What The Time-Frame Was For Paul Breaking His Tooth (Continued)

In my last post, I narrowed down the time-frame for Paul breaking his tooth to early May, 1966.  Since Paul had no evidence of being in an accident on May 1st., 1966 at the NME Poll Winner's contest, and  the tooth could be seen  broken on the May 19, 1966 filming of the Rain/Paperback Writer promotionals, AND Paul said in a June 16, 1966 interview that he had recently broken the tooth before the 5/19 films--logically--something happened to Paul between 5/1/66 and 5/19/66.

Paul gave a story in the interview that he had been involved in a moped accident.  He said:  "But it was dark and I hit a stone and went flyin' through the air.  It was my fault . . . it was a nice night and I was looking at the moon."

During the month of May, The Beatles were busy recording tracks for their Revolver album.  Paul spent much of the evening of May 9th., 1966 recording his song, "For No One."

If he had had the "accident", say, on May 1st., 2nd., or even 3rd., there's a possibility he might have felt up to recording by May 9th.---except that his statement that the night was dark contradicts the near-full moon that was in the Liverpool night sky on those nights in 1966. (See chart) [from the website--www.rodurago.net  "Perpetual Moon Calendar"]

Also take a look at several photos I have found of roads that are fully moonlit.  Hardly dark.

Even if he had the accident after May 10th. or 11th., the road or path would not have been dark.  Take a look at a crescent moonlit road photo I found:

 

And then there's the healing time of a fall that would cause head, lip and tooth damage.

 

What's my point?  I think Paul gave an implausible explanation to get people to want to know what REALLY happened to him.

What The Time-Frame Was For Paul Breaking His Tooth

There has been alot written about the broken tooth our Paul had that showed prominently in the Rain/Paperback Writer promotional films The Beatles recorded on May 19th. and 20th., 1966.

Paul gave an interview for the New Musical Express British pop magazine on June 16, 1966 and this is what he said about the tooth:

 

Paul gave a story about a moped accident--an "accident" that most of the press claims happened on December 26, 1965. But when you listen to how Paul phrased his reply to the NME interviewer, it tells another story.  Paul says that he had "ONLY JUST" bashed his tooth at the time The Beatles filmed the promotionals MAY 19 and 20, 1966.  I was curious about the Briticism "only just", so I

checked the Oxford English online dictionary and they give the following definition of "only just":

 1.1 Very Recently

(example):  'I'd only just arrived back from Paris.'

 

Now take a look at a screen capture of Paul at the NME Poll Winners Concert from May 1, 1966:

 

NO broken tooth. And no scar on his lip.

 

So the timeframe for Paul's "accident" would really be sometime in early MAY, 1966.  And because Paul insisted on showing the broken tooth in the promotional films, I'm guessing the cause was NOT an accident.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yet Another Telling Interview

On March 25, 1966, Tom Lodge, who was a DJ for the English pirate station Radio Caroline, came to the Chelsea studio where that day Robert Whitaker was photographing The Beatles for what became the infamous "butcher cover" of the Yesterday and Today album.  Lodge interviewed The Beatles.  This interview was edited down to less than two minutes and included in a flexi-disc that had interviews of other English singers and musicians.

It was produced by Tony Barrow--The Beatles' public relations director-- to promote the new English pop music magazine, Disc and Music Echo--a merger of two older magazines.

Since Brian Epstein was part owner of the magazine, The Beatles were featured as the "headline act" on Side 2.  You can here the record on YouTube at:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaF4quazrZw .

Here is the Paul and John part of the interview and Paul's last sentence is what makes this important:

     8:45-8:51  Lodge:  This was the time I came face-to-face with the one and only--yes, wait for it--The Beatles.
     8:52-8:59   John:  Well, ah, it's nice to be here in the actual captain's kitchen [NOTE: Pirate stations were housed in boats off the English coast] and the captain himself is stirring up a right old brew.
     8:59-9:03  Lodge:  Is it true that Paul and John, that you have ghost writers to write your songs for you?
     9:03-9:09  John (sarcastically):  Oh yeah, we have Gershwin and Trotsky, they write, they write the first four.
     9:09-9:11  Paul:  And Latin and Labattsky write the lyrics.
     9:11          John:  Yeah.
     9:12-9:16  Paul (mockingly)  The two best-selling lyric writers in the country.
     9:16-9:17  John:  We just do the P.R. for the boys, you know.
     9:17-9:20  Paul:  Yeah, we just do appearances in our moptops, you know.
     9:20          John:  Yeah.
     9:21-9:23  Lodge:  It's a hard life, isn't it?
     9:23-9:27  Paul:  Yeah, well it's very hard.  But just wander 'round.  WE'VE GOT DOUBLES FOR MOST OF THAT, AS WELL.

What I find remarkable, on the face of it, is that Barrow and Epstein would allow a contentious and confrontational interview with Paul and John to be aired publicly.  But it's pretty obvious by the ambush journalism nature of Lodge's questioning that things were not going well between  Epstein and the two Beatles.  So why would Epstein leave Paul's pointed reference to Beatle doubles in the interview?  I think it's because--just as I read time after time in comments by people who refuse to see the truth--the reality of the comment can be passed off as a joke.   

Paul's Reference At The 7/1/66 Concert To Being "Relocated"

I watched the entire July 1st. 1966 concert The Beatles gave at Tokyo's Nippon Budokan.  I'm convinced that this was our Paul at this concert and at the evening concert given on June 30th. 1966.  You can hear the full concert on YouTube at:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhYh4PDMA-Y  and watch it on Dailymotion at:  http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2v24z7_1966-07-01-beatles-budokan-full-concert_music .

Near the end of the concert--right before they sing "I'm Down"--Paul says the following:  "Well, yes, thank you, this, this next song, now, ah, will have to, well, be our last song for this afternoon.  And, so, before we go we'd like to say to everybody:  Thank you for coming.  Thank you very much and we hope you've enjoyed it.  [his voice drops]  And, uh, yeah, so as we say in Runcorn:  [with emotion] sayonara."

What is this reference to Runcorn?

Runcorn was one of the towns designated a "new town" by the English government after World War 2.  These towns were either entirely concocted from scratch or--as in the case of Runcorn, for example--were relocations of old existing towns.  So there was an OLD Runcorn that had existed since ~A.D. 913 and a NEW Runcorn east of the old town that began its existence by decree of the English Government in April. 1964.  For information sake, the purpose of the new towns were to relocate poor people out of bombed-out or run-down housing or to house poor people of larger cities in smaller towns close to those cities.

Paul was aware of an old Runcorn and a new Runcorn* and I believe was making a rueful comment about being moved out of the old town {read, band) to a new town--in other words, being ousted from the group.  So he was saying good-bye in JAPAN to being a member of The Beatles.

          *Possibly because Brian Epstein's personal assistant, Alistair Taylor, had been born in Runcorn.  There is also the possibility that Paul was thinking about "retiring" to the new farm he had bought in Scotland, two weeks' prior.  Alistair Taylor had helped negotiate the purchase of the farm for Paul. 

A Small Reconsideration On My Last Post

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.

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

   

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:

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.