New J. Lennon Paul is Dead "Clue"(?)

Fig. 1.  John Lennon drawing of a double-split headed young man, 1971, private collection.
Previously identified only as "Fool on the Hill" or "Farmer"

What did John Lennon's bad eyes and eye glasses see?   -- Did John Lennon draw JUST ANYTHING, by habit?   Whatever this is ... And for whatever reason it was drawn, we will show that in this relatively private, unknown drawing, the figure is not wearing a fool's cap, as some have thought.
To see gore, etc., more clearly: view life size (Fig. 3). Please note caption below it, too.
[Image cached here; from article part 1. (Part 2.)]

This blog post is a labour of love. If it is about nonsense building on nonsense, so be it. It is not done from spite or intention to lay blame where none can be known as of yet.

Fig. 2.  PID, Paul is Dead: a John Lennon ugly joke or money ploy?
And IF the drawing is PID-themed, but PID is a money ploy joke, Why do a relatively private drawing?

(Image: "Batboy" screaming as ugly, dead Paul McCartney, uncredited. [Image cached here; from this blog.])

-- FORWARD --

UPDATES:

THIS POST IS COMPLEX. IT IS NOT A "RAMBLE". THE POST DOVETAILS BETWEEN:

• PROOFS OF THE EXISTENCE OF CLUES -- NOT EXACTLY WHETHER PAUL DIED, BUT WHETHER SOME SO-CALLED CLUES, AS MERELY PLANTED ITEMS, EXIST (see "INTRO") 
• COMMENTS ON THE DRAWING (see "PART 1" and "PART 4")
• OBJECTIONS TO THE IDEA OF A LITERAL "PAUL IS DEAD" or "PID" SITUATION  (see "PART 2")
• FORENSICS OF WHETHER PAUL DIED IN FACT (see "PREFACE" for simplest forensics vs optical illusion; see "PART 3" for more overview of other issues to do with forensics).

THIS POST IS ALSO ALWAYS RESPECTFUL OF THE BEATLES, THEIR FAMILY and FRIENDS -- even if PAUL DIED AND A CHOICE WAS MADE IN PANIC, TO CONTINUE WITH A NEW BANDMATE UNANNOUNCED.

THE POST IS NOT ABOUT "A BIG HORRIBLE PLOT", SO MUCH AS WHETHER THERE WAS "AN IDEA MADE REAL -- AN IDEA WHICH IS ONLY TECHNICALLY SPEAKING A PLOT". If it started as a small plot, i.e., just a "weird idea that might work", it really isn't a "Big Plot". The public often do not think through the following fact: that they overvalue themselves compared to how "insiders" feel about what they do. The public often seems to feel a literal PID situation would be a "big plot"; but at least initially, this is not how the idea might well seem to the few who agreed to it, if it actually occurred. If, in the case of literal PID, there really would not have to be a "big plot", if all that happened was that Paul died and, in the panic about what to do, plus insider dissociation from the "vast, faceless public", someone suggested that they try what intelligence circles do a lot: merely use someone who could double, be a great musician, and prepare, maybe even for an eventual "reveal" later. A "double" in this case would not, as some people think, be a talentless dweeb. Rather, the new bandmate would be someone intelligent, musically bright -- even a friend already, or something like that.

PLUS, even if it can be proved there was a replacement, nothing is known for sure about what Paul's death circumstances were, if it happened. (Only the so-called "clues" mention car crashes.) There is also nothing known specifically about what went on in the feelings of those who didn't want this revealed, or those who were afraid to reveal it once the very limited "plot" became bigger -- if there was a replacement. So there is not strong evidence either way on the "plot" idea itself if it happened. There is information on whether Paul is the same person after 1966, if one knows where to look for that evidence -- we will argue, therefore, we can know if there was a replacement but NOT specifically what happened in the circumstances, if there was a replacement.

TALENT CAN BE HIGH BUT NOT IDENTICAL; VOICE ANALYSIS IS DONE BUT NOT OFFICIAL & WARPING IS HISTORICALLY KNOWN TO HAVE BEEN DONE & WLD HAVE TO BE ELIMINATED -- the new fellow would not have to "duplicate" the voice exactly and always, either, just act calm and husky in more interviews, and have some voice morphs done on formal songs, not even on all of them; HUMAN NATURE IS COMPLEX: IF PEOPLE WLD ATTACK/ BE DOWNHEARTED TOWARD PERSONS WHO LIED (IF THEY LIED), THEN EVEN PERSONS WHO WERE NOT BEST FRIENDS WITH THE NEW PERSON, SUCH AS GEORGE HARRISON, WOULD NOT TEND TO SPILL THE BEANS.

ALL THIS AND MORE ITEMS ARE COVERED IN THE RELEVANT SECTIONS BELOW. The Youtube Iamaphoney films on PID, for example, are costly productions -- and may have been done by Neil Aspinall's company. (He was 1 of 2 main Beatles roadies, along with Mal Evans, who was killed in 1976, & Neil was later head of Apple Corps, the Beatles' company). Neil died of cancer in 2008. If Neil's company did the Iamaphoney films, it is likely that some persons want the idea of PID out there and want it developed past "mere clues", since the Iamaphoney films include more than the clues. If the inner circle really IS facing that they lied that Paul died, put out some information through the Iamaphoney films, interference is also in play, for someone or several people blocked the final film, it seems. Note: The key item in the Iamaphoney films is the page at the end of the film. It is putatively from MAL EVANS' LOST TYPEWRITTEN, HAND-ANNOTATED BOOK. The page is definitely in Mal's manner of speech and thought, looks old, and mentions Sir Paul's having been to a "clinic in Kenya" and that it "did a good job", in context where it's obvious that the shock of "everyone" that "it was really happening" meant that Sir Paul was getting some initial work done on his face to look a bit more like Paul. This appears in partly blanked-out whole-page version and then bottom section unblanked, near the very end of "The Winged Beatle". Whatever else the merit or demerit of the movie, the page is a key piece of evidence for literal PID, if legitimate -- and it is very legitimate looking and in style.

-----

UPDATE Apr. 6, 2013: Happy Nat of Beatles Rarity took a look and claimed John doodled "anything anywhere", so this post is mere "over analysis". But he didn't realize that even if Paul didn't die, no, John did not doodle large, medically generally accurate violent injuries and death by violence! This is unlike Jim Morrison -- & Yoko Ono, who recently tweeted her art piece image of John's bloody glasses from John's assassination. Note: this drawing isn't proof of literal PID on its own; the q is: is it a PID "clue" style, or random? A literal PID case would be proved or disproved otherwise. Both issues (drawing as PID clue style & literal PID case proofs & counter-arguments) are covered below, but the focus of the article is John's drawing.

   UPDATE: Apr. 23, 2013: Someone yesterday apologized to Yoko Ono for retweeting her this blog (b4 being aware of its contents) & claimed I was rude/ranting. Yet Yoko Ono herself suddenly "followed" me, instead, on Twitter today! Is this her quiet endorsement of PID, or simply of openmindedness? She also "follows" Iamaphoney, filmmaker of PID film "The Winged Beatle". IF ... IF forensic arguments could be proper, well done, & showed literal PID, they would logically trump all feelings about weirdness & human resistance to lying, which do not = absolute counter-arguments ... & Moreover, then, there was -- whyever & simply put -- a lie. Let's see what the drawing contains, as well as whether there are good forensics in the PID case. I have indeed run into a few, who say any serious thinking re. weird & complex evidence here is merely delusional behaviour, or worse. They want to protect Sir Paul and his family from outrageous claims, if they are such. Instead of attacking anyone at all, Let's look, instead.

Fig. 3.  For those who might think this is a farmer figure, or a "Fool on the Hill" figure: he's a dead farmer, then, and that's no fool's cap. As we'll remark also in the Pat 1 section, fool's cap tassels go at the end of caps and those are not bells, but dots and trailing bloody matter all over the face/ head, each of the two headwounds (left-right with gaping space and a flap of gore, alone top in dots). So the dark area outlined is a brain-blood spill from the egg-like cracks ("I am the egg man" as goes the line of John's song "I am the Walrus"?) -- very jagged, too -- around top of head, and the wound across head is another medically diagrammatic indication of the severity and types of wounds. -- Aside: I don't know why the front image shows through slightly from the front of the album this was done on. It was on a blank-backed Butcher Album, i.e., "Yesterday and Today" in first pressing but in rarer format even than the main Butcher Albums, because it's blank-backed in this version.

Remember, we will continue with the main blog, about clues in general, the drawing, PID objections, main forensics situation on PID ... after the following Table of Contents and Preface.

--

............................................................................

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents
Preface

Intro: The Rumours & "Clues"
4 Parts
Bibliography
Comments by readers

--

ANNOTATED ARTICLE CONTENT SUMMARY:

• Preface: - makes general comments on blog, forensic proof of ear difference compared to optical illusions.
• Intro: The Rumours & "Clues" - is a summary of what can be known about the history of PID "clues" - for whatever reason they were done. Among other things, it covers, importantly, the first, most definitely planted, explicitly PID "clue" of them all. -- Includes FULL FRONTAL 1967 OPD PATCH CLUE, 1967 WRITTEN CLAIM OF PAUL'S DEATH, etc. -- for whatever reason clues were done.
• Part 1 - is about the drawing's contents and how it relates to possibly being a Paul is Dead-style clue -- for whatever reason PID clues were done at all, even if they weren't done to indicate Paul is dead.
• Part 2 - is about common circumstantial arguments against literal PID, or currently inconclusive forensic issues. It is included for Paul is Alive (PIA) proponents, primarily, but will answer some broad questions for others, too.
• Part 3 - is about whether there are literal-case PID absolute arguments -- i.e., directly and carefully done forensics -- and is also about the overall case for literal PID (audio links). I HAVE TO APOLOGIZE THAT THE FORENSICS ABOUT PAUL'S FACE AND HEIGHT ARE NOT FULLY EXPLICATED IN THE PRESENT ARTICLE. I have linked to those works which, properly understood, do the forensic work on photos, and have given some tips as to how to assess the quality of the studies -- to see if they are "hazy" or "not well done". But I have not YET had the time, yet, to provide simplifications of the arguments. I will be doing this in the months ahead. Part 3 also contains a link regarding John Lennon's own death by assassination (full current info in audio overview). And finally, Part 2 has a subsection about what John said OTHER THAN DENIALS of PID planted clues of any kind, and literal PID.
• Part 4 - is more information, and some repeated information for review, regarding the drawing's history -- and how its creation might indicate it was a PID "clue", for whatever reason PID clues were done at all.

 --

For anyone who knows my work in the subject of PID or Paul is Dead, about the idea of the death of Paul McCartney in 1966 (murder or mishap) and that there was a decision to replace Paul with someone else for the 4th (5th) Beatles member, the drawing under discussion in this post will come a welcome new development.


Also:

If Paul died:
ALL INSIDERS, PLEASE NOTE that I do not hate or malign the 2nd Paul McCartney as a person or musician or, beyond lying and any literal crimes during the process, anyone who has kept this stuff under wraps officially.

--

END OF TABLE OF CONTENTS.

............................................................................

PREFACE:

<<<>>>

Welcome to all viewers.

If you like or learn anything from this blog post, please spread the word about what you've learned and also please send people here, to view it.

Whatever you think already about whether Paul McCartney died in 1966, the drawing by John Lennon is my original focus here. The rest is also covered, with impartiality towards all so-called "clues" and the circumstantial evidence and lack thereof in some cases, on either side of the literalist PID question. Forensic difficulties and successes are also covered.

-----

Is this drawing in the theme of, or style of the so-called PID "clues" -- whether PID "clues" were done for a hoax or, instead, for real revelation?

Of course, on their own, PID "clues" prove nothing about Paul's death or continued life. This is true about the drawing in isolation, even if it is PID-style. Again, considered on their own, the PID "clues" may not be clues in a literal sense. They could be a joke, some say, or could be done out of macabre cleverness, or a publicity stunt. Still, they are called "clues" by convention. Unless otherwise specified, I will use the word clues, with or without quotation marks, to mean all items, done for whatever reason, which fall into the PID-style themes.

-----

We don't need to know if Paul died, in order to assess the most general aspects of drawing's style content as a so-called clue.

Some people think there are NO clues at all. But one clue mentions the idea of Paul's death overtly, in writing and predates the famous 1969 "rumour mill" events in the USA: it is from February 1967. So there is at least ONE planted and early PID "clue" item, for whatever reason the clues were done. There is some indication that this "clue" was related to another car crash than the one now suspected to be where Paul was killed, if he was. Another definitely planted "clue" exists, but it is from 1995, long after 1969 -- and thus it could be argued, technically speaking, that it was done in response to the 1969 rumours. Finally, there is a misunderstood "clue", called the Sergeant Pepper album gatefold (inner double album cover) "OPP/OPD" clue; yet there is another OPP/OPD clue related to the main one, which is barely known, and shows a FULLY FRONTAL OPD image. Both are early, from mid-1967, with the unknown one being undebatably planted for whatever reason. Because the lesser-known clue exists, it proves that the debated one was a watered-down version, also planted. (See "Intro: The Rumours & 'Clues'", below)

The rest of the "clues" each can be argued, strictly speaking, as perhaps not even being planted ideas, that is, argued that they don't even exist in the repertoire, for whatever reason that that repertoire was created in 1967.

In order to deal succinctly with the timeline around Paul, I will need to name the pre-1966 and post-1966 figure or figures we know as Paul. Though it is really only descriptive, the typical term for the putative replacement bandmate, "Faul" (from "False Paul" or "Fake Paul"), seems to me to have a whiff of the derogatory. So I will call the man post-1966 "Sir Paul", in order to remain neutral. After all, as we'll see in the "Intermission" section, though the case for Paul's being alive is not absolute, as an argument, anyway, the case for what may have occurred in the circumstances, if Paul died is not absolute either, so why blame people for circumstances we can't be sure of even if we could know Paul was replaced!

If Sir Paul was asked in, he was asked in.

So I choose to be neutral about his taking all the blame, if there was indeed a replacement and will call him Sir Paul, not Faul, to be neutral about about the putative "Fab 5th" as a person.

Perhaps, before covering all the objections to a literalist PID situation in detail, the reader will find helpful the following (long) summary of some of the major ideas floating out in the public on both sides of the question.

Whether Paul died or didn't ...

SUMMARY OF SOME POINTS ABOUT THE LITERAL PID QUESTION

-------------

I wrote this blog post originally to cover the drawing as unusual and likely of the PID class of objects, "clues". Unfortunately, several people's comments about what they already thought or assumed about literal PID as a case, showed that they had inhibiting thoughts -- on both sides -- to processing information and limits which can be shown about their arguments, at least at this time. This forced the blog to expand considerably. We will cover all major questions, but first off, let it be said here once and for all, that almost everyone thinks -- at least at first -- that their pet objection or support to the idea is the "key" to the idea of the continuance or demise of Paul McCartney.

Yet some arguments have more meat to them, some not, at least at this time. We will thus have to circle back and repeat some points, for readers who miss the fact that their objection or support idea was addressed succinctly before. I apologize for this. The point of the article remains the rather shocking drawing John did, because its poignancy combines with grisliness in a terribly atypical fashion for John. But at times, we will mention PID arguments and counterarguments. If you don't find your pet in this summary, wait for the Intermission (next section). The full set is addressed there at length. When you first encounter your "issue", below, it may not be fully handled; don't assume therefore, please, that that is all there is to the issue in my text.

-----

Whoever Sir Paul might be, if he's not Paul:

• Whether or not he knew the band before, maybe as a friend or body double and talented fellow musician, artist, or avant-gardist (Sir Paul was known to like William S. Burroughs and aspects of Crowley -- not necessarily do we know if it's the sinister side) ...
• For whatever reason Paul may have died -- some have suggested by murder ...
• Or whether there was an infiltration influence from protective intelligence agencies on the Beatles directly or through Sir Paul after the putative death ... (The idea of infiltration was posited long before the "Paul Really Is Dead: The Last Testament of George Harrison" disinformation film -- for it sows confusion, leaves out information, ultimately demeans the case for literal PID by mere implication, so that even if PID is untrue, the film is no good standard either way) ...
• Some think, of course, Paul is still Paul, except for age or personality change. To them, another man's doing mimicry study of another man (Paul), or his having non-routine plastic surgery never happened. ... But IF it happened, could the Beatles & their family & business circle have easily suffered threats & blackmail later, on other issues?

... all readers must note that these items for, against, or elaborating on literalist PID are simply, at this point, not absolute in argument.

Some people think Sir Paul is the most amazing bass player ever, and that's fine, but it is not an absolute argument either way -- and regarding his left-handed playing, please read on. For the moment, we can note that even if Sir Paul and Paul are different, one or the other or both could be the most brilliant musicians on the planet (though this is subjective and debatable). The issue of general genius and ambidexterity or practice and training ends up making no difference as to whether Sir Paul replaced Paul, as an argument. We will see that the qualities and skills can be argued properly to represent either scenario. So, the public could have a conflation of two great men in their minds. Read on to the Intermission.

If Sir Paul is a "double", he is still a person, not some cardboard figment of a crazy "clue seeker" mind. It seems that some persons object to the idea of a double, as if the argument, even if incorrect about a real PID situation, required that the double be one who has no family, no life, no feelings and no friends, or pre-contact within the Beatles circle. Overall, such concepts are (and would be) untrue, under any reasonable circumstance for any real double. For example, one reader objected by e-mail that somehow the fact that James McCartney looks like his dad, Sir Paul, means that Sir Paul has to be Paul. This is completely illogical: Sir Paul isn't arguably different than or the same as Paul by having or not having a son and family. Read on to the Intermission.

Does Sir Paul "know" his "own" Paul McCartney history well? It would be understandable not to remember specific recording dates and such, and be the same person. But Sir Paul has said he worked a couple of jobs in factories -- with emphatic demonstration of what he did, with his hands. Yet Paul McCartney is not supposed to have had any jobs before the band, at least not mentioning any in his 1963 interview. He was very young when the Beatles (as "The Quarrymen") started, and says in that interview that he "went right into it" (the band). He doesn't mention any other jobs, but then, he's being asked about the band itself. Sir Paul is rumoured to be slightly older; his history, if it is not Paul's, is otherwise unknown. The idea of jobs vs. no jobs might be absolute, but there is not enough confirmed information about whether he had any other jobs officially -- so this omission from Paul about any other jobs, in his 1963 interview, is one of those instances where absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence of a fact ... in the current state of our knowledge. It might indeed be, but would need confirmation that it was in fact evidence of absence of other jobs for Paul.

Bodily forensics of different kinds would be the only proof of sameness or difference in absolute terms (meaning, in this article, "radically beyond reasonable doubt for the case", since "absolute" in philosophy of science is a word reserved for exactly naming general laws in science, not case-specific absolutes). Body tissue information (DNA and fingerprints), which would allow absolute arguments, are unavailable at this time. Voice harmonic (voice prints) studies and other voice studies have also been done, always showing difference between the pre- and post-1966 periods, but are unofficial, or, when official studies, are unavailable to scrutinize the details of the method used for the findings. (Unavailable circumstantial and forensics arguments are in Part 1.)

I seek not to present any part of the cases for literal PID and against literal PID in too strong a light, that is, as if anything is absolute when things are not. This means (probably) stepping on people's toes on both sides. It is important, however, to set the case into the strictest possible scrutiny of argument.

----

EXCEPT THAT SOME PERSONS CANNOT WAIT TO KNOW IF THERE IS ANY ABSOLUTE ARGUMENT AVAILABLE FORENSICALLY, even in ISOLATION, which could prove PAUL ACTUALLY DIED. There is one: but it takes some understanding of the difference between optical illusions and forensics, in order to know it.

If you think "there were no plastic surgeons that good" in the 1960s, read on to Part 2. This question assumes the similarity of the men, if there are two, is extremely close. Impressions can be weird, though; literal similarity and impression are NOT the same thing: rounded cheeks can give impression of wider head, without the temples and eyes of someone showing a width relative to chin. For the moment, I am not arguing that we have that situation with Paul and Sir Paul as figures in the timeline of Paul McCartney pre- and post-1966. I am merely making a simple point about LEARNING HOW WE READ FACES FOR IMPRESSION versus WHAT IS CAUSING THE IMPRESSION -- in any situation, not merely if Paul died. If we find that the KINDS of things which could be changed through surgery were far from impossible but other kinds of things which can NEVER be changed were not done, then we would find there was a double.

At present, the only argument which might settle the literalist PID case for or against, is photography, if appropriate material is available for doing tests on, and if those tests are properly done. Voice prints have been analyzed but the formal report for the formal work is unavailable, and informal studies remain informal. Both, however, show differences in voice harmonics. Are these due to warping of sound? Age? We are left for the moment with photos properly understood. Particularly the ear.

-----

Fig. 4

A reminder of something like the scary, ugly emotional impact of what John could have drawn, if Paul died in the manner diagrammatically and sympathetically depicted in John's drawing. Had John wanted to have been even more literal about any dead man with double-splits to the head, he could have been. As it is, the eyes, head and gore or whoever is dead in John's drawing can turn one's stomach if one takes away the general sweetness of style and expression of the mouth and nose.

Fig. 5.

Fig. 6 a). Paul's ear pre-late 1966, on left; Sir Paul's ear after 1966.

Fig. 6 b).  The ridge line in the left photo has radically moved to the left side and radically straightened, in the right. The lighting is subtler, so roundness actually shows better on the right, yet there is no mid-ridge far forward and narrower, and there is a major ridge at the back.

Is the right view significantly foreshortened, to show a flatter outside edge and straighter back (black) ridge line? No. But if foreshortening were the main reason for the outside edge difference and flattened feature, the upper feature would be narrower. It also would remain in front of the midline of the ear. 


OPTICAL ILLUSIONS:

By this do we mean foreshortening? If so, this is contradicted by the evidence: foreshortening narrows all relationships on a plane, while maintaining positions on that plane: anything forward of the mid-point will remain so. If we mean lighting: a right-front flash (lefthand photo) would show a fall-away ridge at back quite clearly. The general lighting (more shaded, toned, and shadowed) in the righthand photo shows more subtlety overall in the ear ridges, but also clearly shows a high area running flatter, through the area where there was a ridge falling away strongly in the lefthand photo. And the one on the right shows the MAIN fall-away is way further back, even given foreshortening rules. So no, it's not lighting. Thus ...

The flash in the left photo comes from the person's right-front. Any ridges toward the back of the ear should be clearly defined. Instead, there is but one back ridge, more frontal than ANY high part on the right, EVEN CONSIDERING FORESHORTENING if that were in play.

In the photo on the right, there is subtler lighting. A ridge (a higher area) close to the position of the highlit area of the left photo's ridge, does exist in the righthand photo, with a radically different outer ear shape and NOT enough foreshortening to create the outer shape difference. The high part of the ridge in the righthand photo shows in shadowed, subtle greys. The begnning of the triangular dip (fossa) on the right at the top is further toward the back. The back ridge is also far towards the back.

The whole top area is wider, flatter, has A RIDGE EDGE CLEARLY SPANNING FURTHER BACK, which should be visible in the left photo as well. Instead, there is no such ridge and both photos are at roughly the same foreshortening angle. This means that the outer ear shape, too, which changes, is not due to foreshortening of any noticeable amount. THE CURVE DOWN TOWARD THE BACK EDGE begins in the righthand photo's ear approximately where a ridge-feature shows in the lefthand photo's ear, but it's not ridge-like, it's gradual, and lighting would show more fall-away and a back angle further to the back EVEN WITH A FLASH on the left.

Ears have squiggly features always, and we are not usually used to analyzing how shapes rise and fall, how they transform in foreshortening, and so on. Artists and (sometimes) medical personnel are used to these differences enough to comment. Being an artist myself, and seeing the forensic medical personnel who were interviewed for WIRED Italia June 2009, where these photos come from, I can concur that the ridges are of different widths, but some heights overlap.


SOURCE OF PHOTOS

The photos are from an extensive forensic study done by 2 Italian forensic scientists, who decided to test the case. Their study was summarized in WIRED Italia, July 15, 2009. (The link provided has the article and a machine translation. The intro on the page misidentifies the date as August, in the post's introduction, when in fact it was July and even says so later, in the translation. Note that there is another page on the Web, which has the article on it, but goes on to blame a specific group -- Meyer Lansky type Zionists -- for the death of Paul, assuming he was murdered and the replacement idea some kind of blackmail potential on the Beatles. I mention that because some persons will come across that page and could perhaps not separate the article's work from the post's comments. The WIRED article itself does not point to anyone as being responsible. And the link I provided also does not name a group responsible.)

FEATURES ON A PLANE NARROW when the plane turns away and turning away would show up more in other features of the ear, too. Only if the height of the ridge were greater than the width at the same distance away and same width of view (crop), would show a widening (viewing a mountain higher than its base is wide -- 1st seen from top and then from side). Also, positions of features front to back on the object doesn't change; all parts proportionally shift. Mid-line stays mid object. Heights begin to overtake that mid-line if the plane is not flat, but again, only to the extent maximally that their own straight-on view width is. What can happen is that a small rise can overlap a previously seen edge, but if it is not higher than the total width of the feature, it will not obscure the total feature. As its straight-on view (height, in dotted orange) overtakes the total NEW PERCEIVED width, then indeed, it obscures the back edge of the feature. Lens distortion of width is minor on objects small or further away relative to the camera. Focus "fuzz" width can change. But the basic proportions work as shown above.

Always, if a set of photographs shows an object or objects with roughly the same foreshortening amount, and if a feature on the thing is wider and more to the back in one photo, it is a different object. Period. Ask Brunelleschi, Michelangelo, Leonardo. Optics have been understood for basic perspective shifts since the 1400s. Focal depth has been understood for somewhat less time, though it may have been used for effect about that long (here and here). Lighting can affect how wide something looks, but if ridges or flatness confirm the width, direction toward the back, and other anomalies, the feature is different.


----------------------------------------


FOR THOSE WHO WANT A FULLER EXPLANATION OF THESE KEY EAR PHOTO FORENSICS, CONTINUE HERE. FOR THOSE WHO GET IT AND WANT TO LOOK AT THE CLUES AND DRAWING AND READ ABOUT THE REST OF THE CASE FOR AND AGAINST LITERAL PID, SKIP THIS FOR LATER: GO TO THE "INTRODUCTION" SECTION AND ONWARD. THANKS.

Roundness straightens during foreshortening, but always from wider to narrower, not vice versa. If there is a high ridge coming into view, from top view (straight onto the other direction of the plane, such as from in front of an ear), the high ridge will eventually show in its own true height, from the new side view of the original plane (so the straight view is now of the ridge, not the ear, in our example). One could think of looking at a bay window on a house: from the front, maybe 15 or more feet away away, the bay window looks roughly flat, except for shaded edges, whereas from the side, the bay window takes on its own width in "front view" of the side of the window jutting out. For a small object such as an ear, a foot or more away will do to effectively flatten the perspective on the ridges from the front, and side view would have to be rather extreme to see the "front view" of the ridges (side view of ear). Ridges on an ear are not as high as the ear is wide, just as with a bay window extending from a house. Thus the house has to turn extensively or the view come up very close, to see the bay window as wider than the front of the house itself.

Also, where that bay window JOINS the house, if it has a little roof, this will NARROW at top when the view of the house goes toward a side view, because it is almost in the same plane as the front of the house, unlike the full jutting bay window, which widens to its own side view becoming the new "front view". The top of the little roof of the bay window is like the top of an ear's middle ridge: the ridge meets the top of the ear edge. So lighting on the ridge will not widen the view of the ridge there, as the ear turns. Instead, it should always narrow WITH the top edge of the ear.

[For source of basic comparison, and context of this and other forensic work, also see Part 2, points 2. a) and 3.]

Again, both views are relatively straight-on (not exactly, for the righthand photo, it's true! -- but it's close.) The diagrams take into account the different lighting. The bottom diagram on the photo counts not only all highlights on the right, but also makes allowance for cast shadows, which could have tricked some people into thinking there is more extension forward by the leg of the antihelix on the right, than there is. It would be irrelevant to the back of the leg of the antihelix (the upper black line), but the cast shadow is partly included, in the black line around the triangular fossa (the trough near the upper ear). The cast shadow is included in order to show that even if the right photo's triangular fossa were the same as on the left, the main issue about the back of the leg of the antihelix is unaffected by irrelevant objections for the front leg and shadows in the fossa.



ARE THE IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES FROM DIFFERING OPTICS ON THE SAME OBJECT?

Don't assume the flatter aspect to the outside of the ear on the right means that it comes from foreshortening worth mentioning.


1. The amount of foreshortening required to flatten the back ridge of the antihelix from curved to straight would be extremely noticeable, with other elements changing radically. This is not seen. Thus the flattening of the outer and inner ear shapes on the right, are thus mostly from the real shapes.

2. But even if that weren't so, if we use the right figure's head as if it were actually angled away enough to matter, and  then we corrected the real right photo's ear to a more straight-on view, the top distance, from tragus flap in the front, to the back of the top leg of the antihelix, would be of even greater distance. Yet the left photo is taken from a slightly more head-on view and has less of a distance from the tragus in front to the back of the top leg of the antihelix. This is photographically impossible on the same object.


For both independent reasons, therefore, it cannot be from mere optical foreshortening that the right-hand figure's ear is different in the major ways the two ears are different. This also means that the basic ear shape of the right (the outer edge) is little changed from perspective shifts, though there is a tiny perspective difference.

3. Lighting on the right shows the ridge on the upper leg of the antihelix to flatten out across the upper edge of the ear. The ridge is well defined by mid-grey shadow, ending in no ridge worth mentioning, well before the upper edge of the ear. This is a difference between the left photo's ear and the right photo's ear, but also indicates that the wider top angle, the left-hand black line, which is the direction the antihelix tends toward, is not due to a ridge foreshortening. If the right photo's ear were incredibly foreshortened, it would still not become wider top area because of a direct view of the antihelix's elevation near the upper ear: it is not elevated there. There is some elevation in the same places for both ears, in other words, some height overlaps, but they have different total widths for the ridges and edges for the falling away of the ridges.

-----



ARE THE IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES FROM A DIFFERENT OBJECT ON THE SAME MAN (I.E., PLASTIC SURGERY ON THE MAIN EAR SHAPES OF THE SAME PERSON)?

Would the difference be on the same men but the second had antihelix ear surgery? No. This change, in this way with plastic surgery, creates other distortions. (Think, to be brutal, how a hatchet job and boxer's cauliflower ear indeed change general shapes but leave other things about the ear obviously different -- or think of major ear loss, requiring a whole new antihelix and ear to be reconstructed. When that much is changed, the result looks rather unnatural. In cases of severe deformity, either the antihelix partly exists and is used to build on, so remains about the same in angle and width, or there is no antihelix for the surgeon to use. In the latter case, a whole new ear is constructed, looks less natural and most people don't need to have that done.



ARE THE CHANGES DUE TO AGE?

Not antihelix changes from near front to near rear. Degeneration wastes away the shapes but does not create front-tending become back-tending complete antihelix legs.


SO ...

The fellow on the right is not the same man, absolutely. The only question could be: is this a photo of the putative Paul after 1966? Given the credentials of the scientists interviewed for the study, and the seriousness of WIRED magazine's reputation, the cropped images are more than reasonably likely just as honest reproductions as in the rest of the article these ear images came from. It can reasonably be stated therefore that Sir Paul's ear is on the right, Paul's on the left as they claim, and from the arguments above, elaborating on the points the scientists made, THESE ARE DIFFERENT MEN AND YES, PAUL WAS REPLACED, whether the reader can already see the difference in general (some can) or if they cannot. (The scientists themselves said the same: they didn't at first feel or see the difference in the men, their extensive measurements SHOWED them that there was a difference.) Others can see the difference -- how we have created a "third Paul" in our minds, a kind of composite impression, neither purely one person or the another.

Fig. 7.  Image found cached through Google search from this page, cached here.


-----


Other ear photos, with even more compiled at this other Webpage, show Sir Paul in false ears, are from the regular record of videos and photos of Sir Paul from after 1966. Persons claiming prejudicially that these are doctored (or in modern terminology "Photoshopped") images, have not noticed the naturalness of the images and the bizarreness of the concept for average researchers to have thought of, nor studied the sources. The only explanation for wearing false ears (other than hiding his own ear shape and covering suspicious plastic surgery scars), was that he had regular, if vain, plastic surgery. Given that he has different ears (already shown above), the explanation cannot be pure vanity.

Fig. 8.

Figs 9, 10.  Routine plastic surgery scars required false ears? Or was the amount of surgery he was having due to changes to help with looking a bit more like Paul? Not knowable from these photos alone. But it could be part of a literal PID situation.
[The flap falsies (directly above) and the tubular-attachment-to-head falsies (previous image): from here.]

Fig. 11 a).  These images compiled here. Note naturalness of photos, each different. Bottom has huge antihelix -- but it's forward, not backward like the true ear, at least (looks like a plastic surface); note here also the lobe's unnatural resting shape on head. Top image from a movie (flap is also seen in other images below in this article compiled at same place). Different falsies (false ears).

Figs 11 b) & c).  One example of many problems.
Routine plastic surgery scars required false ears on the right (note bulbous attachment to head)? Or was the amount of surgery he was having due to changes to help with looking a bit more like Paul? Not knowable from these photos alone. But it could be part of a literal PID situation.

If the left and right images were BOTH natural:

 OPTICAL ILLUSION for the left image's earlobe? YES. PAUL PRE-1966 HAD SOME LOBES, but small enough to look almost gone in some angles, such as here at left with head angle -- such that they never look so droopy in any angle. So would he get surgery -- to get longer earlobes?-- on the right? Interesting question, but unnecessary.
The attachment to the head is tubular at right.

So, the one on the right is a false ear:

We see other false ears (with clear cheek flaps this time), below. Did he use false ears to look good after.
Was he maybe using them to look better and protect ROUTINE cosmetic surgery scars? MAYBE SO. But given the forensics discussed above, no: he was a different fellow and still is.

Figs 12, 13.  Paul McCartney full body with Mal Evans, roadie; and Sir Paul full body with Mal.
For more info on this image, see point 2 section. Original source=here. There is some lens distortion in the photo at left affecting the comparison, whereas any distortion irrelevant for angle of  comp on right, because the two men are roughly hip to hip touching and in a parallel line with the camera. On the right, though, there are possibly heels on Sir Paul. Taking some lens distortion and some possible heels into account for the two photos: are the overall body heights noticeably different? Definitely not by a lot, at most only 2 to 2 1/2 inches, and possibly less than that, maybe only 1 1/2 to 2 inches -- with a bit more heft @right? Perhaps, perhaps not? There is some evidence that John and Paul's heights were slightly exaggerated in press releases and eventually on their passports. If Paul was not 5'11 but closer to 5'10 in youth, and Sir Paul were even 5'11 1/2 or so in youth, the heft difference would be noticeable. Paul was not "short" but he was rather fine boned and seems short, not middle height. Same with John, who seems also to have been closer to 5'10, in some people's assessment. Interestingly, the "Sergeant Pepper" outfits seem to support this. I can't find it right now -- sorry! -- but someone was commenting, not on literal PID or anything like that, saying they are 5'10 and tried on one of the jackets at a special event and it was slightly too short and small even on him.

  


--- With Love to ALL the Beatles & Family & Friends --- Thank you all for the joy. --- I hope there is no blowback, as you must also hope. Whatever fears of public non-acceptance of a Fab 3 drove the coverup to become a Fab 4 again silently, I am glad you DID continue.



////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

COMING UP NEXT: THE RUMOURS & "CLUES" GENERAL INFO

--

END OF PREFACE.

--

............................................................................

INTRO:  THE RUMOURS & "CLUES"

Whether Paul died or didn't ... the "clues" ...

The purpose of this post is to expose the drawing as a likely PID-style item, a so-called "clue", for whatever reason the PID clues were done. So we need to ask first, what kinds of things are "clues" or not and do they exist at all?

Some say there are none at all. We'll get to that in a moment. But right now: Why were the clues done? On their own, there is no way to argue this conclusively. Some say John's cruel side was enough for him to plant general suggestions of Paul's having died. Others think it was some publicity stunt. Yet others think Paul died and the suggestions are real cries for exposure of what became a cover-up, to keep the Beatles together with a new bandmate and friend whom the public at the time would not accept as a "Fab Fifth", or the Beatles were blackmailed, or both. Whyever they were done, the aggregate of putative PID items are called clues, so I'll call them clues, whether they were jokes, for publicity, some other arcane purpose, or because Paul died.

Some people think the 1967 item below was an in-joke due to a moped accident Paul had about a year before. Questions have been raised (due to the idea of a later real PID as possible murder) as to whether Paul was in a fight instead, or something else, since his speed of 30 MPH and lack of injuries other than a tooth chipped and small scars seemed odd to the person. Even if none of that is questioned, the fact is, Paul DID have what's claimed as a moped accident event in the timeline and some think the 1967 item was in reference to that, as a joke -- but why, then, the tone of the following macabre items? In isolation, we cannot know either way.

ABOUT THE RUMOURS

For those who don't know, there was a major brouhaha in media history, first when Des Moines, Iowa's Drake University newspaper, The Times-Delphic, published a "PID clue" article on September 17, 1969, by an undergraduate student, Tim Harper. Many people think he started it all, but he himself had heard of the rumour. He made a list of "clues". These were idiosyncratically partly chosen by the author of the article. This writer didn't just list and describe the "clues" he'd found or heard of, but also strung the "clues" together into a storyline of his own making. He did not believe the idea of real clues, even as a joke. On October 20, a college student from Eastern Michigan university "Tom" phoned WKNR-FM, a radio station in Detroit. He told DJ Russ Gibb that a rumour was circulating on campus that Paul McCartney of the Beatles had died -- or at least that items suggestive of that idea, according to the rumour, had been placed in Beatles records, often backwards and on their album covers. He made a point of listening to the song "Revolution 9" from the White Album, but backwards. Mr. Gibb had never heard of such a weird idea, tried it, was struck that the introduction sounded strongly like "Turn me on, dead man," and later had to field multiple phone calls about this idea. He said, a long time after, that he didn't believe the rumour or "clues" were planted, although it seemed odd to him that that sound came out of his record.

The interesting thing is that, years later, the student caller said that he first heard of the idea (the rumour) of "clues" from his roommate, and that he seemed to recall that the roommate heard it from a band visiting from England. Most modern sites now speak as if Tim Harper's article came out of nowhere and that it started it all. Instead, it seems likely that different campuses had the rumour for some time, but the awareness of it grew to the degree that it got into the public record in late 1969.

The Beatles were the most famous musicians in popular culture at the time. They also were known for odd, but usually friendly clever remarks and such. These "clues" were a stretch from that, but fit the general idea of cleverness, if they were indeed there for fans to find. Some people who heard of the idea later and took the idea of Paul's death seriously, assumed that the possible death had been in the recent period of relative seclusion which Paul had been maintaining for some months, though some putative clues noticed at the time went back to the mid-1967 Sergeant Pepper album.

After these events, the idea took off famously. DJ Roby Young in New York actually lost his job because he took the idea seriously enough to inform New York listeners about the general suggestion of Paul's having died, through these planted "clue ideas" to that effect -- though he said he didn't know what it all was for. Years after, he gave an interview (a clip from it is in The Winged Beatle film), saying he actually began to realize Paul may have been replaced, back at the engagement party for Paul and Jane Asher, at the end of 1967. It seems, from listening to his broadcast, that he was partly flummoxed as to what was going on and partly spreading his instinctual reaction to feeling strongly that Paul was not Paul, at the party in late 1967.

Fig. 14.  Collage of PID articles from 1969. Image from here, cached here.

The 1969 rumours, from campuses to mainstream news, became an extremely well known weird episode -- usually called a "mystery" or "hoax" -- in Beatles history. The 1969 brouhaha and some of the putative clues remain somewhat well known to this day.

On the other hand, some people believe that there are NO PID items, called "clues", planted at all, for any reason. Others, already mentioned, think the whole thing started with Tim Harper's imagination, which is a variant on that idea of there being no clues, but emphasizes the idea that everything started in 1969. It would mean little or nothing that, in 2004, Sir Paul said that the Beatles PID clues were planted, if no definitely planted clue ideas could be found. (Sir Paul's comments also direct away from the idea that Paul actually died, though, of course.)

But those who think that ALL clues don't exist, or that it all started in 1969, do not know of the following ...

THERE ARE FOUR PROVABLY PLANTED "CLUES"

But there are four definite historic items in the PID repertoire. Of the four items, the oldest one may have been done as a joke, but cannot be dismissed as a wisecrack ABOUT the idea of PID itself, since it is the first clue of them all. It predates 1969 (as do two others), so it also cannot possibly have been planted due to the 1969 USA rumour itself, unlike the other definite item in the repertoire, which is from 1995. However, the first clue does post-date a supposedly not-serious moped accident from almost a year before, in early 1966, which some have postulated was the source of the whole PID clue-set, as a joke from John Lennon. The third and fourth -- in my list, but not in time -- are the subject of much misunderstanding and are from 1967 as well.

Technically speaking, all other "clues" than the four I'm referring to, even some which are rather obvious in symbolic terms, at least, can be and have been debated, as to whether they are plants ("clues") at all or just figments of people's imaginations. I, too, would agree with debating some of the examples people have debated, though not all. Here are the reasons people tend to debate: the sound is bad (backwards clues), the lyrics are a joke or some lyrics aren't definite enough to include as a clue (lyrics), images are part of storylines only (Beatles cartoon series), images have "any meaning you want them to" (images in general) and so on. But there's one which is in writing and early, so whatever it was done for, it's not ambiguous in content: for some reason, it makes direct reference to the idea of Paul's having literally died.

THE FIRST OF 4 THE DEFINITE "CLUES" PRE-DATES THE 1969 US RUMOURS

The first clue of them all is the only item which was both undeniably planted about the PID subject and pre-dates the 1969 rumours. It comes from the February 1967 "Beatles Book Monthly". This was then a UK-only fan magazine. Whether Paul died or not, it mentions overtly the idea of McCartney's having died. It states Paul's death in words, explicitly gives a manner and place of death (in a car crash in London on the M1 motorway), mentions a rumour it seeks to dispel and gives a date of death (January 7, 1967). It also says Paul is fine. Of course, this item, clue, putative disclaimer piece could have been printed to plant the idea or as containment of a real local rumour, back in the winter of 1967.

Fig. 15.  Small disclaimer regarding the idea of Paul's having died. Published for whatever reason -- as a real disclaimer of a rumour or not -- in February 1967 edition of Beatles Book Monthly fan magazine (then UK-only). [Image cached here, from this blog page]

(About the claimed date of death in the disclaimer piece: 1. If this is a deflection from the idea of a previous moped accident, from almost a year before, then we may note instead the fact someone bothered with specifically naming a date and weather pattern for the so-called sweeping rumour. Note also that the exact word, "swept" adds a finality to the tone, a brush-off quality as well as a size -- the largeness -- of the putative rumour. The language tone doesn't tend to fit a planting of a disclaimer joke about a previous accident which was long-over, but in isolation, it could be argued to be based jokingly on the moped accident or for some other publicity joke anyway.

2. There is a problem with the date chosen in this piece also from a literal PID position. If Paul died, all other indications from historical photos and events suggest that instead the date was, instead, on or around September 11, 1966. From a specific number-style date clue, supposedly on the drumskin pictured on the front side of the Sergeant Pepper album cover, some thought the supposed death to be as late as November 9, 1966. This was due to different dating methods between British style and US-style, for all-number dates. Since the Beatles Book claimed death date given is January 7, 1967, in a snowstorm, and if Paul died before that, and there was a real rumour, then the Beatles Book PID clue would have been created both to contain the rumour ... and deflect from the date.)

There is another factor: there WAS a crash on that date, involving a man who was heavily integrated into the "alternative" scene -- possibly much more sinister and wacky scene -- with putatively the 2nd Paul (i.e., Sir Paul). His crash may well have been to deflect from the putatively real death of Paul, or someone could have wanted the replacement dead, or it was just a co-incidence, or it never happened. 

Nonetheless, without considering other information to support whether Paul died, we can only say that at the very least, it is an undebatable PID item, or "clue" in content, not that Paul in fact died.

As well, again, this Beatles Book item pre-dates ALL famous clue-seeking interest in the USA, which started in late 1969, so the idea that all clues are from Tim Harper's head, or all PID rumour must originate from harebrained students in 1969 is incorrect.

Of course there's debate as to what it all means, but we have seen from the Beatles Book 1967 item, however, that the clues, in principle, and that one in particular, are quite real, whatever their purpose.

THE AFTERMATH OF 1969 PID "CLUES"

After the student rumours and article in late 1969, the idea of weird "clues" -- and fears that McCartney actually died -- took off for a year (with Life magazine, Time and Rolling Stone bothering to denounce it, though Life showed photos of the supposedly 2nd Paul only, using images only back to 1967). The PID conundrum remains a famous incident in Beatles history, with some "clues" continuing after the Beatles broke up, for example in the "Free as a Bird" music video. Though there are two other provable clues from 1967, the macabre quality of the music video clue, in context of Lennon's 1971 drawing, makes it the 2nd clue we'll mention in this article.

THE SECOND PROVABLY PLANTED CLUE WHICH WE'LL MENTION

That video image, which is of a rather deathly head, resembling Paul, comes from years after the first clue we covered in Beatles Book and is a bit more well known. The video image can be argued as having been created due to the later rumours, in isolation of other facts, because it is from 1995, putting it after the 1969 USA rumours. Nevertheless, it is there.

More people seem to know of this video image than of the original clue in Beatles Book. But many don't realize why this video image has to be a planted image. For whatever reason it was planted, it is optically forensically impossible that it was a natural reflection or object caught on camera. Why?

The deathly head appears in the window reflection on a stationary (parked) Police van. It could be a leafy reflection or a person in the Police van seen through the window -- if the following were not true. What proves it is a planted clue physically, is that this image in or on the window is blurless during an otherwise appropriately blurry camera pan. Reflections are naturally unblurry if objects are moving but camera is not; objects are blurry if they or camera or both are moving. In either case, camera movement blurs all items, so it is undeniably, optically forensically knowable as planted.

What is not knowable about it is the motivation to put it into the video, if we look at this item alone. It could be said to be due to the 1969 rumours, or for some other reason, say, as continuation of a putative joke, or done because Paul died. It's worth noting that for whatever reason, it appears before a scene of a 1960s car crash scene involving an Aston Martin, Paul's make of car, which makes this clue and the scene after a PID-style set of "clues", for whatever reason they were done. But the death image is a definite plant, physically speaking: it cannot be natural because of optics.)

Fig. 16.  This image is from a 1960s police van, just before a 1960s car crash scene, in the 1995 video "Free as a Bird", where most scenes are about Beatles history. The camera is panning, the van is parked, that is, it's still, yet panning would blur still objects in or on the van and leafy reflections. The impression that this is a natural reflection of leaves or a head in the van is optically forensically impossible. For whatever reason, this image has to have been inserted into the scene. -- Note the appropriate camera-movement blur on the parked van (the word "Police" on the upper right is the most obvious blur in this cropped image). -- The head resembles Paul. As to context: Just after this, the scene is of an a car crash, already having occurred. John Lennon, mid-1960s in looks, is in the crowd looking on (added by using computer graphics). The car crash in the scene involves an Aston Martin, Paul's make (but not colour) of car in the mid-'60s.

--

However, the Beatles Book piece, remember, is both an unambiguous PID item, or "clue", for whatever reason it was printed, and it is very early. 

Ironically, this means the FIRST PID CLUE is, technically speaking, the best one for a literal PID claim based purely on clues, though it still poses problems for a literal PID claim. For example, Was it a hasty  and necessarily literal disclaimer, attempting to dispel the date alone? It seems reasonable that if Paul died, the first mention would be less playful, less clever -- might be more desperate than other clues. With the size kept small, to minimize the idea, the Beatle Book disclaimer would also possibly be included by people trying to be literal enough to "take care of the rumour". Later clues seem to have developed into being more "clever", even almost misleadingly obscure, or are mostly emotional expressions of grief rather than bearers of literal information. Interestingly, all this would be expected, if a literal PID situation occurred.

THE THIRD AND FOURTH PLANTED CLUES:  BACK TO 1967 AGAIN

Not quite as old as the Beatles Book disclaimer piece from very early 1967, the following two clues date to mid-1967. Ever since 1969, there has been some debate as to whether the interior of the 1967 Sergeant Pepper album cover (called the "gate-fold" of the album), contained a statement of "OPD". OPD is the short form of the British phrase "Officially Pronounced Dead", used on police reports; it's comparable in some ways to "DOA" in the USA, for "Dead on Arrival".

The item which was in question on the gate-fold is some bright lettering on a patch on Sir Paul's upper arm. The patch curves around the arm, but not at some extreme foreshortened perspective on the arm itself, too (the arm is not lifted). Foreshortening therefore comes only from the cylindrical shape of the arm. It foreshortens the last letter pretty well straightforwardly, though at a slight angle to the line of sight. The fairly straightforward viewing angle makes a difference in what happens to the letters and whether the letters, foreshortened, form certain shapes or not -- naturally, that is.

The patch is a police patch for the Ontario Provincial Police, or "OPP", and would normally say OPP on it, as well as contain the crest for the province (which it does). Before people knew about the existence of such a badge patch from Ontario, Canada, clue-seekers noted that the last letter on this album's patch seemed to be a "D", not a natural "P" curving around the arm. The reason to say this is that it seems to some that the stem and the ball of the putative "P" touch, and wrapping a P around a cylinder, even with a slight -- very slight -- tilt to that cylindrical upper arm, would not, they think, convert a P into a D shape even with the compression optically. The idea that the "D" was formed by the compression of the period (dot) sewn after the letter also doesn't work. In close-up, there is a dot elsewhere, so it is not part of the letter, making a P into a D. All this made people suspect that the letters were "OPD" -- on a nondescript patch. When it was discovered that OPP as letters and the patch's shape and crest make it a valid patch in its own right, many persons dropped the idea the "D" -- though the D could still be there, as a doctoring of the final "P"  on an OPP patch. Many who read of the questions around the patch as "clue" consider the "D" debunked by the fact that an OPP patch was used. This begs the question of photo doctoring for the D, using an OPP patch.

Not only to solve the question around this problem patch, but also in its own right a striking and planted clue, comes the final planted clue of four. It is the item in this story of definite PID "clue" items, which the most readers won't know of.

I do not know on what object the item actually is, i.e., where the clue was printed. It could be from an alternate Sergeant Pepper album cover or promotional item; it certainly is part of a photograph which shows the same basic idea as the ultimate gate-fold of the Sergeant Pepper album. The Beatles are there (as in the regular gate-fold), albeit in slightly different suits, with slightly different poses and faces, but basically in the same manner as they are in the regular gate-fold. And this other image also contains the OPP patch on Sir Paul as we saw before, and this patch one is different.

The clue is a FULL FRONTAL OPD PATCH. (See below, for images) Judging from the quality of the filmic image which shows it, the different Sergeant Pepper image was shown in an early (1969-1970?) film about PID clues. The film clip itself is unsourced; it is in a short compilation by a major PID-related filmmaker of the 2000s. The clue appears at about 11-13 seconds into "Rotten Apple 47 2", a video within Iamaphoney's "Rotten Apple" series, which came out 2006-mid 2010. This clue plays a quiet but important role -- often unnoticed -- within the "RA" series. After that, he put out "The Winged Beatle" film and some music, but never drew attention to this clue again. He has done that with other things: leaving the best work sometimes for those who don't watch passively and partially. He doesn't make it easy for research (or, shall we say, "clue seeking", but of the serious kind). Nevertheless, this OPD video, posted to Youtube on Aug. 20, 2007, is important simply in dispelling the debate about not the gate-fold's original patch source (which is an OPP patch), but the intended letters, the "clue" on them. It also shows Sir Paul with a slightly different general facial look than we ultimately get used to his having on the usual gate-fold of the album.

Figs 17 & 18

Figs 19, 20, 21.

Comments on Figs 17-21:
Fig. 17:  Full frontal OPD Sergeant Pepper patch. --- Fig. 18:  Sir Paul's different face and different picture of 4 Beatles fading in while panning camera. Common gate-fold image of the 4 Beatles fading out. The OPD and face are from an early but unsourced PID film. (Date of original film guessed only, because of film image quality. Image in that film is also unsourced. Current usage of the clip is within "Rotten Apple 47 2" video, Youtube, uploaded Aug. 20, 2007 by filmmaker "Iamaphoney" (name plays on the idea that Sir Paul is a Phoney Paul).  Source of full frontal image of OPD and Beatles must be from another Beatles Sergeant Pepper gate-fold, less well known, or a promo item.

Fig. 19:  Close-up of full-frontal OPD image. --- Fig. 20:  Image of common gate-fold image. --- Fig. 21: an original, period OPP patch are from attempted debunker site here, images cached here and here, respectively. Note also the more original shape (less rounded of jaw and head than in the seemingly doctored other inner album picture -- gate-fold -- for Sergeant Pepper. It also might well be less surgically altered to have rounder real cheeks in front) than Sir Paul might later have been. The image of the face is faded in, and Iamaphoney does this a lot, to hide definites among maybes. He plays games with viewers at times, but provides some solid pieces of information.

Conclusion
For whatever purpose it was done, there is a planted full-frontal OPD image for Sergeant Pepper, which was well known enough in the early period after 1969 -- judging by film quality of the clip which Iamaphoney presents -- to be presented as proof of "clues", in a PID-theme film. Somehow, only the other album image (4th figure from top) is now often seen.

--

OPD is not the original patch name, but the rest remains OPP patch content. Thus, for whatever reason, there was a planted "clue" of OPD in at least the full frontal image with the patch. Moreover, though, if we backtrack to the famous, usual gate-fold and the fact that a D, when compressed, does not look the same as a P compressed, in fairly simple cylindrical warping and fairly straight line of sight, we can support through these facts AND through the fourth clue, that the third clue, long debated or (begging the question of doctoring, dismissed) contains a D in fact! Thus the main gate-fold image was a sanitized, watered down version of the "OPD" idea OF THE FOURTH CLUE. Both were made out of doctoring the image on the gate-fold. The photograph in the fourth clue, also, has a more realistic feel to the final image than the extremely heightened, almost airbrush quality -- not literal, though -- on the usual gatefold's colours and shadows all over. It is likely that the fourth clue mentioned here was the first of the two gatefolds (or was an early promotional item), and was sanitized, for whatever reason: either to obscure a joke a bit, or to pull back from being too obvious about the semi-private mourning about the real death of Paul. Aside: the image in the fourth clue looks perhaps more like it was a doctored patch, through changed stitching, instead of pure photo doctoring, though it, too, could have gained its D from photo doctoring.

CONCLUSION REGARDING THE "CLUES"

For whatever reason they were done, then, we are up to four provably created "clues", three of them from 1967, one from 1995.

-----

Either way, having dispelled the idea that PID clues never exist for real, whatever their purpose, and that they never definitely reference Paul and started in 1969 ...

FOR WHATEVER REASON PAUL IS DEAD CLUES APPEAR in Beatles history, IS THIS DRAWING ONE OF THEM, from John Lennon's own hand, no less?

<<<<>>>>

END OF INTRO.

............................................................................

THE MAIN ARTICLE -- IN FOUR PARTS:

PART 1

1. So: First, what do we see in the drawing which makes it likely a PID-style clue?

 

Whether Paul died or didn't ...

FOR WHATEVER REASON PAUL IS DEAD-STYLE CLUES APPEAR in Beatles history, IS THIS DRAWING ONE OF THEM, from John Lennon's own hand, no less?

  It is a fairly unknown drawing, in a private collection, though the album it's done on and its signatures (John first, the other 3 Beatles later), have been mentioned for years. Done on December 7, 1971, it is a John Lennon drawing on a very atypical theme for the artist: a violently, doubly split-headed, dead young man, with dislocated or damaged eyes, wearing disheveled shoes, digging his own grave against a setting sun.

Note that this is a large drawing. It is not a tiny scribble, though it was obviously done in some haste; it was thought-through enough to be a complete idea, impressive in size and in has some anatomical seriousness regarding at least the head wounds it shows, for whatever reason.


<<<>>>

Whoever is dead here, and given the atypicality of such grisliness in drawings by John Lennon, the simple fact that it is a grisly death image should have been noticed, no matter of whom it is. This just goes to show that people really do not process the isolated basics of what's in front of them sometimes. So the following will go through the drawing literally, as well as make PID-"clue" informed interpretations.

 

This is a large drawing. It is not a tiny scribble, though it was done in some haste, obviously; it was thought-through enough to be a complete idea and impressive in size and in anatomical seriousness of the head, at least. As stated in the introduction, it takes up the whole blank back of a rare version of an already rare Beatles' 'Yesterday and Today" (or "Butcher cover") album. Yesterday and Today originally had the "Butcher" cover on the front, which were later changed to a different picture because they were grisly. John drew the drawing on the back and signed it on the front. He then gave it to a 21-year-old collector named Dave Morrell, in December 1971 (one day short of 10 calendar years to John's own death, bizarrely, for it was done on the 7th of December and John died on the 8th of December, 1980). Morrell was a fan whom John met through a DJ in New York. Ultimately, he got the album signed by the other three Beatles and sold it to a man named Steve Paneka, a major collector, who considers it one of his centrepiece items. (Even more about the album's history is covered in Part 3 of this article, below.)


Was there any general reason for John to draw death? We have dead babies (meat slabs with baby doll heads) on the avant garde front of the cover of the album. This drawing, however, translates that idea of generalized decapitation at the neck and bludgeoned meat as bodies, into a young man and full shovel, dog, grave, setting sun. This is not a natural or quick transition for an artist to make. It also has very clearly imaged wound directions (such that John must have been thinking quite specifically, for whatever reason, or had worked out such an idea beforehand for some reason). There is a specifically two-way head wound: left-to-right and top. The broken eye sockets or eyes are also well done (though simple), and the bloody matter is pretty literal. It even drips or hangs on the wound from the head's left side (our right).

Where could John have seen injuries inspiring, seemingly "off the cuff", such a well thought-through image, though drawn in haste? Are there any publicly acknowledged deaths of young men with head problems or injuries in Beatles history? Yes. Though John didn't see him dead, there was the early friend and bandmate Stu Sutcliffe, who died of head problems, possibly brought about by a beating to the head, but not with brains spilled. So ... Anybody else, a young male, whom John might have seen dead and cared about? In any part of public Beatles history or general lore? Yes, for whatever reason, Paul was associated with death by car crash, at least since the Beatles Book Monthly in February 1967, as we've said, and in other places seems to be depicted with head injury from the crash or undefined cause.

Fig. 22.

Whether Paul died or didn't ...

By 1971, John's PID "clues" -- whether done as jokes or in real mourning about a secret death -- in the artwork and music were already known to the world in a big way. Does the drawing fit the PID clue information or style, however? We will argue below that yes, the general clue information in the drawing fits other clue symbols. The emotional and medically diagrammatic style, we may find, does not really fit most other clues -- except that the drawing in fact makes the drawing a BETTER fit, a better clue, for an intimate real-case scenario, if Paul died in fact: the drawing, we'll see, is more personal, more informative than the usual public "PID clues".


But as John must have guessed, this drawing gift remained rather private for a long time after it was drawn. (Actually, in a sense it was private until now, where I am drawing attention to it. Even if it appeared elsewhere before, it was never highlighted.) If John was in fact hiding the real death of Paul, of course, it was a perfect way to tell people, without its being immediately obvious to the owner or the general public. The article you are reading will argue that John did the drawing as a false or a true clue -- though with "only" symbols and medical diagrams. (It is not a notarized affidavit, so if Paul had died in 1966, John could have blamed PID rumours themselves as his source!) IF ... IF Paul died, though, and was replaced by someone else who was asked in, then the drawing as PID "style of clue" is far from a joke, and John gave a quiet, medically diagrammatic, direct, poignant message for posterity through this drawing.


1. The figure is dead.

Aside from speculating who it is in the drawing, or whether it was intended as a Paul is Dead theme, we must first establish and note that he IS dead, since no-one has identified this fact before putting a meaning on it. We will be describing the exact features of the drawing, in Part 1.

To note that he is dead is not, of course, to say who it is, or if it must be a real person. 

Also, no-one can claim that the find of any drawing matching a theme, STRICTLY SPEAKING, proves someone did a crime or witnessed a crime or a death. This is obvious, but must be stated, to prove that I know that. Sometimes, however, high likelihood of witnessing something can be proved if a drawing is off the beaten path for the artist, contains similar themes and details accurately. Nevertheless, we have PID themes in other generally accepted PID clues, whether or not there was a real death. We will consider first whether this drawing fits the broad themes of PID, not whether Paul actually died.


As to speculations on what the drawing is about, i.e., who the figure is: So far, two meanings have been suggested for the drawing:

1. that it is a farmer digging
2. that it is a "Fool on the Hill" figure, based on the Beatles song of that name.

As we'll see in Part 1 of the article, in more detail, the collector who first owned the drawing had no opinion, at least in 1972; the DJ who got the collector and John to meet and interviewed the collector about it in early 1972, seems to have thought the dark shape on or from the head was a Fool cap; the current owner says nothing (openly, at least, though perhaps, as we'll see below, he may have noted not only the death aspect but a PID meaning privately); finally, in January 2013, two article-writers covered the general story of how the drawing came to be made and say they think the figure is a farmer.

None of these persons commented that the figure, whatever else he is, is dead. This would seem strange, until we realize the following: people often don't process the literal facts in front of them before coming to conclusions about the meaning of something, if there is a meaning.

Fools' caps have tassels and bells at the end, not dots and tassels near the face, at least in common imagery.

Fig. 23.  Image from here, cached here.

Plus, the drawing's dots and hanging lines of gore are all over the face and hang from the left-hand head wound. So he is not the "Fool" in an abstract sense. If he is supposed to be a farmer, this might be indicated in the digging, which seems to be underfoot and in front of him (in perspective). But the drawing is, after all, somewhat cartoonish and dirt underfoot and even into the ground (in cut-away imagery) would look a bit like it's in front of the figure; the association of shovel and dug-up earth underfoot as a grave seems more reasonable with the death head of the figure.


The injuries, while not forensically literal, are diagrammatically literal enough to be medically informative of 2 forms of head damage and much eye damage (or at least an ugly aspect to the eyes of the dead man).

Fig. 24.  Unusual live person with "googly" eyes. In John's figure, the eyelids are split with the left-right head injury direction; there are two-way injuries and blood and gore. These things should indicate that the shovel and dirt are likely of a self-dug, symbolic grave, not a farmer with a dug row for sowing seed. [Image from here, cached here.]

--



So: whatever John was drawing this for, the injuries and eyes combined show the guy is dead. Very, very dead. And no-one else has remarked on even that simple fact so far, to my knowledge.


It is not clear if any images of the drawing were public before this year, though there is some suggestion that an image of the album it was drawn on was on the current owner's Website for a while.

--


2. John was not noted for violent death drawings. So this is not likely to be some random macabre image. Whom is it about? It is not a typical doodle idea, due to the medical unusual (cross-directional) injuries. Was it a theme thought through prior to the drawing for some daydreamed macabre purpose, or instead literally a memory of a death, whoever's death?

For the moment, without putting meaning onto the drawing, we will mention that the figure is comforted by a dog, is holding a shovel, is digging (seemingly beneath himself) in disheveled shoes and is pictured with a setting sun behind him and a plant under the dog. The drawing is large, fairly well thought out, though done in haste. It is poignant in feeling, though definite enough to be grisly in basic aspects of the content. Poignancy alone suggests this is not a random doodle, as does the fact John did not doodle death in general.

............................................................................

Fig. 25.  The current owner of the drawing making a definite, awkwardly clear "3" (not first 3 fingers, so a definite effort to produce) with his fingers. Paul was also the 3rd Beatle of the final lineup to join (other than the current McCartney in 1966, if he is not the original McCartney).

DESCRIPTIONS OF THE DRAWING'S LITERAL CONTENTS -- AND PID-STYLE ASPECTS OF THE DRAWING:


1.
Aside from the symbolic and medically diagrammatic qualities, discussed below, I will right now make brief mention of THE PATHOS. Other than being rather grisly if you think about the drawing, the overall impression is pathetic, i.e., has grief or deep feeling: the face and boyish, awkward body is almost cute; then one notices the eyelids are split and imagery of dots for gore becomes, in one's inner imaging, truly grisly. Because of not only the literal items under discussion below, which make it of the style of content of PID clues, but also the feeling of tenderness in the cuteness and restraint of the literal drawing style and expression of face, we might make the observation this drawing captures a great grief, which suggests on its own that the person depicted was much loved, and could, in that sense alone, at least, and hypothetically, be John's dear Paul.


2.
**TEAR STAINS AND OTHER STAINS
are incorporated into the drawing, according to the most recent article (parts one and two) about Morrell's acquisition of it. Morrell doesn't say if John did the drawing in front of him. If he did, then Morrell might have said to the article writer that they are tear stains. It would be nice to know how the article writer knows they weren't water stains? Maybe he doesn't either way. [Though the article suggests in a general way that the drawing was done at the same time as the signing, but at one point, it also says that an assistant brought it and John drew a cloud and signed it.] Did Morrell make some offhand comment to the writer that he had seen John crying, not knowing why, and assuming, perhaps, it was due to the feelings around the emotional evening they had shared that night, going over Beatle memorabilia that night? I wonder, though, as you can probably tell, whether that drawing was done in John's private time, at some other time. In the Youtube with audio interview from a few months after the drawing was done, nothing is said in this regard either way. 


3.
** a CLEAR SPLIT HEAD, TWO WAYS, with gory matter coming from the top and dripping on the left. The split from left to right is best visible only with higher resolution, when the full splitting revealed as a dotted line. See high-res image above, to see gory matter more clearly. The DJ talking to the fan Morrell, whose album it was, suggests in a Jan 1972 audio interview that the drawing might be the "Fool on the Hill", a character in the song of the same name from the Magical Mystery Tour album. -- Remember, neither Morrell nor the DJ comment that it is a dead man, only that the drawing is "weird, really weird." -- As to the "Fool" reference: The DJ is probably basing his impression on the digging, sun, and at least subconsciously maybe also remembering the SUSPECTED Paul is Dead cartoon image of the fool, a supposed clue on the Magical Mystery Tour booklet. This supposed clue is of the fool with his head cracked open, plus his left hand under the hill (in thick black outline), warped in shape, with only 4 fingers and so like limbs, looking like a dead person underground.

Fig. 26.  Magical Mystery Tour album booklet image, 1967

4.
** BLOOD spurting from the top of the head in a stylized pointy shape.
Some people think they see a "fool's cap" on the fellow (such as by a commenter below, and in a mention of the Beatles' "Fool on the Hill" theme). It must be noted, however, that this proposed "cap" starts with a broken-egg head extending up, and the proposed tassels are around the head, whereas fool's caps have their tassels at their ends. As well, most of the proposed tassels are very jagged, as seen in close-up. There is also a split, left to right on the head and dead eyes. Unless we have a very unusual, jagged fool's cap AND a dead man, the large dark area from the head upward is not a cap at all, but rather bloody brain matter spattering up (sorry to make the point!). The dots around the jagged area also can't be bells on tassels, because the dots and drip lines are on the face elsewhere and in the gaping left side wound on the head. These dots and lines have to be gore. One person also has suggested this digging man might be a farmer. But such a farmer is dead, a very large oversight to miss about this putative farmer.


5.
** DEAD EYES: 
The fellow has split lids on the outsides, following the trajectory of a left-right wound; the eyes thus might be dislocated or generally the eye sockets damaged. They're wonky eyes, not googly but wildly off-kilter with one eye staring left, one drooping with lid down on figure's right (from death/damage, as many have suspected John's image of "egg man" in the same "I am the Walrus" refers to: a dropped eye, just as in the "Free as a Bird" video done posthumously, where there is a reflection in a police van of a deformed Paul head, just before showing the car crash scene with John looking on, done with computer addition. -- And "egg man" in John's "I am the Walrus" song could mean in general a broken head or dislocated eggs of eyes. (The image of the Walrus itself, is suspected by some to refer not only to mystical "God" references and "Death or Transition", but also to a broken or torn mouth, which might have made Paul's teeth seem more prominent.) ---- Remember, though: songs have emotional and artistic reasons for being, most of the time, even if they have a more literal theme as well.


6.
** DEFINITE DIGGING/ SHOVEL. Digging, directly underfoot, like a grave. --- Also: Graves and shovels feature prominently in some Beatles movies, videos (including the "Free as a Bird" video) and the photos in Time and Life magazines about Paul's "non-"death, and in some photos of John.


7.
** VERY DISHEVELED SHOES, almost falling off, torn, undone (missing shoes or symbolic removal of shoes is one of the supposed Abbey Road cover album clues and also the Magical Mystery Tour Album and film's image from "I am the Walrus" -- where Paul's shoes are set aside in film and bloody as well, in printed booklet image)

Fig. 27.  Sir Paul plays without shoes in the MMT (Magical Mystery Tour) movie, 1967, his shoes sitting beside the bass drum. (He will also go shoeless on the Abbey Road album cover, in 1969, as well.) Shoes dissociated from a body or disheveled or bloody are clearly a mini-theme, which continues in our 1971 drawing. The still from the film above, pictured in MMT booklet shows red blotches added to the shoes. Only one blotch shows well here, but if you look you can see others on the tops. This is a traditional image for PID clues. The blotches are, because the alternate explanation is that it's a very bad printing error, and there is no error which adds multiple red blotches like that in one area. Also note the drum in the movie & here seems to say "Love the [hand pointing] 3 Beatles". The scene is from the "I am the Walrus" section in the movie, which also refers to the "egg man", which might be a dual reference to pure surreality and to a cracked head as we see in the drawing on this blog. (Source for image here, but note: falls for, or deliberately pushes same theories as the disinformation film "Paul Really is Dead: The Last Testament of George Harrison", which claims some very ridiculous things about the PID case, along with some old clue info, and both the site for this image and the movie leave out the materials on forensic image comparison which I present in Part 2, below.)

8.
**Big SETTING SUN. Setting sun imagery is not unique to the fool idea of the song, "Fool on the Hill", and fits death as well.


9.
** UNHAPPY EXPRESSION. Blank angle of emotion to mouth; broken line as expression of mouth.


10.
** a DOG or sheepdog and flower. (It's not a ram, but if it were a ram, it would be even more obvious, though not comforting. It would be an obvious Sir Paul reference, though, since his "Ram" album was out by then, as was the Wild Life album, both by his band Wings.) If it's a sheepdog like Martha, this could be referencing the dog of the present Sir Paul McCartney, a.k.a. "Macca". (He is nicknamed Faul - false Paul - by those who know of PID. If he is a replacement musician, he would be a truly "5th Beatle" unlike George Martin, producer, who often wins this title.) - Macca's farm was used in photos with sheep and shepherd's crooks and Martha, the sheepdog, about whom there is also a Beatles song. The farm was used in these images in Time and Life and Rolling Stones magazines to "prove Paul was still alive" at his farm in Scotland, in 1969-1970. Of course, it might be just a dog for comfort, or a McCartney family dog.


11.
Comments on PID medical suggestions from clues, as represented in this drawing:

If Paul died, it was wise of John not to be even more obvious: the image thus looks more pathetic (something for our sympathy) and strange, sort of hiding the definite look of the body. On the other hand, it's certainly NOT hiding some major wounds. So, though the drawing is not obviously a skeletal-style death head, in fact, it's blatant enough.  

Fig. 28.  A reminder of something like the emotional impact of what John could have drawn, if Paul died in the manner diagrammatically and sympathetically depicted in John's drawing, had John wanted to have been even more literal. As it is, the eyes, head and gore or whoever is dead in John's drawing can turn one's stomach if one takes away the general sweetness of style and expression of the mouth and nose. [Image cached here; from this blog.]

MOUTH UNDAMAGED: Many have suspected that if Paul died, Paul's mouth was messed up in the death (car crash or murder), due partly to the "I am the Walrus" imagery of large teeth in Walruses. Another reason to think this would be the rather unpleasant mouth area on the "Free as a Bird" video's head in the police van window (mentioned above). If he died, and if this is partly true and the drawing is a PID clue, of course adding a very grisly mouth would have made the drawn image too gross to give to someone, and was not John's style of behaviour with fans. As it is, this is a very macabre image, if not photo-realistic, so to speak, for what Paul literally suffered.


SIDE-TO-SIDE CRACKED HEAD AS DISTINCT FROM TOP "HARD BOILED EGG CRACK" ON HEAD: The dotted line across the figure's head in our drawing (at the eyes, roughly continuing the more obvious gash on the left side) implies the top of the head is not only spilling upwards but also cracking across. It has long been suspected that Paul was decapitated or partly sheared of head at top. ("You were in a car crash/ And you lost your hair," sung by Ringo in "Don't Pass Me By" is one source for such an idea. Hair would stand for head, poetically -- so as not to be too grisly: we don't lose hair in crashes, unless one means burning hair in a fiery crash.) One way or the other, the drawing stops at this level of being grisly, in spite of being rather medically suggestive about at least two wounds to the head -- side and top.






Smaller scale here just for easy viewing reminder.

Fig. 29.

Fig. 30.  Again: The current owner of the drawing making a definite, awkwardly clear "3" (not first 3 fingers, so a definite effort to produce) with his fingers. Paul was also the 3rd Beatle of the final lineup to join (other than the current McCartney in 1966, if he is not the original McCartney).

------------------

--


COMING UP NEXT: THE MAIN CIRCUMSTANTIAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST LITERAL PID ...

--

END OF PART 1.

............................................................................

PART 2

 

Whether Paul died or didn't ...

 

MAIN OBJECTIONS TO LITERALIST PID CASE:

& questions about circumstance or specific types of forensics which are missing at this time. This section is included here for all readers, but especially for the benefit of Paul is Alive (PIA) proponents

"The Central Intelligence Agency 'owns' everyone of any significance in the major media."
~ William Colby, Former CIA director and avid boater, victim of a "boating accident", with coffee left boiling in the cabin



A.

If you are not a radically "Paul is Alive" (PIA) believer, you might want to SKIP this following section until later -- for though you may also wonder about these objections, in the main they are immediately suggested as "showstoppers" by PIA proponents. For non-PIA believers, this section is a side benefit, providing succinct overview of main positions on either side about the circumstances of the case and where the evidence is at presently. (Fyi on PIA: the main PIA Web video presence includes well-known videos here and here.)

B.

Paul is Alive (PIA) proponents: 

The purpose of the following is merely to show these particular items below are not show-stopper objections; it is NOT to argue PID itself. IT IS ALSO NOT TO FORCE PIA PERSONS TO "FIND THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST THEM TOTALLY CONVINCING, EITHER! I know this. Let's say PIA is, in fact CORRECT that Paul McCartney is one person through to the present: the arguments for it remain non-absolute on every point of circumstance and physical characteristics from bodily material (DNA, fingerprints) at present. Only photo comparisons, properly done are available, maybe; no point of circumstance or musicality is logically definitive at this point.

So the danger is in holding THESE PIA CONVICTIONS WITH CERTAINTY (for some, just at this time, for others, at any time). Hypothetically speaking (IF photo forensics haven't been done properly on proper photo specimens for the right tests), PIA could be provably correct using some -- not all -- of the following questions in isolation, but more information would have to come to light on them.


Some of the following objections:

• are not absolute by nature (though some people think or hope they are). [These would never be sufficient as arguments in principle. Families might or might not talk in fact, but the question, in principle is far from absolute.]
• are absolute in the TYPE of objection, but only if the right information comes forward, which hasn't happened YET, either way (e.g., having DNA, fingerprints). 

--


ALL Paul is Alive (PIA) proponents have suggested some of the following objections based on the following, with absolute conviction:

"IF we grant the idea that Paul had died in 1966, from whatever method, officially covered up to this day, hypothetically speaking, then the following would be show-stopper (absolute) objections to it in fact."

Is this so? Let's handle each one to see if is an absolute argument by nature, or absolute at this time, given the current information available either way ...


1. IF Paul died: The family of Paul would have been upset or "noticed" or talked. -- NOT ABSOLUTE. Well, if they were in on it, they noticed. Ordinary folk in ordinary situations normally do talk, that's obvious, but trauma and/or pressure can do strange things.

We find in other cases where there is abuse or some other crime that sometimes whole neighbourhoods deny the events, but also that those who suffer the situation don't speak much, either. In more formal situations, threats, privacy feelings and re-inforcement from their friends, and other things, such as bribes and even new friendships with fellow victims or even nice-guy abusers can form. We don't know what went on, if Paul died, but we can at least assess the question of human reaction here as being not absolute that any of these things could go on in combination. One other motivation in the PID situation, if it's real, would be loyalty to the band.

THIS BAND WAS NOT MERELY A BAND in the general public mind. This band would NOT have been likely able to continue without Paul, in the public mind. The family of Paul would have known this, but it also could have been impressed upon them by those who were afraid for the continuance of the band after Paul's death, if the death occurred. One thing we do know is that Sir Paul and Mike McCartney (Paul's younger brother, now calling himself Mike McGear) are very close friends. Is it IMPOSSIBLE for them to be close? Not at all. They could be friends through shared trauma or the shared major changes in their lives (for Sir Paul, it was a largely positive change).

In addition, they even could have known each other before Paul died (if he died). We don't know when and where the band met Sir Paul, if he's not Paul McCartney. Sir Paul does seem to have really been in the London avant-garde scene before Paul putatively died; even PID proponents mostly agree that he might well have known the Beatles already through that scene. He is emphatic and accurate about the London scene, his role in it and knowing Yoko before John did. If Paul himself died, it might well be that Sir Paul knew the Beatles before the replacement.

Also, McGear is known, with Sir Paul, to be interested in Alastair Crowley, at least for Crowley's positive "free-thinking" and clever aspects. They share these esoteric interests (without being sinister, necessarily). John Lennon, himself, is among those who commented on the fact, in interviews. Some of the clips are available through the Iamaphoney "Rotten Apple" series on Youtube, but -- to my own shame -- I don't have the time to go look that up. Sorry. It's a long series and I did that aspect of questioning, researching and sifting some time ago.

One way or another, we don't know right now, how in individual instances the cover-up unfolded, if it occurred. But if there is forensic evidence properly done from the photos properly assessed, that Paul did die, then, simply put, there was a cover up as well as friendships.

There might also be intelligence service or police pressure on the family and friends to keep silent -- even just to protect the intel and police for protecting the secret. There are in fact many non-sinister ways to read the evidence and hypothesize about the cover-up itself, if there is one. (Of course, one can see a potentially darker aspect here, too.)

John and Sir Paul were definitely friends as well as at odds. John and the rest could have bonded with their new "best friend" as well as dumped their resentments about having to lie to continue with the band -- as they would have felt, if Paul really was replaced so they could continue.

But the main thing here is that if Paul died, insiders DID speak, UNOFFICIALLY, through the clues. There WAS a rumour, if the Beatles Book Monthly disclaimer was a real containment announcement. The secret, if it is a real one, is OUT, not perfectly quiet. So the objection that people would say SOMETHING is correct in that sense, but not that they had to come out publicly. Fear/ money/ getting on with private mourning would be possibilities for how they justified silence if this cover-up was done.

In addition if a cover-up was meant to be temporary and got out of hand, other aspects would come into play after the initial "switch-over" was in progress. Again, simply for helping with a cover-up, intel/police would likely seek to cover their own butts, etc. (There is one more possibility in this aspect of the case: if Paul died by murder in order that someone could infiltrate the band, or the death was accidental but was used to infiltrate the band, this raises yet more reasons to be afraid of speaking about the events. But we don't know that.)

PID proponents DO NOT HAVE TO KNOW HOW THE COVER-UP TOOK PLACE OR HOW PAUL DIED for it to be provable, if the right photo comps can be done PROPERLY, to show there was a replacement.

--


2.  IF Paul died: The Beatles were friends throughout, and a double wouldn't be. -- NOT ABSOLUTE. Well, no, of course: there were tensions about power and continuing (as we all know publicly), which would have been exacerbated by resentments of "the new guy" if he was a "new guy". See point 1, above.

PIA proponents seem to forget that Sir Paul slipped up and admitted that he knew Yoko before she met John. (Sir Paul got very embarrassed when he briefly admitted this fact in 2004 on Howard Stern's show). This doesn't mean that Paul died, but it does suggest that if Paul died, we might be seeing evidence that Sir Paul knew the Beatles through the avant garde scene before the switch and/or was body doubling already for the Beatles.

Again, people can become friends in trauma situations, despite resentments. (This objection #3 shows a severe lack of imagination -- as hypothesis-making faculty -- in operation, due to prejudice, where the "double has to be hated".)

So, whether these arguments are in fact true, they show that the idea that friendships COULD NOT form between some replacement persons and some beneficiaries of a replacement -- in this case, the Beatles, who got to continue their music for a while, without a hitch publicly, if there was a replacement.

--


3. IF Paul died: Somebody would dig up the body. -- NOT ABSOLUTE. Digging up the body is not true if the person were average, or, among police investigators, if a squash effect (coverup) is in place for such activities, from other police in key places/ intelligence services, both of whom would have to be involved already in procuring or allowing the double to function at first, even temporarily.

--


4. IF Paul died: "Somebody" would procure DNA or fingerprints. -- NOT ABSOLUTE. This is a nice objection; it would be an absolute type of evidence to have. But we don't have such information available with a proper chain of custody. As to the idea that "some tabloid person" or other person would prove this, we have to realize that without official endorsement of the chain of custody, nothing would be done.

As well, few people realize how even tabloids don't allow some stories. The Beatles are beloved. So we can't be sure (i.e., absolute) logically to say they would definitely go after this issue. We can't decide either way, to be honest.

We also have to realize how few people who "know" that Paul died, among the general public, would bother to do this kind of thing, or get close to Sir Paul. This kind of thing takes chain of custody proofs, other persons providing comparative DNA, money, dedication and lack of fear.

It is thus not an absolute objection that "someone" could or would procure the DNA or fingerprints at all, or succeed in getting the information to the public credibly.

The one instance we have in a formal chain of custody situation is thaat Sir Paul's DNA did come under suspicion (along with claims that his handwriting was righthanded instead of lefthanded). This occurred in a paternity case (Germany). Normally, we might well trust the findings of the scientists hired by the people bringing the suit; unfortunately, this was OUTSIDE the case. The case had already accepted the initial finding, which was simply that the DNA of Sir Paul did not match that of the adult woman claiming she was a daughter of Paul. It was only AFTER the case was no longer cross-examining anything, that the woman decided the handwriting and DNA should be considered as maybe having been "switched" with someone else's.

In isolation of other pro-PID arguments, we have NO WAY externally to know at this point whether the woman was lying, or DNA and handwriting were "switched", were perfectly legit, or were wrong but not because of a switch -- rather because the daughter of Paul wasn't dealing with Paul himself, but his double.

The issue of what fingerprint evidence we have is interesting: Derek Taylor, press agent for the Beatles in the relevant period after Paul himself supposedly died, commented later that a person "doesn't need to prove" himself as "existing" by giving fingerprints, since he "just exists". This of course begs the question of: "exists as who physically vs. by name only?"

Also, it is my understanding that some Paul documents and fingerprints came onto eBay a few years ago and were immediately taken off by police, which, if true, is hardly surprising, if Paul died. The person who put them on, if I recall correctly, said he was just surprised they wanted Paul memorabilia and personal stuff when (like PIA-ers), he assumed things like this were a dime a dozen ... in terms of common enough in circulation, as distinct from in price. :)

A PIA proponent also suggested once that "after all this while" his fingerprints would have been taken. Again, as with DNA-gathering hypotheses, this position does not address fact that of course his prints have been taken (or, if it is two men, "both of their prints were taken") but that the prints wouldn't be in regular, unprotected places, if intelligence services made sure the records were not readily available.

--

5. IF Paul died: There would be voice analysis to prove it. -- NOT ABSOLUTE AT THIS TIME. Voice spectrum analysis and other vocal analysis have been done. The difficulty is that the studies are not formal, except the one by Dr. Henry M. Truby of the University of Miami (1969). He found differences in the voice(s) singing on the Sergeant Pepper album vs the Revolver album from a year before. But he didn't formally write up his findings -- that I know of. He took on the case during the brouhaha about the PID "clues" in the USA. Without more information, it remains unclear when arguing for the literalist PID case or arguing against it, what absolute or non-absolute methods he used, for the Beatles morphed the sound on a lot of the early songs. Voice spectrum harmonics provide a good -- in fact, under certain good circumstances, an absolute -- indicator of whether there is a difference between people. It would prove whether Paul in the two periods of pre- and post-1966, is the same fellow: since one person's undamaged voice does not change radically in a year or two. We don't know, as I said, whether Truby did such an analysis as part of his study. On the other hand, there have been spectrum analyses done on voice harmonics, using modern software. Interestingly, they have found differences -- but they're not formal studies, so people can easily dismiss them out of hand, right now. It would be interesting to have more work done.

--


6. IF Paul died: They're identically brilliant, left-handed, similar-sounding (or "the same") musically and vocally. -- NOT ABSOLUTE. Actually, many musicians play McCartney (and Elvis!) music identically enough to be "the same", and talented people can often learn other-handedness fairly well, over time. (I, myself, am naturally partly ambidextrous.)

Also, Sir Paul did NOT play live in front of cameras on guitar until later. If he was right-handed (with some ambidexterity, but not in bass playing), as some have speculated:

• If right-handed, the new person, Sir Paul, would have had to be protected for a while. There would have to be a delay on live broadcasts for a while, or of his playing complex songs on the guitar, at least -- or without some background, pre-recorded sound playing. The other bandmates would have to help cover for the switch. This delay in fact historically happened, whatever the reason. The full sound of the songs could not have been done live, because of overdubs, but the band could have played part of the instrumental lines properly in studio or other concerts. They did no live concerts until years after the putative late-1966 replacement (one, the Rooftop Concert, in 1969). And for the first year after the putative replacement, the band mostly mimic playing or play nothing at all, on broadcasts from studio filming, for whatever reason. (See fake playing by Sir Paul and the others in "I am the Walrus" for the "Magical Mystery Tour" film, summer 1967. Sir Paul does the same -- occasional picking -- on the BBC studio "All You Need is Love" broadcast, June 25, 1967; John is also not playing. Later in the year, in all 3 promotional films which were worked into one, for "Hello Goodbye", again no-one is playing very seriously and a lot of time is spent not playing at all: here. Those films were Nov 19, 1967, and that's it for the year.)

As to voice style and general sound, Sir Paul (if he is not Paul) can be said to be a better match of the calm, flat voice style of Paul's reserved styles of voice, but not his boppy or happy style of body and voice. Usually, PIA proponents do not tend to notice or support this claim, but when they do, they say ALL CHANGE IS DUE TO AGE OR DRUGS. This is, of course, unprovable either way, without other arguments about body forensics and facial forensics, or direct proof of identity differences (background for Sir Paul: original name, real age, etc., if he is not Paul).

[Note: IF Paul died: the "Wizard" scene in "Magical Mystery Tour" film is the original Paul. The boppy version of his happiness is radically different than the happy moments of Sir Paul in the same film and year. PIA proponents might see no difference, or claim that Paul "matured quickly" (even contemporaneously), or this segment must have been from pre-1967 footage -- IF you see differences between the two men.]

If Paul died, we could postulate that surviving, unpublished Paul tape segments and songs could have been worked in. And Sir Paul could copy some style features for his own songwriting. Though PIA proponents have suggested that some songs (such as "Helter Skelter", most notably) do not clearly from a trajectory of what would be known from Paul's boppy, lively personality, they always suggest that this is is due to age and/or drugs. Again, the case can be argued well either way, at this point, if there are no forensic arguments which are solid.

For voice print harmonics (inaudible traces of persons' unique voices), see point 5, above.



--


7. IF Paul died: How could they keep this a secret to this day. -- NOT ABSOLUTE. It's not a secret, in some sense, if it happened. To the degree the PIA people think it is, possibly it's because they don't do their homework on the ACTUAL PROOFS, rather than the circumstances which SEEM to be showstoppers, which would keep it a formal secret with open-secret "clues". In this situation, we could argu that they themselves do most of the work not to help disclosure, by those who might want to admit it more openly!

--


8. "I JUST KNOW" and "PEOPLE'S HEADS CAN CHANGE SLIGHTLY AFTER ALTERING THEMSELVES THROUGH ENLIGHTENMENT OR DRUGS". -- NOT ABSOLUTES. The first is a non-starter for argument; the 2nd has no bearing: even if a head grew or shifted slightly in adulthood (not regularly medically possible), the head in this case changes in all directions at once (and thus, also rules out lens distortion, in full-frontal, proper comparisons). You can go to Part 2 for info if you are a careful thinker. Beyond that, I can't help anyone further on these last 2 claims. There are a few (rare) Paul is Alive proponents who would like to say the earlobes are the same. Taking their postulate seriously for a moment: under any circumstances does a small lobe look tiny? Yes. Does it ever look extremely droopy? No.

--


9. LASTLY, that anything can be "proven" and "researched" or "under the label of science". -- NOT ABSOLUTE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE EXISTENCE OF GOOD ARGUMENTS AND SCIENCE ABOUT WEIRD-SOUNDING TOPICS. The issue is, of course, is the proof good, absolute. If it eliminates other possibilities, in combination with other things or in isolation, then something is absolute within the specific case. So ... in part 2, let's see if the forensic photo analysis by experts is well done or flawed. It's a thorough basic argument, not requiring formal expertise to get the gist of. It's written with us in mind.
Some PIA-ers have accused items (such as this post) of being "mere bias". There is, of course, a difference between absolute and non-absolute arguments, to start with, and this segment addresses non-absolute arguments anyone can wonder about, but which are among the main objections from PIA-ers. The second thing those particular PIA-ers are accusing, with the idea of "mere bias" is, simply, that a careful argument can be made, on a "weird-sounding" topic -- even if the argument is wrong. What constitutes at least care in argumentation? Well, when care is present, careful arguments acknowledge the other side, pointing out weaker and stronger aspects of each side, and are cautious to point out what is unknown at this time, or incomplete, vs what is known. I have worked hard here, to do so. Not all persons do, but that is what a full argument does. So please note your side's positions are covered here. Beyond that, this blog also acknowledges that on the PID side, there are some mere hypotheses, too.

[But if, as one person did, you get to the earlobes (see Part 2) and think they are the same: THAT I can't help anyone with. THAT is merely bizarre mental processing. If he had special earlobe surgery, fine; but there certainly IS a difference. :) ]

--


10. End note on circumstances, for the extremely curious, or for those who have heard of more than the usual ideas around the pro-literal PID case:

Some have suggested that Paul was murdered. If so, they say, corrupted members of what's broadly termed intelligence services intended a kind of infiltration by design, for drug promotion and generally to steer the band to do ideological mind control through art, not necessarily through openly ordering the remaining 3 bandmates to do so, but through suggestive influence, through the new man, Sir Paul. Intelligence services could also have taken advantage of the situation, if it occurred.

No matter what, however, if Paul died and there was a cover-up for whatever reason or intended length, some intelligence services operatives and police officers would have to have helped the cover-up, AT LEAST. This is the most conservative statement possible, if there was a cover-up of a real death of Paul.


(Further on this subject, for those who really want to get into the weirder or uglier side of speculation regarding intelligence circles and the general popular music scene, not only regarding PID-specific knowledge:


Rather infamously, Dr. John Coleman has written of his belief that intelligence circles did not merely infiltrate or influence the Beatles, but that the Beatles were created for Mind Control and Propaganda purposes by the sinister -- and it IS partly sinister; with that I have no disagreement -- Tavistock institute in London.

This very real organization is known to attempts propaganda, often called "public relations" work. In addition, some claim that it has been linked to torture mind control experiments for the British MI5&6 and, by extension, the US CIA. (One PIA proponent has recently suggested to me that there is NO SUCH THING as group control, propaganda success, advertising success, even if there are attempts to push them. This position is scientifically untenable, but in case someone here is thinking that, I mention it flat-out.)

Coleman's thesis about the creation and purpose of the band overall has no merit, provable in many ways, but his general points are not so far off the mark about intelligence circles' dark sides. Some information about his good and bad hypotheses is here.

The general question of whether intelligence circles are pushing, influencing, artistically suggesting subjects to powerful artists is well documented, if the evidence is considered carefully. An imperfect but overall investigation to start with is the full set of pages -- yes, one needs to work through it all, to sift the main points -- about 1960s intelligence influence on the mass arts, especially music, in the USA at least, is here, under "Inside the LC".

One can also find material on this problem of Intelligence and alternative military groups, double-agent "moles", etc., in studies of cults and pedophilia cover-ups, and can study assassination rings in serial killer stories. Some of those types of cases are also covered at that link in some of the "Newsletters", but also is in many other places than that link. NOT ALL RESEARCH INTO THESE AREAS IS DEFINITE OR PERFECT; some is very good, however. Most persons who present these facts and hypotheses are mixed in accuracy and in quality overall. However, it seems to me that there are enough suggestions and even definite aspects to some of this, to support the general statement that such intelligence and alternative military para-networks do exist and wreak cultic havoc, as well as other kinds.

---------

On the other hand, this takes us away from the most conservative interpretation of intelligence circle/ police activity in the PID situation, if it was real. So, again, either way, if Paul died, intelligence circles would not have to have infiltrated the Beatles through Sir Paul, to have been required for the COVER-UP AT LEAST, if there was a cover-up.)



--

To end this Intermission segment:

WHETHER PAUL DIED OR NOT:

The 9 main objections above either have a non-absolute nature, or are logically not absolute at this time (pending more background information). This suggests to me that I should joke merely about the conviction with which some people hold these non-absolute objections:

Fig. 31.

END OF PART 2.

............................................................................

PART 3

 

  Whether Paul died or didn't ... 

 

2. Second, who is this in the drawing, dead?

(For what John said about PID or conspiracy in general, other than denials and weird clues, see below this section's pics in GREEN section)

Right, now, who died this way in Beatle lore? Well, we've been dealing with the topic roundabout for a while: Paul was supposed to have died or at least figuratively speaking or potentially, jokingly died in Beatles imagery. (Again, WHO died is a different question than noticing bloody imagery at all in the drawing, of course.) Let's see if there is a way to tell for SURE if Paul died, if some of the evidence is understood carefully. Is there any proof available, of this absolute quality?

In other words how, if at all, could we know if he was replaced? We can only know through forms of forensic study of the man. And we can use photo evidence forensically (i.e., as a physical item in a case, but also about a body's nature), if that photo evidence is luckily of certain KINDS, and medical principles as evidence are properly understood. In these situations, aspects of facial structure can be FORMALLY presented, not based on impression. It means that items of a certain telltale nature enough to be studied properly, not ambiguous in key aspects.

We could also use DNA, fingerprints, etc., but we don't have those. So we must use photos.

If the right sample is available, is properly understood and tested, these are absolutes, as in knowables. (Knowables are not absolute in the sense of  the physically undefined qualities, formally named "scientific absolutes", such as in mathematics, or physical but general, as in physics laws, which have specific application but work for many cases. Instead the knowables here would be absolutes in the most appropriate physical sense: that they eliminate all other physical options for that case -- barring divine intervention or all other relevant facts being different -- and instead are truly beyond reasonable doubt.) That would be the only way at present to agree to the literalist PID case, strictly speaking.

Many photo comparisons are badly done; many persons who look at the comps, too, fail to see what must be assessed versus or what cannot be assessed in a given comparison set. The two items below are sufficient, when properly understood.


1.
Possibly absolute, but exact comps impossible to attain. Difference is enough to say, however, there seems to be some consistent difference.

Here are two height comparison image sets:

Fig. 32.  The issue with height is that most images aren't sized properly. It seems that Paul was shorter than the Beatles claimed (that passports later were arranged for a slight exaggeration of height -- early on). This is not impossible and other misleading early statements were done for other bands, even if their passports weren't eventually changed. The problem with this comp is that Sir Paul could be using heels and the Bass isn't exactly sized. However, though not "almost 6 feet" and "giant" (an emotional comment from the creator of the image), and Paul may have been slightly larger than 5'8", they are different in general body frame heft and height. Maybe 2 inches or a bit less in height difference, probably. The problem is that floor-level shots allow LITTLE SEEMING CHANGE in perspective, when someone comes forward or back. The bass has to be sized perfectly and because it can't be, the comps are a LITTLE BIT OFF. There is still a size difference, however, in both height -- unknown if has heels in pic 3 -- and HEFT PROPORTIONS. [Image cached here from page here -- imperfect but makes the point if you think it through.]

Fig. 33.  Is this heels only? No the man Sir Paul has more heft when sized for Jim McCartney, Paul's father. IN FACT, this imperfect comparison doesn't size Jim perfectly. His head is glowing in the sun and was put in wider into this photo. In other words, the earlier photo is SLIGHTLY LARGER than it was in perfect comparison to the later photo, thus slightly enlarging Paul on the right, too.

----

2. a)
Not absolute, but part of the case:

Regarding the earlobes and other ear features. Most photos show fake ears early on after late-1966, so this is not useful, except possibly by implication. There is a comp of the literal ears below.

The first few examples (even the fact of Sir Paul's use of false ears) are not absolute proof of difference in the two people. Perhaps to cover ROUTINE plastic surgery (anti-aging, etc.), he wore false ears. The Earlobes have already been shown, above, in one weird photo. My guess is that in the photo earlier in this article, Sir Paul was wearing one of the many post-surgery false ears we have more overt photos of, here. Definitely, below, he was (from same page link). Again, perhaps this one was to cover ROUTINE plastic surgery, but sometimes Sir Paul's false ears have clear FLAPS on them along the CHEEKS ...

Figs 34 & 35.

Even if this was for vainly hiding routine plastic surgery scars, no, this is not some made-up hallucinatory claim. If this was from ROUTINE plastic surgery coverings, fine, but he does sometimes wear false ears. But the radically different lobes are another thing

Did he have earlobe surgery? Are the false ears with flaps on cheeks to cover up routine plastic surgery cosmetically? The following image normally is presented as being about actual ears, on the right. However, there is a strange width to the ear's join to the head, so this is likely another falsie.

The following comparison, though, is of the ACTUAL EARS of the two periods. This comes from the Wired Italia 2009 forensic study; they find ACTUAL differences (i.e., WITHOUT falsies on Sir Paul from post-1966). More on the forensic study next ...


 2. b)
Ears without falsies. The forensic scientists discussed in point 3, below, did a comparison of the ACTUAL ear shapes. They definitely seem differ. This IS an absolute proof kind of issue, like DNA, but we have this comparison available. Though corroboration is always nice from forensic peers -- and I am sure the scientists would love to hear from you.

Pictures:

One can see that without a major turn of the head, the shape of the upper to lower halves varies on the outside, the placement of the inner shapes is different. There IS some head shift involved here, so some shapes have changed slightly, but not a lot from the exact comparison of eye angle of view from one to the other. Unfortunately, they point to the tragus, the inner ear flap, but it's hard to see and most people aren't used to noticing the differences in that part of the body. The outer ear is easier to notice. Surgery can trim and rework ears, but not without some noticeable differences in other ways showing up. The tragus is nearly impossible to alter in a significant way, barring, again, major differences showing.

You may also notice that both have lobes, but the angle (more oblique) from the outer kink back to the head for Sir Paul on the right, also ends in a longer looking lobe area than does the more acute kink and shorter lobed Paul ear on the left.

There is some difference in lighting, and perhaps slight difference in head angle for viewing, but not by much, as we'll see. The forensic scientists who used these photos pointed out the tragus and the trough (triangular fossa) but not the obvious angle and width of the UPPER LEG OF THE ANTIHELIX, in green. (Sometimes medical persons don't realize what ordinary people need to have demonstrated; finer points are easy for them to miss.)

It would be great to have original full images for head angle perspectival comparison (for foreshortening), for exact changes to be modeled, exactly instead of very well (as is). In extreme foreshortening, the back of the upper leg of the antihelix would flatten out. This is not extreme foreshortening. The gist is clear anyway. Whichever black line one chooses for Sir Paul on right, for the inner trough, the upper flat area is too wide and in the wrong angle to the tragus to be the same man. In other words, the legs of the antihelix and the triangular fossa are at the wrong angle to the general ear shape. -- The images are from the Wired Italia article about PID forensics done by Italian forensic scientists (discussed below, in point 3., with links), except the coloured, delineated image is my own demonstration.

Technical note: There are two black lines for the triangular fossa on Sir Paul. The smaller shape with thicker line shows the assumed small size (the maximum depth area) of the fossa. The impression, that this is so, can give some people the impression that the high part of the leg of the antihelix comes far more forward than it does and almost matches Paul's. The leg of the antihelix on Sir Paul falls away from maximum height more slowly, though, than in Paul. So the real width and depth are not as easy to define. The maximum depth is far forward, the general width of the rise to the maximum is the thinner black line. The actual maximum edge of the fossa, beginning the height of the leg of the antihelix is in red. There is a more general shadow on Sir Paul's ear in the photo, so the fossa seems wider but this is already the gentle rise to the top of the antihelix. For Pauls ear, the shadow is more definite, so I put one thick black line partway through the rise of the antihelix from the depth of the fossa. It corresponds to the thin black line, not thick one, in Sir Paul. 

The reason I'm explaining this is that if a person's impression is of the maximum depth of the fossa, which has caught some reflected light, they might not notice the rise and subtler shift to the maximum of the leg of the antihelix, and STILL think it's the same ear as Paul's. However, once the definition of the actual maximum, front and back, are pointed out, with the thin black line being the mid-rise of the fossa, like the thick black line for Paul there, people should see that the ultimate width of the leg of the antihelix is wider on top, its maximum height, narrower, is in red, and the overall shape of the heights of the antihelix of each person's ear are very different WITHOUT EXTREME FORESHORTENING FROM PERSPECTIVE SHIFT OPTICALLY. The heads are in very slightly different angles, so we see the ears roughly straight on.

Image found cached through Google search from this page, cached here.

---



3.
Two forensic scientists in Italy did a comprehensive study of the two periods for the McCartney figure -- the man pre- and post-1966. They found that in all features which are medically hard or impossible to change radically with plastic surgery, the two persons differ.

Understand RIGHT OFF THE BAT, though, that only PROPER FRONTAL comparisons work for general facial comparisons as formal scientific proof, and only if proper things are considered. 

Note that lens distortion changes a whole head RATIONALLY. If bony structures move up, down, in, out all at once, it is not due to lens optics.

Complex modern facial photo forensics in Wired Italia, July 30, 2009 -- but work your way through carefully: Not only has no Italian & English speaker done a formal translation, making the machine translation the only one we have, but also one has to understand proportions to understand the basic arguments. The ear arguments would need expert corroboration; the teeth arguments would be solid, but only if the photos picked show enough of the teeth. The frontal proportions of the faces, when in full frontal position, with enough leeway left for slight muscle/fat changes, are where the argument becomes proven at this time. But one has to understand how.


If this case can be made at the present time, and without experts corroborating about the ear differences shown above (not the false ears), it must currently be made on the basis of frontal photo comparisons ONLY. The issue is PROPORTIONAL, based on bony structure positions. If they go in and out, up and down, with more than 5% change, in the same photos, this CANNOT BE LENS DISTORTION. This is what the forensic scientists, above, are claiming and show examples of.

There are some problems with the Wired Italia June 2009 article. For one thing, the specifics of all the research done are not given (and could not have been given). Also, some points in the text are not explicated in the photos (and exact dates of photos which are used are not given). The most important problem, though, is when points in the text are not explicated in the photos or captions, or vice versa. Careful reading, looking and thinking reveals, however, what the forensic scientists are studying.
Unsmiling, the two men have different widths of mouth. THIS can't be changed in plastic surgery. But no comps are shown of both relaxed, in the article, except the Sgt Pepper photo at top right, which is less well lit. The gist is visible already, and in the bottom left photo of Sir Paul it's also there, but not exact, since Sir Paul is slightly smirking, which begins to widen his mouth. A truly narrow mouth (such as Paul's at rest) would require a much bigger mouth movement -- though not extreme -- to widen it to that extension under his eyes. The scientists also comment on width of lips in relaxed poses.
But one of the major changes is between the lower nose and upper lip. The comps for that (relaxed) are profile as well as frontal. They are mentioned in the article but not shown. Here, in miniature, it is hard to see the difference in where the nose actually fits onto the face differently, but they are different lengths of nose proportion.
 The bottom left photo (2000s?) shows that the extension of the cheekbones of Sir Paul extend beyond the same-sized photo of Paul on the right (early 1960s). It might look at first as if they are the same, but if you notice, the head of Paul, NOT the cheeks, actually extends outside the rectangular figure. Also the nasal tip and connection to the upper lip is different for Sir Paul (though it's not pointed out here). Also, the inner eye height is different (also not pointed out here). The brow ridge extension and shapes are different (not a hair-plucking phenomenon). A slight droop to Sir Paul's eye was added by surgery, it seems. The chin could be lower in the bottom left photo because of a slightly open jaw inside closed lips, but angle of & shape of chin from Paul cuts through impossibly.
The Sergeant Pepper inner album cover photo (top left, early-mid 1967) matches neither, by jaw shape, chin shape. However, eye set matches Sir Paul. (The impression of the face is Sir Paul's features with a general rounded-off effect which doesn't match but recalls the gist of the set of -- not merely age of -- Paul's jawline. It also shows the narrow ridgeline of Sir Paul's nose. From the front (bottom left) it is less noticeable, but as his head turns even slightly, the aspect shows. Top left, then, is a composite, doctored image of Sir Paul.
The problem with these comparisons is that the magazine or forensic scientists chose to show old and young together, which confuses some issues for comparison in the viewers' minds. The actual items being compared in the article's text are there, but the IMPRESSION of the droopy older cheeks can throw the viewer. (The jawline overlay is not intended to point out the droopy cheeks, but rather the unnaturalness of the jawline from the top right. The rectangular figure is for comparing cheek extension and height, and other features mentioned in this caption and in the article's text are not pointed out in the image.)
A comment on eyebrows vs brow ridges: brow ridges are from skeletal structures (including orbital -- eye -- bony structures), below the hair of eyebrows. The term "brow" is used for eyebrow look sometimes, but properly refers to the ridge and upper eye bone shape under the upper lid. The shape of eyebrow hair and brow shape are not identical in the same person -- hair is narrower than brow ridge, and left and right sides vary. However, eyebrows roughly arch or lay horizontal, matching the brow.
Plucking the underside of a flatter eyebrow, i.e., an eyebrow which lies on a more horizontal upper orbital ridge and brow, cannot give the rounder orbital shape which corresponds to a rounder brow. Paul had high arches on his eyebrows. His right eyebrow (viewer's right) had a flat area in it, but arched up. Tweezing Sir Paul's right eyebrow gives some lift and kink to it, but it does not give such a high, wide overall shape -- except in doctored photos. The left side is noticeably different.

--


How do we get the impression he is the same, if he died, i.e., if indeed the PROPORTIONS of basic temples to under nose to chin length to head height to cheek width to outer mouth to inner eyes all differ?

• Rounded cheeks (filler) on a longer face give a feeling of "roundness".

• Certain head angles and facial expressions can exaggerate or undo an accent on a feature, by muscle and fat position.

• Stitches to droop the edge of an eye help.

• Eyebrows differ but not merely by tweezing; they follow a different orbital rim.

• Noses "angle down" when heads angle down, but in full frontal, they should not differ in tip angle. Lens distortion changes all items rationally, though sometimes extremely.

• In full frontal lens image, one can have differences between two images (yes, even full frontal!), but they will stretch or compress equally rationally in the same image.

• Photo manipulation: sometimes able to be told (even if the man is the same one). How to tell? Exact features copied from older to new photos, bad cut and paste jobs and -- yes -- proportions which work for NEITHER set (pre- OR post-1966). ------------ It is the lattermost issue which the forensic scientists in Wired Italia discuss, when they talk of the inner fold image of "McCartney" in the Sergeant Pepper album: his proportions match neither Paul pre-1966 NOR Paul post-1966, except in specific locations. It is a doctored image, FOR WHATEVER REASON.

The study is real, but has not been taken up by other formal experts. The arguments are clear (though the translation is currently bad -- does anyone know Italian and English, and can offer a proper translation?). The arguments would be able to be peer reviewed, if anyone cared to, but no-one has -- for whatever reason: prejudice, laziness, threats, etc.

Some people think the teeth were "changed" after Paul's early 1966 moped accident. The sorts of changes in tooth angles and lengths seem to be impossible for a small palate (real Paul), according to the forensic scientists. Again, however, also, unsmiling, the two men have different widths of mouth. THIS can't be changed in plastic surgery. But no comps are shown of both relaxed. The gist is visible already (see previous comp from Wired, previous image in this blog article) but not exact, since Sir Paul is slightly smirking, which begins to widen his mouth. A truly narrow mouth (such as Paul's at rest) would require a much bigger mouth movement -- though not extreme -- to widen it to that extension under his eyes.

THE ARGUMENTS ARE GENERAL LOGIC, HOWEVER. IF ONE WORKS THROUGH HOW PROPORTIONS DO AND DON'T TRANSFORM ON A SINGLE-VIEW (frontal), FROM LENS VS MEDICAL (literal) DIFFERENCE, the issue is, I think clear. Paul died. If you work it through, again IF you work it through, you will see object-change. Science properly done can sometimes trump one's impression of "sameness", if one holds that impression.

-----

If you prefer, hear my Internet radio interviews discussing the overall PID case and problems:
- first here for best overview I've done. It is very cautious and complete.
- then, if you wish, here for a 2nd interview, where I mention as well the only John statement about Paul's death, which I think I'm the only one to notice.  RIP John.
-[Aside: for the interview I did with an overview of the best materials on John's own death by assassination, and why it is or is not a suspicious death, including the bulletholes in the glass doorway, hear here.]

For the 1st and 3rd audio links, right-click on green name title at top, to save and listen. The middle one is obvious where to right-click to save and listen.

-----

First, we might like to ask whether John Lennon was easily manipulated? Well ...

• Not enough to say NOTHING about what follows (i.e., that Paul had died) ... if the very literal drawing is anything to go by, and the other PID clues as well.
• Remember, the man in this drawing is dead -- no two ways about it, even if it isn't Paul.
• He fits the injury style diagrammatically, for PID clues.
• It is poignant, has a grief feeling in tone (facial expression, lack of disgusting elements drawn too literally, though the gore, if one notices, and the eyes, if they'd been done literally, would be very ugly: there are hints of that).
• The drawing was not well known, but if it had become so, it could be treated with plausible denial (if it was in fact a PID drawing): it was done after PID rumour hit publicly, after years of being in London only. Yet John did the drawing.

Information on what he said verbally, other than denials of a literal PID position, follows the photographs below.

-----

Second, if we're careful about how we know, and Paul -- however it happened -- is no longer with us as Sir Paul, and that the latter must be a 5th bandmate ...

We must summarize in a broad way, some of the objections in the "Intermission" section, above, especially for those who have not worked through it, yet. At this point we want specifically to stress that in many ways we can witness the ability of one musician to copy another.

We get so used to the clean-shaven version of the person Sir Paul from some scenes in late 1968, we forget the transition year (1967) and the fact he later got better cheek work. The behaviours and voice are not as similar as you might think, either, nor the competence on bass nor the movements as musically natural (boppy, swaying), however, the man Sir Paul is a very talented musician. It is my thesis that he loved the Beatles, may already have been sometimes a body double for some needs, a friend/hanger-on or something. We don't know. But with voice morphing (done in analog at the time) and some learning (including left-handed playing of the guitar, if Sir Paul is naturally right handed), it could be done long enough to meld the two faces and manners in the general public's mind. Note, too, that as was covered in the "Intermission" section above, Sir Paul did not play in public for that year, nor was he generally seen on TV playing guitar. He did play a gig with the Beatles in Sergeant Pepper-style outfits for TV in his early years with the band, if he is not Paul McCartney, but he is far from facile with the instrument in that broadcast, and (I forget) might be mimicking playing, with the other Beatles doing the same.

-----

If Paul died:
ALL INSIDERS, AGAIN PLEASE NOTE that I do not hate or malign the 2nd Paul McCartney as a person or musician.

-----

Whether Paul died or didn't ...

WHAT DID JOHN SAY OTHER THAN DENIALS AND WEIRD CLUES?

First, purportedly, Per Mal Evans, 1 of 2 longtime roadies to the Beatles, Paul was changed. His diary remains barely published, in short extracts, but his book was lost when he was killed in 1976. There is a single page of what purports to be from his now-secretly found book, shown in "The Winged Beatle" movie (1:01:00 overall page shown but bottom blurred; 1:01:07 bottom of page shown only, but unblurred). In the page, Mal purportedly wrote that John was distraught that "it was really happening" & how good the surgery was: it states that someone (blurred), presumably Paul, had been to "the clinic in Kenya" which "had done a good job". ---- As to John's public statements:

1. John's album "Shaved Fish" compilation has on the back his alias "Winston O'Boogie" as saying "A conspiracy of silence speaks louder than words". To which conspiracies would he have wanted to refer? Whichever they are, he did refer explicitly to the idea:

At top of rear of album "Shaved Fish": "A conspiracy of silence speaks louder than words -- Dr. Winston O'Boogie [John Lennon]" here

2. J claimed on TV he'd heard it first from "the newspapers ... or uh ..." & looks very nervous for a split second. You can see the clip in "The Winged Beatle" at 40:05. For the whole TV show see here. (Dick Cavett Show: main show aired Sept. 11, 1971 but audience questions after were aired in next show, as extra footage of a much-requested guest. The whole is put together at that 2nd link. The clip there is at 1:26:10.) Note: in this clip he denies knowing anything of the clues plan, but as is clear from other clips (see TWB in full for more evidence of clever planting & plans), John also spoke of meaningful items he put in, others speak of backwards sounds AND messages, etc., and Derek Taylor, press agent, slips up: acknowledges Sgt P album was a funeral scene, then says they didn't know what they were doing, which is a logical incongruity. It's a quick flip in the moment, to cover the slip.

3. In a radio interview from 1970 about the Beatles breakup, J talks briefly ostensibly about Epstein's death, then says the album they made after the trauma (& lowers his voice and Yoko laughs) was "Sergeant Peppers, oh I'm not sure": joke for no-one but Yoko, or revelation going by so fast it's almost unnoticeable by mixing stories? In same interview J later talks more directly of Epstein's death & completely naturally speaks at length about Magical Mystery Tour (the real album made after Eppie's death) & his reaction to the death. Seems to be mixing griefs about Paul & Eppie for those in the know.

4. In 1971 movie "Imagine", perhaps freed by USA breaking story of PID, George corrects J jokingly, a bit nervously, hiding his mouth with his napkin a bit, saying "The Fab 3" when J had been riffing on "The Fab 4". J jumps in his seat a bit, then realizes it's okay now to say that and calms down. (In "The Winged Beatle" the clip is shown, though for effect (and thus makes a literal untruth in the edit, unfortunately) the maker of the movie edits in J winking, which is from later in scene. See TWB (link above) at 45:00.

5. J drew an extremely macabre drawing in late 1971, when PID story was already out, but gave it to someone who wouldn't be in a position to make a bigger PID ruckus; thus = a privately public PID clue. It does not prove Paul died, but it is a PID-style clue. (Its poignancy also, however, would on its own indicate something serious might be real about PID clues overall.) Yet of course, a PID case is made on facial and earlobe forensics, not clues. For info on the drawing, plus PID forensics info links themselves you have this very page (right here!).

Imagery detail analysis continued ...





So it would seem that this drawing is of Paul McCartney, dead, just as was suspected in the Paul is Dead rumour and is now confirmed by careful modern forensics analysis of different kinds, formal (as already linked) and informal (here and here), as were also linked to, above.

END OF PART 3.

............................................................................

PART 4

Whether Paul died or didn't ...

3. Finally, third, what is the specific history of this drawing, in more detail? Does it, too, help indicate that this could be a PID-theme drawing, whether Paul is dead or not?

John Lennon made this drawing and signed the front of the album it's drawn on, in December 7, 1971. In the past few months (January 7 2013) and the last few days (March 8 2013), two items came out about the unknown young collector and Beatles fan named Morrell, for whom John drew this drawing. The article is in two parts (one and two), and the March item is on Youtube with audio from January 1972.  Morrell was a young man who gave John Lennon his first hearing of "Yellow Matter Custard" (a bootleg LP), and got a lucky and valuable trade for it. Morrell asked for a copy of the valuable "Yesterday and Today" (so-called "Butcher") album, which depicted the Beatles with a strange set of baby doll heads and raw meat, quite grisly. It is a rare album cover already, and John signed and dated the front of it, plus, on the back of the album for Morrell, John drew this in haste, with no explanation we know of. (There is some possibility he drew it before, but this would have to be checked with Morrell.)

In the audio, Morrell talks with the DJ who introduced him to John, and both of them glow over the fact John signed the album. They mention the drawing, but are confounded about the image John drew. Neither mentions the grisliness of it. They do say it's "weird" and "very weird", and that's the extent of their mention of the death imagery. The DJ suggests it might be a "Fool on the Hill" (perhaps from an also-broken head image of the Fool from the "Magical Mystery Tour" album booklet, but more likely from the setting sun in this drawing, which is also in the song "The Fool on the Hill".) Either way, Morrell provides no thoughts and the DJ is stumped. They can't figure it out and they move on. There is also no mention of the grisliness of the image in interviews with the drawing's new owner, Paneka, either (owner from the mid-1980s forward).

The title of the bootleg Morrell gave to John, "Yellow Matter Custard" refers to a dog's death in the supposedly "Paul is Dead" clues-filled song "I am the Walrus" from 1967, the year after Paul died, according to the rumour and modern forensics. The album our image is drawn on, the "Butcher Album" (properly speaking, "Yesterday and Today") had also, of course, another death image on the front, though from before Paul is supposed to have died).

In spite of these overlapping references to death and the outright medical quality of the death head in our image,  where the most salient aspect of this image is NOT its symbols, but the grisliness of it, nobody has commented thus far.

Now, whoever is dead in this atypical drawing, we can note that PID had already come out as a concept in popular culture by the time of the 1972 interview. Was John just continuing a public myth in this private drawing? The outright medical information in the depiction of the head would suggest not. It would seem likely that the idea that PID was out there in the public, though decried by others as a "hoax" idea, freed John up just enough to do the drawing on the grisly album, though still in semi-private, for a young and unknown fan who didn't realize what he was seeing, even the extent of the grisliness. ... Was John's freedom to "speak" directly freed up here? Seems so.

My best wishes to those who cannot see what's happening here, even so.



Another full-size, best resolution copy of drawing follows, then Section 3, which is drawing's history. Finally: Bibliography with full links to much of what was embedded info and links above. Then comments section.

RIP John and Paul and George. And best wishes to all others who have covered this up, too, to this day.

END OF PART 4.

.............................................................................................................................................................

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY LINKS LIST (COMMENTS SECTION AT VERY BOTTOM):

My own broadcasts on the PID subject in general:

http://radiofetzer.blogspot.ca/2012/01/clare-kuehn.html . (Right-click green name at top to save and listen) This is a formal and fairly complete overview of the PID case, the circumstances of the 1960s psychological operations going on in music and elsewhere, with many references given. However, it is also very, very careful to mention (as I have done in this article, too, overall, I hope) what the other side claims, plus (moreso than in this article) what some PID claims fail to recognize is not absolute on their side as well, or even outright provably wrong (such as that all the Beatles also were replaced, since FULL FRONTAL photos can be shown to share bony structures with the early Beatle photos, but not in Paul's case). Impressions from 3/4 views, snapshots, age weight loss and gain are NOT proper comparisons.

http://donaldfox.wordpress.com/tag/clare-kuehn . I am pretty sure I am the only one to note John's verbal clue mentioned in the Beatles breakup interview, but also, if this image from the Morrell Butcher Album is known to PIDers, other mentions by John which seem positive to PID are certainly not well promoted enough, so I mentioned his seeming positive reference to PID here, but it's discussed in the donaldfox.wordpress interview as well. There are other things also discussed in this interview.

--

My interview on John Lennon's assassination (with "Total Information" as co-interviewee) is here: radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2012/12/clare-keuhn-total-info.html . (Right-click green name at top to save and listen) In this interview, all but 1 major line of inquiry and set of evidence about what is known or not known about the assassination are given. It is the most complete (though quick) overview that I know of, of the main findings and problems with what's not known. My hour is 1st; "Total"'s hour is 2nd.

..................

About the drawing:

The DJ who had introduced John Lennon to the young man, Morrell, discuss the wonderful gift John gave, in that audio clip from Jan. 23, 1972, during a Beatles info/music marathon on WPLJ FM, now on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qg2Fxnkz1Ac. It was posted by "spinalcrackerbox" on Mar 8, 2013. DJ Howard Smith is talking to the then-21 year old and then-obscure fan he introduced John to, Dave Morrell, for whom John did the drawing. They're discussing mostly other things than the drawing but briefly find the drawing really weird (disturbing, from their tone). John is not known for macabre drawings, but they don't mention the gore at all.

The DJ suggests it might be "Fool on the Hill" -- as mentioned above. It is probably based on the digging and at least subconsciously he might be remembering the SUSPECTED clue on Magical Mystery Tour booklet of fool with "possible" head crack open, and left hand like dead person underground, or warped hand, in cartoon, as I put above. Here is the link: http://digilander.libero.it/p_truth/the_truth/the_fool_on_the_hill.jpg

--

The new clue is even more a macabre image than the general PID "clues" or "jokes", if that's what they are. The DJ says he's guessing about the Fool on the Hill, butdoesn't give a reason for thinking it's "Fool". A friend of mine suggests murder for the image, while another has the same idea but thinks it's just anger from John about Paul's turning into a "turnip head" farmer and is slashed with a rutabega or something. We have shown the general info which suggests that we can't know if Paul was murdered. The dark shape is not likely coming INTO the figure's head but coming OUT, because of the general damage left-right as well.

--

For more on the way the drawing came to be done on the album, see 2-part article:http://meetthebeatlesforreal.blogspot.ca/2013/01/dave-morrell-part-1-johns-butcher-album.html and http://meetthebeatlesforreal.blogspot.ca/2013/01/dave-morrell-part-2-rolling-stone-story.html . The high-resolution, full-sized image of this drawing is cached for part 1 of the article, specifically at http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gQZgqOqjzvA/UPjQBiFww8I/AAAAAAAAQmg/JGiJxdAI5U4/s1600/img577.jpg . The article is written by Paul Garfunkel with Bruce  Spizer, Jan. 17, 2013 for both parts.

--

Steve Paneka owns the album now and is the collector with the best collection of Beatles material overall according to many in that field. An article about him is here: http://www.goldminemag.com/article/meet-stan-panenka-owner-of-the-ultimate-beatles-collection . This is where the photo (posted in my article, above), of Paneka making a definite "3" with his fingers, so definite that it is awkward, so is deliberately made. What could this reasonably mean but "3 Beatles", EVEN IF HE'S WRONG? Also, Paul was the 3rd Beatle to join the band. Sir Paul, if he's a different person, is the 5th. Does Paneka think he sees obvious changes in Paul? Seems so.

--

The photo comparison of Mal Evans with Paul and (putatively) Sir Paul, respectively, is from this blog page:http://plasticmacca.blogspot.ca/2009/09/mal-evans-suspicious-death.html and cached specifically at http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/Paul_mccartney_mal_evans.jpg . Note the blog this is from is not perfect. Some pages (such as this one) are excellent, others are interesting, others may be wrong.

--

The earlobe photo comparison is from this blog page: http://plasticmacca.blogspot.ca/2009/12/fauls-false-ears.html . It is cached specifically here: http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/mccartney_impersonator_ears.jpg . Note the blog this is from is not perfect. Some pages (such as this one) are excellent, others are interesting, others may be wrong.

--

Photos can be used forensically. The two forensic scientists who were interviewed by WIRED Italia, July 15, 2009, but whose interview was never formally translated into English, speak openly about their work, how it was done, what they believe is absolute about their method. Is their method absolute? Do they have good enough source material to work with? Well, you can, I hope, work through it patiently enough in this machine Web translation to find out. You CAN see that they have eliminated regular photo distortion, because features of the two men, in full frontal pictures, go up, down, in, out, when corrected (sized) for inner eyes and pupils, with appropriate leeway allowed. In this way, peer review is not necessary for assessing whether the work is good, at least IN KEY WAYS. Some logic transcends expertise, or when explained, does. A copy of the article and most of it in translation (not all captions) is here: http://plasticmacca.blogspot.ca/2010/01/forensic-science-proves-paul-was.html . Note the blog this is from is not perfect. Some pages (such as this one) are excellent, others are interesting, others may be wrong.

Note: weeks after the formal forensic study came out, Sir Paul was interviewed by David Letterman on Aug. 13, 2009 and was asked (a rare thing) and answered (even rarer these days) about PID. Though Sir Paul used to answer PID questions from time to time, it is rare in recent years. However, on Letterman, close to when the Wired magazine came out in Italy, Sir Paul actually discusses PID. This topic (along with all topics for the famous Sir Paul) most likely was okayed ahead of time. And the timing of allowing or requesting or AT LEAST his willingness to answer anything about it instead of purely laughing it off, may well indicate his attempt to steal any thunder which may have come from the publication of the article. This could be true, whether Paul died or not. Of course we can't formally be sure of this hypothesis either way, but we can have general surety that stealing some "nonsensical" or "real" attention away from the Wired claims was why the interview with those questions was done at that time. But in addition: Sir Paul slips up in implying -- even as a slip of the tongue, let's say -- that he is the replacement, with an ambiguous turn of phrase. What clinches the likelihood of a real slip-up is his quick and very furtive body language, right after saying it. The Letterman-Sir McCartney interview is here: Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFMWnoDY314, Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kYDdBWESQw, Part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BPj-ASJRJc . The PID question segment is in Part 2.



.................................................

COMMENTS SECTION: