Our Paul Was Born in 1944

 In my March 6, 2013 post I talked about the Tokyo press conference of June 30, 1966 where I thought it was OUR Paul who said he was twelve when he saw a Bill Haley and his Comets performance in early 1957.

I have looked several more times at that video and I believe it was a Paul double at that press conference.  

Does that cast doubt on our Paul being twelve in 1957?  Well, no, because I found at The Paul McCartney Project website a copy of the introduction page our Paul wrote for (our) John's 1964 book, In His Own Write.  Paul goes on about meeting John at the St. Peter's Church garden fete and says that he and John were both TWELVE at the time.  The gathering happened on July 6, 1957.  REAL John would have been 16 at the time of the meeting and REAL Paul would have been 15.

Paul was determined in 1964 to let his true identity slip out.  I have found several instances of it in my new research that I will be publishing.

Much more to come.  ---paulumbo

I'm Back, But Late

 I wanted to get started again before autumn, so this will be the first post back.

I have ALOT of new information, but I don't have ALL the information I need yet, so I'll be posting a selection of what I HAVE found until I can get the main information organized.

When I first started the blog, I was aware (and had been, really, since 1966) that the young man I call our Paul (the Paul that American fans saw and heard from February, 1964 through June, 1966) was gone out of the group from at least November, 1966.

When I started researching, I focused on scenarios of what might have happened to him.

Since I was researching far and wide, I found references that suggested solutions for our Paul's disappearance.  That's why I included contradictory or random information.  I thought if I posted things that seemed interesting, but that I had, nevertheless, not been able to connect to a unified explanation, IF another researcher had gone down that path, my bits of information might be what he or she might need to solve the puzzle.  BUT, I have been able to find so much in the past year or so, that I can understand much more clearly what he was up against in his years in the group and that he was removed from the group and replaced.

I'm working on a theory of what happened to him after that.

Again, none of us researchers have official reports because the British government and ALL of the media that reported on The Beatles have STONEWALLED the truth from coming out.  But I have shown enough research already that points to the truth.  And I have found much more evidence that shows a cohesive explanation of this mystery.  So stay tuned.

                         ---paulumbo

I'm Posting New Research Soon

 Hi, paulumbo here.  I stopped my blog in 2018 for a personal reason.

Last year, I started  looking into--what I call--the lie they won't give up on.  I've found new evidence and I'm starting this blog up again.

I still have research to do, several books to read, and I also want to go through all the posts and update old links, so I'll be wading back into this 60-year-old mystery this summer (2025.)

I've seen some good efforts on the part of serious researchers.  People are laboring in the fields to get the truth told and I think it's going to happen.  Beatle fans wouldn't want it any other way.

So look for new posts beginning this summer.

                          ---paulumbo

 

Here Is Why It Was (Musically) Easy To Replace Paul

When I read criticism of Paul being replaced, the most common snide comment is:  "How could [the current] Paul possibly play a bass left-handed and sound like Paul?"

Really.

Bill Harry, who went to school with Stuart Sutcliffe and the original John Lennon, founded and edited Mersey Beat magazine that chronicled Liverpool area musicians, and who wrote books about The Beatles, says in the Merseyside area of Northern England, there were upwards of 350 bands in existence in the 1958-1965 time period.  He says, "The most popular line-up was a quartet with three guitarists -- lead, rhythm and bass [my emphasis] -- plus a drummer."

His list of those groups can be seen at:  https://www.sixtiescity.net/Mbeat/mb1A.htm  .

Check out the list and remember that there were hundreds of other bands throughout England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales with hundreds of guitarists in them, and in that sea of musicians there was our Paul--who replaced the original Paul--and the current Paul, who replaced them both.

Speaking of "When We Was Fab" . . .

George's 1987 song, "When We Was Fab" that I mentioned in the last post has several interesting Paul references.

George starts the song alluding to marijuana-- (". . . Grass was green, woke up in a daze . . . ".)

He progresses to 1966 with a reference to his song, "Taxman"-- (Back when income tax was all we had . . ." .)

The next verses are:  "Caressers fleeced you in the morning light/ Casualties at dawn."  According to my forays into definitions at British dictionary websites, the word casualty means a person who is injured or killed in a war or in an accident.

The song goes on to use two U.S. slang words:  fuzz (police) and buzz (an altered state of mind from using a drug.)

All this suggesting the two B/Featle songs, "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds"--("Climb in the back with your head in the clouds and you're gone..." and "A Day In The Life"--(He blew his mind out in a car . . .") because George says the police would have got to Paul but apparently he died in an accident--deliberate on his or somebody else's part or otherwise.

Later on in the song, George references Bob Dylan's 1965 song, "It's All Over Now Baby Blue" that has the lyric line--"The vagabond who's rapping at the door is standing in the clothes that you once wore":  Paul's replacement.

So Paul's memory haunted George all his life and the continued theme in Beatle songs of death and replacement ran unabated from 1967-on.

It's The Little Things . . . A Connecting Clue From "I Am The Walrus"

There's been speculation on the web that Paul may have been buried in or near the Strawberry Fields orphanage in Liverpool that was run by The Salvation Army from 1936-2005.  When I was trying to track down a reference to "Strawberry Fields cemetery" that I found on a Liverpool website I came across a detailed photograph of the front gate to the Strawberry Fields orphanage.  Something about it looked familiar and then I remembered the video the new, new Beatles did of the song "I Am The Walrus."  Take a look:

        

 

And then take a look at the drumskin on the video:

 

From "John's" song, "Glass Onion" and from George's video of his song, "When We Was Fab" where he had a left-handed bass player wearing a walrus mask, we know that the walrus was Paul, and I think this detail in the "I Am The Walrus" video is hinting at some kind of Strawberry Fields connection.

 

From the sketchy information I have been able to find about the orphanage, it doesn't appear as though our Paul was a resident of the orphanage but it is possible he could be buried on or near the site.

A Blast From The Past: Beatles, Detroit, 1966

If you were not an original Beatles fan--or were and couldn't get tickets to their concerts--return with me now to those thrilling days of yesteryear via a YouTube video I found that has photos and audio from the August 12, 1966 Detroit performances of The Beatles* at the old Detroit Red Wings hockey stadium, Olympia Stadium.

I was at one of those concerts and you can experience the sheer hysteria of the moment.

Find the video at:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pV64U0Plw under the title:  "The Beatles photos  perform live Olympia stadium, Detroit, 1966." 

Also, take a look at the channel of the woman who posted the video:  Elena the Beatles photos.  She has some never seen before photos and other good information.

     *The Beatles tour of 1966 had replacements for our Paul and our John.  I think both of them were left behind on that tour.  My friends and I sat far up and to the left of the stage so we wouldn't have seen the difference.  The only thing I specifically remember of those little figures on stage was that "John"'s face was beet red.         ---paulumbo

So You Can See The Differences Between Young Paul and Young Faul

In my posts of December 26, 2015, January 22, 2016 and December 18, 2017, I posted photos I've found of young Faul--our Paul's replacement.  I've found another one (more and more have been surfacing.)  I also found a photo of our Paul as a boy.

If you are a Beatle fan, I'm sure you've seen quite a few boyhood photos of real Paul.  My guess is his family (and probably especially his brother, Michael) got those photos out in public.  Faul himself is probably responsible for the growing number of young Faul photos surfacing.

In contrast, I have only been able to find ONE boyhood photo of our Paul which I think is curious and there is no doubt a story yet to be told about that.

So here are the photos of young Faul I've previously posted and the new one I found and the photo of young Paul I've found.

Paul is the fourth boy from the left.

The Origins Of Paul (And John)'s Little War, Part Two

Between the time of the announcement of the MBE's and the actual presenting of them--June 12, 1965 to October 26, 1965--The Beatles were invited to play before Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip in the annual Royal Variety show.  This is the same format that doomed real Paul and real John in 1963.

I want you to notice the date of the 1965 event:  November 8th.  Remember the Sgt. Pepper drumskin clue (see photo below), where people speculated whether Paul had died on September 11th., 1966 OR November 9th., 1966?
                                                       
What is NOT widely reported [try Googling it] is that The Beatles
turned down the invitation to the Royal Variety Program of 1965.

I found three mentions of The Beatles' refusal:

1.)  New Musical Express of October 22, 1965 with the headline:
      "Beatles Said No to Royal Show."
2.)  New Musical Express of October 29, 1965:  "Were The Beatles
      Right to Refuse Royal Show?"
3.)  KRLABeat of November 20, 1965 that quotes Paul as saying,
      "'If we went on and those people didn't like us everyone would say "Ha, ha, The Beatles failed,
       they're on the slide.'"   But if you look at a British Movietone summary of The Beatles getting
       the MBE's on October 26, 1965, you can see Beatlemania was still rampant in England.  (See
       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo0WNrhyho4  )  Paul. I am sure, was aware of this and he
       made that excuse to royalty with wide-eyed insincerity.
      
So, The Beatles REFUSED to play on the Royal Variety Show.

The only video I could find on the internet of the November 8, 1965 Royal Variety Program was a comedy routine by the British comedy duo of Peter Cook and Dudley Moore.  See the video at:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQCleTuRzSo .  From 5:47-10:46 in the skit, they humorously discuss the artificiality of show business and how celebrities often use stand-ins and have their looks manipulated by camera trickery.  "Everything's so artificial and false . . ." Pete says at 5:44-5:46.  Was this skit a commentary on the Pauls and Johns that were in and out of The Beatles?

Where were The Beatles on the night of November 8, 1965?  They were at the Abbey Road studio working on, 1.) George Harrison's song, "Think For Yourself" and, 2.)  The group's third Christmas fan club record.

Their recording session lasted from 9PM on Monday, November 8th., 1965 to 3AM on Tuesday, NOVEMBER 9th., 1965.

Producer George Martin recorded the entire session, ostensibly because he hoped The Beatles might say humorous bits that could be used on the fan club record.

Listen to the "Think For Yourself" session on Youtube at:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQdcpmFQOZs .

At 5:17-5:53 in the recording, John does a mini-"religious sermon" declaring at 5:26-5:30:  "And I tell you, brethren, there's more of them than there are of us."  If you couple John's "sermon" with an interview with The Beatles on October 28, 1964 that appeared in the February, 1965 issue of Playboy
magazine, you can see the origin of John's March, 1966 "Beatles bigger than Jesus" statement.

In the Playboy interview, The Beatles were declaring themselves to be agnostics "but we're not anti-Christ," according to Paul.  Paul said in that interview that "In America, they're fanatical about God."  So The Beatles were well aware that Americans took religion seriously--and, if you believe Paul--some Americans took their religion more than seriously.

If our Paul and our John felt they were next in line to be ousted from The Beatles, they, I surmise, wanted to take the group's popularity down with them.  How better than to target and destroy the loyalty of The Beatles' biggest fan base?

The other half of "Project Beatles-Undoing" was the butcher cover. 

The Beatles worked on their Christmas fan club record in two sessions:  the Abbey Road session around 2AM on November 9th., 1965 and the other session at Marquee studio in London on October 19, 1965.  At the Marquee studio session, Tony Barrow, their publicist at the time, wrote a script for them.  That session fell apart but the outtakes from the session are very interesting.  Listen to them on Youtube at:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrMJTFzQUr8 .

At 1:21-2:32 on the tape, there's an EXTREMELY sick dialog about a baby being cut up.

The person who posted the video has a photo of the butcher cover during that segment and I absolutely agree that this was the beginning of the butcher cover idea.

So let's review the timeline of Paul and John's little war:

• Sometime in October, 1965, The Beatles refuse the invitation to appear at the Royal Variety Show.
• October 19, 1965, the butcher cover idea is hatched.
• November 9, 1965, the "bigger than Jesus" idea is hinted at.
• March 4, 1966, the London Evening Standard publishes Maureen Cleave's interview of John complete with the "Beatles bigger than Jesus" statement.
• March 25, 1966, The Beatles do the butcher cover photo session.

The war was on.  The question is:  Did Paul lose the war on November 9, 1966 that was kicked off in earnest on November 9, 1965?

 

The Origins Of Paul (And John)'s Little War, Part One

When I researched the infamous butcher cover that kicked off the American Beatles' fans questioning the future of their fan loyalty to The Beatles, I found that Paul had insisted that the butcher cover be used for The Beatles' U.S. album, Yesterday and Today (see my May 29, 2010 post.)  Photographer Robert Whitaker took responsibility for the idea because--he said--The Beatles were bored with the same old straightforward photo sessions.

Whitaker's mea culpa would make sense except that I found clues in The Beatles' November 8-9, 1965 recording session that suggest otherwise and--instead--strongly hint at the war that our Paul and our John were preparing to unlease beginning March, 12, 1966.

Before going any further, remember that at the beginning of The Beatles there was a real John and a real Paul who were members of the group, at the beginning.  I believe they were removed from the group by . . . ??? [yet to be determined] when John made the famous statement at the Royal Variety Show on November 4, 1963 that people in the cheaper seats please clap and the "rest of you" just rattle your jewelry.  Royalty gasped. and real John and real Paul were O-U-T, spelled OUT..

They were replaced by our John and our Paul with nary an explanation or official change of names.

My research suggests that at sometime around the filming of Help, things started souring between our Paul and our John and whoever had the proverbial hook to pull them off the world stage into oblivion--or worse.

In my post of October 15, 2011, I mentioned an interview Paul and John had with Larry Kane, who at the time of the filming of Help was a Miami radio deejay. He interviewed them in February, 1965 in Nassau.  The interview is published in Kane's 2003 book, Ticket To Ride, and the excerpt is worth repeating because it revealed a tense, unsettled situation Paul and John were in the middle of:
     KANE:  How are you doing?
     LENNON:  Well, look, all I can say, Larry, is this thing's wide open.  Anything can happen, man.
     KANE:  Well.
     LENNON:  It's the new phrase--have you got it?
     KANE: What is this "everything can happen" business?
     McCARTNEY:  Listen--everything is wide open, anything can happen, man.  It's a new phrase which sums everything up.
Paul and John reemphasized the "new phrase" to send a message (or record for history) that their positions in the group were precarious.

After the filming of Help Paul and Jane Asher went on vacation to Portugal starting May 27, 1965.

While they were on vacation, it was announced that The Beatles were on Queen Elizabeth's "birthday list" to receive Member of The British Empire (MBE) medals.  Paul was called back a day early from his vacation--on June 11, 1965--by Brian Epstein.  (See photo of Paul holding up the London Daily Mail's front page.)

The next day--June 12th.-- the "everything is wide open, anything can happen" started happening because the television interviews of The Beatles discussing the MBE's featured a FAKE Paul.  (See the photos on the left of a Faul at the interview and our Paul immediately after getting the MBE--Clearly TWO DIFFERENT MEN.
I think our John (not a fake John) was interviewed.  But if it was our John, he looked well out of it, like he was on some heavy-duty drug. (See photo below on right.)

Paint It, Black

As I said in my June 18, 2013 post, The Rolling Stones' song, "Paint It Black" had the backmasked message, "He was from us .  .  . but he's out."  I'm convinced they were talking about our Paul.

Well, I found the L.A. radio station's 1960's fanzine, KRLABeat had an article about The Rolling Stones in its June 11, 1966 edition that said the following about the song title on the sleeve of the 45 record: 
            "There is a rather odd looking comma hanging in the title of Paint It, Black."  And if you're brave enough to inquire what it's doing there, Keith [Richards] will reply:  'Don't ask me what the comma is in the title.  That's Decca, I suppose.  They could have put "Black" in brackets.'"

Here's a selection of Decca (and Decca's US label, London) sleeves for the song throughout the world.  That's Paint It, Black. 

So even before The new, new Beatles were dropping messages in their records about things happening in the group, The Rolling Stones AND their label were giving subtle clues about The Beatles.

 

United States

France

Italy

Japan

Mexico

Germany

Donovan's Interpretation Of "Yellow Submarine"

Paul's 1966 song, "Yellow Submarine" was always seen a lightweight, nonsense song.  And because The Beatles invited Marianne Faithfull, Brian Jones, and George's wife, Pattie Boyd in the studio to sing background for the song--something that went against The Beatles' very settled routine of never allowing anyone other than themselves to sing on their tracks, people thought this might be a festive, party song.  And for Beatle researchers, since the song was on our Paul and our John's last album as Beatles and there was--we thought--the suggestion that the band beginning to play on the track might be hinting about new band members on what would be the Sgt. Pepper album--we never thought about a grim undertone for the song.  But Donovan the singer, who knew The Beatles, and--no doubt--knew some of the dire strains going on behind the scenes for the band--believes the song describes a collective life for The Beatles that was much more isolated and miserable.

Donovan gave that assessment of "Yellow Submarine" in an interview he had in 2014 with Howard Stern and he reiterated it in 2016 when he toured the US and Canada.

In the interview with Stern--on Youtube at:  https://wwww.youtube.com/watch?v=hrQhMx_pxS0 , Donovan says at 1:05:53-1:06:49:

"But it's not really a submarine, you know what it . . . the song's about? . . . It's really about the life that they've been now forced in, inside their own lives in the white tower called Beatle frame and not really having any contact with reality out there anymore . . . We're actually insulated and now against the outer world.  It wasn't a very pleasant thing to be . . ."

I found in the UseNet Guide to Beatles Recording Variations version 2, compiled by Joseph Brennan a variant he found in the June 3, 1966 mono version of "Yellow Submarine" where Ringo (?) in the last line of Verse 3 instead of singing "In our yellow SUBmarine" sings, "In our yellow CLUBmarine." 

It was an extremely exclusive club that Paul could not exit alive.

John Black

As the Year of Our Lord 2017 draws to a close, I thought I'd emphasize the research I've found on the real name of our Paul by reiterating two examples of where our Paul was called JOHN [that  I first posted on November 6, 2014] and listing another example I found.

1.)  When I was among the young Beatles fans in Detroit, we heard from our Detroit deejays that Paul's first name was JOHN and that he was called by his middle name because of the confusion it would cause to have two band members named John.

2.)  The first name of real Paul--the true Paul McCartney--was JAMES.  If you look at Hunter Davies' authorized biography of The Beatles--both the first edition published in 1968 and the second edition published in 1978--you will read at the beginning of the chapter on Paul that Davies identifies Paul's first name as JOHN.

3.)  Alistair Taylor was Brian Epstein's personal assistance.  Taylor wrote several books about The Beatles.  His last book was called With The Beatles  and was published September 1, 2003.  In the book, Taylor relates a story of how FAUL (our Paul's replacement) went with Taylor and Faul's dog, Martha at dawn to a hill that overlooked London.  They were alone on this hill when they turned around to suddenly find a stranger behind them:

"He said, 'Good morning,' politely.  'My name is JOHN.'"
Paul said 'Good morning.  Mine's Paul.  This is Alistair and that's Martha the dog,' as our four-legged friend returned swiftly.
JOHN said, 'It's lovely to meet you.  Isn't this wonderful?' and he walked away."

Taylor said Faul and he looked at each other and when they turned to see where the man went, he had vanished--completely disappeared.  Taylor said he and Faul were totally baffled by this experience.
Alistair Taylor believed this incidence was Faul's inspiration for the song, "Fool On The Hill."  As I've said in my post of April 29, 2016, I think "Fool On The Hill" was written about our Paul.


The main contribution I believe I've made to date in this mystery of our Paul is that our Paul's real name was JOHN BLACK.

So as we enter the New Year, let's resolve to push for the truth to be told of the young man who won our hearts.

 

JOHN BLACK (Paul McCartney)

Forever Young

 

 

                                                           

                                                          - - - paulumbo

Faul As A Young Man --Another Photo

As I said in my January 22, 2016 post I think Faul (the last--and current--Paul) wants to bring HIS life out of the shadows, so to speak, and establish his own identity before the public.  So slowly early photos of Faul are being published.  I found this one on Pinterest, taken sometime no doubt in the mid-1950's.  Definitely Faul (with the longer face and distinctive lips.)  If the photo was taken in, say, 1955, Faul would have been ~20 years old.

 

Much More To Come

I have been busy exploring a very interesting aspect of The Beatles' collective life that has been casually discussed but not at all well explored.  As with all of the obscure comings and goings of The Beatles, this is taking odd twists and turns, and I've been tracking down the best information I can get.  So there is much more to come.


                                                               ---paulumbo




                                               

"John" Mentioned Bill's Name in 1966.

As anyone who's interested in the Paul mystery knows there has been speculation as to the name of our Paul's replacement.  If you check YouTube you will find George mentioning the name Bill or Faul (fake Paul) and one other reference of the name Bill in Faul's film, Give My Regards To Broad Street.  I have found a 1966 interview where the  new, new John says the name BILL.  The title of the YouTube video is John Lennon Interview In Almeria, Spain (1966).

I call the last John (the John of ~ September, 1966-on) pinched-nosed John because of the curious "revised" nose that this John had. (See photo, below.)

Well, this John acted in a movie called How I Won The War, filmed in Spain and Germany in 1966.

In an interview with Fred Robbins, an entertainment reporter for a syndicated radio show, this John says the following:
     Fred Robbins:  "Does this mean that all of the boys are going to be trying different things as you go along, John?"  5:27-5:31
     "John":  " Well, I can't speak for BILL, as you know [OR:  BILL S. , you know], but George has just got back from India."  5:31-5:37

So "John" in 1966 was confirming that the new Paul's first name was BILL.
 
.

Other Voices, Part 22: George, Again

Because I think our Paul might have been replaced in early, July, 1966 while The Beatles had a 70-minute stop-over in Hong Kong en route to Manila, I started looking for solo Beatle songs about Hong Kong.  I found one.

George worked on a solo album from March, 1980-February, 1981 called Somewhere In England.  On it, he did a cover of songwriter Hoagy Carmichael's 1944 song, "Hong Kong Blues."

The lyrics of the song talk about a man who was arrested in Hong Kong and spent 20 years in jail for drug use.

There are several things going on in George's singing that song.

One thing is the line in the song that says, "I need someone to love me, need somebody to carry me home to San Francisco and bury my body there."

I read the lyrics to the song and listened carefully to George's subtle changes of them.

I suspected there was a reason for George changing the lyrics, so I listened to the song backwards.  At 1:42-1:44 in the reversed song, George says:  "PAUL, TAKE ME BACK."

If you have knowledge of some of the Paul-Is-Dead clues that The Beatles worked into four years' worth of songs from 1966-1970, you know of the so-called White Album that had a curious snippit of a song called "Can You Take Me Back" that cross-faded into the major Paul-Is-Dead song, "Revolution 9."  Major because--played backwards--it hinted STRONGLY that our Paul died.  George--according to a Wikipedia  article--contributed spoken vocals, tape loops, sound effects and electric guitar work on "Revolution 9."

The lyrics of "Can You Take Me Back"--Faul's intro to "Revolution 9"-- are:
     Can you take me back where I came from?
     Can you take me back?
     Can you take me back where I came from?
     Brother, can you take me back?
     Can you take me back?
     Can you take me back where I came from?
     Can you take me back?

George could have been mocking Faul and Faul's drug arrest in Japan in January, 1980.  In other words, Faul mocked Paul's removal from the group and this was George's come-uppance to Faul.

But it could also have been George's sorrowful remembrance of the "brother" he lost in 1966.






Note:  I originally found the Youtube video for "Hong Kong Blues" at https://youtube.com/watch?v=dEmlQRh8VGs.  This video is no longer available, but I found another Youtube video of the song at:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9Rfvc9yqBo .

Junior's Farm

Faul and his group Wings released a song called "Junior's Farm" in October, 1974.  He recorded the song in July, 1974 in Nashville, TN.

The story was that Faul stayed at Curly Putman Jr's farm, (Putman was a Nashville songwriter), during Wings recording of the song and that that was the reason the song got its name.

OR,  it could be Faul was referencing the farm he acquired from our Paul after Paul was replaced in 1966. 

As I said in the "Albert Goldman's Clues of 1968, Part 1" post [July 24, 2017], Faul was, of course, aware that Paul was much younger than him:  from my research and calculations by about nine years.  Our Paul was very much Faul's junior (and also the youngest member ever in The Beatles.)

Faul and his family liked to go and "lay low' at the Scottish farm that our Paul had just before he "left" the group, so I think Faul may have been thinking about Paul when he wrote "Junior's Farm".

Albert Goldman's Clues of 1968, Part 2

Continuing with my last post, Albert Goldman, author and professor wrote a critique of Hunter Davies' Beatles biography in the October, 1968 Vogue magazine.  Goldman's biography of John Lennon was published in November,1988.  Goldman said he spent six years researching Lennon's life for the book and conducted 1,200 interviews during that time, so my guess is that Goldman had a keen interest in The Beatles and by 1968 must have had a fair grasp of the dramas and machinations happening within the lives of The Beatles--by my count--eight young men total.

So in the article Goldman says:

"Blown off all the charts of traditional and contemporary life by their stupendous success, the SURVIVING [my emphasis] Beatles lead a Robinson Crusoe existence, struggling to live alone on their little islands of idleness."

He's talking about the four Beatles written about by Davies in 1968:  the last group with a new Paul and a new John introduced in late 1966.

So I take it Goldman means there were other Beatles no longer in the group.  And he also could have meant literally that certain of the other Beatles were by the publishing of the book and the article, DEAD.

Albert Goldman's Clues of 1968, Part 1

Hunter Davies wrote the authorized biography of The Beatles.  The first edition was published in 1968.

Albert Goldman was an American professor who wrote biographies of popular culture personalities:  American controversial comedian Lenny Bruce, rock and roller Elvis Presley--and--in 1988, John Lennon. 

Well . . . Goldman wrote a review of Davies' book for the October, 1968 edition of  Vogue magazine that had two notable pieces of information in it.

First, Goldman said that the 1968 version of The Beatles lived in "lavish homes which they occupy but do not possess--like servants when the family is away." [my emphasis]
1.)  George lived in an Esher, Surrey house called Kinfauns from July, 1964 until January 1970.
2.)  Ringo lived in a house called Sunny Heights in Weybridge, Surrey from July, 1965 until November, 1968.
3.)  Our John lived in a Weybridge, Surrey house called Kenwood beginning in July, 1964.  When the new John appeared in late 1966, that John lived there until the late spring of 1968.
4.)  Our Paul moved into a London house on Cavendish Avenue in March, 1966 that he had supposedly bought in April, 1965.  When he was replaced in the group, the next Paul moved into the house late in 1966.  Our Paul also reportedly bought a 183 acre farm--called High Park--in Cambeltown, Scotland that was also reoccupied by the new, late-1966 Paul.
Here's a photo of Jane Asher and Faul at High Park in 1967.

 [Note the "22" on Faul's  t-shirt.  As I've speculated in other posts, I think our Paul was born in 1944 (or 1945), which, of course, means that Paul was replaced when he was 22.]

So it's possible that Goldman was saying that the residences of The Beatles were, in effect, fringe benefits that went with the job.  That certainly turned out to be true for our Paul and our John.