#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
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
Interview - Ears sit way behind the
jawline. In this film clip, his
earlobes are attached.
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
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
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
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.
these two ears from 1964 and
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.
Scene from Help! If not
fake, then the lobes are very detached,
and it has been shown that is not always
attached lobe in 1965, and sitting
further back behind the jawline
(although one is attached and the
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
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
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):
with attached earlobes from a front and
So, how is it that sometimes
they're different in the same era,
yet the same in different
eras with Attached Earlobes
eras with detached earlobes.
And what happened to the
extended ears that everyone said the
'real' JPM had?
continued with 1966.