.  If you saw the photo and then read the article, you would conclude that our Paul is the Linda and Wings Paul.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how they perpetuate a farce.