Note to readers: The following is a piece I wrote in early 2016. I was still quite wet behind the ears, and new to the idea that the truth is not only “out there,” but barely hidden and often easily discovered. I originally wrote it in hopes that Miles Mathis would publish it (without using my name), but he found it to be of low quality, and said he could not use it as I had put it together. That was OK, as it was a first attempt, so I gave him all of my work and asked that he merely credit me with any that he used as a “Friend in Colorado.”
He did so, and added much, much more. I wish to be clear, he did not plagiarize a word, and his final piece was his own with due credit to my small contribution, the discovery that “Paul McCartney” is actually two men whose real names we can only guess at, and that “Mike McGear” is a hired actor.
I am still damp behind the ears, and would have written the piece much differently then knowing what I know now. So I am rewriting it now, just for sheer enjoyment.
It all started with the boat photo, and two “Paul’s” visible. I have arrows pointing at them in the photo above. I saw this photo long before I discovered the McCartney twins, and it stuck with me. But I did not know to follow my instincts. It just struck me as very strange.
The main characters:
There are three players here. Not knowing their real names, I will use their public identities.
“Paul McCartney” is the original Beatle we came to know, the “cute one,” the one who starred in the movie A Hard Day’s Night. Keep in mind that we do not know that “Paul” is his real name. It could be, like “John Lennon,” a stage name, an invention by those shady men behind the curtain who formed the “Beatles.
“Mike McCartney” is Paul’s twin brother. Again, we do not know that this is his real name, but for purposes of this essay we will call him “Mike.” He, for the most part, played the part of “Paul” in the movie Help! He is known today as “Macca.” Paul mostly disappeared from public view, and has re-emerged on occasion, as will be seen below.
“Mike McGear” is a hired actor. He claims to be Paul’s brother, but bears no resemblance to either Mike or Paul, as can be easily seen. McGear is a “lifetime actor,” or a person whose entire life is a lie. If the Beatles were going to use “Paul McCartney” as a set of twins, then it was necessary for Mike McCartney to step out of his life and allow a replacement in. To pull this off, the handlers invented the character McGear.
I cannot help but notice that McGear bears a strong, perhaps familial resemblance to another character in this stage play, covered elsewhere, another set of twins and lifetime actors called John Lennon. I say this because of the curvature of the nose lightly to his right. I see this same feature in Lennon. It would well be that they are keeping it all in the family.
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.
It is misdirection, designed to get us asking the wrong question. Paul McCartney was indeed replaced by a virtual 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. Why don’t they? It is, I suspect, because they are tasked with keeping the mythology alive. They are disinformation agents.
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? Did they overplay their hand?
The Beatles in 1966 stopped performing in public. In a period of five years they released a series of albums – Rubber Soul (1965), Revolver (1966), Sgt. Pepper (1967), White Album (1968) and Abbey Road (1969). After the phone call to WKNR we would learn 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.
Below is what is in my view the most impressive album “clue:”
That is the drum from the cover of Sgt. Pepper. If you mirror the top as the bottom, as done here, see how it spells out I ONEIX HE ^DIE. That could mean he died on November 9th, September 11th (Europeans list date and month rather than month and date, our custom) or they could be taunting us with 911 clues. (I ONE=11, IX=9.) Although the Twin Towers had only been recently completed at the time of the PID hoax, it seems that the numbers “9” and “11” have significance preceding, or even superseding, the events of 2001.
Who knows, but good lord! The effort, the sophistication of the PID psyop is impressive! There had to have been some of the top graphic artists of the time behind it. I can assure you it was not four twenty-something mop-tops who assembled the album covers. I also suspect they did not write the music or play the instruments in the studio. We had a long discussion in a previous thread where some claimed that the rooftop concert was lip synced. These were not the musicians we were led to believe them to be.
The boys as kids
Here’s a photo of the McCartney boys, Paul born on 6/18/42, and Michael, we are told, on 1/7/44, (am I seeing two 8’s?) or eighteen months later.
As I studied this photo, I realized that these are indeed brothers, as the eyes, nose, mouth and ears are a match. The one on the left looks two, perhaps three years old, which would make the other 6-18 months old. But wait! At that age he should exhibit more babyish qualities, in fact, should still have baby cheeks and be smaller in size. But these two kids could easily be the same age.
I began to suspect I was looking at 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 left and right. In this photo I noticed something that would appear again and again over time. I originally thought that it was Paul on the right, but looking at later photos, I discovered one key to telling them apart – one of them parts his hair on the right, in fact has what looks like a natural cowlick, or an unruly section of hair that goes against the grain of the rest. In later years that cowlick would turn up in the twin I call Mike. (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.)
Getting our bearings here, I can now assert that Mike is on the left here, meaning that must be Paul on the right. The cowlick is apparent again. Paul has lost a front tooth, so he must be about six. Again, 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.
It is hard to say which twin that is, but I am guessing Paul due to the part on the left. There is, however, a slight problem here – the one on the left is not Mike. It’s a girl wearing a dress and strap-on shoes, girlish in style. I don’t know who she is, perhaps a cousin. That they assert this to be Mike and Paul … it reinforces the age difference, but is absurd.
There are other photos of the boys in this era, such as the one on the left here, an obvious shot of a set of twins, Mike with the cowlick on the left. Check here for yourself, and see what I saw. What a revelation!
Photographs of the boys dry up after this time. They will appear again in the late 50s, and then again as fully formed Beatles.
In the meantime, Mike McGear appears around 1962.
McGear is one of the hardest aspects of this psyop for people to grasp (along with the role of Jane Asher – see below). If a guy has a musical career, claims to be Paul McCartney’s brother, and no one contradicts him, who am I to doubt?
We have found in these complicated and long-running stage acts that there needs to be certain characters in play to misdirect us and distract us from the truth. McGear, who doesn’t even remotely resemble a McCartney, is such a character, He is a lifetime actor hired to play the part of Mike McCartney to allow the real person to slip into the role of Beatle Paul McCartney.
The photos below appear in both my work and that mentioned at the outset. They were part of the work I submitted, so I am not borrowing or plagiarizing. They tell us all we need to know.
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.
The composition of this photo makes it appear that he’s an awkward man, even gawking at Angela’s chest. The wavy vertical line between “Paul” and “Mike” is just sloppy darkroom work, even to the degree of embarrassment for some lowly technician. Notice that “Paul” has that cowlick, which always gives him away. There are two sets of people in the photo, Paul and Jane, and Mike, Angela, the young boy and the older woman. “Paul” and Jane and McGear were not together that day, so “Paul” had to be added. Real Mike McCartney did not attend fake Mike McCartney’s wedding, it appears.
Same day, and an odd one, as Mike and Angela are not even front and center at their own wedding. They don’t seem to be important players. Notice again … the cowlick. That’s Mike, not Paul and Jane Asher. 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.
Just for fun, let’s take the same photo and see where they eyes are looking:
My guess on this, an informal photo taken while setting up for real photos, which would explain the back of the head in the foreground. They are staging, as all of us who have been through wedding ceremonies know about. That’s why participants on the right are distracted. I think the three on the left, Jane, “Paul,” and the older man are inserted later, in the darkroom. A floating hand on the older man’s shoulder (red circle) is a clue. That often happens in paste-ups.
Anyway, forget Mike McGear, who is mere misdirection. He’s fake. They had to fake “Paul” being at his wedding, so did it in the darkroom.
We are all familiar with the concept of a “beard,” or a professional starlet (usually) used to conceal the fact that a male star is gay. They are all over Hollywood, from Angelina Jolie to Kelly Preston to Katie Holmes. They are also present in politics, Melania Trump coming to mind. Hillary and Bill Clinton have been referred to as a “double bearded” set.
But beards perform other functions, as well. Jane Asher’s bearded role was that of “Paul” McCartney’s girlfriend in the early years. He supposedly moved in with her parents, Margaret and Richard Asher, a music professor and a doctor. Peter Asher, of Peter and Gordon and later a music producer, is Jane’s brother.
George Martin was one of Margaret’s most prominent students. It is my suspicion that much of the early music of the Beatles was written in the Asher household, though not necessarily by any of the Beatles. Yesterday and Michelle have highly sophisticated chord progressions, far beyond the capability of a twenty-something kid with no formal music training, in my opinion. I’ve long wondered if they are George Martin compositions, or perhaps a committee in which he participated. Often referred to as the “fifth Beatle,” he was the only one with serious musical training.
Jane’s bearded role, to be seen in public with both Mike and Paul during these years, was not something she relished, if these photos are any indication. This was an acting gig and done to misdirect and sow confusion. How can we claim they are twins, or that Paul has been “replaced” when Jane is there riding sideboard, seen with both.
Anyway, that was Jane Asher’s role. Look at the fun she is having! Have you ever seen three people so deeply in love?
How to tell them apart
The above photo montage is page 118 from the book Face to Face: Analysis and Comparison of Facial Features to Authenticate Identities of People in Photographs, by Joelle Steele. Oddly, Ms. Steele, a facial recognition expert who has been called to testify in court on occasion, cannot tell the difference between Paul and Mike. Given her obvious qualifications, I would attribute that failing to the power of groupthink. Claiming that there are two “Paul’s” would endanger her career. I do not suffer that problem. My sleuthing “career” has never paid me a penny, nor will it ever.
Here are photos in order, left to right, top to bottom, year given by Ms. Steele:
1985: Paul (He’s alive! He’s alive!)
1995: A composite photo, upper half Paul, lower half Mike
Easy enough, right? I learned to tell the difference early on by the hair part, but in addition, Paul’s eyebrows wrap around and down, his ears are lower on his head.
Here are two photos of the brothers, side by side, both at young ages:
I have set pupil distance at one inch (if they are the same man, no problem, right?).
Their features line up very well, so much so that most people cannot distinguish them. That is an overlay, left over right photo. The arrows point to detectable differences. Look how the eyebrows do not line, up, the mouth, the size of the face. (The outline of Mike’s face on the right bears indication of paste-up, common with these very famous men at that time. Apparently his face was superimposed on someone else’s shoulders, or for some unknown reason the photo was monkeyed with. That is why there is a white line around the face in the overlay.)
After a serious amount of gazing at computer screens, you too will be able to see the differences. But one other way to tell, and this is with a hat tip to the work of others, can be found in this YouTube video. It is an 8:32 piece, and I am not showing it here – just go to the link if you have time. I will capsulize with this screen grab:
“Paul”, on the right, has a “…narrow palate that causes his upper left molars to be misaligned and angled inwards.” “Grendoza,” the maker of the video, uses the word “had” instead of “has” as the video is intended to advance the PID psyop. But it will come into play again momentarily. For now, understand the three easy recognition tools to distinguish between Paul and Mike: 1) wraparound eyebrows, 2) cowlick on the left versus part on the right, and 3) misaligned upper left molars.
In the video we learn that Paul and Mike have been stepping in and out of the role of “Paul” since the beginning, on Ed Sullivan, and as part of Wings up until about 1990. At that time it appears that Mike permanently took over the role, and Paul was retired.
The following clip, supplied by our writer Tyrone, is instructive of just how “in your face” they have been with the McCartney twins.
At 1:28 we find Paul talking about their dress style, and at 1:48 it is Mike! They pull the switch right before our eyes, expecting us not to notice.
The following video is about three minutes, It is worth a watch:
It came out a few years back, and was brought to my attention in the comments. I can add a little clarity to it by use of Photoshop:
I was able, on the right, to capture a moment in the video where Halliday is looking at us straight on. Here is an overlay gif:
The years have not been kind, the lines around the eyes evidence of heavy plastic surgery. But the same features are present, with longer ear lobes, of course. “John Halliday” is in my view “Paul McCartney” in retirement. I’ll go one step further – John Halliday might be his real name. If you watch the video, do pay attention to the teeth. Screen grabbing them proved impossible. (I learned later that “Halliday”, caretaker of the McCartney childhood home, had been fired due to drinking on the job.)
Paul in later years
More fun: Richardjuckes in the comments below my recent Bill O’Reilly piece offered up a video of Dhanny Harrison, George’s son, doing a 2013 cover of For You Blue, a George Harrison composition. (I do suspect that George wrote his own music, including some high quality work in later years.) In it he noticed that both Paul and Mike were present in the still photographs used. Here are two screen grabs:
The photo on the left is Paul wearing a wig, and heavily made up so as not to look his 71 years. He has, by that time, developed severe wrinkles around the eyes, not apparent here on either one, either slick photographic retouching or makeup. Richard noticed how, for purposes of this video, Paul and Mike were wearing the same clothing and wig, indicating that the psyop is still in active production.
The Beatles were an expensive and highly sophisticated psyop, introduced on the scene in the wake of the fake John F. Kennedy assassination. I was around then, and remember all of the screaming girls, and although I was too young to understand the word “orgasmic” or realize that what I saw was an outpouring of pent-up sexual frustration AND grief over JFK. I suspect at this time that the two events, both highly choreographed, were timed to happen as they did, part of a major restructuring of our society, and destruction of a once great land.
And Paul is alive. He’s a set of twins, by the way. And, oh yeah, John is alive too. He’s a set of twins, by the way.