I've found 4 major clues that the Beatles were multiples: Differing heights, eyebrows, ears, and teeth -- of each Beatle.
This first tutorial is about the Beatle's heights, and how they fluctuated during Beatlemania as to who was taller, shorter, etc.
Clue #1 - Evidence that the Beatles Were Multiples: Differing Heights Throughout Their Career
I'll begin by showing height comparisons which are specifically focused on Paul. This all by itself should provide enough evidence of fraud and deceit. How they did this is not completely known. We have words such as "simulacra", "cloning", "synthetic humans", "robotoids", and so on, but exactly what was happening here is still a bit of a mystery. What we can clearly see, though, is they are too similar each time to be explainable as human doubles (even with surgery because that doesn't account for the other nuances), yet too different to be the exact same person. Human replication of whatever form usually yields a 95-97% identical copy, and that is what we are seeing here.
Not only are the heights different, but as I'll show on subsequent pages, so are the shapes and lengths of his eyebrows, the different types of earlobes, and the size and angles of his teeth. But that will be for later. For now, let's concentrate on the height differentiations, and focus on Paul.
Depending on who is asked, people will say he was either 5'6" or 5'11" tall. I've seen evidence for both, and for a few heights in between as well.
Here is a comparison of two different heights for Paul in 1963. What can account for this? Some say "shoe lifts", but those don't cause his arms, legs and torso to be longer, too.
Are your eyes playing tricks on you, or was it "them"?
Now compare the short height on the left once again in 1963 with the taller height in the middle and on the right in 1964. Did he have a sudden growth spurt of several inches in less than a year? If you think it's possible, wait until I show what happens later.
His heights fluctuate like a yo-yo all through Beatlemania, as they did through Wings, and as they are continuing to do in the Macca era.
Paul can't be more than about 5'6" here. The girls aren't wearing heels, but he is.
Now compare his short height in 1963 again, with how much taller he is in 1965. Taller even than in many pictures during 1964.
Here is a comparison of them on stage in 1963, 1964 and 1965. I never find the very short Paul performing on stage. He was only involved in this mess for a few months in the Spring of 1963, apparently only for photos.
This is a comparison of the short 1963 Paul, then taller in 1964, and taller yet in 1965.
Another concern is the way he flip-flopped as to whether he had body-rhythm and could dance and sway to the beat of the music during their onstage performances.
These next three videos are hosted on my new channel "Banned On The Run". It is an unlisted channel which means you need to click on a link either here or at the website in order to open the video. Searching for it on YT will not yield results.
If you have questions or comments, please reply to this thread. I will eventually be adding annotations to the video to demarcate the critical spots to take note of in his performance.
Notice how un-rhythmic he is in his body movements in this video from 1964:
Now notice how rhythmic he is in this 1965 performance of Ticket To Ride -- as well as his height proximity to the others.
And also this performance of Help! -- Notice a difference in his face?
They look much older here to me. It was either very unflattering lighting, or we were being tested. I'm from this generation, and I have to say we flunked miserably.
In 1966, he isn't as tall anymore.... most of the time. His stage presence fluctuates from rhythmic to non-rhythmic or semi-rhythmic. He begins to wear dark glass in some of the performances. Sometimes he's sitting during a performance, instead of standing. Is it to hide the fact that he's shorter than he was the year before?
Notice the regression in body rhythm in this 1966 video of Paperback Writer compare to the above 1965 takes.
Many will say it's obvious it is no longer Paul because he's smoking right-handed at the L.A. Interview:
But they apparently either don't notice or just don't mention he does the same during the Memphis Interview, and those same people usually believe this is the 'real' Paul:
Appearing in the 1967 Hello, Goodbye performance, he has reverted to being very non-rhythmic, with a stiff, uncoordinated, staccato performance style.
And why did they keep blurring his face? Could it be because we had never seen this particular Paul from the early 60s perform on television, and was he only in photo shoots before this?
Regressing even more in his performance style, back to where he was in the early 60s.
Be sure to also watch this video by Lololark from our FFD forum on the Beatles' Height Discrepancies.
How ironic that Paul is so un-rhythmic, yet he's the bass player. He should be the most rhythmic of all, since his job is to keep the band in time, or at least as a back-up to Ringo. The height differences are very telling and I agree with you about the picture making them look older, and the fact that maybe they were testing their fans. I was in my teens in the 1970s, so I had the second wave of Beatlemania, if I can put it that way, being a Paul McCartney fan. But even then, I would noticed sutble differences in Paul throughout the 70s, of course now realizing that there were several Pauls.
It is apparent that there are 3 Pauls in these videos. In 'She Loves You,' you have the un-rhythmic Paul. In 'Ticket To Ride,' Paul has the right low swooped eyebrow and in 'Help,' he has the right high swooped eyebrow. I noticed too that the Paul in 'Help,' has a slightly different shaped face. That could be due to lighting and video, but 'Ticket To Ride' and 'Help,' seem to have the same camera angles and distance.
I'm no longer a Beatles or Paul McCartney fan, as I now have a better idea of what they were about. Once you except the fact that they were a manufactured band, then everythng else starts to make sense. The image of the four lads was accomplished, with the cloned Beatles playing their part. Just how many of each, I'm not sure. But there are several albums in the 1970s where I can now detect at least 2, maybe 3 Pauls singing. As well, there are at least 2 Pauls in the 1984 movie 'Give My Regards To Broadstreet.' In fact, that movie is quite revealing in showing 2 Pauls.
The other thing I noticed, and I'm sure you will talk about, is their vocal ranges. John in particular, seems to have a higher vocal range as he gets older. It's supposed to go the other way; your vocal range tends to lessen with age. So there is much evidence that the Beatles were cloned, evidence that is right there on their recordings and concerts. So if anyone wants to label us conspiarcy theorists, all you have to do is point to their official recordings, which for the most part, was duplicated in their concerts. And the other thing to remember is, back then, there was no autotuning, so almost everything that was done on stage, was real. Although I have my suspicions about the video 'She Loves You.' I'm not sure how this Paul can be so out of rhythm, and yet keep time with his base guitar. Makes you wonder whether there was some background recording going on or more likely, his own programming was out of sync.
I'm still trying to get my wording perfected on this, but what I seem to see is the early Paul/s don't have good rhythm. They cannot sway with the beat, and are uncoordinated, but beginning in 1965, he gets way, way better with both his upper body coordination, his style with the guitar, and the way he moves his feet.
In 1966, I will say he has great upper body movements to the beat, but doesn't use his feet as well as he did in 1965, and he doesn't seem as tall. If anyone disagrees, that's fine; I would just like us to become as detailed as possible about what we see and believe in all this. I'll try to expand more on what I'm seeing when I open a thread for performance style and rhythm.
Whoever put all this together made it a very complicated and intricate issue, I must say!
These pictures were taken about one year apart. Paul shortest on the left, tallest on the right. Maybe he quit smoking for a few months and had a growth spurt. Or he got a really super-great pair of 'magical' lifts that made even his arms and legs longer. And can you really say shoe lifts could make as much difference as seen here?
Notice the differing heights in these two Beatles groups.
Different body types, too?
Another rare look at them on the right being pretty much the same height, but on the left with George the tallest.
Paul extremely tall here - they look like a staircase. When did they ever line up like this?
Not so tall here - now John towers over the others.