In my last post I concluded that our John's real first name was Edward. Check my 1/31/14 post, "The Moody Blues' Message To Eddie" where I discussed the Moody Blues' backmasked comment on Eddie and also talked about George's and John's remarks about Beatle ED and Faul's [the group's last Paul] song, "There You Are Eddie."
Well, duh, since everyone is talking about Ed and Eddie, I decided the full name must be Edward. Upon reflection (as they say), I thought of other common full names for ED: Edgar, Edmund, and Edwin.
I did a little checking in the UK FreeBMD (Birth, Marriage, Death) directory. I searched the common English surnames of Smith, Jones, Taylor, Johnson, and Brown for births from 1940-1945 and found, while Edward was the overwhelmingly favorite first name, a fair number of boy babies had Eddie, Edgar, Edmund (and variations), and Edwin as the first name.
So if you are doing research on our John, keep that in mind.
Tuesday, August 9, 2016
Saturday, August 6, 2016
An IMPORTANT Clue That The Real Last Name Of Our Paul (Or Possibly, Our John) Was BLACK
I was researching information for my next post when I found an IMPORTANT piece of information that strongly suggests that the real name of either our John--or I still believe--our Paul is BLACK.
Mr. Junishi Yore served as the translator for The Beatles when the group played in Japan in late June and early July of 1966. Mr. Yore said he traded (our) John copper cups for his wire-rimmed glasses.
Note near the end of the letter when Mr. Yore says the following: "Lenses removed when he die (Black) as I/we feel he see us after death in Japan." !!!!
It's obvious that the man he is referring to as having died is a MR. BLACK.
The letter is dated 1984 which is after the death of (a) John Lennon. Remember---from my count---there was a minimum of THREE John Lennons over the lifespan of the group.
IF Yore is saying that our John died, then John's real name was Black. I believe our John's real FIRST name was EDWARD.
But is it possible that the Mr. Black named in the letter could be our Paul? Yes. As you can see from the photo below taken in Germany just before The Beatles traveled to Japan, both our Paul and our John have the same style glasses. So, because I've found other information that suggests that our Paul's real name was JOHN BLACK, I'm staying with my theory. But there IS a possibility that our John's real name was Black and if it was, his name was Edward Black. ---paulumbo
Mr. Junishi Yore served as the translator for The Beatles when the group played in Japan in late June and early July of 1966. Mr. Yore said he traded (our) John copper cups for his wire-rimmed glasses.
Note near the end of the letter when Mr. Yore says the following: "Lenses removed when he die (Black) as I/we feel he see us after death in Japan." !!!!
It's obvious that the man he is referring to as having died is a MR. BLACK.
The letter is dated 1984 which is after the death of (a) John Lennon. Remember---from my count---there was a minimum of THREE John Lennons over the lifespan of the group.
IF Yore is saying that our John died, then John's real name was Black. I believe our John's real FIRST name was EDWARD.
But is it possible that the Mr. Black named in the letter could be our Paul? Yes. As you can see from the photo below taken in Germany just before The Beatles traveled to Japan, both our Paul and our John have the same style glasses. So, because I've found other information that suggests that our Paul's real name was JOHN BLACK, I'm staying with my theory. But there IS a possibility that our John's real name was Black and if it was, his name was Edward Black. ---paulumbo
Friday, July 8, 2016
Betaface, He's Got The Cutest Little Betaface
In and after 1966--when we didn't have the luxury of the internet with its thousands of photos of The Beatles--Beatles fans saw a distinct difference between our Paul and the curious-faced man The Beatles introduced as Paul in late 1966.
A staple of all discussions of whether our Paul was replaced is comparisons of photos of the man of late 1963 through mid-1966 that American fans knew as Paul, and this curious-faced man.
Face recognition software is augmenting our ability to see differences between individuals.
So, I went looking on the internet and found three face recognition websites that are easy to access and easy to use: 1.) www.pictriev.com
2.) www.betaface.com
3.) www.twinsornot.net
I uploaded photos of our Paul and the last Paul replacement (1966-on) and found the following:
As you can see, betaface and pictriev were reporting that the two Pauls were NOT similarly looking and were NOT the same man. [Note: The second face comparison on Betaface #2 is between the real Paul McCartney and his last replacement and Betaface says they also are NOT the same man.)
TwinsorNot consistently said they were the same man. What's going on here?
TwinsorNot is a project of Microsoft. The inventor of the app bragged that he developed it in 15 minutes--which doesn't reflect on its accuracy, if it is accurate. One problem might be that it analyzes a tight square of the face which--in Faul's case--leaves out that famous long face that pinched-nose John sang about in "I Am The Walrus." Remember?: "Man you've been a naughty boy, you've let you're face grow long."
But I took twinsornot's comparisons a step further when I found a stellar little project that a French-Canadian photographer is developing. The photographer's name is Francois Brunelle and his project is called "I'm Not a Look-Alike!"
He started in Quebec photographing pairs of persons who look strikingly similar but are totally unrelated. I found an internet article at the Mirror newspaper site: www.mirror.co.uk of November 18, 2013 describing Brunelle's work and providing a gallery of some of Brunelle's "twins" photographs. I chose photos numbers 1, 6, 7, 8 and 14: "twins" I thought looked most alike. I uploaded the images to twinsornot for its opinion.
And--well, golly--the program thought four of the five pairs were twins. (See below.)
Remember, these are UNrelated persons.
The one pair twinsornot gave a less than 100% assessment on was photograph #6 of young girls: they were given an 82% likeness. (See below).
A staple of all discussions of whether our Paul was replaced is comparisons of photos of the man of late 1963 through mid-1966 that American fans knew as Paul, and this curious-faced man.
Face recognition software is augmenting our ability to see differences between individuals.
So, I went looking on the internet and found three face recognition websites that are easy to access and easy to use: 1.) www.pictriev.com
2.) www.betaface.com
3.) www.twinsornot.net
I uploaded photos of our Paul and the last Paul replacement (1966-on) and found the following:
 |
| Betaface #1 |
 |
| Betaface #2 |
 |
| Pictriev #1 |
 |
| Pictriev #2 |
 |
| TwinorNot #1 |
 |
| TwinsorNot #2 |
As you can see, betaface and pictriev were reporting that the two Pauls were NOT similarly looking and were NOT the same man. [Note: The second face comparison on Betaface #2 is between the real Paul McCartney and his last replacement and Betaface says they also are NOT the same man.)
TwinsorNot consistently said they were the same man. What's going on here?
TwinsorNot is a project of Microsoft. The inventor of the app bragged that he developed it in 15 minutes--which doesn't reflect on its accuracy, if it is accurate. One problem might be that it analyzes a tight square of the face which--in Faul's case--leaves out that famous long face that pinched-nose John sang about in "I Am The Walrus." Remember?: "Man you've been a naughty boy, you've let you're face grow long."
But I took twinsornot's comparisons a step further when I found a stellar little project that a French-Canadian photographer is developing. The photographer's name is Francois Brunelle and his project is called "I'm Not a Look-Alike!"
He started in Quebec photographing pairs of persons who look strikingly similar but are totally unrelated. I found an internet article at the Mirror newspaper site: www.mirror.co.uk of November 18, 2013 describing Brunelle's work and providing a gallery of some of Brunelle's "twins" photographs. I chose photos numbers 1, 6, 7, 8 and 14: "twins" I thought looked most alike. I uploaded the images to twinsornot for its opinion.
And--well, golly--the program thought four of the five pairs were twins. (See below.)
Remember, these are UNrelated persons.
The one pair twinsornot gave a less than 100% assessment on was photograph #6 of young girls: they were given an 82% likeness. (See below).
Compare twinsornot's photo of Paul and of Faul with its 100% likeness assessment and the photo of the young girls with the 82% likeness assessment and you can understand that some software has a better handle on matching likenesses [in this case, pictriev and betaface]----and so do many current-Paul doubters, included among them that gang of boppers who were seeing a new Paul in 1966.
Monday, June 27, 2016
Paul Was A Millionaire In 1966.
I found an interesting post on the website dangerousminds.net that reproduced an article from the December, 1966 issue of Rave magazine, a English popzine from the 1960's. George Tremlett, an English pop journalist and author used London Board of Trade information to estimate the wealth of the four Beatles. Around 1966, Tremlett estimated Paul's wealth at 1,195,000 British pounds or--3,334,050 U.S. dollars. That's 3 million. Tremlett mentioned the confiscatory British tax rate but also said that Paul might have income unreported to the Board of Trade. (See magazine chart below.)
There has been alot of speculation that our Paul just up and walked away from The Beatles. He could have exited gracefully, if he had wanted to, and retired--publically--a very wealthy young man. Instead, he disappeared and was replaced, and that's why Paul researchers are tracking down what happened to him.
There has been alot of speculation that our Paul just up and walked away from The Beatles. He could have exited gracefully, if he had wanted to, and retired--publically--a very wealthy young man. Instead, he disappeared and was replaced, and that's why Paul researchers are tracking down what happened to him.
Sunday, June 5, 2016
Another Telling Interview From 1964
In my May 6, 2016 post, I talked about an April 30, 1964 interview with the four Beatles where George and Ringo played off of each other with comments about being themselves while the "John Lennon" and "Paul McCartney" with them might be other men.
I have just found a 1964 audio interview on Youtube where George makes another pointed reference that the REAL Paul McCartney was not in the present group.
The radio interview with the group was recorded backstage at their 1964 Christmas show. The interviewer was Radio Luxembourg's DJ, Chris Denning.
You can hear the interview titled "The Beatles 1964 Christmas Show Rare Interview" at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anz0VcqTdno .
Our Paul had just sent out a message to Ivan Vaughan. Vaughan was a member of The Quarrymen, the band that real John and real Paul and George Harrison played in. Our Paul was claiming he had been in The Quarrymen.
So . . . . at 7:23-7:44 in the interview, George said the following:
"Umm . . . I'd like to send a request to somebody who I used to go to school with, too, and he used to play bass in the group---Paul McCartney." [Everyone laughs] "And if you're listening Paul--at work--it was great going to school with ya and we had a nice time and I'd like to play a nice one called--ah--'Love Me Do'."
Hint, hint?
I have just found a 1964 audio interview on Youtube where George makes another pointed reference that the REAL Paul McCartney was not in the present group.
The radio interview with the group was recorded backstage at their 1964 Christmas show. The interviewer was Radio Luxembourg's DJ, Chris Denning.
You can hear the interview titled "The Beatles 1964 Christmas Show Rare Interview" at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anz0VcqTdno .
Our Paul had just sent out a message to Ivan Vaughan. Vaughan was a member of The Quarrymen, the band that real John and real Paul and George Harrison played in. Our Paul was claiming he had been in The Quarrymen.
So . . . . at 7:23-7:44 in the interview, George said the following:
"Umm . . . I'd like to send a request to somebody who I used to go to school with, too, and he used to play bass in the group---Paul McCartney." [Everyone laughs] "And if you're listening Paul--at work--it was great going to school with ya and we had a nice time and I'd like to play a nice one called--ah--'Love Me Do'."
Hint, hint?
Monday, May 16, 2016
Faul's Commentary On Our Paul (cont.)
In my post of April 29, 2016, I was showing how "The Fool On The Hill" track of the Magical Mystery Tour album was very likely a song about our Paul--and the condition he was in in mid-to-late 1967.
Think about the lyrics:
The man with the foolish grin is keeping perfectly still.
----- ----- -----
And he never gives an answer.
----- ----- -----
But nobody ever hears him
Or the sound he appears to make
And he never seems to notice.
----- ----- -----
And he never shows his feelings.
What do those lines conjure up? It sounds to me like Faul's describing a man in a semi-comatose or stupor-like state.
Fast forward in the Magical Mystery Tour film to a black-carnation-wearing Faul dancing down a staircase and singing what would seem to be an innocuous song, "Your Mother Should Know". I reversed and listened to the song, and backwards it was anything but innocuous. You can hear in the reversed song the following at:
:09-:29 "There's a zombie" (x6)
:35-:42 "Die, die, die" (repeatedly)
:44-:56 Funeral-sounding organ music
:59-1:11 "There's a zombie" (x4)
1:26-1:38 Funeral-sounding organ music
1:41-1:46 "There's a zombie" (x2)
2:03-2:07 "There's a zombie" (x2)
Several dictionaries gave different definitions of the word zombie. A few examples:
Merriam Webster Dictionary, definition 1B:
"A will-less and speechless human in the West Indies capable only of automatic movement who is held to have died and been supernaturally reanimated."
Oxford English Dictionary, definition 1:
"A corpse said to be revived by witchcraft, especially in certain African ad Caribbean religions."
The BBC.com website article of August 31, 2015 traced the origins of the term "zombie" to the superstitious belief that a witch-doctor of Haiti or Martinique could "render their victim apparently dead--either through magic, powerful hypnotic suggestion, or perhaps a secret potion--and then revive them as their personal slaves, since their soul or will has been captured."
If our Paul was alive in 1967--as it appears he was--he was in dire trouble, evidently at the hands of the English government.
Think about the lyrics:
The man with the foolish grin is keeping perfectly still.
----- ----- -----
And he never gives an answer.
----- ----- -----
But nobody ever hears him
Or the sound he appears to make
And he never seems to notice.
----- ----- -----
And he never shows his feelings.
What do those lines conjure up? It sounds to me like Faul's describing a man in a semi-comatose or stupor-like state.
Fast forward in the Magical Mystery Tour film to a black-carnation-wearing Faul dancing down a staircase and singing what would seem to be an innocuous song, "Your Mother Should Know". I reversed and listened to the song, and backwards it was anything but innocuous. You can hear in the reversed song the following at:
:09-:29 "There's a zombie" (x6)
:35-:42 "Die, die, die" (repeatedly)
:44-:56 Funeral-sounding organ music
:59-1:11 "There's a zombie" (x4)
1:26-1:38 Funeral-sounding organ music
1:41-1:46 "There's a zombie" (x2)
2:03-2:07 "There's a zombie" (x2)
Several dictionaries gave different definitions of the word zombie. A few examples:
Merriam Webster Dictionary, definition 1B:
"A will-less and speechless human in the West Indies capable only of automatic movement who is held to have died and been supernaturally reanimated."
Oxford English Dictionary, definition 1:
"A corpse said to be revived by witchcraft, especially in certain African ad Caribbean religions."
The BBC.com website article of August 31, 2015 traced the origins of the term "zombie" to the superstitious belief that a witch-doctor of Haiti or Martinique could "render their victim apparently dead--either through magic, powerful hypnotic suggestion, or perhaps a secret potion--and then revive them as their personal slaves, since their soul or will has been captured."
If our Paul was alive in 1967--as it appears he was--he was in dire trouble, evidently at the hands of the English government.
Sunday, May 15, 2016
The Origin and Significance of the Carnations on The Beatles' Lapels
When the Paul-Is-Dead clues surfaced in 1969, one involved Faul wearing a black carnation while George, Ringo, and fake John were wearing red carnations in a video for the Beatles' 1967 movie, Magical Mystery Tour. When people equated Faul wearing the black carnation as a sign that Paul had died, Faul laughed it off, saying they ran out of red carnations and he wore one of the black ones that was left.
How did the carnation flower figure into The Beatles' lives?
Let's back up to an interview of our Paul by columnist Alan Smith on June 16, 1966 at the BBC-TV studio The Beatles were in when they were filming the "Top Of The Pops" appearance, famous for the facts that: 1.) This was the only time The Beatles appeared live on that music show, and 2.) It was the day The Beatles were preparing for their big Germany and Far East tour that would end our Paul's (and our John's) membership in the group.
The interview was published in the June 24, 1966 edition of the New Musical Express. Alan Smith was bragging about how many times he had interviewed Paul. Smith talked about Paul having a red carnation in his lapel: "All The Beatles had them. Gifts of a girl at the London Airport terminal, where they'd been for cholera injections in time for their Far East tour." Notice that Alan Smith, for all the times he had talked with Paul, had no idea who the girl was who gave The Beatles their red carnations.
The next written mention of red carnations I found was in an interview of "John" in The Beatles Book Monthly of September, 1966 [See the magazine's photo of "John", right]. The interviewer of The Beatles' next John band member (after our John dropped from sight during the Far East tour) said: "Looking around the dressing room, it was not difficult to notice . . . four black silk suits with a red carnation in each buttonhole- which made one think that The Beatles were part of a wedding part (most unlikely)!"
"John's" explanation of the red carnations was: "Every time we arrive at London Airport, or depart from it, and whenever we are anywhere," said John, "this girl sends us red carnations. She's been doing it for a couple of years. Actually, she came to see us before you arrived." Given that "John" was new to the group, you can excuse his not knowing who "this girl" is, but you would think an interviewer, from The Beatle Book Monthly, which was the official fanzine of The Beatles, would know who that girl was.
And, who was she? I read Geoffrey Ellis' book, I Should Have Known Better: A Life In Pop Management, The Beatles, Brian Epstein and Elton John (Thorogood, 2004). Ellis was the Chief Executive of NEMS Enterprises, Brian Epstein's company.
On page 62 of the book, he talked about Brian Epstein's personal office staff. Epstein's personal assistant was Wendy Hanson and her secretary was Jody Haines who, ". . . had come to the notice of Brian and the Boys by being one of the 'Carnation Girls', two fans who turned up with carnations at as many Beatles' concerts as possible and politely handed them in."
So if Jody Haines was busy, the other [unnamed in the book] girl apparently carried on the tradition.
If the new John wasn't aware of the significance of the Carnation Girls, why would Faul be? Because from all accounts, Faul took over the top spot of the Beatles when he was installed as the new Paul. By the time of Magical Mystery Tour, the new, new Beatles' second album, Faul was calling the shots.
I found Apple Corps Ltd.'s official Magical Mystery Tour website that describes the whole project. It quotes Ringo saying, "It's Paul's idea really he came up with this . . . ."
There is a copy of Faul's pie-chart outline [see right].
They also have a nice, full color drawing that goes into some of the costs and numbers involved in the production of the film [see left]. So somebody was involved in the production: sweating out the details. That would have been Faul.
So I think Faul deliberately wore the black carnation. And I think this was part of the commentary he was making about, apparently, our Paul.
"Your Mother Should Know", the song Faul sang in the production number at the end of Magical Mystery Tour, is another part of the commentary. I'll cover that in the next post.
- - - paulumbo
How did the carnation flower figure into The Beatles' lives?
Let's back up to an interview of our Paul by columnist Alan Smith on June 16, 1966 at the BBC-TV studio The Beatles were in when they were filming the "Top Of The Pops" appearance, famous for the facts that: 1.) This was the only time The Beatles appeared live on that music show, and 2.) It was the day The Beatles were preparing for their big Germany and Far East tour that would end our Paul's (and our John's) membership in the group.
The interview was published in the June 24, 1966 edition of the New Musical Express. Alan Smith was bragging about how many times he had interviewed Paul. Smith talked about Paul having a red carnation in his lapel: "All The Beatles had them. Gifts of a girl at the London Airport terminal, where they'd been for cholera injections in time for their Far East tour." Notice that Alan Smith, for all the times he had talked with Paul, had no idea who the girl was who gave The Beatles their red carnations.
The next written mention of red carnations I found was in an interview of "John" in The Beatles Book Monthly of September, 1966 [See the magazine's photo of "John", right]. The interviewer of The Beatles' next John band member (after our John dropped from sight during the Far East tour) said: "Looking around the dressing room, it was not difficult to notice . . . four black silk suits with a red carnation in each buttonhole- which made one think that The Beatles were part of a wedding part (most unlikely)!""John's" explanation of the red carnations was: "Every time we arrive at London Airport, or depart from it, and whenever we are anywhere," said John, "this girl sends us red carnations. She's been doing it for a couple of years. Actually, she came to see us before you arrived." Given that "John" was new to the group, you can excuse his not knowing who "this girl" is, but you would think an interviewer, from The Beatle Book Monthly, which was the official fanzine of The Beatles, would know who that girl was.
And, who was she? I read Geoffrey Ellis' book, I Should Have Known Better: A Life In Pop Management, The Beatles, Brian Epstein and Elton John (Thorogood, 2004). Ellis was the Chief Executive of NEMS Enterprises, Brian Epstein's company.
On page 62 of the book, he talked about Brian Epstein's personal office staff. Epstein's personal assistant was Wendy Hanson and her secretary was Jody Haines who, ". . . had come to the notice of Brian and the Boys by being one of the 'Carnation Girls', two fans who turned up with carnations at as many Beatles' concerts as possible and politely handed them in."
So if Jody Haines was busy, the other [unnamed in the book] girl apparently carried on the tradition.
If the new John wasn't aware of the significance of the Carnation Girls, why would Faul be? Because from all accounts, Faul took over the top spot of the Beatles when he was installed as the new Paul. By the time of Magical Mystery Tour, the new, new Beatles' second album, Faul was calling the shots.
I found Apple Corps Ltd.'s official Magical Mystery Tour website that describes the whole project. It quotes Ringo saying, "It's Paul's idea really he came up with this . . . ."There is a copy of Faul's pie-chart outline [see right].
So I think Faul deliberately wore the black carnation. And I think this was part of the commentary he was making about, apparently, our Paul.
"Your Mother Should Know", the song Faul sang in the production number at the end of Magical Mystery Tour, is another part of the commentary. I'll cover that in the next post.
- - - paulumbo
