Sir Faul

Note: This post has been updated and replaced by “Sir Faul Revisited.” I left this one in place due to the long string of excellent comments.

Sir Faul

In the fall of 1969 radio disc jockey Russell Gibb, WKNR-FM in Detroit, received a phone call from “Tom,” who told him that Paul McCartney had died and had been replaced in 1966 by a lookalike. Thus began a cottage industry that continues to this day, now called “PID”, or Paul is Dead. It is continually churned, new clues added now and then, as with the JFK assassination. Most recently we had a “last testament” from George Harrison, post-death and unverifiable, of course.

PID, like the Beatles, is a psy-op*. I know this because it avoids the obvious answer. Paul McCartney indeed disappeared and was replaced by a lookalike, and I know who the replacement is. It was not hard to discover. If I could do it, so too could all of the sleuths who make those PID YouTubes and run those PID web pages. But that’s not in the job description. The purpose of the PID psy-op is to prevent people from learning easily discoverable truth. It is misdirection.

The phone call to WKNR and subsequent publicity was obviously a staged event. The troubling question why? Had the managers of the Beatles not done the whole business with album and song clues, the whole switch would have gone down seamlessly. It was done so well that we would never have known to question it. Why did they clue us in?

mike-mcgearTo understand the switch, it is important to know that there was not one McCartney, but two, a set of fraternal twins, Paul and Mike, born in June of 1942. In the switch, Paul indeed disappeared, and Mike took his place. But another switch was necessary – somebody had to become Mike McCartney, since Mike was now playing Paul. That job was handed to a complete stranger, a man who used the stage name “Mike McGear” and claims to this day to be Mike McCartney, Paul’s younger brother. He is not. I do not know his real name. As you can see from the photo at the left, from the late 60s or early 70s) he bears no resemblance to a McCartney.

The switch was necessary since so many people at Liverpool Institute, where both attended, would know of the McCartney twins. But just as we lose track of our classmates over time, so too would most of Paul and Mike’s. So the invention of Mike McGear was enough to take care of most who knew them only casually. For the few who might have been close friends and suspected something was up, they were probably persuaded to keep quiet. Remember, the Beatles were not four boys and couple of managers, but a large intelligence operation. The McCartney’s were recruited because they were both musically gifted and because they were twins. They were ideal.

So the switch did not happen in 1966, as the PID crowd asserts. It happened long before. We will see how the two were slipping in and out even as early as 1963.

The Beatles had reached the end of their natural shelf life around 1966. They had stopped performing in public, but then in a period of five years released a series of albums that changed the face of rock and roll – Rubber Soul (1965), Revolver (1966), Sgt. Pepper (1967), White Album (1968) and Abbey Road (1969). We would learn in ’69 that the albums were littered with clues hinting at the death of Paul. Hundreds of thousands of kids rushed to buy them to examine the clues and, if somehow able, play the songs backward. (I never could pull that off.) We love a mystery, and they provided it.

In looking at the album covers, I discovered that after Rubber Soul, for every album forward we were looking at Mike, and not Paul McCartney in the photos. So, the official switch happened after they quit performing in public. Prior to that time, they took turns playing Paul for various gigs.

Paul on BoatMike in a boatThe images are not sharply defined. In it there appear to be two Paul McCartney’s, one left, leaning against the rail, and one in the center squatted down. Note the hair on the one on the right, Mike. It will come in to play.

Another writer did some work on Elvis Presley, and in it suggested that Elvis was a set of identical twins. Given that information, he suggested that the whole Paul si Dead affair might well be a case of hidden twins. He suggested someone take a look at it.

I ran with that suggestion. I didn’t think much would come of it, and was so surprised to find how easy it was to solve this riddle. The PID people had been at this for years, and couldn’t find something this obvious?  I thought that if Paul McCartney had a twin brother, it would be a deeply buried secret. This is how I came to understand that the purpose of the “Paul is Dead” project is to protect Mike McCartney from discovery. Those people have analyzed every detail of every album and song and photograph and missed the most obvious evidence. How can that be other than deliberate?

It was not buried at all. Paul’s replacement was right in front of our eyes, and is seen in the boat photo above squatting down.The name, again, is Mike McCartney.

Now, recognition: Here’s a photo of the McCartney boys, Paul born on 6/18/42, and Michael, we are told, on 1/7/44, or eighteen months later. Paul is on the left.


As I studied this photo, I realized that these are indeed brothers, as the eyes, nose, mouth and ears are a match. Paul on the left looks about three years old, which would make Mike about 18 months old. But wait! At eighteen months, Mike should exhibit more babyish qualities, in fact, should still have his baby cheeks and be smaller in size. But these two kids look the same age.

I realized that I was looking at twins – fraternal, most likely, but twins. I found other photos:


That’s a lovely family shot of Mary and James and the boys, but again, I am not seeing eighteen months age difference between Paul (left) and Mike (right). I originally thought that it was Paul on the right, but looking at later photos, I discovered one key to telling them apart – Mike has a natural cowlick – an unruly section of hair that goes against the grain of the rest. Hair partThe natural part in Mike’s hair on the right side tells us who is who in this photo. It will appear in later photographs well into the career of replacement Paul, or Faul. Real Paul, on the other hand, had a full and rich head of hair that had no impediments. The photo above appears to be age four. (Note that Mary has dressed them in identical shoes, socks and shorts, and shirts of the same maker. It was common practice in those days to dress twins alike.)

Paul Mike Mom

Hair part 2These are two boys of approximately the same age, and Mike on left is a little pudgy in the face. The cowlick is apparent again. Paul has lost a front tooth, so he must be about six. They are dressed alike.

But I did find a photo of the two where there is a definite age difference. This photo is said to be of Paul and his younger brother Mike.

McCartney sister

That might be Paul, but it is hard to say. Anyway, there is a slight problem here – the one on the left is not Mike. And, it’s a girl. The dress is a clue. She appears to be wearing strap-on shoes, girlish in style. Even in the late 1940’s they did not dress boys like girls.

Photographs of the Mike dry up after this time. He will disappear from public view, appearing only as Paul on occasion. His name will reappear around 1962, and he will assume the stage name of “Mike McGear” to avoid riding on Paul’s coattails. But it will be a different person, a fake. Real Mike attended Liverpool Institute, the same school as Paul, George Harrison, and Neil Aspinall, Beatles road manager. I’ve been unable to locate photos of graduating classes. Paul and Mike might have graduated the same year, though the course of study can be short or long. Officially, Paul graduated in ’60  and Mike in ’62.

From this point on I will refer to Mike’s replacement as “McGear,” and use either “Mike” or “Faul” for the guy who later became, in public, the guy we call Paul McCartney.

McGear’s musical career lasted into the 1980s as part of two groups, the Scaffolds, and Grimm. Each had modest success, but nothing paralleling his fake brother.  He also spent time as a hairdresser and photographer. Brian Epstein referred to him as “Flash Harry” because he was always taking pictures of the band using a flash gun during the early sixties. McGear would spend time collaborating with Wings in the early 70s, so that we have fake Mike playing alongside fake Paul. Awkward.

McGear apparently got married without the presence of fake Paul, who had to be pasted into photos. Below is supposedly McGear’s wedding day in 1968, also attended by “Paul” and his girlfriend, Jane Asher.

Mike wedding

The composition of this photo makes it appear that he’s an awkward man, even gawking at Angela’s chest. It’s as if he was not there, or was superimposed later. Also notice that “Paul” has that cowlick. It will always give him away. The photo is an obvious paste-up job, and we are looking at McGear and Mike. Paul is not in it.But then again, neither is Mike, for real. He had to be pasted in by photo sleuths. (Confused? Just remember that Mike McGear is fake, and Paul McCartney is gone. We are left with McGear, playing fake Mike, and Mike, playing fake Paul.)

Here’s another of that day:

Mike Wedding day

It was an odd day, that is, Mike and Angela are not front and center at their own wedding. They don’t seem to be important players. Notice again … the cowlick on Paul. I am guessing that Jane, “Paul” (Mike)  and the man next to them were pasted into this photo. They are looking one direction while everyone else is looking at the camera. Another fake.

Anyway, we can forget Mike McGear. He’s a fake, used to misdirect us. Since he was the less famous brother, few have questioned the fact that he doesn’t remotely resemble Paul. Perhaps some sleuth can investigate public records find someone who fake-died in a car crash and lost his hair or disappeared overseas in the early 60s – McGear left an old life behind to become this guy.

It helps to look at the original Paul McCartney – here is a photo from around 1963:

Paul 1963

The dreamy eyes are a McCartney trademark. The full head of hair with no cowlick apparent is Paul. His lips are thicker than Mike’s, and his upper lip is a pronounced Cupid’s Bow, more apparent in the top photo. The nose is less pointed. This is the man, the heart-throb, who had to leave our minds to be replaced by this man:


Ladies and gentlemen: Introducing Faul McCartney, or Mike, Paul’s twin brother. Notice he has thinner lips, a sharper nose, and again, that cowlick.

So when did the switch happen? Since we know two (actually, three counting Mike) of the Beatles were recruited out of Liverpool Institute, we know those who formed the group knew about the McCartney twins. So I wondered if Faul had been around prior to the album clues.

I found a photo of the group in Sweden in October of 1963 –

1963 Beatles

That’s Mike, not Paul. The resemblance is strong, but the hair and sharper nose give it away. They might have felt safe in using Faul in Sweden, since the boys were not as recognizable there, and were perhaps testing the waters to see if they could pull it off.

I spent part of yesterday watching the two Beatles movies, A Hard Day’s Night (1964), and Help! (1965). The first is still fun, as the boys seem well-rehearsed and natural and the script takes no one too seriously. They exude a natural charm. Here’s a publicity shot for the movie, and it it obviously the real Paul. [Later note: Fooled again. This photo bugged me because of the lines under the eyes. It is Mike. What did Charlie Brown say? “Aaaahgh! ” Bart Simpson?  “Aye, Carumba!”] In fact, it is real Paul throughout that movie HDN, so I regard it as a testimony to his talent and charm. He was very good in it. 


Help! is another story. The opening scene is of the four  playing the title song in black and white with darts being thrown at the screen, part of the stupid plot. That opening scene is real Paul.


Thereafter, it appears mostly to be Mike in the movie, and often enough he has his back to the camera, or left side. So it could be that the filmed version of the song Help! was Paul’s last public appearance.

Here is a shot from the scene in the Austrian Alps, taken off my TV screen:


And another from the scene in the field surrounded by tanks:image These are both Mike, not Paul. Both have the cowlick, sharper nose, thinner lips. So Mike was around, and as time went on must have felt more confident slipping in and out as he groomed and trained for the part of fake Paul.

The switch was in the works long before 1966. It had been there from the beginning.

One last look, just for nostalgia’s sake: Here’s Abbey Road:

Abbey Road

It is easy to see now that we are dealing with Mike, and not Paul. He’s got the cowlick. It haunts him. It may be the reason why modern-day Faul so often wears a hair piece. (And just when did his hair turn auburn?)

Paul wig

There was another person in this saga that I want to mention before moving on, Paul’s girlfriend, Jane Asher. She appears to be an actor in this play. She supposedly met Paul when she was allowed to interview the Beatles at Royal Albert Hall in 1963 at age 17. Imagine that!

jane_asher_paul_mccartneyPaul and Jane had a public romance, and he almost immediately moved in with the Asher family on Wimpole Street, and exclusive area in central London. This even as she was barely of legal age. We are told that it was there that John Lennon and Paul wrote some of their early and best collaborations. Her mom and Dad, Margaret and Richard Allen John, a doctor and music professor, were very accommodating. Peter Asher, of Peter and Gordon fame and later a music producer, also lived there.)

Fake Paul and JaneI would suggest that the public romance was scripted, and that Jane was selected to play the girlfriend because of her mother, Margaret Augusta Eliot. She was a gifted musician (oboe) and music professor at the Guildhill School of Music and Drama. (One of her more famous students was Sir George Martin.) This was a musical household. It might have been John and Paul (and Mike) banging on the keys, or might also have been a meeting place for highly trained musicians, supervised by Margaret. Why else would she allow her teen-age daughter to shack up with a shaggy rock star? Where is dignity? This might be a clue to who wrote the Beatles’ music – a question for some other day.

Jane Asher publicly dated both Paul and Mike McCartney as seen in these two photos. I cannot help but notice that they don’t appear terribly happy together in either, but this is a small sample. Faul and Jane would not break up until 1968. Here is the Wikipedia account of that breakup:

In mid-1968, Asher returned to London from an acting assignment in Bristol earlier than expected and caught McCartney in bed with Francie Schwartz. A fan who frequently hung around Paul’s Cavendish Avenue home claims to have witnessed the incident, saying “…Paul brought this American girl home…[and a little while later]…another car turned into Cavendish Avenue — it was Jane. She’d come back…earlier than she was supposed to. Jane went into the house. A bit later on she came storming out again and drove away.” Shortly after, Margaret Asher drove to Cavendish to collect her daughter’s things.

Again we have scripting! We would never have known about this incident had not a young fan happen to be staking out the joint, and at just the right time, also apparently able to recognize an American from a distance. Otherwise we might never have known of the affair or of Francie Schwartz, another young girl who stumbled on the scene and had access to the boys as they made the White Album. We are witness to what appears to be a staged breakup.

Jane Asher helped provide the seamless transition from Paul to Faul by publicly dating both men. It was a perception management gig for her, who would go on to a very successful acting career. She was part of the entourage from the beginning, and was assigned and played a critical role in the official switch.

Bearded Paul

Faul, in his Beatle career and later often sported a beard. Many in the PID community suggest that this was done to mask surgical scars as they healed. I doubt it – if there had been surgery, it would have been years earlier, as Mike was there from the beginning. The switch, Paul to Faul, was much more subtle. The genius was not to replace Paul as much as erase him from our minds. Faul eased into the picture, first in ’63 and only overseas, and then in Help!, and finally permanently after Rubber Soul. The beard masked subtle differences in the two, and when enough time passed, clean-shaven Faul had taken real Paul’s place in our minds.

On the album Abbey Road, the boys at then end sang a chorus-like song after the Golden Slumbers, obviously meant to imply Paul’s death and replacement by Mike. It went “Boy, you’re gonna carry that weight, carry that weight a long time.”  Indeed, Faul has done that, playing the part of Paul now for over half a century.

 Mike was right-handed, Paul a lefty (about 21% of twins, fraternal and identical, are opposite handed) and so had to learn to play with the other hand on stage. Every now and then he would slip up.
Oops! I forgot. I am left-handed.

Photos on the Internet are often flipped – but notice his shirt is buttoned left over right, as is normal for a man. This photo is legit.

(Nice little metaphor here, though accidental: John Lennon also pretended to be a lefty in public, politically speaking.)

Mike is a pretty good musician. He’s not really useful in influencing young people anymore. He has not had a hit in decades. But Wings did some credible work.

*Psy-op: Psychological operations are planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to audiences to influence their emotions, motives, and objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of governments, organizations, groups, and individuals.


Below are a few photos, one of Paul, and the rest of Mike, showing how easy it is to identify Mike due to his cowlick. His hair, even as a young boy, divided on the right side of his head. It was an un-trainable cowlick. Paul’s hair is always full and uninterrupted.

These are all Mike. The hair says it all. (Note that three other guys also must be aware that is is twin Mike, and not Paul.)

Mike 5
Mike 4
Mike 3
Mike 2
Mike 1
Paul waving good bye


Note: I am aware that Miles Mathis published a paper on this subject. In that paper, I am the “Friend from Colorado.” It was me who discovered the McCartney twins, hidden in plain site. I submitted this work to him for publishing, but he preferred to do his own write-up, which is his business.

58 thoughts on “Sir Faul

  1. I just knew you were the “friend”. I have been reading Miles for quite some time, stumbled upon his dissection of Tate/Labianca and was hooked. The dude is crazy insightful and amazing observational skills. I’ve got him down as an old soul, not his first rodeo.


    1. Indeed. I don’t make a lot of friends on the Internet, in fact, most resent me for one reason or another, so sucking up is not in my nature, I suppose. That said, Mathis is one of the most insightful people I have ever encountered. He not only unraveled Tate/LaBianca, but Lennon and JFK, three of the greatest mysteries of our generation.

      [I am guessing he is in his fifties.]


      1. This seems to be the most obvious answer, but how to you explain the invention of Billy Shears as the replacement and the book “The Memoirs of Billy Shears”, and everything online regarding the Billy Shears storyline. I know it could be a diversion from the truth, but perhaps that third person on the right of the boat photo is Billy Shears. If so how does he play into this? The twins storyline somehow see less tragic, than a death and a stranger taking his place. Also the fake Mike Mc Cartney is twisted and messed up. I saw him being interviewed on TV (online) and something seemed off. Especially when they asked him the last time he saw Paul, and he answered at his funeral. That statement supports the Billy Shears storyline. These individuals must have tortured souls!


        1. They are all in on the game. the third person on the right .. Tyrone told me his name [Neil Aspinal?] and you would probably recognize it, but he is a regular behind the group, part of the larger “Beatles” … there is really no mystery here, no deaths, just a very large public hoax. If you can, find the video of the group performing Till There Was You before a large group of British royalty, probably many if them in on the gig. It is a lovely performance. He was/is a talented singer, but for other reasons (that I do not know) his brother stepped in and took over the role of “Paul.” Then listen to the baritone voice in Lady Madonna. Again, a talented singer, but two different people. There is a whole lot more to know, and I don’t truck much in it anymore, but ditch the grief and lighten up! They are all alive and well [including John] and having a joke on us. The whole thing has been fun, in my opnion. The album clues were extremely clever and entertaining.


          1. There is no grief just disbelief. Individuals do not change identities or go into hiding for fun. There is something much darker at work here. Perhaps the power of the dollar. If you take a look at the lyrics after 1966 they seem heavy and dark, certainly not individuals with peace of mind or having fun. With all the spiritual searching these musicians seeked, they must know that even though they preached “Let It Be”, in reality they have to balance their actions/energy of “Yesterday”. The truth is you “Can’t Buy Me Love” or peace!


          2. Must make a separation in your mind … the mopheads did not write the tunes or lyrics. They were in their twenties! They simply performed them, or pretended to via media magic. They (a group larger than four) provided voices. The songs and lyrics and instrumentation came from others. It was a public hoax.


            1. Perhaps, but that’s how human beings justify actions, by seperating their mind from the choices they make. Hoax or not, the energy will all have to be balanced someday! Do you want to know a secret? 😉 Ultimately , everyone is responsible for their behavior and how it affects their fellow human beings. “I’ve got a Feeling” this Hoax isn’t as innocent or fun as you are suggesting!


          3. Not sure I used the word “innocent.” Fun? Yes. These are not lads that happened together and made some music. They were chosen, trained, given their music, made to seem more than they were, and led us on such matters as introduction of drugs into mainstream, feminization of men, controlled opposition of genuine antiwar and other humanistic movements. They were liars and creeps. McCartney claiming he had taken LSD and then blaming a reporter for forcing him to answer the question – all staged, the object, to get kids to take LSD. That was nasty business. He meant to harm people, as LSD was harmful.. I don’t take it lightly, but the actors involved, the “Beatles”, while creeps and liars, gave us some entertainment.


            1. How much fun can it be when you are not authentic and you are controlled. Additionally, influencing and controlling fellow human beings at some level; perhaps even mind control. Again it goes back to “Money-That’s what I want”.

              Thanks for the Twin Discovery Theory. Time to Let It Be!



    2. Hello,
      Have you checked out a Man called John Halliday.
      He is supposed to be the true original Paul Mccartney and was Custodian for the Childhood Home back in 1998.
      I have uploaded a video to Youtube,which I have created,clearly showing identical facial expressions,hair,teeth etc.
      This Man is still alive today.


  2. I see you evoke some very “animated” banter here and elsewhere. ‘Sokay, we all have our own truths. Diligent men sift both the wheat and the chaff to find theirs. In his fifties, ya think? That’s effin old. Old enough to remember what a real contrail looks like, or to have heard a sonic boom. Ha! Keep on keepin’ on dude.


      1. I think my evidence stacks up pretty well against your fleeting impression.

        “There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. This principle is, contempt prior to examination.” (Attributed to William Paley)


  3. Miles Mathis blundered with this piece.
    Jumping to conclusions too fast.
    Maybe too less experience with little brothers, with the same clothes.
    From his second addendum I understand he is not so pleased anymore with his friend from Colorado:
    “I was not much interested in this topic to begin with, being pushed into it by readers. I have better things to do than talk about Paul all day, and so do you.”


    1. Nah, he did not blunder. I agree with him that Paul is a bit of a fluff topic. Those of us who can walk and chew gum can think about that and more important things too, but most important is the ability to break free of the maze of misinformation we are fed throughout our lives, most of which is fed to us on TV, and which is deliberate.

      If you, or anyone, want to actually critique the evidence, have at it. But you don’t! You just sit back and smugly assume that someone got it wrong without expending the least but of intellectual capital on the matter. What have you got? Anything?

      Did not think so.


  4. Funny, I was just looking at it this last evening. No kidding. I am ashamed to admit that I have still worked this issue in my spare time, just out of deep curiosity.

    It looks contrived – notice the darkness in the middle, how the background seems to transcend their clothing? If is as if three bodies were placed above three sets of feet – please don’t get me into photo analysis in too much depth, as I cannot spot the more sophisticated fakery. I can spot the obvious stuff, and this one looks obviously faked.

    [Also, the height variation speaks of monkey business:


    1. I am a deep fan of Miles Mathis and was taken aback by his work with Paul McCartney. I have done a LOT of research about Paul’s disappearance over the years. I find the twin aspect interesting but not nearly as riveting a study as Mathis’ previous works. I was 10 when I fell in love with Paul. i was a gifted artist at that time and used to draw his face several times a day. I adored him to bits. When Sargent Pepper came out, I was so unhappy. What had they done to Paul and who is this other guy in his place. I wasn’t fooled by the transition. Paul has an essence which Faul clearly lacks which is innocence and exuberance. He was spontaneous and given over to mischief and pranks. The real Paul was cute as a button – simply adorable, which the imposter is none of these. One glance should separate true from false. Paul also had a heart shaped face while Faul is oblong. But, over the years, I just sort of went long with the story.


  5. Let’s go to the photo that according to Mathis “is the hook of this whole paper”.
    Mike sitting on his mother’s lap and Paul sitting next to his father.
    Í cannot understand that anyone can claim that this photo proves they are twins.

    You and Miles crossed the line that believing something is proving something.
    Maybe Miles got a bit too self-confident and lost a critical view on his assumptions.

    What a strange remark Miles makes on that photo: “But the one we were told was Mike (your right) is now starting to look like Paul.”
    Who told “us” that?


    1. Let’s finish up first – you do have to deal with the height discrepancy, don’t you? McGear is taller than Paul/Mike in the photo you brought here, while Paul/Mike is taller in the one I gave you above. Both photos look to be mature men, so that growth is basically done.

      The “hook” to me is the overall impact of the childhood photos, which are strong evidence of twins, and not brothers two years apart. The photos on the steps indicated “Mike” to me on the right, that is, the one who became our “Paul” from the movie Help! forward. This was due to a part on the right side of his head (actually, a cowlick, my wife informs me, as she has one too) that would stay with him for life.

      And this paragraph goes beyond evidence and into speculation, I realize, but dressing twins alike is frowned upon anymore, Ann Landers (an identical twin) being the prime spokesperson against it, as kids do not form their own identity. So it is not odd then that Paul and Mike would grow up to be the same person.


      1. The photo you gave me: The man next to Paul doesn’t look like Mike.
        How can you be so sure?

        The “hook”: Did Miles get the idea that Mike was on the right side from you?

        Did the assumption/’evidence’ that Paul and Mike had a little sister also came from you?


      2. He looks like McGear, as does the photo you brought. But they are of differing height in relation to Paul/Mike, indicating photo fakery. I asked you to address that issue.

        Mathis advised me that I make assumptions and should not. I assumed Paul left Mile right. As he does this stuff, he tries to maintain a blank slate. His cautionary language was a response to my assumptions.

        Oh, and there is a stepsister in the mix. I know nothing about her.

        Also, can I ask, are you related to the van den Heuval family of national prominence, including the gal that edits or publishes the Nation?


  6. You didn’t know about the little sister? Then you didn’t read the paper.
    In the paper Miles “proves” the “twins” had a little sister.
    His “evidence” for this is ONE photo (see page 4).
    I’m not kidding.
    Addendum: I just saw (looking for the exact pagenumber) that Miles changed the text….
    Now it is “little sister or cousin”.
    That “or cousin” he added later. On the quiet.
    About jumping to conclusions too fast…
    I think he should change it again; in: “little sister or cousin or neighbour or whatever”

    BEFORE we can talk about height, we must be sure that Mike is on both photos.
    Mike is on the one I showed you. There can be no doubt about that! (father with his sons in 1961)
    How can you be sure Mike is on the photo you showed me?

    So far I know I’m no related to that family, btw I’m living in Belgium.


    1. Oh, trust me, I read the paper, have many, many hours in this business, and want to move on. Of course I knew there was a step sister, but the photo, labeled as Paul and Mike, is not her. Ruth McCartney, born in 1960, has no bearing on any of this. They threw that in likely because they wanted a photo where there was an 18 month apparent age difference, thinking that the casual viewer would not notice the dress. So the little girl in the photo is someone unknown, and I was not even sure that the boy was a McCartney. That photo is evidence of monkey business, which is why Mathis used it.

      My own judgement is that it is the man we call McGear in both photos, and the one you showed me is fake, which is why the monkey business where the bodies disappear into the background. It might have been a photo of James and his two sons (Mary died by that time), twin boys, the one on his left wearing a sweater vest and white shirt, making it easy easier to superimpose McGear’s head. James and the son on his right look natural. There was photo fakery throughout this business, which is why I have “many, many hours” invested. To my eternal discredit. They were just a rock band, but absorbed much of my attention in childhood.

      Please address another matter, as long as we’re having this discussion: McGear looks nothing like a McCartney, and his eyes and nose are nothing like those in the childhood photos of either boy. He appears a complete stranger. Meanwhile, there are no photos of the boys beyond age six or seven and before the early 60s.

      I will defend the integrity of Mr. Mathis to the hilt. He’s human, and flawed, and I do not run around making rock stars out of ordinary people but this man has exceptional abilities, and is, in my judgment, a gifted sleuth. His work on the McC business was far more valuable than my own, as he approached the matter with no assumptions or emotions. I learned a lot by my own errors and seeing him tear it apart.


      1. So you ask “trust me”.
        And you ask to believe Mr. Mathis.

        But you say NOTHING about the photo of Mike and Paul “with their little sister”.
        I doubt you know what photo I’m talking about.
        If you google “here they are with their little sister.” you see the cache of the original text.
        And you say NOTHING about Miles secretly changing the text under that photo.


        1. Oh, I see, different photo. I was talking about the boy and girl, falsely labeled as Mike and Paul. I remember the other one too. Again, the sister is a red herring, not even born at that time. Since the boys were at issue, Mathis might have realized later that there was no younger sister and changed the text. I don’t regard that as a fatal error or character flaw. I do that all the time with my own writing, since I own it and can change it as need be. I know others who write publicly regard original text as sacred.

          You appear to be shifting the nature of this debate into an ad hominem against Mathis. We will have to agree to disagree on his personal character. I can judge it as well as you, and am satisfied he has essential honesty and exceptional ability about him.

          I do ask that you weigh the evidence, all of it, considering that photos of the boys show no apparent age difference; that they are consistently dressed like twins; that there are no photos of them in the mid years until formation of the Beatles; that McGear looks nothing like a McCartney; and that there is apparent photo fakery throughout. (The McGear wedding is even comical, the photo work is so bad.) The weight of that evidence to me suggests that Paul and Mike are twins. In my own work I learned to tell them apart, easily for the most part, and found that one was Paul up until the movie Help!, when the other took over.

          [We also have the work of the two Italian researchers, who found differing facial structure and voice track between pre and post 1966. I try to avoid use of the word “prove”, as life rarely gives us that, but in this case we have what I would call compelling evidence.]


  7. Now I understand better prisons in the US are full of people wrongly convicted on the base of some form of “circumstantial evidence”.
    And I must stop arguing, cause arguing with a fool proves there are two.


    1. I hope you take time to read the Mathis paper. It’s quite long, but riveting. There’s also a follow-up post here where the original Paul is uncovered as the supposed caretaker of the McCartney childhood home, a British landmark.

      There is no doubt in my mind that the McCartney boys are twins. That’s why they had to do the “Paul is Dead” psyop – misdirection, to keep people asking the wrong questions about why the new Paul looked different than the old one. When you realize that they were stepping in and out of the role of Paul as early as 1963, you then realize that there was far more planning to the Beatles than four Liverpool lads who happened to come together.

      Bowie – have not looked into it, never cared much for his work, but assume that he too faked his death. And Prince. And Denver. These guys are usually worth more “dead” than alive.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. Looking at Mike McGear’s photo, I’m struck by one feature. The nose. It is positively Lennonesque. Lennon had many cousins, one of which I’d guess was the late Graham Wignall. Another could be playing McGear…?


  9. I found Miles Mathis’ work on Lennon very convincing, great work. The one on Paul McCartney not, on the contrary. What about all the clues about William Campbell/Billy Shears (I have ordered his book ‘Memoirs’ and am going to read it). Billy was once referred to by the other Beatles als ‘Beatle Bill’, amongst other things. There is much more going in Beatle World than just twin brothers. So for me, not convincing at all, I even don’t think they are twins.


    1. Given the childhood photos, same mother, the deception with Mike McGear, I am sticking with twins. The “Paul is Dead” Billy Shears business was meant as distraction, misdirection, to keep people form finding easily discovered twins. That is how an Intelligence show works.


      1. Well, at least original Paul’s German daughter’s DNA should have matched the DNA of todays Paul (if he were a real McCartney), which wasn’t the case. And if you read enough about it, it absolutely certainly was his daughter, it was a well known fact at the time in Hamburg that the baby’s father was PM. Also, you just cannot ignore al which is said here for instance.:

        Even if they were twins, your theory has way too many holes and leaves us with a lot of dead ends.

        (Sorry, should have replied to your reply, pleas delete my previous double post)


        1. I don’t have time for a two hour video. Sorry. Not a big admirer of Smallstorm either, not that it I think it means everything she does is wrong. I just don’t trust her. She might be a disinfo agent. But the Paul is Dead business is finished. Discovery of twins ended it. It was a psyop, misdirection. There’s probably several people at MI6 (and disinfo agents like Fetzer here in the states) charged with keeping the jugglers’ balls in the air, but Paul did not die. He reappeared briefly some time in the 90s (it appears) as John Halliday, caretaker of the McCartney childhood home.

          Dental evidence* (original Paul has a prominent misplaced tooth evident in the Halliday video) indicates that Paul and Mike each stepped in and out of the shoes of “Paul” until 1990 or so, when original Paul retired and Mike took on the role permanently. This could be due to the plastic surgery they had to endure wearing off, being too difficult to maintain them being the same man as time marched on.

          The German daughter DNA matter is more misdirection, as I see it, since all McC had to do, if the child was his, was buy her off. Either he or MI6 could have easily bought her silence. They know how to do that and make it stick. So failure of a DNA match either indicates that Intel monkeyed with the evidence, providing a false sample, or that Paul and Mike are fraternal. Given the amount or surgery they each had prior to and during the Beatles rise to fame, fraternal twins is a strong possibility.

          If I were in the advice business, I’d suggest this is a rabbit hole and you should soon surface and apply your impressive detective skills to other mysteries. I am leaning now towards a set of John Lennon twins, much more work to do. It is in the eyes. Give it a go.

          *There is a video doing dental comparisons of various manifestations of “Paul” in the comments somewhere, maybe in the Halliday thread. If I find it, I’ll put it here. I hope you are signed up to get email notification of comments.


  10. Mr.Tokarski- Kudos on ur article + research. I was almost convinced”Faul” was William Shears. But the reservation for me was the voice. But most siblings end up with similar sounding voices -even non-twins. Ur article was like the missing piece of the puzzle for me. Don’t be discouraged by fans that are closed minded, or just plain can’t fathom Paul. M. could be deceased, or had the audacity to deceive them. I also applaud ur honesty in giving M.Mathias his due. I’m now off to read his article – so keep up the good work! P.S.- very well written, + a touching tribute to the real Paul.


    1. We have since located the original Paul, living in Liverpool, posing as Jim Halliday, caretaker of the McCartney family home of their childhood. It is in the posts here somewhere and mentioned at the end of the Mathis piece. I did a facial comparison and it was dead on. Apparently he and Mike stepped in and out of the role of Paul until perhaps 1990 or so when plastic surgery was wearing off and they had to go with one or the other. Mike was probably the better musician.


    1. Really good question, Carol, and of course we don’t know. One speculation is that the one we call “Mike” was a better musician, better performer. Maybe Paul (who now goes by “John Halliday, perhaps his real name) was difficult to manage (he did play the part of Paul on occasion up until 1990 or so).

      We can solve riddles, but motives are something else entirely.


  11. Since this sort of ties in several themes from POM, here’s a video of a Beatles “tribute” band that played on PBS. With very bad wigs and costumes, they managed to find four guys who can play the instruments and look faintly like the originals. But this is probably as good as it gets with finding a combination of look-a-like, sound-a-like, and play the music that is possible.


  12. Hi, I just came across this today, while surfing. I found 2 photos of Mike and Paul as young lads and you can definitely see that Mike McG was in Paul’s life from a very early age. If this is Paul’s twin, there is absolutely no way that they could have played the twin switch on anybody. I have one pic here on my computer and the other is on my ipad, but unfortunately I can’t share them on here. Somebody else is Faul.


    1. You are given benefit if doubt here for obviously having not read this piece before commenting. The key to understanding the Paul McCartney switch is this: “Paul” and “Mike” are twins, as is apparent in the photos you saw. Prior to becoming Beatles, Mike had to leave his old life to take on the role of the second Paul. To accomplish this, a third person, entirely unrelated, was given the name “Mike McCartney” and took on the stage name of “Mike McGear.” He is a poser, an actor, and is unrelated to the McCartneys. So we are dealing with three men here, known as Paul, Mike, twin brothers, and McGear, an unrelated hired actor.

      If you read this blog enough, you’ll understand that we are surrounded by lifetime actors. MCGear is just one of perhaps hundreds.


      1. Excellent points you make in this latest comment, Mark. Helps readers like me understand the madness, or at least sort it out.


  13. Its good, very good until we get to the “John Halliday” part then for me it falls over. I think the rest is spot on however I am in no way convinced about Mr Halliday. Have you revised your opinion since the original post?


    1. No. The facial features line up perfectly, and it fits very well with the theory that Mike was the better musician and that the plastic surgery was wearing off, so one had to be put to pasture. These guys are drawn to the spotlight like bugs to a porch lamp. Halliday was not fired for drinking on the job; Paul was driven underground again.


  14. I went to uni with the sister of Rowena Horne, who married Mick McGear in 1982 (his second marriage.) In the run up to the wedding, all the talk was of how Macca wouldn’t be attending due to security concerns (the Lennon murder being only 2 years before.) But on the day Macca turned up to the ceremony at the last moment, and photos were taken of him, Linda, McGear, Rowena and others at the reception afterwards. Those photos warrant close scrutiny as do others showing the height difference between Macca and McGear over the years.


  15. Just found this – thank you! The reason why the theory that Paul Mac is dead or was replaced and retired from public life doesn’t get traction among most of the public is due to the obsessive PID/PWR fans who insist on the whole laughable William Campbell story, refer religiously to the Wired com article where two facial recognition experts from Italy used poor quality/unsuitable photos for their study and self-righteously insist that it is up to the rest of us to prove McCartney is really McCartney while they don’t except for poor quality photos and insisting that people somehow don’t change their ways of expressing themselves, etc.

    I pointed out a number of logical/plausible reasons for the apparent differences on one such fanatic’s blog. It was a detailed counter-argument based on such facts that Paul already looked old around the time of Revolver if you look at untouched up photos, even as a teenager his face resembled what is called Faul sometimes, his heavy drug use as a teenager in Hamburg followed by cannabis and LSD can very well account for appearance differences after 1966, etc. Of course my post was dismissed in about 4 sentences.

    However, I like Miles’ theory and I like your blog post on this topic. It makes sense, it is logical and it does account for the differences in a way that can be accepted by reasonable minds. Before the pill, children out of wedlock were usual although often hidden under ‘adoption’ or other facades, and from social histories we know that the WW2 environment in Britain meant many more such children. And of course men such as musicians always played the field – entertainment has never been known as a puritanical industry or one of self-controlled artists or other people.

    I always thought that musician Jim McCartney was likely to have other children and this could very well solve the whole what happened with Paul issue. If that is true then it is the best explanation for what is a puzzling situation. However, the William Campbell/Billy Shears nonsense, the ridiculously written ‘account’ on a fanatic’s website about Paul being killed in France and looking like a walrus, the deluded young man being given attention by researchers as Paul’s supposed son who says his father died in 1966 and the rest of the Beatles visited him in Liverpool, talked openly on the street about this confidential issue and ‘Faul’s mother was with them and tried to strangle him, etc, show obsessive people who bend everything to fit their pre-conceptions.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s