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?

 

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

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 


                                                

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, 1957.  This 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!

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.

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.







 

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?