A Very Telling Assessment Of Paul By Brian Epstein

I was reading the KRLA Beat teenzine of January 29, 1966 and came across a quote from Brian Epstein talking about our Paul's personality.  (KRLA Beat, if you haven't read some of my other posts about the paper, was a fan magazine published between 1964 and 1968 by the then Los Angeles pop music station KRLA that had features about pop musicians.)

Here's Brian Epstein's quote:
     "Probably the most changed Beatle.  He's mellowed in character and thought.  A fascinating character and a very loyal person.  Doesn't like changes very much.  He probably more than the others, finds it more difficult to accept that he is playing to a cross section of the public and not just to teenagers, or sub-teenagers, whom he feels are the Beatles' audience."  [my emphasis]

In other posts, I've talked about my theory that there was a power elite that was directing and manipulating The Beatles.  My theory is that Paul was resisting efforts to Pied Piper (so to speak) the Baby Boomer generation toward acceptance of widespread drug use and free (and diseased) love to begin with.  If the manipulators could get their foot in the door of morally degrading the massive Baby Boom generation, they thought, no doubt, they could do anything.

Paul didn't like changes very much and Paul was concerned with keeping The Beatles' teeny bopper audience and not taking on--what turned out to be--the slightly older, Sgt. Pepper-era, album rock fans that the Faul-and-Fohn new, new Beatles of late 1966 played to.  So said Brian Epstein.

But Paul was also aware that a changed group of Beatles singing to the larger audience might draw in some of the maturing young Beatle fans and, again, he apparently wanted none of it.

Epstein also said that Paul had mellowed in character and thought.  But not so much that when The Beatles were up against a psychedelic wall, Paul would not put up a monumental fight against forced changes.  Paul did fight.

Faul's Vacation In Kenya

The Beatles' fan club Christmas record of 1967 had what Paul researchers believe is an autobiographical skit describing how our Paul's replacement got hired in 1966.  In the skit, George--as the "hiring boss"--asks "the applicant" how old "the applicant" is, and can't believe it when "the applicant" replies, honestly, that he is 32 years' old.  This would put our Paul's replacement's birth year at ~ 1935.

What makes Paul's replacement's birth year remarkable in the history of England is that there was a military national service scheme in place that did not formally end until 1960.  The law required healthy males 17 to 21 years' old to serve for 18 months.

If Faul (our Paul's replacement) was born in 1935, he would have been liable to begin military duty from ~1952 to ~1957.

The country of Kenya was ruled by the Brits during that time and the Kenyans began an armed rebellion from 1952-1956 against the Brits.  There's a good possibility that Faul was one of those combat troops.

The Kenyans achieved independence in 1963 and Faul achieved a dream job as Beatle Paul in 1966, so I'm speculating that Faul went back to Kenya to take a 6-day "victory lap" before he would attain the role of Paul McCartney in the late 1966, new, new Beatles.

Take a look at a Youtube video titled, "Paul McCartney's replacement trip to Spain and Kenya in the fall of 1966" at:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PP4ZqBKEw1M .  You have to figure that it was Faul's travel companion--Beatles' roadie--Mal Evans who was filming Faul.  Faul was very relaxed and at ease in the Kenyan segment of the video.  Look at the photos from the film of Faul riding along in a car and filming the countryside:

 

At 19:14-19:17 in the video it shows Faul waving at someone and making a distinctive hand gesture. (See photos below.)  He obviously knew someone well enough to do that.  Look at the photo of the hand gesture:

I researched hand signals looking for this particular one.  The closest I could find was an Indian hand position--called a mudra--: this particular mudra called an acceptance mudra that signifies accepting the blessings that are yours. (See photo below.)

The acceptance mudra, though, is not quite the same as Faul's hand signal.

Take another look at Faul's hand signal:  Is it a small letter B" as in now Faul is a Beatle?  Or is it an upside down letter "P"--Faul giving a signal to someone he knew that yes, indeed, he was the new Paul?  Or was  Faul flashing the number "9" to someone he knew?   ??

 

 

"

Increasing Evidence That Paul Was Trying To Sabotage The Beatles

In my post of September 15, 2016, I talked about the revealing interview Paul and John gave the day they were being photographed for what turned out to be the infamous butcher cover for the U.S. Beatles' album, Yesterday and Today.  I've mentioned in other posts that I believe Paul was mounting a fight--first--against attempts by a power elite to have The Beatles try to manipulate the attitudes of the vast, world-wide Baby Boomer generation, and later, against his ouster from the group.  In other words, I think Paul thought if they were going to dump him, he would pull the group down with him.

I've found dates and events when Paul (and John) made serious efforts to sabotage The Beatles:
     1.) Paul's insistence that Capitol Records in the U.S. (owned by EMI in England) use the butcher photo for the Yesterday and Today album.
     2.)  Paul's London Evening Standard interview on March 25, 1966 with Maureen Cleeve where he said that America was racist.
     3.)  John's interview published in the Evening Standard on March 4, 1966 where he made the infamous "Beatles bigger than Jesus" comment.
     4.)  Paul's comment at the June 30, 1966 Tokyo press conference where he rated The Beatles' talent as "adequate."
     5.)  His hint, hint at the Radio Caroline interview of April 25, 1966 that The Beatles had doubles.

Was anybody in the hierarchy over The Beatles aware of the potential harm Paul's efforts was having on the Beatles' popularity?  In England, Brian Epstein was, I believe, uneasy about The Beatles' image vis-a-vis America.  Soon after the butcher cover photo session, but before the butcher photo made the cover the Yesterday and Today album, Epstein had Robert Whitaker--the butcher photo session photographer--and some Beatles come to his office so Whitaker could take an innocuous photo of "The Beatles" standing around--and "Paul" sitting in--a steamer trunk.  There are internet site estimates that this photo was taken in late March or early April, 1966.  In a photo I found [see below], George and Ringo are shown in Epstein's office on that day, looking at developed photos from the butcher photo shoot.

 

I said that Epstein had some Beatles in his office because Paul (and John) are NOT in the steamer trunk photo that was pasted over the butcher cover.  Compare the photo below on the left with the photo on the right of Paul taken from the Paperback Writer/Rain promotional films of May, 1966. The face looks convincing but look at "Paul"'s shoulders.  Was our Paul an American football player because the upper body of the Paul on the left is NOT the same as the real Paul on the right.  (And this before the famous photo of a fake Paul standing backward on the Sgt. Pepper album.)

 

 

 

So I think Epstein--who apparently didn't know the sensibilities of Americans as well as Paul did--okayed the butcher cover photo release but hedged his bets by having a back-up photo because he suspected the butcher cover was part of Paul's plan for sabotaging The Beatles.

 

In America, there were two people who did know the extent of the damage the butcher cover could cause the popularity of The Beatles:  Capitol Records' president, Alan W. Livingston and Capitol Records' Manager of Press & Information Services, Ron Tepper.  In a June 14, 1966 letter to people who got advance copies of the butcher cover album, Tepper quotes Livingston who said:

"The original cover, created in England, was intended a 'pop art' satire.  However, a sampling of public opinion in the United States indicates that the cover design is subject to misinterpretation.  For this reason, and to avoid any possible controversy or undeserved harm to The Beatles' image or reputation, Capitol has chosen to withdraw the LP and substitute a more generally acceptable design."  [See full letter below.]

You'll notice that Livingston emphasized that the photo was "created in England" not America, and that Capitol offered to pay the cost of shipping the album back.

 

The Yesterday and Today album with the bland (and deceptive) cover was in U.S. stores on June 20, 1966.  But the furor the original cover photo caused showed that the damage Paul had intended, was already done.

Is That Faul or Is That Faul?

I just found a photo of the 1966 "Beatles" published in an October 1966 advertisement for Chicago radio station, WCFL.  This photograph was no doubt taken when the B/Featles were in Chicago during their August U.S. tour.  Take a good look at "Paul" on the left and "John" on the right.

You'll notice--especially--the eyes are very reminiscent of the Paul of today.  Notice also the angular face, which looks much more like the face of the two photos immediately below as opposed to our Paul's distinctly rounder face that you can see in photos 3 and 4 below.  I've been contending for some time that our Paul never made it to the 1966 tour and these photos lend credence to that theory.

 

My concentration in this blog is on Paul, but if you look at "John" in the WCFL photo you'll notice that this man---with his narrow face--is not our John. (See photos below for comparison.)

What The Time-Frame Was For Paul Breaking His Tooth (Continued)

In my last post, I narrowed down the time-frame for Paul breaking his tooth to early May, 1966.  Since Paul had no evidence of being in an accident on May 1st., 1966 at the NME Poll Winner's contest, and  the tooth could be seen  broken on the May 19, 1966 filming of the Rain/Paperback Writer promotionals, AND Paul said in a June 16, 1966 interview that he had recently broken the tooth before the 5/19 films--logically--something happened to Paul between 5/1/66 and 5/19/66.

Paul gave a story in the interview that he had been involved in a moped accident.  He said:  "But it was dark and I hit a stone and went flyin' through the air.  It was my fault . . . it was a nice night and I was looking at the moon."

During the month of May, The Beatles were busy recording tracks for their Revolver album.  Paul spent much of the evening of May 9th., 1966 recording his song, "For No One."

If he had had the "accident", say, on May 1st., 2nd., or even 3rd., there's a possibility he might have felt up to recording by May 9th.---except that his statement that the night was dark contradicts the near-full moon that was in the Liverpool night sky on those nights in 1966. (See chart) [from the website--www.rodurago.net  "Perpetual Moon Calendar"]

Also take a look at several photos I have found of roads that are fully moonlit.  Hardly dark.

Even if he had the accident after May 10th. or 11th., the road or path would not have been dark.  Take a look at a crescent moonlit road photo I found:

 

And then there's the healing time of a fall that would cause head, lip and tooth damage.

 

What's my point?  I think Paul gave an implausible explanation to get people to want to know what REALLY happened to him.

What The Time-Frame Was For Paul Breaking His Tooth

There has been alot written about the broken tooth our Paul had that showed prominently in the Rain/Paperback Writer promotional films The Beatles recorded on May 19th. and 20th., 1966.

Paul gave an interview for the New Musical Express British pop magazine on June 16, 1966 and this is what he said about the tooth:

 

Paul gave a story about a moped accident--an "accident" that most of the press claims happened on December 26, 1965. But when you listen to how Paul phrased his reply to the NME interviewer, it tells another story.  Paul says that he had "ONLY JUST" bashed his tooth at the time The Beatles filmed the promotionals MAY 19 and 20, 1966.  I was curious about the Briticism "only just", so I

checked the Oxford English online dictionary and they give the following definition of "only just":

 1.1 Very Recently

(example):  'I'd only just arrived back from Paris.'

 

Now take a look at a screen capture of Paul at the NME Poll Winners Concert from May 1, 1966:

 

NO broken tooth. And no scar on his lip.

 

So the timeframe for Paul's "accident" would really be sometime in early MAY, 1966.  And because Paul insisted on showing the broken tooth in the promotional films, I'm guessing the cause was NOT an accident.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yet Another Telling Interview

On March 25, 1966, Tom Lodge, who was a DJ for the English pirate station Radio Caroline, came to the Chelsea studio where that day Robert Whitaker was photographing The Beatles for what became the infamous "butcher cover" of the Yesterday and Today album.  Lodge interviewed The Beatles.  This interview was edited down to less than two minutes and included in a flexi-disc that had interviews of other English singers and musicians.

It was produced by Tony Barrow--The Beatles' public relations director-- to promote the new English pop music magazine, Disc and Music Echo--a merger of two older magazines.

Since Brian Epstein was part owner of the magazine, The Beatles were featured as the "headline act" on Side 2.  You can here the record on YouTube at:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaF4quazrZw .

Here is the Paul and John part of the interview and Paul's last sentence is what makes this important:

     8:45-8:51  Lodge:  This was the time I came face-to-face with the one and only--yes, wait for it--The Beatles.
     8:52-8:59   John:  Well, ah, it's nice to be here in the actual captain's kitchen [NOTE: Pirate stations were housed in boats off the English coast] and the captain himself is stirring up a right old brew.
     8:59-9:03  Lodge:  Is it true that Paul and John, that you have ghost writers to write your songs for you?
     9:03-9:09  John (sarcastically):  Oh yeah, we have Gershwin and Trotsky, they write, they write the first four.
     9:09-9:11  Paul:  And Latin and Labattsky write the lyrics.
     9:11          John:  Yeah.
     9:12-9:16  Paul (mockingly)  The two best-selling lyric writers in the country.
     9:16-9:17  John:  We just do the P.R. for the boys, you know.
     9:17-9:20  Paul:  Yeah, we just do appearances in our moptops, you know.
     9:20          John:  Yeah.
     9:21-9:23  Lodge:  It's a hard life, isn't it?
     9:23-9:27  Paul:  Yeah, well it's very hard.  But just wander 'round.  WE'VE GOT DOUBLES FOR MOST OF THAT, AS WELL.

What I find remarkable, on the face of it, is that Barrow and Epstein would allow a contentious and confrontational interview with Paul and John to be aired publicly.  But it's pretty obvious by the ambush journalism nature of Lodge's questioning that things were not going well between  Epstein and the two Beatles.  So why would Epstein leave Paul's pointed reference to Beatle doubles in the interview?  I think it's because--just as I read time after time in comments by people who refuse to see the truth--the reality of the comment can be passed off as a joke.   

Paul's Reference At The 7/1/66 Concert To Being "Relocated"

I watched the entire July 1st. 1966 concert The Beatles gave at Tokyo's Nippon Budokan.  I'm convinced that this was our Paul at this concert and at the evening concert given on June 30th. 1966.  You can hear the full concert on YouTube at:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhYh4PDMA-Y  and watch it on Dailymotion at:  http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2v24z7_1966-07-01-beatles-budokan-full-concert_music .

Near the end of the concert--right before they sing "I'm Down"--Paul says the following:  "Well, yes, thank you, this, this next song, now, ah, will have to, well, be our last song for this afternoon.  And, so, before we go we'd like to say to everybody:  Thank you for coming.  Thank you very much and we hope you've enjoyed it.  [his voice drops]  And, uh, yeah, so as we say in Runcorn:  [with emotion] sayonara."

What is this reference to Runcorn?

Runcorn was one of the towns designated a "new town" by the English government after World War 2.  These towns were either entirely concocted from scratch or--as in the case of Runcorn, for example--were relocations of old existing towns.  So there was an OLD Runcorn that had existed since ~A.D. 913 and a NEW Runcorn east of the old town that began its existence by decree of the English Government in April. 1964.  For information sake, the purpose of the new towns were to relocate poor people out of bombed-out or run-down housing or to house poor people of larger cities in smaller towns close to those cities.

Paul was aware of an old Runcorn and a new Runcorn* and I believe was making a rueful comment about being moved out of the old town {read, band) to a new town--in other words, being ousted from the group.  So he was saying good-bye in JAPAN to being a member of The Beatles.

          *Possibly because Brian Epstein's personal assistant, Alistair Taylor, had been born in Runcorn.  There is also the possibility that Paul was thinking about "retiring" to the new farm he had bought in Scotland, two weeks' prior.  Alistair Taylor had helped negotiate the purchase of the farm for Paul. 

A Small Reconsideration On My Last Post

In my last post I concluded that our John's real first name was Edward.  Check my 1/31/14 post, "The Moody Blues' Message To Eddie" where I discussed the Moody Blues' backmasked comment on  Eddie and also talked about George's and John's remarks about Beatle ED and Faul's [the group's last Paul] song, "There You Are Eddie."

Well, duh, since everyone is talking about Ed and Eddie, I decided the full name must be Edward.  Upon reflection (as they say), I thought of other common full names for ED:  Edgar, Edmund, and Edwin. 

 I did a little checking in the UK FreeBMD (Birth, Marriage, Death) directory.  I searched  the common English surnames of Smith, Jones, Taylor, Johnson, and Brown for births from 1940-1945 and found, while Edward was the overwhelmingly favorite first name, a fair number of boy babies had Eddie, Edgar, Edmund (and variations), and Edwin as the first name.

So if you are doing research on our John, keep that in mind.

An IMPORTANT Clue That The Real Last Name Of Our Paul (Or Possibly, Our John) Was BLACK

I was researching information for my next post when I found an IMPORTANT piece of information that strongly suggests that the real name of either our John--or I still believe--our Paul is BLACK.

Mr. Junishi Yore served as the translator for The Beatles when the group played in Japan in late June and early July of 1966.  Mr. Yore said he traded (our) John copper cups for his wire-rimmed glasses.

Note near the end of the letter when Mr. Yore says the following:  "Lenses removed when he die (Black) as I/we feel he see us after death in Japan." !!!!

It's obvious that the man he is referring to as having died is a MR. BLACK.

The letter is dated 1984 which is after the death of (a) John Lennon.  Remember---from my count---there was a minimum of THREE John Lennons over the lifespan of the group.

IF Yore is saying that our John died, then John's real name was Black.  I believe our John's real FIRST name was EDWARD. 

But is it possible that the Mr. Black named in the letter could be our Paul?  Yes.  As you can see from the photo below taken in Germany just before The Beatles traveled to Japan, both our Paul and our John have the same style glasses.  So, because I've found other information that suggests that our Paul's real name was JOHN BLACK, I'm staying with my theory.  But there IS a possibility that our John's real name was Black and if it was, his name was Edward Black.                ---paulumbo

   

Betaface, He's Got The Cutest Little Betaface

In and after 1966--when we didn't have the luxury of the internet with its thousands of photos of The Beatles--Beatles fans saw a distinct difference between our Paul and the curious-faced man The Beatles introduced as Paul in late 1966.

A staple of all discussions of whether our Paul was replaced is comparisons of photos of the man of late 1963 through mid-1966 that American fans knew as Paul, and this curious-faced man.

Face recognition software is augmenting our ability to see differences between individuals.

So, I went looking on the internet and found three face recognition websites that are easy to access and easy to use:  1.)  www.pictriev.com 
                           2.)  www.betaface.com
                           3.)  www.twinsornot.net

I uploaded photos of our Paul and the last Paul replacement (1966-on) and found the following:

Betaface #1

Betaface #2

Pictriev #1

Pictriev #2

TwinorNot #1

TwinsorNot #2

                        
 As you can see, betaface and pictriev were reporting that the two Pauls were NOT similarly looking and were NOT the same man.  [Note:  The second face comparison on Betaface #2 is between the real Paul McCartney and his last replacement and Betaface says they also are NOT the same man.)

TwinsorNot consistently said they were the same man.  What's going on here?

TwinsorNot is a project of Microsoft.  The inventor of the app bragged that he developed it in 15 minutes--which doesn't reflect on its accuracy, if it is accurate.  One problem might be that it analyzes a tight square of the face which--in Faul's case--leaves out that famous long face that pinched-nose John sang about in "I Am The Walrus."  Remember?:  "Man you've been a naughty boy, you've let you're face grow long." 

But I took twinsornot's comparisons a step further when I found a stellar little project that a French-Canadian photographer is developing.  The photographer's name is Francois Brunelle and his project is called "I'm Not a Look-Alike!"

He started in Quebec photographing pairs of persons who look strikingly similar but are totally unrelated.  I found an internet article at the Mirror newspaper site:  www.mirror.co.uk of November 18, 2013 describing Brunelle's work and providing a gallery of some of Brunelle's "twins" photographs.  I chose photos numbers 1, 6, 7, 8 and 14:  "twins" I thought looked most alike.  I uploaded the images to twinsornot for its opinion. 

And--well, golly--the program thought four of the five pairs were twins.  (See below.)

 Remember, these are UNrelated persons.

The one pair twinsornot gave a less than 100% assessment on was photograph #6 of young girls:  they were given an 82% likeness.  (See below).

Compare twinsornot's photo of Paul and of Faul with its 100% likeness assessment and the photo of the young girls with the 82% likeness assessment and you can understand that some software has a better handle on matching likenesses [in this case, pictriev and betaface]----and so do many current-Paul doubters, included among them that gang of boppers who were seeing a new Paul in 1966.

 

 

 

Paul Was A Millionaire In 1966.

I found an interesting post on the website dangerousminds.net that reproduced an article from the December, 1966 issue of Rave magazine, a English popzine from the 1960's.  George Tremlett, an English pop journalist and author used London Board of Trade information to estimate the wealth of the four Beatles.  Around 1966, Tremlett estimated Paul's wealth at 1,195,000 British pounds or--3,334,050 U.S. dollars.  That's 3 million.  Tremlett mentioned the confiscatory British tax rate but also said that Paul might have income unreported to the Board of Trade.  (See magazine chart below.)

There has been alot of speculation that our Paul just up and walked away from The Beatles.  He could have exited gracefully, if he had wanted to, and retired--publically--a very wealthy young man.  Instead, he disappeared and was replaced, and that's why Paul researchers are tracking down what happened to him.

Another Telling Interview From 1964

In my May 6, 2016 post, I talked about an April 30, 1964 interview with the four Beatles where George and Ringo played off of each other with comments about being themselves while the "John Lennon" and "Paul McCartney" with them might be other men.

I have just found a 1964 audio interview on Youtube where George makes another pointed reference that the REAL Paul McCartney was not in the present group.

The radio interview with the group was recorded backstage at their 1964 Christmas show.  The interviewer was Radio Luxembourg's DJ, Chris Denning.

You can hear the interview titled "The Beatles 1964 Christmas Show Rare Interview" at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anz0VcqTdno .

Our Paul had just sent out a message to Ivan Vaughan.  Vaughan was a member of The Quarrymen, the band that real John and real Paul and George Harrison played in.  Our Paul was claiming he had been in The Quarrymen.

So . . . . at 7:23-7:44 in the interview, George said the following:
     "Umm . . . I'd like to send a request to somebody who I used to go to school with, too, and he used to play bass in the group---Paul McCartney."  [Everyone laughs] "And if you're listening Paul--at work--it was great going to school with ya and we had a nice time and I'd like to play a nice one called--ah--'Love Me Do'."

Hint, hint?

Faul's Commentary On Our Paul (cont.)

In my post of April 29, 2016, I was showing how "The Fool On The Hill" track of the Magical Mystery Tour album was very likely a song about our Paul--and the condition he was in in mid-to-late 1967.

Think about the lyrics:
     The man with the foolish grin is keeping perfectly still.
               -----          -----          -----           
     And he never gives an answer.
               -----          -----          -----
     But nobody ever hears him
     Or the sound he appears to make
     And he never seems to notice.
               -----          -----          -----
     And he never shows his feelings.

What do those lines conjure up?  It sounds to me like Faul's describing a man in a semi-comatose or stupor-like state.

Fast forward in the Magical Mystery Tour film to a black-carnation-wearing Faul dancing down a staircase and singing what would seem to be an innocuous song, "Your Mother Should Know".  I reversed and listened to the song, and backwards it was anything but innocuous.  You can hear in the reversed song the following at:
     :09-:29      "There's a zombie" (x6)
     :35-:42      "Die, die, die" (repeatedly)
     :44-:56       Funeral-sounding organ music
     :59-1:11    "There's a zombie" (x4)
     1:26-1:38   Funeral-sounding organ music
     1:41-1:46   "There's a zombie" (x2)
     2:03-2:07   "There's a zombie" (x2)

Several dictionaries gave different definitions of the word zombie.  A few examples:
Merriam Webster Dictionary, definition 1B:
     "A will-less and speechless human in the West Indies capable only of automatic movement who is held to have died and been supernaturally reanimated."
Oxford English Dictionary, definition 1:
     "A corpse said to be revived by witchcraft, especially in certain African ad Caribbean religions."
The BBC.com website article of August 31, 2015 traced the origins of the term "zombie" to the superstitious belief that a witch-doctor of Haiti or Martinique could "render their victim apparently dead--either through magic, powerful hypnotic suggestion, or perhaps a secret potion--and then revive them as their personal slaves, since their soul or will has been captured."

If our Paul was alive in 1967--as it appears he was--he was in dire trouble, evidently at the hands of the English government.



                 

The Origin and Significance of the Carnations on The Beatles' Lapels

When the Paul-Is-Dead clues surfaced in 1969, one involved Faul wearing a black carnation while George, Ringo, and fake John were wearing red carnations in a video for the Beatles' 1967 movie, Magical Mystery Tour.  When people equated Faul wearing the black carnation as a sign that Paul had died, Faul laughed it off, saying they ran out of red carnations and he wore one of the black ones that was left.

How did the carnation flower figure into The Beatles' lives?

Let's back up to an interview of our Paul by columnist Alan Smith on June 16, 1966 at the BBC-TV studio The Beatles were in when they were filming the "Top Of The Pops" appearance, famous for the facts that:  1.) This was the only time The Beatles appeared live on that music show, and 2.) It was the day The Beatles were preparing for their big Germany and Far East tour that would end our Paul's (and our John's) membership in the group.

The interview was published in the June 24, 1966 edition of the New Musical Express.  Alan Smith was bragging about how many times he had interviewed Paul.  Smith talked about Paul having a red carnation in his lapel:  "All The Beatles had them.  Gifts of a girl at the London Airport terminal, where they'd been for cholera injections in time for their Far East tour."  Notice that Alan Smith, for all the times he had talked with Paul, had no idea who the girl was who gave The Beatles their red carnations.

The next written mention of red carnations I found was in an interview of "John" in The Beatles Book Monthly of September, 1966  [See the magazine's photo of "John", right].  The interviewer of The Beatles' next John band member (after our John dropped from sight during the Far East tour) said:  "Looking around the dressing room, it was not difficult to notice . . . four black silk suits with a red carnation in each buttonhole- which made one think that The Beatles were part of a wedding part (most unlikely)!"
"John's" explanation of the red carnations was:  "Every time we arrive at London Airport, or depart from it, and whenever we are anywhere," said John, "this girl sends us red carnations.  She's been doing it for a couple of years.  Actually, she came to see us before you arrived."  Given that "John" was new to the group, you can excuse his not knowing who "this girl" is, but you would think an interviewer, from The Beatle Book Monthly, which was the official fanzine of The Beatles, would know who that girl was.

And, who was she?  I read Geoffrey Ellis' book, I Should Have Known Better:  A Life In Pop Management, The Beatles, Brian Epstein and Elton John (Thorogood, 2004).  Ellis was the Chief Executive of NEMS Enterprises, Brian Epstein's company. 
On page 62 of the book, he talked about Brian Epstein's personal office staff.  Epstein's personal assistant was Wendy Hanson and her secretary was Jody Haines who, ". . . had come to the notice of Brian and the Boys by being one of the 'Carnation Girls', two fans who turned up with carnations at as many Beatles' concerts as possible and politely handed them in."
So if Jody Haines was busy, the other [unnamed in the book] girl apparently carried on the tradition.

If the new John wasn't aware of the significance of the Carnation Girls, why would Faul be?  Because from all accounts, Faul took over the top spot of the Beatles when he was installed as the new Paul.  By the time of  Magical Mystery Tour, the new, new Beatles' second album, Faul was calling the shots.

I found Apple Corps Ltd.'s official Magical Mystery Tour website that describes the whole project.  It quotes Ringo saying, "It's Paul's idea really he came up with this . . . ."
There is a copy of Faul's pie-chart outline [see right].

They also have a nice, full color drawing that goes into some of the costs and numbers involved in the production of the film [see left].  So somebody was involved in the production:  sweating out the details.  That would have been Faul.

So I think Faul deliberately wore the black carnation.  And I think this was part of the commentary he was making about, apparently, our Paul.

"Your Mother Should Know", the song Faul sang in the production number at the end of Magical Mystery Tour, is another part of the commentary.  I'll cover that in the next post.


                                                                    - - - paulumbo



                                                          

A 1964 Telling Interview

I found a VERY interesting interview that The Beatles did at the Theatre Royal, Glasgow on April 30, 1964.  Remember our Paul and our John had just been with the group a little less than 6 months, so it's a very early, very telling interview. 
A woman interviewer talked with Paul and John, a man interviewer talked with George and Ringo.  Here is the most relevant part of the interview:

Interviewer:  (at 2:45-2:47)  Do you find any difficulty in keeping up you public image?  Just . . .
George:  (2:47-2:48)  No.
Ringo:  (2:48)  What image?
George:  (2:49-3:01)  It's our image is just . . . us, you know, as we were.  We don't try an' make an image.  It just happened.  So we don't have to keep it up, we just remain ourselves.  Don't we, Ringo?
Ringo:  (3:01-3:04)  Well, we do: [giggles] it's the other two we're worried about.   [John or Paul throws something at him.]

This half-veiled reference to the new Paul and new John would have sailed over most fans' heads, but this was a candid, off-hand acknowledgment of new members to the group.

See and hear the interview at:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXJCAeHRdUo   

The Man Of A Thousand Voices

Faul sang the song "The Fool On The Hill", recorded on September 25-27 and October 20, 1967 for the Magical Mystery Tour album, released in late November, 1967.  Ever wonder who Faul was singing about?  I'm guessing our Paul.

For audio examples of Paul "doing accents", listen to:
1.)  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=782X8OE4AEA where you can hear a 23-second clip of Paul in 1964 greeting the New York disc jockey Murray the K with a black man's accent.
2.)  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR1OMA61FL0 with Paul doing a hilarious mocking of their song, "That Means A Lot".  The Beatles tried to record the song on February 20 and March 30, 1965 and in the March 30th. session, Paul started singing the song with a heavy Liverpool accent and then shifted to singing it (deliberately, of course) off-key.
3.)  Another audio excerpt is from what came to be known as Paul's Christmas Album--an acetate recording Paul put together in late 1965 as a gift to his bandmates.  Listen to a short clip of Paul doing an impressive American disc jockey accent at:  http://www.thebeatlesrarity.com/2015/12/24/asknat-concerning-paul-mccartneys-christmas-album .

For printed proof of Paul's talent for imitation I found:
1.)  The Los Angeles radio station KRLA's fan magazine of the 1960's KRLA BEAT  interview of Paul by Derek Taylor.  Taylor had been the public relations manager for The Beatles and in 1965 was an independent PR agent.  The interview was published April 21, 1965:
Derek:  I think it's often surprising that with a face like yours . . . sort of angelic face . . . the face of a delinquent choir boy, someone once said . . that you have actually got many voices.  One of them you might call a "colored voice."  That was your "colored voice" in "She's A Women", wasn't it?
Paul:  No, it was my green voice.
Derek:  What would you call your anti-lovely voice?
Paul:  I don't know . . soppy, I suppose.
Derek:  Away from song-writing since you're now actors . . .
Paul:  Me James Cagney one, isn't it?
Derek:  Yeah, he's playing a James Cagney face, which isn't recording too well on tape.  Could you give us a James Cagney line?
Paul:  No, I'm afraid not.
Derek:  Would you do us a quick imitation of any of your friends?
Paul:  Any of my friends?  I couldn't, really.  I'm not very good on imitations.
Derek:  You don't like being prompted to do it.
Paul:  You're right.
2.) And then there's the Maureen Cleave interview published in the Evening Standard, March 25, 1966 where she described Paul as a ". . . terrible tease, an excellent mimic."

My point?  Faul claimed that he wrote "The Fool On The Hill" about a Mahareshi Mahesh Yogi-like person--apropos the Beatles visiting the Indian guru in 1967 in Bangor, Wales.
Sounds possible except that the Magical Mystery Tour album that contained "The Fool On The Hill" track had a booklet accompanying it that had a drawing of Paul beneath the words "Fool On The Hill" and the last letter of the title touches--or is meant to split-- Paul's head.  (See image below.)


Remember the lyrics:
     Well on the way
     Head in the cloud
     The man of a thousand voices
     Talking perfectly loud.

The lyrics suggest a man--who is not traveling alone in a vehicle--[someone heard him talking], is close to getting home and--when you add in the song's current descriptions of him--had some sort of life-changing experience.

But also implies that--as of the recording of the song in 1967--the person was still alive.

An Update On My Primer For Listening To Backmasked Songs

In my January 22, 2016  post, I described how I listen to YouTube video songs backwards.  I have found a technique that sometimes improves the vocal clarity of the track.  Here it is:

1.)  When you have your track on Audacity, before you reverse it (#22 on my January 22nd. "tutorial"), click on the "effect' button at the top, scroll down and choose "vocal reduction and isolation".

2.)  The "vocal reduction and isolation" box will appear.  The first line of the box says, "action:  isolate vocals",  Click "ok".

3.)  It will say "applying vocal reduction and isolation".  This takes about half a minute. 

4.)  Then, again, click on "effect" at the top of Audacity.

5.) Click on "reverse" from the list.

6.)  Plug in your earbuds, click on the green triangle play button, and listen to the backward track.

This doesn't remove all the instrumentals, but it does provide clearer vocals on some songs.  Give it a try.

Some Words About The Paul-Is-Dead Research and the Parameters of My Research

The internet has made possible the discovery and discussion of differences in The Beatles' looks throughout the years.  There are websites that show a long series of photos of Paul.  There were differences.  What to make of this?

When I was a young Beatles' fan in 1966 I was puzzled by the changes in voice and looks of Paul.  Being a young teenager, I didn't know what to make of it.  And--mercifully--since American producers, record executives, disc jockeys, radio station managers et al. knew enough about the backstage machinations of The Beatles, they manufactured or promoted groups like The Monkees to draw young baby boomers away from the disasters that played out with The Beatles.

Looking at photo after photo of "Paul" for my research, I have concluded--along with more than a few people--that there could have been upwards of eight, nine, or more "Pauls".

The Beatles became a commodity--a product--that was amassing millions of dollars for the English government and a handful of people.  It became important to maintain a façade of lightness and happiness with The Beatles.  And, as I've speculated in an earlier post, I think some group of manipulators wanted The Beatles to become the Pied Pipers of boomers, leading us along to a psychedelic world of recreational drugs, free sex, and lowest-common-denominator rock and roll.

I found a website that chronicles the extensive changes in The Beatles' "personnel".  Unfortunately, the website wants people to believe that a Paul, a John, a George and a Ringo were CLONED and that that accounts for the many Pauls, Johns, Georges and Ringos.  I conclude that outrageous claim is either:  1.) goofy; or 2.) and attempt to make people ridicule the reality of multiple members in the group.  There is a slang expression called "weasel words":  words that are inserted into a sentence to destroy the meaning of it, in the same way that a weasel can suck the insides out of an egg, while leaving the shell intact.  Dropping the word "clone" into a serious discussion of changes within The Beatles is the essence  of the weasel word concept.

I found one post reacting to that website where the person thinks that people exploring this mystery are followers of Lyndon LaRouche [!]  I have heard the man's name and an odd or end of what he is (or was) up to, but I can state that I am not now, nor have I ever been, a La Rouchee.

Then there are the endless sneers from people who don't want to know the truth or are trying to keep other people from wanting to know the truth.

The fact is, there is a truth to be found, and with enough genuine researchers out there, the truth WILL be told.

The parameters of my research are with the man I call "our Paul":  the Paul that American fans heard and loved from 1964 until a little more than half way through 1966.  I chose to concentrate there initially because that was the Paul that American teeny boppers knew.  Except for the songs on the first Beatles album and some early publicity photos, Americans never heard or saw the real Paul.

But when you think of it, our Paul is a good choice to focus the research on because he was in the group during the height of The Beatles' popularity, so there are many more clues as to his true identity made by himself and others.

As for the other Pauls . . . I could speculate why there were so many of them, but, I really don't know.  When you see videos of their live performances, though, you will notice there were just three Pauls out there:  The real one, our Paul and the current one (because I think the current one had touring time in 1966.)   I think these were the Pauls with enough musical talent to be seen singing and playing in public.  The others would show up in an occasional photo or interview but not  on stage.

And believe me when I tell you that REAL research into this mystery will go on---until we get to the truth.

                                                                        ---paulumbo

Another "young Faul" Photo

Mirror.co.uk is the online edition of The Daily Mirror, a British tabloid newspaper.  In a June 18, 2012 article commemorating Paul McCartney's 70th. birthday--and remember, there really was a real Paul McCartney who, if he had lived until 2012, which I don't think he did, would have been 70 years' old--they had a positively intriguing photo of the current Faul in a group student photo. 

There is no way of knowing where this was taken, when this was taken or even if it is a genuine group photo, but it definitely is an image of the young Faul, so again, you have to figure the man is getting the urge to get his own story out there. 

Other Voices, Part 21: The Pink Floyd's 1967 "Arnold Layne"

The Pink Floyd (later just Pink Floyd) was a London psychedelic rock-pop band.  Their first single was called "Arnold Layne", recorded January 29, 1967 and released in the UK on March 10, 1967.

It wasn't the first song I would look for backmasking on, but someone in a YouTube comment said there could be a Paul-Is-Dead clue in the video of the song and I listened to the song---and found backmasking.

The YouTube video of the song [see it at-- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQTFRq1hjtM ] has The Pink Floyd assembling, disassembling, and dressing and undressing a 3-sectioned mannequin.  The only direct hint the song is about a Beatle is at 0:30-0:31 in the video where the mannequin is "standing" on the trunk of a Volkswagen BEETLE.

The song is about a cross-dresser who steals women's clothes off clotheslines, is caught, and spends time in jail for doing it.

My theory about what happened to our Paul is that the British government wanted him out of the group and arranged some sort of plot to get their hands on him.  It could have involved cross-dressing--or something else.

The song itself is a boring tune when you hear it forwards.  Backwards, it has a very nice melody.  So nice, I'm thinking The Pink Floyd was hoping it would be played backwards.

The producer of the song, Joe Boyd, said that the song was a complex recording with some tricky editing.  Boyd said the instrumental section, for example, was a separate effort that was spliced into the final mix.

The instrumental "separate effort section" at 1:15-1:29 is a very reminiscent sound-alike of The Beatles' "Tomorrow Never Knows" from the Revolver album.

Put in context, here is what you hear backmasked on "Arnold Layne":
          At 1:12-1:14   -   Paul
               1:15-1:29   -   The "Tomorrow Never Knows" sound-alike segment
               2:22            -   Paul
               2:25-2:27   -   Paul would not

The Pink Floyd's Syd Barratt, who wrote "Arnold Layne", had mounting problems with the English social regime, so he probably knew enough about Paul's problems to want to comment about them.


                          P.S.  In the post just preceding this one, I give you complete instructions on how to convert a YouTube video-audio into an mp-3 audio, upload it onto the popular Audacity audio tool and reverse it so you can listen to all the "Other Voices" tracks I've found that are telling a ugly tale about what happened to our Paul. 
                                    If you want to go digging into 1960's British groups' tracks and find other backmasking, please let me know what you find.
                                                                         ---paulumbo

A Primer On How To Listen To Backmasked Songs

At present it is complicated to put audio in blog posts, but I'll tell you how I listen to YouTube video songs backwards.

1. Download the audio tool Audacity at:  http://audacityteam.org/ .  As of this writing (January 22, 2016) you'll be downloading Audacity 2.1.1   .  It's free and it's easy to download.
2. Find the song-video on YouTube.
3. Click on the video.
4. Right-click on the address bar (where it says https://www.youtube.com ---et cetera.)
5. Click copy.
6. Click the home button in the upper left of your screen and go to:  www.youtube-mp3.org and click on the sample video and X it out.
7. Right click and paste the YouTube address.
8. Click "convert video".
9. It will say, "video successfully converted to mp 3".
10. Click on download.
11. At the bottom of your screen it will ask if you want to open or save the song.  Save it.
12. It will tell you the download has completed.  Click the X on the right.
13. Click X on the upper right of you screen, taking you to the Audacity icon on you start screen.
14. Double click on the icon and click on the double square on the upper right of the screen to put the Audacity tool on the right of you start screen.
15. Double click the files icon at the bottom left of your start screen.
16. The "This PC" screen comes up with a list of 6 folders. 
17. If the "This PC" screen fills your start screen, click on the square icon at the top right of the screen.  This will put that screen to the left of the Audacity screen on your start screen.  Double click on the downloads folder.
18. Click on the song in your download list and drag it to the right and drop it in the Audacity screen.
19. X out the download screen and click on the rectangle (maximize) symbol on the upper right of the Audacity screen.
20. The Audacity tool will fill your screen.
21. Click on "effect" on the top line of the tool.
22. Click on "reverse" in the list.
23. If the track is in stereo, I like to listen to it first in stereo and then in mono.  To listen in mono, click on "tracks" on the top line of the tool and click "stereo track to mono".
24. Plug in your earbuds, click on the green triangle play button and listen the backward track.

It sounds involved, but once you get the hang of it, it is very easy to do, and you're unlocking the concealed messages that British groups were trying to communicate about our Paul during the mid-1960's.