Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Paul McCartney comparisons and composites

I always thought those two had different hair textures. (Doesn't darkened shoe-polish hair mean it's Faul?)
Here you can see the Paul on the left has a lower left eye. And the Paul on the right has eyes that are much more level.

Image on left from HDN album, image on right from vintage mag: 

Notice how the left eyes and left eyebrow don't line up (he could be raising the eyebrow). Everything else is spot on.

Except the Paul on the right also doesn't seem to have the crows-feet. But it could be the photo is too washed out. (Some Pauls have them, some don't).

Photo on left from AHDN album cover.

The 'forensic scientists' say the jawlines of these two Pauls match, but did they notice the glaringly different eyebrows?

Are those even the same noses, mouths, ears and chin clefts? And why did they use such a poorly lit photo for their 'sceintific' research?
Sure, the Wired article does an alright job of showing us that there were TWO Pauls, but that is just one small part of a much bigger picture. I would like to see them analyze several photos from the Beatlemania era, comparing them all with each other. And likewise with post-66 photos.
I'd also like to see them explain the uncanny resemblances between them all.

Here's a Paul from 1964 that matches one of the Pauls in the Sgt. Pepper photo shoot pretty well.

^These two guys are strikingly similar, imo. Though the left eye doesn't wander quite as much with the younger one.

It seems these two may be the same person, but the left eye is a little unfocused, the left nostril is higher, the bottom lip dips to the left, front teeth angle to the right and the left chin muscle pulls more. Things you probably couldn't get with surgery. Looks like same chin scars/dimples, too. It's a perfect match, except for maybe the eyebrows and cheeks? Please, Please pass the Pepper!

Pretty dang close. Different chins and eyebrows. Some might cry "doctored", but if they're gonna doctor these photos why not make them 100% similar. These 98% similar comps only show that there were multiples.

Even the same bulbous cranium. And again; notice the wandering left eye, higher left nostril, lower lip dipping to the left, front teeth angled right etc. If this isn't the same person it's a clone. Surgery can't do all that for every look-alike/stand-in.

These Pauls are 98% similar. I did eye angle comparisons. Why not 100%? Created via a technology the public is unaware of?

I compared all of their eye angles to Pepper Paul. I will hold off posting all the comps for space's sake. 

But I will post the ones that line up every time... This guy.

^the only difference between these guys are slight variations in the eye brows. Even the vibe/demeanor is practically the same. These comps ring clear.

Some people say the image of Paul in the Sgt. Pepper cover is a composite. if so, why did they part his hair on the right instead of the left? And why would they need to put the mustache on? And you'd think they'd fix that wandering eye.

these eye angles don't match

But these eye angles do match.

vintage scans: http://jojoplace.org/Shoebox/James_Paul_McCartney.org/beautifulPaul2.jpg

These two have the same size head. And see how well everything else lines up?

as seen on the front of the old PID/MH forum to Illustrate the "glaring differences between Paul and Faul". (which has been set to private)

Strikingly similar, except for the left eye.

But here the eyes line up perfectly. Same head size, too.

Notice how all of the Pauls in these comps are about 98% similar. I've noticed you can take any two photos any P/Fauls from any era, and they will match up about 98% similar. Which is both the problem and the solution to this whole thing.

Whatever is going on, they are too close to be look-alikes and too different to be the same guy. 
Created via a technology that the unknown to the public?


Dean from Canada said...

You might want to do a proper comparison with unadulterated images. For instance, forget about the few you use, here, and go to images from the time - say, from high quality magazines and album covers. These are, by far, more reliable than anything over the last 30 years. For, with all the image doctoring that has been going on for this last generation - especially with the advent of digital retouching - one really can't depend on anything else than first generation prints. Also, it's well known that anything related to Sgt. Pepper's album cover can't be relied on as the images of Paul were the results of 'layered' photgraphic processes. Also, many of the recently published pictures of younger Paul McCartney have been retouched to make them look more like older Paul, and older Paul to look like the former.
Look up the article that appeared in the Italian edition of Wired magazine a few years ago where 2 forensics specialists did a comparison and you'll be quite surprised - probably as much as they were.

Linus said...

Thanks. I have done all of those things you have mentioned. Please read this entire blog. I use only vintage materials when possible. This Paul comparison post is only one small sliver of my entire presentation.

Linus said...

And if they are doctoring photos, they are making them all look different, not similar, as I have presented. Also, why make a young man look like an old man, and vice versa? And wouldn't they have gotten "Faul" to look like Paul by now with plastic surgery, negating the need for photo tampering?

Anonymous said...

Weird question. But even though I like looking at conspiracy theories and always thought something strange had happened with the Beatles I still enjoy a lot of their music. My mom showed me them when I was very young, starting with A HARD DAY'S NIGHT film and album, and I guess because of the memories attached, this is still one of my favorite albums of all time. Pretty much, I like being able to think openly, hearing different theories and such, and have always been curious about everything since I was young, but I don't want to live in a world where I'm paranoid about everything. I am always willing to keep my eyes and mind open and I don't trust people put in power but I also don't want to just become paranoid about everything my whole life. Does that make sense? So is there still a way to look into these things and know that the Beatles may not have been what they were but still be able to enjoy the music for what it was?

Linus said...

That’s not a weird question, in fact it’s one of the best I’ve ever been asked here, and it should be addressed.
I believe it is what everyone wonders but is afraid to ask. So instead, they just reject my research and hold on to their idols.

I suppose there’s two ways to react to the kinds of evidence displayed here; either with paranoia or curiosity. Fortunately, paranoia has never been an issue with me. I started out in this research curious, and the more I learn the more curious I get. What one finds may be horrifying, but know that there is power in knowledge, and a certain kind of assurity amidst the uncertainty that arises with each new question.
My suggestion would be perhaps channel any paranoid energy into curiosity.

I still enjoy the music; it was masterfully crafted, and is timeless, as we see. But I now listen to it with a new perspective - less as a consumer and more of a scientist. And with not so much a tinfoil hat, but a lab coat and a microscope.
“enjoy it for what it was.” Yes, but now, in light of what we’ve been finding as a community, I ask, what… was it, really? A question I tackle like a pioneer in the wilderness.
Though tough at first, the awareness achieved from this investigation has been more fulfilling to me than just being a fan ever was.

Linus said...

And my story is similar to yours, though for me it started with The Monkees reruns on Nickelodeon. The Beatles came in my late-teens. But that '60s sound is still nostalgic to me and I find that decade endlessly fascinating.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for the answer. I wasn't sure if you would get offended, as this is a serious subject and something you obviously worked hard on.

I have been a PIDer for a long time, but I'm going to keep my mind open about the multiples theory. I'm not totally on this train yet though. Some questions are still bothering me. If it did happen why use all that money and time on four men who were always in the spotlight? Wouldn't it have been much easier to just use it on a lone rock star like Elvis Presley for instance? (I know there's some conspiracies surrounding him but not going to get into that now.)

Have you also looked into Bob Dylan or Eminem? Some people say the originals died long ago and now multiples hold their places as well. Bob Dylan I can kind of see, but still working my mind around the Eminem theory.

Personally, I've always felt happier and more at peace listening to The Beatles' older music before SPLHCB. The more "recent" stuff just doesn't do it as much for me. And this was before I really looked into the PID theories. So now that's got me wondering...

Have you also been on Plastic Macca? And there's another site I found that was really helpful, but I can't think of the name right now.

All in all, my theory is that The Beatles started out like any other regular old band. They just wanted to play music and get famous and all that good stuff. But then they must have run into a few problems and became bigger than they bargained for. (If you believe in the NWO, then they must have wanted to shut up a group of pretty intelligent outspoken individuals.) I believe REVOLVER was the last album of them as a full group. Sgt. Pepper's is when the CIA brought in Faul and the group totally changed and became "darker" and more tied to LSD and hidden messages.

I know it's a stretch. And it isn't very detailed. But what the hey. Nobody will ever know what truly happened to them. I guess all we can do is guess.

Okay I'm done. Sorry this was all over the place. I just have so many thoughts going on right now.

Linus said...

Why use all that time & $ on 4 men who were always in the spotlight? Another good question, and you may have already mostly answered it.
If there was ever a case for multiples, it’s The Beatles. My answer to this question is here:

But first let me add; one of the major things that set the Beatles apart from the rest of the pop acts at the time was that ‘they were a democratic team of musicians that wrote their own music’, a stark contrast to the standard solo-act that performed songs written by old men in suits. This in itself was revolutionary and an immense inspiration to the youth of the world.
They were the most popular music act on Earth, who better to spend time & $ on. And I’m sure $ was not an issue for those that may have been behind it.

I myself haven’t looked into Dylan or MnM, but have browsed through some presentations on them. Wouldn’t be surprised if it was true. I only occasionally find multiples when researching other celebs; but it really leaps out to me with The Beatles.

Here, I continually debunk all of PlasticMacca’s claims and point out all of her contradictions. Kudos to anyone putting in time to research this, but her stuff is staggeringly unthorough, and heavily biased. As well as most/all PID sites I’ve been to, even the PID Wired magazine article, which I also debunk.

Your theory on The Beatles’ starting-out years is understandable and natural, though once one studies Egyptology (i.e. Kehpri scarab beetle) and how it is all woven into their entire work & career, things start to come into view. Plus, the fact that there’s strong evidence of multiples going as far back as can be adequately documented; the early-60s.
Here’s a post that focuses on the Hamburg-era Pauls:

I was never much of a fan of the Sgt. Pepper’s album, but liked all their other albums for what they were. As far as a sudden change in their song-writing, most musicologists put it at Revovler. One studied their word usage and the biggest change was in Revolver, which is an album with themes revolving around death. See the thread on Pre-Fall 66 PID Clues. They go back as far as 1964.

I would postulate that their earlier work was crafted to make fans feel at peace. Then once the public was endeared to them, they segued into the “darker” era, and subtly promoted LSD, etc. Bait & Switch.
If one believes in the NWO, they must’ve wanted to create a group of ‘intelligent, outspoken individuals”, one that would be “more popular than Jesus.” (not necessarily promoting religion, just using an example).

The comments section here isn’t very conducive to carrying on a conversation. I enjoy answering readers’ questions, but if you’d like to continue, there is a forum for the discussion of multiple Beatles here, complete with a guest section for those that may not wish to become a member:

Anonymous said...

Friend misinforming these people saying that the Beatles have had four doubles, is that you know nothing of proportion of faces, or the changes they undergo when you laugh , when you mouth shut or not , if you make gestures, step time (age) , if you turn the face slightly , if you do a little face etc, etc, etc. . Another point that you do not take into account are the use of different cameras, the exhibition that are taken, the weather affecting the same color and shadows , the effect the photographer wants to do to put your personal trait , the angles they are taken, the tweaks that are made of the same when studio photos . Now the only one really significant inconsistencies is " Paul " from the end of 1966 , and I mean not only the face , but the voice , changing eye color, form and act on all of the lack knowledge of Beatle history , this man does not know when or because he wrote some of his songs before 1966 gets nervous when asked about whether it is a double and has the nerve to say that the name came from Beatles.

Please stop diverting attention to what is truly important and that is the death of Paul McCartney . Other comparisons you do is a distraction to make this a circus.

Linus said...

I take all of those things into account. What you are describing is a big problem I have found with most PID research I've seen.

I’m not trying to divert attention away from Paul’s death. After extensively and thoroughly researching this, it just seems to me that it happened many years before 1966.
Sure, they were playing with the PID themes more heavily-handed in 1967, but the clues do go back to 1963, as do discrepancies in physical and personality traits, if one is willing to look for and acknowledge them.
The ‘really significant inconsistencies’ you described can also be found during Beatlemania - and afterward.
Plus, things like "not remembering Beatles history" can be faked to play into the PID rumor.

The only circus I see is going in circles trying to investigate a ’66 death/imposter replacement scenario that most likely never happened.
The way I see it, the standard PID theory is diverting attention from the use of multiples from the very beginning of their career.

Whether you are correct or I am, it’s all going to be traced back to the same criminals. You just happen to be of the idea that there was one Beatlemania-era ‘real Paul’ and one ‘imposter replacement’, (which is understandable). While I see, after looking closely, that there were many Pauls (and other three Beatles) from 1960 onward. (I wish there were more photos of them from before 1960).
And as we all know, people are going to believe what they want.

Also, I use pics facing straight forward with little to no facial expressions, and vintage prints with source links when possible. There were many I threw out due to lens differences etc. Or in some cases, only point out the factors that are independent of lens type.
Speaking of which, PIDers need to hold themselves to the same standards that they hold their detractors to. And also refrain from holding a double-standard with differing photos of pre-66 Pauls and pre/post-66 comparisons.
i.e. “the only reason these two Beatlemania Pauls seem different to some is because of lighting, camera lens etc.”

Anonymous said...

I understand what you say and what you have proposed , but the photos are not the only source of research on this topic and has been studied by professional researchers as Carlesi and Gavazzeni (one expert craneometric recognition and another technician for analysis computer image ) not only based on this pair of images that samples one of your comments , but it was more and better resolution, and even the best photos were not provided too easily by the filmmakers photographers and owners of these ( For a review) . They came to conclusions that had cranial discrepancy , palate , jaw , teeth ( detected the existence of cases of ceramics), labial commissure line naso- cord and ears, you realize it was not just a 2- photographs for see whether or not wore and that any person or amateur can do with Photoshop , is detected more corrections given his experience and was instantly detected in one eye and all these discrepancies back to 1966. Finishing with photos theme by experts we have another " coincidence " that the same day they are published these results our friend Faul McCartney made ​​an appearance on Letterman discussing the issue of his alleged death was because he left barefoot on the Abbey Road album, you realize you did not mention the other " small and insignificant details " lol and ends by saying "this is him" putting a face and betray me .

Now another professional who was literally silenced showed that after 1966 and exactly the Sergeant Pepper album were three different voices ( who are investigating these 3 voice and sing songs ) .

Another coincidence is the case of unrecognized daughter Bettina Paul but this took over its maintenance . In 1975 Bettina knows the truth and tries to reclaim his name, but given another chance and that DNA testing of " Faul " is negative for obvious reasons and excluding other inconsistencies that I invite you to investigate .

I can go on and on with " coincidences " that badly you call to play along to a myth , but the issue is not trying to convince you on this, but when refutes something like an investigation reiterate made ​​by professionals do with firm foundations and not something for my kind of amateur . If you realize are not just photos, is the voice , DNA , songs, backwards , murders , attacks, discrediting certain persons which is not only the replacement of a person as an end , but that behind it is a fact even more lamentable .

Linus said...

I am aware of the entire forensics article printed in Wired 2009.
Even though they used a stretched photo from the Sgt. Pepper gatefold to compare cranium sizes, I do know that they did an alright job of showing that there were TWO Pauls. I full-heartedly acknowledge that.
I’m not refuting their ability to show us different Pauls, I’m pointing out that their report is but a tiny piece of a much bigger puzzle, and that they also made some errors, whether they realized it or not. Which I explain, and presume that an observant person would also see.

What I wish they would do is analyze multiple different photos and look for discrepancies within each era. I can see them with my naked eye. Analyzing them closely with protractors etc. only confirms it.
Yes, there are discrepancies to be found between ’66 and ’67. What I am saying is that there are also discrepancies to be found from 1960 to today - as well as the uncanny, unexplainable similarities between every one of them.

The scientists noticed similarities between the two 1963 Pauls, but did not notice that they have a few noticeably different features. They say their jaws are the same shape, but the photo they use from With The Beatles is very poorly lit. They do however have different chins, eyebrows, eyes and mouth. I go over this in this post, and in others.
Other Beatle researchers have pointed out the errors in the forensics Wired article back in 2009:

Their teeth analysis was staggeringly unthorough. Not only do their two Beatlemania-era sets of teeth differ, but you can see in this post that there are many different molar alignments throughout the ‘60s-80s. Oddly enough, most Pauls before 1967 had nicely-aligned upper-left molars, while most post-66 Pauls had crooked upper-left molars. The opposite of the scientist’s standard.

Things like the Letterman interview may or may not be taken at face value, it’s up to each researcher. They could just as easily have been playing into the PID motif.
The Wired article and the Letterman interview were actually 2 days apart, but it is the proximity that actually leads me towards believing that it was not a coincidence, but done intentionally, to play into PID.
Notice how the dialogue was ambiguous enough for PIDers to hear what they want, and for PIAers to hear what they want. This is done over & over.
I even sometimes wonder if the PID Wired article was staged.

Linus said...

I am not trying to debunk or downplay a death, or say PID clues, themes and “coincidences” aren’t there, and I’m not saying there’s only one Paul.
What I’m saying is that if there was a death it happened many years before ’66. That the death clues and themes go back to 1963. And that there are a lot more than just two PFauls. (they’re all Fauls to me).

We don’t know for sure if Henry Truby was “silenced”. But I would like to see some pros analyze many Beatles song. I hear more than just 3 Pauls even before 1967. Someone recently did analyze different songs and interviews throughout the ‘60s and determined they were all too similar to be different men.

Which begs the question; why would they put all those clues in their work (PFaul included) to “alert the public”, then try to cover things up by ‘silencing’ people? Why leave a trail of crumbs and then cover one’s tracks at the same time?
It only makes the ’66 death idea look more like a smokescreen.

Regarding Bettina, I have looked into this quite a bit. From my point of view, I ask; which Paul is the father? They could’ve done a DNA test in 1965 and gotten negative results, too.

Like I said in my previous comment to you, I am aware of all the criminal activity surrounding The Beatles, it is not pretty. I am just trying to point out through my findings that the PID theme is a thin veil for even darker crimes and practices.

Perhaps I am not making myself clear enough. I will edit my post so that it will convey my ideas more fully.
Although I prefer to just post my findings and let the reader come to his/her own conclusions, rather than tell them what to think.
Telling others what to think is another problem I see in the PID community. Even the Beatles are guilty of it, with their subliminal coded messages.

Anonymous said...

A friend asked to summarize in a few words your research. Your conclusions reached that there existed or more double Beatles, and was not only Paul?

Linus said...

It seems that there was more than one Paul going back to the early '60s, and continuing to today.

It's harder to tell with the other three, but it seems there were more than one of them, as well.

bill evarts said...

I have studied this thing until I'm blue in the face. Whether there were 4 or 5 Beatles, the legacy of their music will continue long into the future.