A Very Telling Assessment Of Paul By Brian Epstein

I was reading the KRLA Beat teenzine of January 29, 1966 and came across a quote from Brian Epstein talking about our Paul's personality.  (KRLA Beat, if you haven't read some of my other posts about the paper, was a fan magazine published between 1964 and 1968 by the then Los Angeles pop music station KRLA that had features about pop musicians.)

Here's Brian Epstein's quote:
     "Probably the most changed Beatle.  He's mellowed in character and thought.  A fascinating character and a very loyal person.  Doesn't like changes very much.  He probably more than the others, finds it more difficult to accept that he is playing to a cross section of the public and not just to teenagers, or sub-teenagers, whom he feels are the Beatles' audience."  [my emphasis]

In other posts, I've talked about my theory that there was a power elite that was directing and manipulating The Beatles.  My theory is that Paul was resisting efforts to Pied Piper (so to speak) the Baby Boomer generation toward acceptance of widespread drug use and free (and diseased) love to begin with.  If the manipulators could get their foot in the door of morally degrading the massive Baby Boom generation, they thought, no doubt, they could do anything.

Paul didn't like changes very much and Paul was concerned with keeping The Beatles' teeny bopper audience and not taking on--what turned out to be--the slightly older, Sgt. Pepper-era, album rock fans that the Faul-and-Fohn new, new Beatles of late 1966 played to.  So said Brian Epstein.

But Paul was also aware that a changed group of Beatles singing to the larger audience might draw in some of the maturing young Beatle fans and, again, he apparently wanted none of it.

Epstein also said that Paul had mellowed in character and thought.  But not so much that when The Beatles were up against a psychedelic wall, Paul would not put up a monumental fight against forced changes.  Paul did fight.

Faul's Vacation In Kenya

The Beatles' fan club Christmas record of 1967 had what Paul researchers believe is an autobiographical skit describing how our Paul's replacement got hired in 1966.  In the skit, George--as the "hiring boss"--asks "the applicant" how old "the applicant" is, and can't believe it when "the applicant" replies, honestly, that he is 32 years' old.  This would put our Paul's replacement's birth year at ~ 1935.

What makes Paul's replacement's birth year remarkable in the history of England is that there was a military national service scheme in place that did not formally end until 1960.  The law required healthy males 17 to 21 years' old to serve for 18 months.

If Faul (our Paul's replacement) was born in 1935, he would have been liable to begin military duty from ~1952 to ~1957.

The country of Kenya was ruled by the Brits during that time and the Kenyans began an armed rebellion from 1952-1956 against the Brits.  There's a good possibility that Faul was one of those combat troops.

The Kenyans achieved independence in 1963 and Faul achieved a dream job as Beatle Paul in 1966, so I'm speculating that Faul went back to Kenya to take a 6-day "victory lap" before he would attain the role of Paul McCartney in the late 1966, new, new Beatles.

Take a look at a Youtube video titled, "Paul McCartney's replacement trip to Spain and Kenya in the fall of 1966" at:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PP4ZqBKEw1M .  You have to figure that it was Faul's travel companion--Beatles' roadie--Mal Evans who was filming Faul.  Faul was very relaxed and at ease in the Kenyan segment of the video.  Look at the photos from the film of Faul riding along in a car and filming the countryside:

 

At 19:14-19:17 in the video it shows Faul waving at someone and making a distinctive hand gesture. (See photos below.)  He obviously knew someone well enough to do that.  Look at the photo of the hand gesture:

I researched hand signals looking for this particular one.  The closest I could find was an Indian hand position--called a mudra--: this particular mudra called an acceptance mudra that signifies accepting the blessings that are yours. (See photo below.)

The acceptance mudra, though, is not quite the same as Faul's hand signal.

Take another look at Faul's hand signal:  Is it a small letter B" as in now Faul is a Beatle?  Or is it an upside down letter "P"--Faul giving a signal to someone he knew that yes, indeed, he was the new Paul?  Or was  Faul flashing the number "9" to someone he knew?   ??

 

 

"

Increasing Evidence That Paul Was Trying To Sabotage The Beatles

In my post of September 15, 2016, I talked about the revealing interview Paul and John gave the day they were being photographed for what turned out to be the infamous butcher cover for the U.S. Beatles' album, Yesterday and Today.  I've mentioned in other posts that I believe Paul was mounting a fight--first--against attempts by a power elite to have The Beatles try to manipulate the attitudes of the vast, world-wide Baby Boomer generation, and later, against his ouster from the group.  In other words, I think Paul thought if they were going to dump him, he would pull the group down with him.

I've found dates and events when Paul (and John) made serious efforts to sabotage The Beatles:
     1.) Paul's insistence that Capitol Records in the U.S. (owned by EMI in England) use the butcher photo for the Yesterday and Today album.
     2.)  Paul's London Evening Standard interview on March 25, 1966 with Maureen Cleeve where he said that America was racist.
     3.)  John's interview published in the Evening Standard on March 4, 1966 where he made the infamous "Beatles bigger than Jesus" comment.
     4.)  Paul's comment at the June 30, 1966 Tokyo press conference where he rated The Beatles' talent as "adequate."
     5.)  His hint, hint at the Radio Caroline interview of April 25, 1966 that The Beatles had doubles.

Was anybody in the hierarchy over The Beatles aware of the potential harm Paul's efforts was having on the Beatles' popularity?  In England, Brian Epstein was, I believe, uneasy about The Beatles' image vis-a-vis America.  Soon after the butcher cover photo session, but before the butcher photo made the cover the Yesterday and Today album, Epstein had Robert Whitaker--the butcher photo session photographer--and some Beatles come to his office so Whitaker could take an innocuous photo of "The Beatles" standing around--and "Paul" sitting in--a steamer trunk.  There are internet site estimates that this photo was taken in late March or early April, 1966.  In a photo I found [see below], George and Ringo are shown in Epstein's office on that day, looking at developed photos from the butcher photo shoot.

 

I said that Epstein had some Beatles in his office because Paul (and John) are NOT in the steamer trunk photo that was pasted over the butcher cover.  Compare the photo below on the left with the photo on the right of Paul taken from the Paperback Writer/Rain promotional films of May, 1966. The face looks convincing but look at "Paul"'s shoulders.  Was our Paul an American football player because the upper body of the Paul on the left is NOT the same as the real Paul on the right.  (And this before the famous photo of a fake Paul standing backward on the Sgt. Pepper album.)

 

 

 

So I think Epstein--who apparently didn't know the sensibilities of Americans as well as Paul did--okayed the butcher cover photo release but hedged his bets by having a back-up photo because he suspected the butcher cover was part of Paul's plan for sabotaging The Beatles.

 

In America, there were two people who did know the extent of the damage the butcher cover could cause the popularity of The Beatles:  Capitol Records' president, Alan W. Livingston and Capitol Records' Manager of Press & Information Services, Ron Tepper.  In a June 14, 1966 letter to people who got advance copies of the butcher cover album, Tepper quotes Livingston who said:

"The original cover, created in England, was intended a 'pop art' satire.  However, a sampling of public opinion in the United States indicates that the cover design is subject to misinterpretation.  For this reason, and to avoid any possible controversy or undeserved harm to The Beatles' image or reputation, Capitol has chosen to withdraw the LP and substitute a more generally acceptable design."  [See full letter below.]

You'll notice that Livingston emphasized that the photo was "created in England" not America, and that Capitol offered to pay the cost of shipping the album back.

 

The Yesterday and Today album with the bland (and deceptive) cover was in U.S. stores on June 20, 1966.  But the furor the original cover photo caused showed that the damage Paul had intended, was already done.

Is That Faul or Is That Faul?

I just found a photo of the 1966 "Beatles" published in an October 1966 advertisement for Chicago radio station, WCFL.  This photograph was no doubt taken when the B/Featles were in Chicago during their August U.S. tour.  Take a good look at "Paul" on the left and "John" on the right.

You'll notice--especially--the eyes are very reminiscent of the Paul of today.  Notice also the angular face, which looks much more like the face of the two photos immediately below as opposed to our Paul's distinctly rounder face that you can see in photos 3 and 4 below.  I've been contending for some time that our Paul never made it to the 1966 tour and these photos lend credence to that theory.

 

My concentration in this blog is on Paul, but if you look at "John" in the WCFL photo you'll notice that this man---with his narrow face--is not our John. (See photos below for comparison.)

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.