First of all, I'll list the criteria I've accumulated from different message boards that are said to be a prerequisite for the 'real' Paul McCartney:
It is insisted by PIDers that he had:
A swooped, highly-arched right eyebrow
A deeply-cleft chin
No hair on his chest or legs
Uneven upper lips
Was bald and wore a wig
Was very short, but "looked tall" in shoe lifts
Had no rhythm and couldn't dance
All of his top teeth showed all the way up to the gum when he smiled or sang
Was bald and had to wear a wig. (Only seen that once.)
Was very short. (Only in 1963 and once in a while in the 70s+)
I've since then also come across them posting:
He had very little or no chest hair, but had very hairy hands.
Had Inflammatory Bowel Disease, and that he wore diapers due to "explosive" diarrhea. We're supposed to be able to detect this in the "Help!" movie.
Had Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (because of the picture in Hamburg where he's goofing around and is all sprawled out on a large bench or trunk, or something. See lower left picture.)
I cannot find any one Paul McCartney matching all of the above criteria. It appears we each must come up with what makes the most sense of an incredibly-well-constructed mystery and obvious conspiracy.
I've also seen since I started to compile that list a few years ago, PIDers insist he had both equal and unequal upper lips, as well as both attached and detached earlobes. They argue with each other over this, and don't agree which is which. We've shown Pauls with all of those features, so that has to be evidence and proof of multiples. If pictures are tampered with, no one can even decide how to tamper them to make them all the same. We just don't believe the tampering theory in the majority of cases.
Let's not forget there were Pauls (and Johns) with facial pouches or "bulges" by their mouths, and those without. Can anyone explain what those were about? You can still see one or the other Paul out there today with it sometimes. How would it be there some days but not others?
I also personally observe that he had a tic disorder, both as Paul and Faul, but only sometimes. And it could be manifested differently from time to time. He has different tic movements in one rendition of "Yesterday" than he does in the other (1965 & 1966 - one of which was the time John said "that was just like him").
Tic disorders can be caused by trauma, abuse, mind control, or other factors including genetics.
He'd also have to be bipolar, if there was only one original Paul before 1966, to be both somber and hyper like the different Pauls were. Anyone matching all of the above criteria would probably have to live in an institution, not be a legeneary "god" rock star, and knighted by the Queen.
As far as I'm concerned, it's all a fabrication, and it's to destroy, assimilate and enslave us. Isn't this what we're hearing more and more about our governments doing to us in these current times? That's my opinion after many thousands of hours of research, and I came into this with no bias and no pre-conceived notions. Just memories of their advent in England as I saw it in fan mags, and the bewilderment when the Paul that showed up in America wasn't short like in the magazine pics. The "shoe lift" idea doesn't work, either, because we've shown those pictures, and when the small Paul wore those, he was still shorter than the others, and had very short arms, legs and torso.
Even though I've never seen a picture that shows all these prerequisites, even if there could be one, it doesn't prove whether he was born the normal way, or whether he was 'lab-created'. I don't think there is a bigger debate in the entire world over one person. There are so many conflicting pictures of "Paul", both before and after the alleged PID year of 1966, as well as just about every picture and youtube after 1966 being different. There were so many Pauls, that I have come to the conclusion that none of them is real. If there was a real one out there, why wouldn't he have come forward to tell the world he was being cheated out of his rightful legacy, and we were being defrauded as well? By this I mean, since there were already many Pauls way before 1966 - and the 'real Paul' was supposed to be alive until then - why didn't he speak up?
Yes, there are always the 'threat', 'blackmail', and 'handler' theories, but the other three Beatle members never had as many multiples or replacements in as short a time as did "Paul". They were all replaced BEFORE 1966, yet there is no uproar over that. It's on the album clues, but everyone reads them another way. Why is it all about "Paul"? He has a very fabricated childhood, as do all the Beatles, and all the different sizes, looks and heights of all the Pauls are always shown standing with the same "family" in pictures. They're all shown with "Linda" as their wife, too. They were ALL married to her?? Or how many of 'her' might there have been? This is something I intend to research as time allows.
If there was a historical Paul McCartney, can it be proven in the same way the rest of us can prove our "realness"? There certainly wasn't a "legendary" Paul, sorry to say. It took quite a few different Pauls to gain the fame and acclaim that was brought to this name, so no one single entity earned worldwide notoriety, just as no one group of Beatles did.
Sorry, but no.
If "Faul" had as much surgery as they claim, he would look like a Frankenstein Michael Jackson freak.