#3 - Fake Ears with Alternating Attached and Unattached Earlobes

This will be Page One of  Ear Comparisons and Analyses, and encompass the years from 1963 through 1966.
       The ears are one part of the body that don't change and are difficult to change. Human ears grow larger with age, but no two people have the same exact ears, so this is the one way we can be certain as to whether we're looking at the same person or different people.

         Now we'll look at Paul's magically-changing earlobes, and the very fake-looking ears in many cases. He goes back and forth between having attached and unattached earlobes, as well as different patterns and sizes, all during Beatlemania. The same issue continues throughout his career to the present day, and I will be showing those comparisons on subsequent pages.

1963 Interview - Ears sit way behind the jawline. In this film clip, his earlobes are attached.

But what if we take a closer look at that ear? Is this not a strange inner pattern?  And what is the 'blackened' area at the top, above what is supposed to pass for the ear canal? It's possible that is some of his hair overlapping, but isn't that a strange ear?

What is this strangeness we see on the other ear? Is something embedded into the skin?

Here are a few differences in 1964. I see both attached and detached earlobes in these pictures, as well as subtle and not-so-subtle hints of ear fakery.

And here he has DE-tached earlobes in 1964 on the Ed Sullivan Show. Plus, what's that bulge which is now showing up on the right side of his mouth? Sometimes it was there, sometimes not. (John and Ringo had the same thing at times.)

Here are pictures from 1965.
Ed Sullivan Show - very detached lobes and obvious fake ears.

I believe at least the front of his hair is fake, too, but look at this humdinger of an ear.

Compare these two ears from 1964 and 1965.

The Film Help!
Yes, I can see that some of his hair is curling up over the edge of his ear, but it looks like the part next to his face is way too loose.

The Beach Scene from Help! If not fake, then the lobes are very detached, and it has been shown that is not always the case.

Compare with attached lobe in 1965, and sitting further back behind the jawline (although one is attached and the other detached).

Here's a comparison of Paul in 1964 and 1967 - with the same ears - which are ATTACHED, and identical eyebrows. If he was killed and replaced, how does he show up again identically like this, when he had so many different ears during Beatlemania? If there was only one Paul through all the years who had attached earlobes, how did he have DE-tached lobes in the previous pictures?

This only leaves room for MULTIPLES. All the way through the Beatles' career.

Here we see the identical ears and brows in 1965 and 1967. Many people want to say the photos are doctored. Okay, fair enough; we've come across doctored photos plenty of times, and have noted them as such. If that's the case here or in the previous comparison, please point out how and where. It isn't that difficult to do with the abundance of detection software now available.

1965 on the Ed Sullivan Show. What a fake ear failure! Why does he suddenly have such a leathery look to his skin, and why is his head suddenly so much smaller. And someone has pointed out to me how overly white his ears are, compared to his face.

Notice the airbrushing in front of Paul's ear here? There are more pictures like this which I will show in due time. At least he has the 'mandatory' chin cleft that's supposed to show he's the 'real' Paul, which most of them don't have! I suppose that was airbrushed, too?

Here are a few Before-and-After Beatlemania Pauls with detached earlobes from a front and side view (though they don't all match):

Now with attached earlobes from a front and side view:

So, how is it that sometimes they're different in the same era,

yet the same in different eras?

Different eras with Attached Earlobes

Different eras with detached earlobes.

And what happened to the extended ears that everyone said the 'real' JPM had?

To be continued with 1966.