First of all, we do not hate "The Beatles" by any means. We aren't even trying to convince or influence anyone to stop listening to their music, because we still listen to some of it ourselves, and enjoy it. We just question whether "they" wrote it, who "they" really were, what their main agenda was from the beginning, and who was behind it. And yes, we take this seriously, and it is not a joke or parody. We would like to be proven wrong in the following theory, so if anyone can do this, please join the message board and present your evidence to the contrary. We've already discovered that in over 99% of the cases, the photos are not doctored or stretched, and it is not a matter of lighting or camera angles that makes them look different. Nor is it a matter of Paul wearing shoe lifts to be 4 or 5 different heights.
About PID and Forming Theories Before Conducting One's Own Research
About Photo Doctoring
The only time any photo can be a really successful composite is if two or more pictures were taken in the same studio at the same time, and the subjects swapped places moments apart. If that were the case, that means the Beatles would've been coexisting with the Featles, which makes them frauds, does it not? At the very least, doesn't it mean they were severely MK'd from the earliest years? Either way, they're not who we thought they were! People even say their baby pictures are doctored to look more like the Featles. So... they happened to find photos of "the Featles" when they were kids (prior to plastic surgery) and all of these elements were perfectly in place?
There's an interesting old saying "If your premise is off, your findings will be off". The way I mostly see the PID theory is, someone starts with a premise, and forces the findings to fit into it. The way I started was that I wasn't sure if Paul had died or been killed, but I set out to see what I could discover. In other words, I had no premise, and nothing I needed to find suitable evidence for, or justify the findings in order to fit a preconceived belief. If anything, I could see a replacement or two, or three, but wasn't sure of anything else. I never expected to find replacements, doubles or multiples before 1966, but when I saw that was clearly the case, as difficult as it was to accept the shock and betrayal of it all, it wasn't going to conflict with any theory I had already formed in my mind. In this way, the findings began to develop into the facts as I now see them about the Beatles being multiples, or in other words, the way in which they were presented to us -- as just one group of 4 individuals -- means they never existed.
For doctoring or photo tampering to look right and be believable, not only does the lighting and positioning of the subject and camera have to be exactly the same, but also the film and lens need to be the same. The tampering, as well, has to be seamless and undetectable. The odds of all of that happening successfully are very slim. Especially as many times as we're supposed to be seeing it now, and all "after the fact"?
Simply this:
There was never just one group of 4 individuals calling themselves
“The Beatles”
who rose to world stardom.
There were multiples of each character performing as “John”, “Paul”, “George” and “Ringo”.
Each part of the world appears to have had its own Beatles group, And even then, there were sometimes multiple characters within. They all looked identical to each other except for a few features here and there,
But what was most pronounced was their fluctuating height differences. It should probably also be mentioned here that the stacked heels they wore do not account for Paul being taller sometimes. He also wore them when he appeared shorter, and was also taller than John and George sometimes when he had flat shoes. Other times, he was shorter than them even when he wore heels.
They all wore heels on stage, and Paul can be shorter or taller than either John or George. It depends on which Paul it is, not which shoes he was wearing. Begin noticing the longer arms and legs, the longer and larger torsos. Heels and lifts could not accomplish those things.
As far as we are able to tell at this time, it all began in the late 1950s with these 2 different-yet-similar boys performing under the name of "Paul McCartney". There were 6 of them by 1962.
Now especially notice the different brow and jaw lines, as well as the different chin.
Here are some pictures of them in their early years, with a short Paul, but there are two or more of them here:
For more on this, please see our forum thread titled:
Meet the different early Pauls, 1960-1962
Here are some pictures of this group later in the early 60's with Paul at differing heights. You might notice a different George in these pictures, too.
Tall George, Short Paul
Tall John, Short Everybody Else.
Isn't Paul supposed to have a highly-swooped right eyebrow?
Notice how they grew so much taller in one year (below), and after already being fully-grown adults. This first one is with Ed Sullivan in 1964.
This second one is just a year later.
Here is an astonishing height comparison for you, and both pictures are before 1966.
Is Paul dead or alive? Was he replaced? Were there multiples from the beginning? Did the first two above come back again later? After a year of this research, I'm now ready to say I find confirmation that all of them came back again. They seem to have been recycled and "leap-frogged" into ensuing eras. Sometimes it was more noticeable than others, and people cry "It's Faul!" because they had never seen that particular Beatle Paul before. I'm currently working on a project to match the Hamburg and Cavern Club Pauls with the Pepper and Wings era Pauls. I will link to it from this page when the thread is ready to view on the forum. Here is something to consider for now:
PID Vintage Magazine's Alleged Beatle Paul #1(Early-to-mid-60's Era)
The absolute identical feature in these first 3 is that they all have their teeth together and their lips slightly apart. I see other features as well, but you decide.
I know some people will object to the "green eyes", but there could be several possible explanations for that, not the least of which is:
PID Vintage Magazine's Alleged Beatle Paul #2
The absolutely identical feature in these next 3 is that they all have both their teeth as well as their lips slightly parted. Again, there are other features, but you decide.
Do the "eyes" have it?
What pulls them together as being "the same yet different" is that all of them in both groups have a lower and/ or smaller left eye, a flared and higher left nostril, and the exact same teeth pattern, yet they have differing eyebrows and nose shapes. There is much more information regarding these issues at the forum on the thread titled:
'Why Surgery Could Not Turn "Faul" or "Bill" Into Paul'
How many "older" Paul McCartneys are still at-large? This is the assortment of pictures I have accumulated so far. The older they get, the easier they are to tell apart:
Can you spot the possible "cyborg" here?
Are you someone who thinks there was no beak-nosed Beatle Paul McCartney? Be sure to check out this thread: Early-Era Beak-nose Beatle Pauls
If you would like to join us at our Message Board as we further study and research this topic, please click the email button to send your request. Please let us know why you would like to join, what your current stance is about the Beatles, the contributions you intend to make, and we would also like to know how you found us. We also welcome questions of interest, and even a genuine, honest challenge or argument, as it will sharpen our perspective and help us perfect our research. We just don't want hecklers or those who would come along to impede our research or the free flow of conversation.
Please feel free to visit and browse the forums at any time. There is an ever-increasing amount of evidence and information that this "superstar" rock group was produced by recurring techniques known as Human Simulacra as well as Clones, Organic Robotoids and Synthetic Humans. Take the journey at our forum and decide for yourself. You be the judge.
Please also be sure to visit larkspur's thread on Beatles songs as Classical Reworks. 100% of their songs were taken from previous rock or big band artists, otherwise are mostly from the classical music era. See for yourself, join the board and talk to us. Challenge this, or contribute to the research, and let's take this project to the next level.
Are Beatles Songs Modified Classical Pieces?
Watch larkspur's video which demonstrates the songs on "Beatles for Sale".
Beatles For Sale - Modified Classical Music
Paul dipping his lower lip, the way only "Faul" was supposed to do.
"Faul" dipping his lower lip:
Here is a subject that has fueled the "Paul is Dead" fires for years. Is this really the first time this silly grin was seen, in "Fool on the Hill"?
What about all these? I've come to call this Paul's "Fool Grin".
1964
1965
1966
There are many more pictures showing these lip-dipping, fool-grinning, (sitar-strumming) Beatle Pauls, on the Paul/Faul Twin Sightings Thread
I understand these few things don't completely dismantle the PID theory, and I'm not even trying to do that. There may actually be an issue about PID, it's just not that certain what the year was, and I personally suspect foul play much, much earlier. The "clues" in songs and album covers could have been planted intentionally in order to throw us off track. What it does do to show these Paul and "Faul" comparisons, though, is dismantle the mandatory criteria that when you see lip-dipping or fool-grinning, that means it's automatically "Faul".
There are many other such issues, such as the hair part, the upper lip, the eyebrows, etc., all of which are covered on the message board. All arguments for when it's Paul and when it's "Faul" have been effectively addressed and shown to be wrong. Both Paul and "Faul" had every feature, quirk, performance style, height, body type, etc., etc. The evidence for all these things is on the message board, and in due time will also be added as subsequent pages to this website for better ease in finding and reading about it. Most of the pictures used to present the evidence for multiples have been acquired at a photo site approved of by both PID and PIA as being all undoctored, and PID says they are all pictures of only the "real" James Paul McCartney. The links accompany the photos on the message board. Otherwise, they are screenshots from videos, or are from various Beatle fan photo sites. If you believe any are doctored, etc., please join the board and point it out to us. We demonstrate on this thread what some of the ways are to detect photo tampering, and present many photos from vintage Beatle magazines that actually were doctored in the early and mid 1960s.
Early Vintage Photo Tampering and Other Weirdness
Proceed to Message Board
Be sure to see our Visitor's Section where you can post comments without having to register for the forum.
This page was last updated on April 7, 2012, and will continue to be as new evidence and information is discovered in this extremely complex and complicated, yet very interesting and intriguing project. Our research is always a work in progress.
