Some Words About The Paul-Is-Dead Research and the Parameters of My Research

The internet has made possible the discovery and discussion of differences in The Beatles' looks throughout the years.  There are websites that show a long series of photos of Paul.  There were differences.  What to make of this?

When I was a young Beatles' fan in 1966 I was puzzled by the changes in voice and looks of Paul.  Being a young teenager, I didn't know what to make of it.  And--mercifully--since American producers, record executives, disc jockeys, radio station managers et al. knew enough about the backstage machinations of The Beatles, they manufactured or promoted groups like The Monkees to draw young baby boomers away from the disasters that played out with The Beatles.

Looking at photo after photo of "Paul" for my research, I have concluded--along with more than a few people--that there could have been upwards of eight, nine, or more "Pauls".

The Beatles became a commodity--a product--that was amassing millions of dollars for the English government and a handful of people.  It became important to maintain a façade of lightness and happiness with The Beatles.  And, as I've speculated in an earlier post, I think some group of manipulators wanted The Beatles to become the Pied Pipers of boomers, leading us along to a psychedelic world of recreational drugs, free sex, and lowest-common-denominator rock and roll.

I found a website that chronicles the extensive changes in The Beatles' "personnel".  Unfortunately, the website wants people to believe that a Paul, a John, a George and a Ringo were CLONED and that that accounts for the many Pauls, Johns, Georges and Ringos.  I conclude that outrageous claim is either:  1.) goofy; or 2.) and attempt to make people ridicule the reality of multiple members in the group.  There is a slang expression called "weasel words":  words that are inserted into a sentence to destroy the meaning of it, in the same way that a weasel can suck the insides out of an egg, while leaving the shell intact.  Dropping the word "clone" into a serious discussion of changes within The Beatles is the essence  of the weasel word concept.

I found one post reacting to that website where the person thinks that people exploring this mystery are followers of Lyndon LaRouche [!]  I have heard the man's name and an odd or end of what he is (or was) up to, but I can state that I am not now, nor have I ever been, a La Rouchee.

Then there are the endless sneers from people who don't want to know the truth or are trying to keep other people from wanting to know the truth.

The fact is, there is a truth to be found, and with enough genuine researchers out there, the truth WILL be told.

The parameters of my research are with the man I call "our Paul":  the Paul that American fans heard and loved from 1964 until a little more than half way through 1966.  I chose to concentrate there initially because that was the Paul that American teeny boppers knew.  Except for the songs on the first Beatles album and some early publicity photos, Americans never heard or saw the real Paul.

But when you think of it, our Paul is a good choice to focus the research on because he was in the group during the height of The Beatles' popularity, so there are many more clues as to his true identity made by himself and others.

As for the other Pauls . . . I could speculate why there were so many of them, but, I really don't know.  When you see videos of their live performances, though, you will notice there were just three Pauls out there:  The real one, our Paul and the current one (because I think the current one had touring time in 1966.)   I think these were the Pauls with enough musical talent to be seen singing and playing in public.  The others would show up in an occasional photo or interview but not  on stage.

And believe me when I tell you that REAL research into this mystery will go on---until we get to the truth.

                                                                        ---paulumbo