Friday tidbits

Paul is not dead (PIND)

It seems odd to need to explain this to some people, but Paul McCartney has always been two people, a set of twins who, for lack of better information, we call Paul (the original crooner seen far more often in the early days) and Mike (who turned out to be a much better stage performer).

The people behind the Beatles, some very talented musicians, artists, psychologists and writers, knew that the two did not look enough alike that they could pull off the ruse forever. But professional propagandists as these also knew that lying is not an effective tool for misleading people. It is far better to misdirect. So with McCartney they started, even as the group was still touring, placing clues on the albums indicating that Paul might have been killed and replaced. Lyricists planted words in some of the songs (“He blew his mind out in a car”), and even George Martin did his part, knowing a camera was running, by referring to McCartney as “Billy.” (Part of the misdirection was that a lookalike named Billy Shears had become the new Paul.)

As Ab said to me this morning in a message, “I agree it’s all fun, like a cat playing with mice.”

By far the deepest and best clue was on the cover of Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, on the face of the drum.

Here’s what you do: Slice the drum in two horizontally, right through the words “Lonely Hearts.” Then set the top half on a mirror. Here’s what you get.

“IONEIX HE DIE.” 119 He die. Europeans use the day-first month-second convention. In the US it would read “911 He Die.” Sgt. Pepper came out in 1967. That is how far back the planning for this psyop went. It is so deeply buried that I doubt anyone would ever have discovered it, so that I suspect the clue was finally leaked. The people behind it knew how clever it was, and wanted credit. Who can blame them?

Andy is not Edward

There has been some confusion around a post from two days ago where I did facechops of Dr. Andrew Kaufman and Edward Snowden, showing that their features align almost perfectly. My point was made later in the post, that they may be batch brothers, and NOT that they are the same person. I made it very clear that they were two separate people.

I tend to write longer posts than others, and I know people shy away from reading them for that reason. It’s a time commitment. I understand. I am the same way. So while at the beginning of the post I showed how much alike they look, later on I brought in the Bokanovsky Brats, and placed them in the Matt Damon Group. Some time in the future I will restore Straight’s original work done in this post, The Matt Damon Batch, where the photo analysis work has disappeared.

This post was not done as an attack on Dr. Andrew Kaufman. I am merely laying out the analysis. If Kaufman is controlled opposition, it will become apparent in time. If not, then we are looking at a giant coincidence.

Filing a lawsuit does not make my day. Winning a lawsuit does.

Pam Popper (website) is energetic and does good work. I do not criticize anyone fighting the fight for doing it the wrong way. In Ohio, New Mexico, and two other states, she has filed lawsuits demanding that CDC and state agencies, along with the FDA and Department of Health and Human Services clean up their act. She is suing them to require that they reverse a 3/20 memo changing the way death certificate are done, and to clean up the PCR nonsense, pulling back the curtain and telling us how they work and establishing national standards. And other stuff.

The lawsuit concedes that the virus is real and that people really do die from it. I don’t know if that is a strategic concession to reality, choosing battlegrounds, or whether she really believes that.

I do not get too excited about lawsuits. The power behind the hoax is bigger than the courts. Lawsuits were won in Pennsylvania and Illinois, and changed not a thing. The people behind this thing merely ignored the courts. So I guess while I respect Pam and her efforts to fight the good fight, learning that there was a lawsuit filed did not make my day.

The Rappoport Report

Jon Rappoport (No More Fake News) has been tearing it up lately – actually – from the beginning. I am emailed his daily posts, and I never fail to read them all the way through. Jon is a thorough researcher and a good writer. A few years back I bought his package, The Matrix Revealed, currently priced at $125. I had no regrets. He’s also selling a course entitled Logic and Analysis, High School Level for $375. As much as I admire JR and want to support him, and as much as I am in need of that course, it is a bit spendy for my budget. But I do want to plug his work. He’s one of the good guys. I won’t be doing any facechops on him.

77 thoughts on “Friday tidbits

  1. It’s OK to use the word in a comment. Go ahead. I don’t know why, but when I write I feel obligated to Beetle Bailey swear words. You know, Sarge yelling at him … “&#@%$ @#&%$!! I write f****** instead of the real word. Heck, I can’t even do it now!


  2. I’m young enough that Sgt. Peppers was always “classic rock” to me. At various points in high school and college, I tried to piece together why in the world people who seemed to be smarter than me apparently thought that album was “deep.” I couldn’t figure it out.

    Now, I see it as being of a piece with the cultural propaganda of the time that was aimed at the better-educated segment of society. I lump it with the writings of writers who were celebrated in their day–Faulkner, Eliot, Cheever, Capote, Bellow, Beckett, the list goes on and on. They all hammered home the idea that life was meaningless, spirituality is delusion, and the best we can do is observe life’s futility and express our despair as artfully as possible. I can plainly see how this mentality has shaped the worldviews and mentalities of the more educated and well-read people I know (especially college professors). Sgt. Pepper’s brought this message to the kids. But more than any of the novels I’ve read or movies I’ve seen, it seems to have fully encapsulated the vision of a world populated by isolated, powerless, spiritually dead, hopelessly confused, endlessly deluded and easily propagandized people that The Beatles’ bosses were working hard to make the unwashed masses into. They were good at their jobs.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Well said! I cannot add to your comment.I just want to hat tip, that we both understand that four young men early twenties, no musical training, had nothing to do with Sgt Pepper than to sing the lyrics placed before their eyes. I urge, if you have not, to read MM’s take on the album, which is I think contained in his John Lennon piece. Not sure.


      1. Thanks, Mark. I skimmed through MM’s paper again (I read it a couple of years ago) and there’s a lot of good stuff in it. The only thing I disagree with now is the idea that Intelligence “overplayed their hand” by releasing “Let Him Be” with the living John Lennon playing a Lennon impersonator. It wasn’t a mistake–they knew damn well that some people would see through it, just as they knew some people would see through the fake science of Covid. The obviousness of the deception is an important part of the game. You can still see clips of “Staycer” singing on YouTube and buy the DVD through Amazon. They’re not exactly scrambling to cover up a mistake.

        Covid has shown me that cognitive dissonance is possibly as brain-damaging as wireless radiation or fluoride–especially when it’s inflicted on us constantly. And the cognitive dissonance this movie creates is especially powerful. Anyone who has heard Lennon sing knows what his voice sounds like not just in their heads, but in their bodies. It’s a knowing that goes deeper than intellect; it’s a knowing that lives in the soul. When people hear his voice in this movie, singing new material, they either have to acknowledge the hoax of his death, or deny what the very molecules in their own bodies are telling them: That’s John Lennon’s voice… and that’s his face… and those are his eyes. The movie, and the YouTube clips of it, force people to choose between the horror of being a wacko conspiracy theorist, or deny the evidence of their own senses and the stirrings of their own souls to believe what they’re told and be “normal.” We know which choice most people will make, and so did the people who put out that movie.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Both Ab and Markus mentioned in the interview I did with them that they admired the commenters and comments we get on this blog. I have to cogitate on this comment overnight. It seems very insightful.


          1. Well gents, I just met my very first “Covid Survivor” here at a third rate Nevada casino.

            The man was on his third, possibly fourth, Mojito.

            “I’m a Covid survivor. It ain’t fun. Be sure to pinch your nose with the mask!”.

            Oh really…how long did you have it? (Lol).

            “An entire month! This shit is real!”.

            Again, LOL!! 🙂


        2. Scott- So true. Spooks create ops for so-called victory and defeat- two poles that are not real in their eyes but embedded in the inevitable debate concerning the veracity of the op. The immediate reaction is to choose one position or the other. Instant conflict between “us”. Part of the standard process of divide and conquer= distraction.


    2. Scott, what a great comment about the Beatles & Co being about shaping the worldviews and mentalities of a more educated audience.

      This nihilistic “new normal” indeed seemed perfectly normal to me as I grew up, for lack or ignorance of alternatives. Pop music simpyly was there in the mid 1980ies and had already built a tradition of more than two decades which I then became interested in. Never assumed there was more to it than just fun & music till I listened to Mike Williams’ podcast about whether or not the Beatles wrote all their own music.

      Your other comment about Lennon/Staycer and the implications is also deeply thought-provoking. I had never heard about Staycer before and assumed Lennon was shot dead. And indeed he may be, and Staycer might be a very good imitator. Going to check out that new rabbit hole sometime.

      There’s a 2016 PoM article by Mark about Lennon/Staycer linked to via my name entry on this comment.


  3. Excuse me for going off topic but yesterday MM posted a piece about the history of the Phoenicians, it was the first of a two part piece. Today it was gone. Is there anyone who saved this paper? I would like to read it again and figure out why he took it down. It didn’t seem contradict or support the Phoenician origin of the Jews theory but maybe I overlooked something.

    I tried to post this comment on ‘best of 2020’ at Cutting trough the fog: “My favorite paper was the paper by a guest writer about the Phoenicians that was on the update page yesterday (feb. 6, 2021) but was vanished without a trace or mention the next day. What happened?” but as usual my comment is declined.


    1. The Phoenician origin of the Jews??
      Hahaha again with this BS!

      Those guys are totally nuts, besides totally incapable of making a serious historical research.
      Or maybe it’s all done on purpose…

      The Egyptian origin of the Jews, more like.
      From Pharaoh Akhenaton and his entourage of high priests who flew to Jerusalem and started a new, monotheistic religion there.

      And why wanting to post comments on the CTTF blog? It’s been created by the group to worship the group itself using thousands of fake users.
      In a word: shit.


      1. Anna, you should know by now that my favorite topic to debunk is the Phoenician origin of the Jews. MM posting a guest writing about the history of the Phoenicians that kind of contradicts the P origin story and taking it down the same day is what interest me. I posted a comment on CTTF just to make fun of this stupid mistake just like I tried to post comments that debunk de P origin story’s. It is striking that any opposition gets filtered out and shows it’s a spooksite that promotes MM proving MM to be a spook. That’s why I mention it here.

        You seem to be a bit eager to lash out at me. Did I hurt your feelings by pointing out you rarely know what your talking about when it comes to biblical history? Speaking of which: Abraham who used to be a nomad settled in the land of Egypt. Within a few hundred years this family grew into a large tribe and eventually left Egypt. That does not mean their origin is Egyptian and Pharaoh’s only fly in fairytales.


        1. Yeah, right. First off, the Phoenician origin of Jews is Gerry’s idea, not Miles’. Second, your single-sentence claims are real proof of debunking his hypothesis. Sure. While you criticize him for the falseness of the hypothesis, all you have shown so far is your own spitfired character. So, try just a little bit harder, darlin’.


        2. Don’t know if you’ve seen it, but if you scroll to the bottom of CTTF’s entry page, there’s a counter of spam filter. At this moment, tbere were more than 100,000 spam messages/comments left there. That’s like tens of BS laden texts per day. If you ever had any kind of blog to administer, you’d know what I’m talking about. So if your comments don’t get through, just email Josh and let him know of your comment awaiting approval. As far as I remember, argumented criticism is always a hot topic there as long as you follow some basic commenting rules, as posted in the link at the top of CTTF blog.


        3. No, I am not interested in you xs, I’m laughing at the MM’s group and their constant BS on this topic, just grabbed your comment to say that once again.

          There is NO biblical history, that’s the whole point.
          All that’s written in the Bible is made up, and that’s already been debunked, also by italian researchers.
          It’s all just fiction, but a very good one I have to say, there’s so many hidden codes and messages that we’re finding, it’s fun!

          The origin of the Jews is from Egypt, the “story” of Moses is BS of course, Abraham’s one same, so don’t sweat the small stuff xs, it’s all been already established, only the MM group still believes in Santa Klaus and his friends the Phoenicians.


      2. BTW, the old testament Jews didn’t have a religion. Their customs where prophetic not religious. The Bible is not a religious work and is not monotheistic but henotheistic. The so called monotheistic religions of this world are pantheistic and pagan and only thinly veiled with biblical themes. They just replaced the pagan gods with worshipable saints. There are no monoteistic religions.


    2. XS, it’s your lucky day – I saved Mathis’ missing paper. Like you, I also found it extremely suspicious that it suddenly disappeared. Unlike you, I’ve never tried my luck at CTTF but interesting to know that the place is highly censored, as I expected. Given that this was essentially a 3 page paper stating very little and with no worthwhile original research, I wonder if removing it was actually the intended operation in the first place. Otherwise wouldn’t you just wait for the author to complete part 2 and make a decent sized post out of it? Anyway, just my ever-suspicious mind always looking for the con. If that was the intention, I’m not sure exactly what the purpose would be other than waving it in our faces as usual.


      1. I have occasionally hit “publish” instead of “save” for works in progress, even as the buttons were set far apart. It is absentmindedness. That would be the simplest explanation for MM’s flub.


        1. Mark,

          I disagree that a mistake is the simplest explanation for the Cathage paper being pulled. The least conspiratorial explanation is not always the simplest. In this case, the simplest explanation is either that someone discovered a major error in it that disrupted part of the Mathis operation, or it was some sort of mindscrew to distract us or show off right in front of our faces how obviously fake Mathis is. The “simple mistake” theory is also not an explanation that Mathis himself would ever accept, so if we apply his own standards to himself then we should assume it has been “memoryholed”. The idea that he would accept a submission, add his own green-hilighted comments to it, format it to look like his other papers, then upload it and add it to his “updates” page, all by accident, is a far more complicated explanation than either of these. It might be easier for you, using WordPress, to accidentally upload something – but for someone like Mathis who runs a static html site with all papers saved in PDF format, it would be quite a complicated bungle indeed. He’d have to manually edit the updates page, then log in to his FTP/SSH client and upload the new updates page and the PDF file. Even the most plausible version of that – say, that it was a draft paper uploaded prematurely – would still require far too many steps to be able to comfortably accept as an accident.


  4. Footnote on page 127:
    The best way to know how Paul looks is to refer to his photographs. However, one complication is that many pictures said to be of Paul are of his doubles. Before and after Paul’s death, all four Beatle positions had doubles that were used far more than most fans would imagine. William still uses his. For appearance, the elite favored one of doubles used by Paul and William above the others, sometimes preferring him to Paul or William. His gift was to raise his right eyebrow remarkably high to create the Eye of Providence image. They intended their “cute” Beatle to promote that subliminal message.
    Paul did not, however, use doubles for album covers. They are Paul’s most dependable photos. Furthermore, since the advent of Photoshop, there has been a flood of photographs of Paul with blended in photographs of William. Some such images look real. Others are sloppy. Upon finding such pictures, some people compare them to pictures entirely of William as if to prove that they are the same person. Don’t be fooled. Stay with album covers.
    — The Memoirs of Billy Shears. The Nine After 9-09 Edition (2018) [linked via my name entry on this comment]


    1. You’re overthinking it. They did mess with us in Let Him Be, but it was affirmation that Lennon is still alive, was never shot, all of that. The Staycer play was a beautiful play, a scam within a scam, Staycer playing Lennon. but more importantly, Lennon playing Staycer. But they gave it to us straight, as we who were Lennon fans knew it was his face, his eyes, his voice. I was a Lennon fan, not no more.

      “Paul McCartney” is just a big liar and phony, two of them, good singers, their only talent, though Mike has honed his stagecraft over time. In the early days they stuck him behind a piano because he was right handed and could could not play bass left handed. He was not even playing piano at that time, dubbed in, but since as become an adequate chord banger, no real keyboard talent. Original Paul was a crooner, not a great stage performer. He was eased out for Mike, who eventually learned to play piano standing up. That makes for a good Wings performance, though in intermissions original Paul would come out and sing some guitar ballads, sitting down of course.

      Watch two things … Till There Was You, sung by original Paul (still with us), very well practiced and performed. notice how short he is in stature, and how he bobs his head while singing. Neither of these were sexy enough for him to sustain as a rock star, which is why he eventually had to be moved to the shadows. Mike was better, much better, on stage.

      Then watch the 1984 movie Give My Regards to Broadstreet, supposedly written by Paul (Mike), which is a delight musically and a lousy script. In it are two features, original Paul singing old hits (sitting down), and John Lennon (I suspect) playing a vagrant. Look at the two photos I used in the post on Kaufman/Snowden (too much trouble to repost here) and look closely at the one on the left, Mike, and then watch the man walking down the street lonely and waving at the vagrant … if you do not see the same guy (note the eyebrows for Christ’s sake!), you need to hone your skills.

      It took some time for me to get the DVD of Broadstreet. Be patient. I let my copy of Let Him be go, knowing I could not endure sitting through it again. It is a really bad motion picture with some good music, not enough to make it tolerable. Broadstreet, at least, is musically fun.

      There is no Billy. That is classic misdirection.


      1. PS: Paul sure looks like he is wearing a wig in TTWY – I suspect part of the reason for doing the hair the way they did was to obscure the eyebrows. Paul had wraparounds, and if you look closely in Broadstreet, you’ll see Mike’s are far less so. All you need do is skim through the photos on the link below to see there are clearly two of them, harder to tell apart in 1984 when the movie was released than later, which is why original Paul had to be retired.


            1. Mark, at first glance I think that is Paul in the foreground of the “Coming Up” video! I can usually tell the two apart by their lips. Paul has thinner lips and Sir Paul’s(Mike) lips pucker out more. Of course I might be wrong. I’m not sure which one is playing Beatlemania Paul with the collarless jacket in the background.


              1. Generally you can tell by the eyebrows, but Mike often has makeup applied to elongate them. The teeth are a tell too, as original Paul has an impacted tooth on the left side. Mike also has a cowlick on the right side, but it is not seen here. So I think it is Mike as lead singer and Paul doing some woos and smiles. Check his teeth when he does that.I’ve never seen them this obvious about it. This is in the 1980s?


                1. Yes, this song was released in 1980. Always a fun song. The lead singer in front seems to have rounded eyebrows like Paul. I think Tyrone in the comment below may be right about him being the real Paul. Also, Paul always had a happier countenance than Mike, generally. The front singer seems to be this way. And as you have mentioned, Paul bounced his head around a bit when he sang. This guy is doing that a little bit here.


          1. The indentation on the upper lip of lead singer Paul, Beatlemania Paul and drummer Paul (Ginger Baker?) seem in alignment, as do the teeth. If Mike is in there, I’d say he’s playing the keyboardist (Ron Mael of Sparks) and the right handed guitarist playing in thick horn rimmed glasses (Buddy Holly?)


        1. Mark is too attached to his discovery that they monkeyed with Paul’s eyebrows on the cover of the Broad Street movie. A worthy discovery, but one that is clearly meant to program you into seeing two men in the movie, whereas I see one man with two different sets of eyebrows. However, as I pointed out last year, they were kind enough to print a booklet that came with the movie, and in that booklet they gave us a picture of the real original Paul (the man later known as “John Halliday”) in the reflection of Mike’s piano. He looks nothing like any man in the movie. Please go back to my original comment to see the pics:

          (Apologies if this came through multiple times – internet timed out more than once.)


      2. Thank, Mark. Till There Was You is the kind of slow-paced song they could perform live quite decently. But compre it with the studio version of I Saw Her Standing There (click my name and then Слушать to access song) and there’s a striking difference in quality of drum, bass and lead guitar. Which is, it has been argued, due to the studio songs being performed by hired guns, professional studio musicians. The Beatles’ job, as fas as musicians, was merely to do the vocals. There are more versions of the song performed live by the Beatles (at the bottom of the page), and the poor quality of these renditions is somewhat covered up by screaming and mediocre recording.

        We agree the guy in the 1963 video is the original and real Paul, whereas the guy in the Coming Up video linked to by Jackie Barlow it the guy known today as Paul McCartney, whom you call Mike and I call Billy. (Seems he does singer, drum and bass in this video.)

        I’ll see if I can acquire a copy of Give My Regards to Broadstreet.

        By the way, my comment above is a full-quote from the Memoirs of Billy Shears; none of the words are my own.

        I wouldn”t say Paul is wearing a wig in TTWY. And why would he hide his eyebrows?


        1. Give My Regards To Broad Street (Part 1) – Paul McCartney

          It is on Youtube. Click on my name on this comment to access the first 15 minutes. Parts 2 through 7 are also there but I haven’t watched them yet.


        2. Thanks, I didn’t see you’d already posted a Youtube link.

          The guy playing Yesterday at 12:20 is the same as before in that movie. That’s Faul/Billy/Macca.


          1. You know, I’ve been down this road too many times, and minds will not change. Once PID kicks in, reason and openness to new evidence steps out. The work here (and at the Mathis site, where I am the “friend in Colorado” is extensive, and I have assembled the entire hoax in orderly fashion, including childhood photos, key differences between the two, the need to invent “Mike McGear” and the fake romance with Jane Asher. You’ll see that “Paul” is said to have moved in with the Asher family in London, where Margaret Asher (Eliot), professor at the Guildhall School of Music, and mentor of George Martin, was (most likely, along with Martin and unknown others) charged with crafting the songs that would later be attributed to “Lennon” and “McCartney,” both names likely inventions.

            The Hamburg sequence was probably recruitment, and another notable set of twins emerged there, Stu Sutcliff, death faked and reinvented as Andy Warhol. Art, along with music, was being transformed and undermined at the same time that the Beatles emerged.

            Hamburg was, during the Cold War, a British Intelligence nesting spot.The McCartney twins, along with others, some unknown to us, underwent intense training as stage players, using muscle memory to play for hours in smoky bars and hangouts. They did not, by this process, become accomplished musicians, just muscle-memory hacks. Later, Macca would hone his skills, even playing left-handed, a remarkable feat. Prior to that, they hid him behind a piano.

            The need for twins (others claim that there were two sets of Beatles, but I resigned from the obsession and moved on) in music is just like in movies, that the workload is huge, and having two allows for time off and a somewhat normal private life. Twins are common in Intel circles, as it allows for all kinds of duplicity, being in two places at once, able to master spy-craft at its best. (I’ve done a lot of work on what I one time thought was a set of twins, Lee Harvey Oswald, often in two places at once. I think I was convinced of that but no longer have a good feel for the evidence, and anyway, if there were two, they need not be twins, but rather only need resemble one another.)

            The “Paul” who sets in at 12:20 in Broadstreet always sits when he sings, as he is not a great performer, just a singer/guitarist. Mike, on the other hand, can chord-bang the keys while standing and singing, making him more useful as they progressed through Wings and “solo” performances. But alas, the differences became too stark and apparent, and original “Paul” was retired. (He did emerge as Halliday, probably no accident and just to rub our faces in it. A similar pattern is seen in Let Him Be, where a live and performing John Lennon is seen. (BTW, there is a man in the British Peerage, circa 1900, named Halliday Mccartney.))

            I urge you, before you discard all the evidence and progress down the Billy Shears rabbit hole, to avail yourself of my writing and the MM work on the subject. This gets tiresome. If you continue to come here to present repetitive parts of the hoax as reality, I will have to ask you to leave.


            1. I understand. Dissidence can be more annoying than opposition. Been there many times. Trouble is I was born in Hamburg and have a mind of my own, which I’ll continue to expose to new thoughts for mental nutrition.

              I did read four or five of your McCartney articles a couple weeks ago. I may have missed some, but I did try to reach all of them. I have not yet read the MM article on McCartney, and will do so now.

              I have been aware of the Paul is Dead idea for ~33 years (a friend told me when we were teens) but never found it interesting until Dee Zerda pointed me to Mike Williams’ work, which was not long after I started reading your blog:


              Contrary to what Mike Williams seems to think (and possibly you, too), I do not see any planning or masterminding behind the Beatles’ various stints in Hamburg. I used to go the Reeperbahn like every weekend when I lived in Hamburg. I found it interesting to listen to people (on Youtube) describing the atmosphere at the various clubs the Beatles performed at. Booze and fist-fights and that kind of sailor/rowdy clubs. Smokey hangouts, as you said. Far from being great musicians, in Hamburg, the Beatles were a cheap garage band – both musically and financially.

              The reason they went to Hamburg is bars were open all night whereas they had to close at a certain hour in England, where the Beatles would also face more competition.

              Sutcliff resurrected as Warhol? Hmm … Evidence? Maybe in the MM paper.

              I would have thought that being seated while doing Yesterday is okay because it is such a non-rocker.

              No harm or evil intended in any of this.


              1. Have it your way. I don’t care for pushing people around, and I will leave you be in your ideas and opinions. It’s a good thing I believe in myself and trust my own judgment, because for me the facial work says it all. The 1957/1959 photos come from the following collage:


                1959, 1964, 1985 are all original Paul (yes, still alive in 1985), and all the rest are Mike except lower left, which is, as I see it, a darkroom combination of the two faces.


                I may have, at the time I wrote that, thought Lennon to be twins. I wrestled with that for a while, and never stuck the landing. I do know his biography is fake, and that his mother, Julia, was a literary device (as I see it), used to misdirect us from there being no record of a John Lennon ever being born in Liverpool. His father, Alfred, was probably, like Mike McGear, a lifetime actor.


                1. I’m not knocking your research on McCartney but Lennon’s birth in Liverpool is certainly present in archives.

                  John W Lennon England & Wales Births 1837-2006 Collections from Great Britain, England Country EnglandRecord setEngland & Wales Births 1837-2006 CountyLancashire Year1940 Birth Year1940 Event Quarter4 District Liverpool South

                  Mother’s name given as ” Stanley.”


                  1. 1116 Batch 6

                    This is, more likely to me anyway, to be a photo of JL with his real mother and father. I don’t know who the guy on the left (JL’s right) is, but when last I worked with this stuff, I suspected he had been pasted in to hide the presence of another person, perhaps John’s brother, sister, or twin. That’s where I left it, hanging.

                    1116 Batch 7

                    This is one of the few photos of John and Julia Stanley, and it does not take too much sleuthing to see it is a paste-up.


            2. Trade secret — “real” musicians are all muscle memory hacks. Don’t even get me started on trained classical players who are meat machines executing software created by others.


              1. Reminds me … Glen Campbell, when with the Wrecking Crew, did the opening guitar riff for the Beach Boys’ Fun Fun Fun. Much later, deep in Alzheimer’s so that he did not even know his own kids’ names, he could still do it, along with a lot of his other stuff.


  5. I lurk here on occasion, and generally enjoy what I read. Just wanted to mention that “The Memoirs of Billy Shears Nine after 9/09 is on Amazon with the purchase price of 33.33


    Liked by 1 person

    1. Yes. I bought a copy of the book (used one, for much less). Comes in at 666 pages. It reveals a lot about the Beatles’ lyrics and history. About Paul’s daughters Michelle and Bettina. And much, much more.


  6. His eyebrows wrap around the side, while Mike’s are more or less straight across. They often penciled in the wraparounds on Mike, but in Broadstreet you will see that they have stopped doing that. They are not even trying anymore, as fans are dug in. There is no non-fooling them.


  7. So the vaccine rollout… Is it a divide and delay tactic, just a way for masks etc to drag on indefinitely?

    By the time any number get vaxxed, they can claim a new strain… Or say the vax only lasts 8 months or something.. Meanwhile the “great reset” type plan is implemented.

    I think Ab has said something similar, but haven’t seen it discussed here..

    Of course the vax may also be harmful – I just wonder if the main point of it is more about its use in perception management?


    1. I am watching those we know who have drank the Kool Aid to see if there are ill effects. The problem is if those ill effects kick in some time after dosing. But they are so enthusiastic! Their faith in modern science is pentecostal. I think this is a result of the fear-mongering, having been kept in that state for nearly a year, the vaccine provides release of tension.

      Lanka provides the basis for the “new strains” of a virus that does not exist. It is in the process of “alignment” where in virologists assemble the genome of the supposed virus by taking small snippets of what is assumed (without scientific rigor, no negative controls) to be from the virus, and combine it with computerized strains assembled from other places, giving us a genome that is mostly crafted out if whole cloth. Every attempt to do so in every lab will result in differences, and they cover their sorry asses by telling us these differences are “new strains” and “mutations.” It is science fraud, but the norm for this corrupt profession, in fact, for all of medicine as we know it.


      1. Oh, the pride of the vaxxed is off the charts; the selfies are soooo inspiring! My mother, 78, got the flu jab back in Nov or so and still has a runny nose. Three months later. Better than an actual cold? And now she had the first “dose”, so waiting for the other shoe to drop. Despite a lifetime of shoveling money at the pharma complex for ever-decreasing results, there is no way to dissuade her. When we talked about these things a few months back, it came to this, essentially and almost verbatim: She likes Santa Claus and wants to still believe in him.


        1. At 5:00, this “frontline doctor” has already stated that (a) hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment, (b) the “disease” (implying it is real) has spread from Wuhan, and (c) the “virus” is real and spreads.

          What is really happening? The common cold, the flu, stuff inbetween, pneumonia, ansomia and possibly other airway problems, none of which are new, are amalgamated into one by the PCR magic, attributed to a common cause, the alleged “novel and dangerous Corona virus”, and marketed as COVID-19. It’s a scam.


            1. Swede, the PCR puts out noise, you might know. All “positive” cases are false positives, but more importantly, all “negative” test results are false negatives. The PCR machine is used to simulate the spread of a virus, create the illusion that one exists.



        In this little propaganda piece from The Atlantic, a staff writer proudly describes her husband’s bravery while weathering the side effects of his second COVID vaccine shot. She quotes several “experts” who describe the “science” behind the vaccine with total certainty. Interestingly, the author never mentions getting the vaccine herself. But I love this article because of its final lines, where she describes her husband shivering under comforters and saying, “This is a million times better than getting COVID.”

        I read this a few days ago and want to laugh whenever I think about it. How does the husband know it’s a million times better than getting COVID? Has he already had it, and now he’s letting a doctor inject it into him again so he won’t get it for a few more months? The depths of the stupidity defy belief, and the fact that this stupidity is expressed with such smug self-satisfaction makes it feel like parody. I couldn’t make fun of this nonsense better than the author, with apparently sincere earnestness, does.

        In addition to what you say, Mark, about the enthusiasm stemming from relief after so much fear-mongering, I think it also has to do with how normal it is for most people to solve any perceived physical threat, pain, or discomfort with Western medicine. I had a wonderful acting teacher who had us move and twist and contort our bodies in all kinds of ways we weren’t used to, and she encouraged us to think of mild physical discomfort and our reaction to it as “being in conversation” with our bodies. Few modern humans can bear to have such conversations with their bodies. They are programmed to go to doctors, who have those conversations for them. It’s really no wonder the vaccines are being greeted with such eagerness.


  8. I downloaded MM’s paul8.pdf and took a look at the photos and the reasoning. The twins hypothesis is elaborated on pages 3 through 5 and then presented as conclusion on page 10. I do not find the evidence MM presents supports the twins hypothesis. In particular, I disagree with his interpretation of the top photo on page 5, which shows the brothers with their parents. Needless to say, I’m biased by the Paul is Dead theory which may impair my judgment.

    Details: › paul8 PDF
    Paul McCartney – Miles Williams Mathis

    page 1: Faul (= Macca or Billy) twice
    page 2: Mike McGear (whoever that is)
    page 3: Top photo said to be the McCartney brothers. They could well be 18 months apart. (My brother and I are 17 months apart.) Bottom photo quality insufficient.
    page 4: Top photo quality insufficient, but they could well be 18 months apart, younger one on the right-hand side. Bottom photo looks like McCartney brothers, younger one on the right-hand side, easily 18 months apart.
    page 5: Top photo shows younger brother on his mother’s lap and older brother crouched under his father’s arm. Bottom photo shows little boy and toddler sister.
    page 6: photo irrelevant
    page 7: Top photo is a cut & paste job showing Faul at McGear’s wedding. Bottom photo possibly showing Paul and some guy who is not the guy said to be McGear (nose mismatch).
    page 8: another cut & paste job, showing Macca
    page 9: another one, even more obvious
    page 10: Top photo is another cut & paste job.
    “So we have twins.” – No. This has not been proven at all. No twin photos have been presented. Quite the opposite. Two brothers. – Pages 6 through 9 were an unnecessary distraction from the key issue.
    page 10: Bottom photo is some boy … not Paul (face too longish), not Faul (nose mismatch).
    page 11: This is Paul, the true Paul. Cuteness, innocence, as so aptly remarked by some female commenter on your blog.
    page 12: Agree with MM: mismatch.
    page 13: Don’t know, perspective is odd. Too hard for me to see.
    page 14: Faul
    page 15: Photoshop blend of Paul and Faul?
    page 16: Top one Paul, bottom one Faul.
    page 17: Top one don’t know, bottom one could be Faul.
    page 18: Top one Faul, bottom one neither of them.
    page 19: Hard to tell because of the Caravaggio lighting. Maybe neither one.
    page 20: Looks like Faul.
    page 21: Faul and Faul.
    page 22:Top one is Faul. Bottom one is a blend or a third guy.
    page 23: Paul
    page 24: Faul
    page 25: Faul
    page 27: Face lacking detail due to photo quality. Center face could be Faul. Left and right irrecognizable.
    page 28: Paul and Ringo, the latter wearing high heels just like on the Abbey Road album cover
    page 29: Paul
    page 30: Not Faul, but does not look like Paul either.
    page 31: Top one Paul, bottom one looks like John.
    page 33: Paul, probably his father (as on page 5) and maybe his younger brother, who would then be called Mike McCartney and be another person than Mike McGear. I do not find MM’s claim of fakery is supported by evidence.


    1. I will use the convention “Paul” for the crooner, the one who sang Till There Was you, and Mike (birthday 1/7/44 – get that, double eights?) for his twin brother.

      Page 1: Mike
      Page 2: Mike McGear is, I suspect, a Stanley, just going by the nose, which hooks slightly right, like John Lennon’s.
      Page 3: Same height, head size … the one on the right is probably Mike, as you can see a hint of his cowlick.
      Page 4: Upper, Mike on left (cowlick), and note, they are dressed alike. Lower, Mike again on left, cowlick in full bloom. Paul is hunched over, that’s all.
      Page 5: Upper, Mike (cowlick) on right. Note again they are dressed alike, same style clothes and shoes. There is no older or younger, and positioning in photo merely sets one higher up, one lower. (Lower) – you should take ownership of this photo, as it is used to try to sell the idea that they are 18 months apart, except that the kid on the left is a girl.
      Page 6: Paste up, and photo is relevant because whoever did it is trying to sell us on 18 months.
      Page 7: Upper is, agreed, a paste up, but it is Mike – see the recurring theme – cowlick? Lower appears to be McGear, but I cannot distinguish which twin it is.
      Page 8: Paste-up. Mike did not attend McGear’s wedding!
      Page 9: Paste up. Note the cowlick. It is Mike.
      Page 10: Mike, again a paste-up, but I love the way McGear is ogling Angie’s bosom.

      At this point every adult photo has been of Mike, so you’re right, there is no evidence of twins outside the childhood photos.

      Page 11: Finally, Paul.
      Page 12: MM erred here, as guy on left is indeed Mike. See face chop below.

      McMc 3

      Page 13: Mike, who (another tell) has a cupid’s bow upper lip. Paul’s are thinner without the pronounced bow. Also note, the eyebrows are not wraparound.
      Page 14: It’s Mike, but the photo has been flipped, which is why the cowlick is now on the right.
      Page 15: Heavily retouched – lower part of face is Mike, as is hair, might be completely Mike with eyebrows enhanced to wraparound.
      Page 16: Top one is hard for me to tell but seems like Mike. Note the Cupid’s bow upper lip. Bottom on is Mike.
      Page 17: Top is I think Paul, with the smaller mouth. Bottom is Mike. Note the eyebrows.
      Page 18: Cupid’s bow, hint of the cowlick, eyebrows do not wrap, Mike. Lower is Mike, early Beatles days, as mop top is cut short, as during Sullivan appearance.
      Page 19: Mike – Cupid’s bow, eyebrows do not wrap.
      Page 20: Mike, Cupid’s bows, eyebrows photo-retouched to appear to wrap. Photo was flipped to make him a left-handed player. Mike is a righty.
      Page 21: Top is Mike, though eyebrows appear to have been retouched. Bottom is Mike.
      Page 22: Top is Mike, now called Macca. Bottom is Mike too. Note upper lip and eyebrows.
      Page 23: Mike. Eyebrows, upper lip.
      Page 24: Mike
      Page 25: Mike
      Page 27: Ah, the boat photo. The guy in the center is Mike, as the cowlick is apparent. The guy on the left, I initially thought Paul, but now cannot say with certainty. They were so careful never to let them be seen together, that I doubt this would be available on the Internet if that were Paul.
      Page 28: Hard for me to tell, but MM is doing height analysis, and Paul is the shorter of the two.
      Page 29: Paul
      Page 30: Look like Mike with photo flipped. Cowlick is on wrong side.
      Page 31: Cannot say with certainty who that is. Lower photo is Lennon.
      Page 32: Halliday might be Paul’s real name, and Mike’s.
      Page 33: Just going by height, Mike, but hard to tell.

      MM did a good job, made a few mistakes. When I met him in 2016 (along with others), he complained that this was his most read paper. It was too popular, in the negative sense. He did not want to be part fanboy. Later he would write about McCartney as if he were one person, but I suspect that was done to distance himself from me.

      Paul Mike]

      Above is the closest we will ever come to having them both in the same photo. These photos appear to be the same event, same day. Paul is on the left standing with Dhanni Harrison, who is surely in on the game. Both appeared in Hard Day’s Night and Help! Both appeared in the same music video, Coming Up, seen above in the comments. Isn’t it ironic that in these photos the men must still dress alike, as they did in childhood. What a pain in the ass a lifetime hoax is!

      And, of course, in the photo collage I showed you, the 1985 Paul is indeed Paul.

      Paul 1985

      1964 1985

      I cannot make headway, however, with those who, like you it appears, seem to want to attach a maudlin and sentimental ending to what is just an Intelligence scam, a practical joke

      , and insider’s look at the music business. Paul did not die, not on 9/11/67, not yet. Still with us.


      1. In the photo of Dhanni Harrison, I would place his age between 20-30, making the date of the photo 1998-2008. Note that Paul is still alive in that time interval, but has not yet wrinkled out as seen in his John Halliday video.


      2. “Above is the closest we will ever come to having them both in the same photo.”

        But it’s two photos, and it’s the same guy. How do you tell them apart? In the childhood photos, the boys really look different – but in these two photos above how do you tell one from the other?


        1. You might say I’ve some experience here. Left is Paul, pudgier face, wraparound eyebrows. Right is Mike, more statuesque, straight eyebrows. In the two photos above, the pudgy face and eyebrows are the only tells.

          Generally, and I feel as though this doesn’t land on you, Mike parts his hair on the right, and it is a wild part, a cowlick seen in the childhood photos. Paul parts his on the right. Paul has an impacted tooth (grow in behind the others) on the left side of his smile, Paul was eyebrows that wraparound, while Mike’s do not (though they are often made to look so). Paul has a higher-pitched singing voice (Here, There and Everywhere), while Mike can hit low notes (Lady Madonna). The two face chops I did above ought to be convincing.

          Here’s Mike from Broad Street. Note the eyebrows.

          Ballroom Dancing


    2. Childhood photos: Photo 3b discarded due to bad quality, 5b and 6a discarded due to irrelevance. (Can’t see why I should “take ownership” of irrelevant 5b.) That leaves us with 3a, 4a, 4b and 5a.

      Photos 4b and 5a show the same two boys, and probably 4a as well. Not sure 3a shows the same two boys as the other two or three photos.

      I see a clear difference in age in 3a. They are not twins, not even dizygotical/binovular ones. But I cannot even confidently link this photo to the other ones.

      Likewise, I see a clear difference in age in photos 4b and 5a, and also in 4a. The older one is on the left in 4a and 4b, and on the right in 5a (with his father as fitting for the older one).

      I am unable to tell whether any of these boys is Beatle Paul as seen on stage in Liverpool and Hamburg and on album covers and other photos and films in the first half of the 1960ies.

      Let’s just agree to disagree on the twins theory. Anyway, it’s more a fun topic than a serious one, isn’t it.

      On closer inspection, all these hoaxes are fun to me in one way or another, all the way back to the nuclear holocausts. Sometimes I feel like they’ve been crafted for my intellectual, psychological and political education and personal amusement and entertainment.


      1. I don’t know your references, 5b, 6a – where do I find these? Are they page numbers for MM piece? I am not going back there. I found those photos for him, and found them to be very useful. They are called the McCartney boys, they are close in age, they dress alike. Don’t you think it odd?


        1. Yes, they’re Miles Mathis PDF page numbers, with (a) referring to the top-most or left-most photo and (b) to the next in line. Just to clarify. Sorry for being imprecise.


    3. In photo 5a (younger one on his mother’s lap, older one under his father’s arm), you can see that the older brother’s shin is longer than the younger brother’s shin. If you can’t see it, take a ruler and check.

      But that’s not how I determined one was older than the other. I simply look at the face.


      1. I think you suffer a case of confirmation bias. You’re a PIDer. I did not know, and so did not prejudge, what I was getting in to. I discovered twins, and was surprised at finding them.

        The 1957 1959 photos and face chops done (shown above) with the one we agree to be Mike (you say Faul) and the one we agree is Paul ought to convince you. They line up exceptionally well. If I did not already know, that work would have made it clear to me. I think we’ve gone as far as we can go. Maybe you should look for Paul at Find A Grave.


  9. Paul the crooner. That illuminates something I’ve wondered about. Paul’s post Beatle hits were often sickly sweet ditties- “Silly Love Songs”(!) When I was growing up in suburban California, I was always in a car. We had AM radio for the most part, and I always wondered what audience was calling the stations to hear “Silly Love Songs”? I knew no one in my sphere who wanted to hear that shite. We assumed there was a vast audience of squares that hogged the phones and the charts reflected this outnumbering of us Joe Cools.
    Imagine, though, if the Paul/Mike thing required a wider span and that Mike was singing in a slightly deeper and highly treated voice such songs as “Jet” and “Junior’s Farm” while Paul was crooning paeans to Linda, even as Mike was actually married to her. Good bearding touch, that.


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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s