I ask the readers’ indulgence as I work on some aspects of Mike Williams’ work concerning the fictitious person he calls “Billy Shears”, also known as “Bill Shepherd” or “Vivian Stanshall”. The work below is based on the book The Memoirs of Billy Shears, by Thomas E. Uharriet, said to have been born in about 1960 (Ancestry does not give a precise date) and living in Los Angeles. Uharriet has quite a list of books on the market, seen here. Amazon returns a similar list. From this I open the possibility, and only that, that Uharriet is a real person. However, I am skeptical.
For those who are not of a mind that a famous person of considerable singing ability could have died and then be replaced by another person whose voice sounds almost like and whose appearance is virtually the same, I ask you to get your mind right! This is what is required of us by Williams and all of the other “Paul is Dead” advocates. It requires a serious effort to detach from reality, and will take you to an almost occult setting. I am only 20 pages into the book, but willing suspension of disbelief went out the window when I looked at the cover, seen below:
That is an artist’s rendition of Paul McCartney dressed in the garb see on the album cover of Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band. Williams claims that by the time this album came out (5/26/67) the original Paul had been killed in a car crash and was replaced by Billy. Images that I can draw from the album cover are really too small to work with, so for shits and giggles, I am going to work with the book cover. Who is this guy? (The McCartney shown on the album cover is not smiling – the book cover is a compilation or a rendition, but from what?)
We know, at least here at this website, that “Paul McCartney” was two people, as set of twins who we call “Paul,” long since retired, and “Mike”, our current-day Macca. So I thought for fun, since I have photos of both at a young age, that I would do a face split on both to see which (if not both) that the artist who did the cover was working from.
That’s Mike on the left (who in the video from the prior post Williams did not recognize at all and thought was some interloper!), and Paul on the right. The photos are taken 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. Certain characteristics, including selective blindness, are required to deal with these two brothers. Williams and Steele have that trait.
Here are the face splits between these two above and the cover art on the Uharriet book:
The strongest match is between the Mike McCartney photo from 1957. The chins are only slightly misaligned, and keep in mind we are not dealing with a photo on the book cover. But I would say that is the photo that the artist who drew the cover used. The one using 1959 Paul has severely misaligned nose and ears. The latter can be misleading, but here the head angle is virtually identical, so ears can be trusted. So I would say that the cover art for the book was based on a photo that Williams claims is from some interloper from left field. Williams cannot see a youthful Macca in later photos. How sharp is this guy?
Which brings me to another point – how often have I seen, as with Williams in his video highlighted in my last post, attempts to compare faces based on mere observation alone, without any rigorous technique applied to do the comparison? People make light of face splitting, and I understand why – the Internet is not a good source for photos. But what else do I have? Am I to assume that every photo I see is tampered with or distorted by the type of camera used, or am I to be merely cautious? That seems to be the underlying assessment of any technique other than naked observation, which is, incidentally, subject to the same limitations!
What are we to do? Nothing? Are we to assume we cannot know anything? Are we to assume that only the naked eye tells us all that we can know? No!
So, now 20 pages in to this stupid book, I can conclude as follows:
The Beatles were a multilayered psychological operation intended to alter perceptions, customs and morals on a society-wide level. The four boys involved were puppets on a string, though I do offer one more photo that Williams is probably not aware of:
That is a collage from a post I did years ago concerning Masonic signaling. The hidden hand says “I have secrets close to my heart”. Here we have Macca (Mike – note the hair part) alongside some of the most notorious people in history. It is easy to say that the four Beatles were young and merely poster children, maybe true at the outset. As time went on, their use was more intense, their personalities worldwide icons of cutting edge music and cultural shifts. McCartney, the only current public survivor of that time, was an active participant as time went on, perhaps from the beginning.
His brother Paul? Not so much. Just a head-bobbing crooner, but quite a good singer!
Piece of Mindful 
Thanks for this…I am being pressured to do this story.
Face splitting has an issue. If we were to split your face, and then form a “complete” face by mirroring left with mirrored left, and and another using right with mirrored right, you would look like two different people in these photos.
Am I being clear here? I mean making a whole face out of each hemisphere.
There are probably many examples of this and software that will do it; facial hemispheres are already inherently different, different expressions, angles, stress lines, etc.
LikeLike
I am aware of this, but frankly, face splitting does not rely on that technique. I merely take the existing left side of a face and compare it to the right side of another photograph to see if the features align. When they do, I take it as evidence that we are dealing with the same person. When they do not, I take it as evidence of two different people, the most common outcome.
For instance, I recently watched part of The Sinner, starring Bill Pullman. My gosh, I thought, he looks and sounds like Lloyd Bridges! So, a few days later, I gathered photos of each man for comparison. The result, seen below, not even close! Sometimes, I know LB is long dead, we run into doppelgängers, which I call Bokanovsky Brats. These two men are not that. So the technique worked, and my ears and naked eyes lied to me.
Who is pressuring you to do what story?
LikeLike
Two different friends who have dug into the matter and who believe that McCartney died in 1966.
I am having difficulty parsing out your position on the issue. Would you mind stating it clearly?
LikeLike
In the prior piece to this you will find a link to a piece called “sir Faul”. Let me know your thoughts.
LikeLike
I’ve read that one. You seem to be saying that there are some identity games going on, but that Paul is alive. Who wrote the songs? Is that the person born Paul McCartney playing on Abbey Road? Who wrote and sang the song “Two Of Us”?
LikeLike
Mike and Paul McCartney were born a set of twins, and when the Beatles were formed, both played the part of Paul. That went on into the Wings years, but differences between them became too apparent, and the original Paul was retired. The last I saw of Paul, he was attending an event with Dhanny Harrison, George’s son. Mike was there too – it is all in the Sir Faul post.
Who wrote the songs? I don’t know. In this area Mike Williams has done some very good work, showing us that the album Rubber Soul’s songs had to have been written by outsiders, a different group of songwriters than the ones that wrote all their early hits.
Can’t help much more than that but I do suggest you listen to Williams videos, and just ignore his Billy Shears stuff, which is fake.
LikeLike
Thank you. This is the first I’m hearing of the twin — today. And this whole BS was a big deal when I was a kid buying Beatles albums at age 10 in 1974 and it seemed the whole thing was a marketing scam.
It’s difficult to sort this story when we’ve got supposed consensus reality, the real fake, the fake fake, the fake real, the even faker real, and plain old fake.
And speaking as one who does longterm fraud investigations (toxins, scientific claims, diagnostic testing), there is very little to hang any of this on.
But what I hear you saying is that there is no “Billy Shears” by any name; Paul did not die in a car wreck; and that the only substituting is by the twins.
As for who wrote the songs, “I don’t know” is the best answer I’ve heard through this discussion that is too reminiscent of Flat Earth for my comfort. And I know some people who are really, really convinced — so sure they have stopped talking to me…
LikeLike
That’s too bad, as this stuff is just plain fun in my view. The album clues were the best!
Who writes any star or group’s songs is always up for grabs. I look at it like this: That a stage performer / group member has to have some mastery of the instruments AND, usually, has to sing, at least backup. In addition they need stage presence, they have to know how to perform. In addition to all of that, they need to be physically attractive. We ask a lot of them, AND we expect them to write the songs too? Maybe a few can pull all of that off, but most cannot, most rely on studio musicians and ghost singers and writers.
Who writes the songs? I’ve heard tell that most pop music is written by three guys, names forgotten, but if you search for that information, you might find it.
LikeLike
What grieves me is a cultural tragedy about artistic integrity. We are not supposed to be watching TV commercials where it doesn’t matter who writes or sings or whatever. And the Beatles were no ordinary group; they were a phenomenon of their place and time. And while like a lot of their stuff, there is some of it that is extremely meaningful to me, for example Abbey Road and Let It Be.
The thing about the Beatles especially the last three albums (from White to Let it Be) is how intimate the writing is, how personal, and how immediate. That is not written by jingle writers, the best of which could only come up with the Hilltop Ad, which is pure saccharine kitsch.
And it galls me to think that this work is fundamentally fraudulent.
Additionally, as you no doubt know, the deeper claim for the motivation for such a complicated “psyop” assuming it was one…is that the Tavistock Institute was manipulating society and “making the 1960s” which were merely a sham. We thought we were learning and loving and rebelling but really, we were just hypnotized. You do not seem to be saying this; you seem to be saying that the authorship is in question (and note, the Wrecking Crew did not write lyrics, or to my knowledge, even whole songs). They provided the ground field that the original ideas were laid upon.
And the people who push the Paul Saul Faul Billy Shears bullshit are also the ones saying, “We were all duped” (and acted differently as a result.) And I say, OK, show me in the text of the words and the texture of the music exactly what that was. (And as a devoted student of the work of the McLuhans, I know that culture is not changed by content. Ever. The content comes along with the changes that emerge from the formal cause of the prevailing media environment (in the age of the Beatles, society was reeling in shock from TV).
As far as authorship, I am close to Bob Dylan’s organization and I know people who have worked with him and for example, one producer who I know well enough that he made me dinner in his home — who watched him lay down on the studio couch, write a song in a Flair marker in a notebook from scratch, and come back into the recording area and slam out the song in the first take.
I am the author of all of my own words and music in any form; I credit my coauthors with extremely rare exceptions where someone wrote a paragraph for me that I could not do any better, and then I adapt it and make it my own. This has happened two or three times and I write more than 300,000 words a year.
LikeLike
Well stated Planet Waves.
LikeLike
Here’s something that might interest you: Get hold of the movie Give My Regards to Broad Street, starring the guy we call Macca. It’s not a good movie but the music is very enjoyable. Macca is a very good stage performer. His brother Paul seems to have to be sitting to play, and bobs his head too much. In the movie, if the singer is standing, it is Mike, or Macca, if sitting, it is the original Paul. It was done in 1984, when it was still hard to tell the difference.
LikeLike
I came cross evidence that John Lennon was also a set of twins (childhood photos of two of them), but could never drive it home. I do imagine his name was not “Lennon,” kind of a dig at us, as in Vladimir Lenin. His mother was not Julia, she did not die by being run down by a car, and his dad was not a sailor who abandoned him. Arthur Lennon was what we came to call a “lifetime actor”. I did run across another set of apparent twins in the Beatles false history, Stu Sutcliff. Could never nail that one down either, but it was intriguing, as if Intel was busily recruiting twins for various roles in pop culture. Sutcliff faked his death at age 27 and reemerged later as “Andy Warhol.”
i was leading a super exciting life uncovering all of this back then … Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix, Pete Ham, Gram Parsons, Buddy Holly, Bobby Fuller, Jim Morrison and his girlfriend Pam Courson and others all all faking their deaths and reemerging in other forms … except Morrison, who we never found again. John Denver’s death was fake, but at age 53 he merely retired, as probably did Jerry Garcia (never looked into that one, nor that of Prince, also suspicious. I got burned out on it all).
LikeLike