More McCartney stuff


[Note: I have added a face split of Mike McCartney, 1957 alongside Mike McCartney, 2007, to show that even after 50 years, facial features still line up precisely. See the last photo towards the end.]

The photo above is page 118 of the book Face to Face: Analysis and Comparison of Facial Features to Authenticate Identities of People in Photographs, by Joelle Steele. She studied the “Paul is Dead” psy-op and concluded that all twelve of these photos are various morphs of the same man.

She is wrong on that matter, but easily forgiven. She committed a mistake I make so often that I easily understand. She answered the wrong questions – did he die? Was he replaced by a body double?

Of course not. He is twins.

I will put the rest of this post beneath the fold to allow readers to study the photos without my input. See what you come up with – I ain’t the final word on this stuff. I’m still a student.

Continue reading “More McCartney stuff”

The boat photo explained


The above photo initially set me off on a journey that resulted in the discovery of the McCartney twins, Paul and Mike. Just guessing about it back then, I placed it in New York in maybe 1964.

In fact, according to a reliable source who claims no interest in the subject, it was set in the Hudson River in 1968. It was a meeting of Apple executives and the Beatles, with at least John, Paul and Mike present.  I do not see George or Ringo.

In the background then would be the Washington Bridge.

I am told that the man leaning against the rail on the left is not Paul McCartney, but rather a “young John Lennon.” While the photo is simply not clear enough to make such fine distinctions as to his true identity, he is clearly not Lennon. I was supplied the photo below of Lennon, taken on that very trip.


See he is not wearing a tie, as is the man in the left. So in addition to not even vaguely resembling Lennon, he is dressed differently too.

Here’s another shot from that day:


That is Mike McCartney, as I know him anyway, the twin who is also known as our current “Paul” McCartney. I can quickly tell by the hair parted on the right, caused by his cowlick. That was always there from his early childhood days.

For all I know, his name could be Paul, and the original Beatle we knew as Paul could be Mike. The point is, he is the twin. He starred in most of the movie Help!, while original Paul sat out. I have no clue why, but do speculate that Mike had more musical talent than Paul, which is why the original was consigned to caretaker of the McCartney family home. 

Which Beatle wrote Yesterday, you ask? Probably neither. That might well have been George Martin, or at least a collaborative effort including George, as the melodic tones are so different, so much more sophisticated than the other music they were putting out at the time. But authorship of Beatles music is, as I see it, a mystery.

Why are they in a boat in the Hudson River? That’s easy. Since If both Paul and Mike were present, they had to be out of public view. That was a major consideration in management if the group. The twins could never be seen together, could not even be in public at the same time, much less place. (For instance, one could not be sunning on the beach in the Bahamas while the other was performing in New York.)

How did the boat photo become public? We can see that here are at least two cameras on board, as the photo with Lennon has a man with a camera [Mal Evans] in it. I would imagine security around photos was tight, and that all film was documented and confiscated at the end of that day. So the photo was not the result of someone just taking a candid shot and keeping it secret.

So the boat photo might have become public by either of two means … accident, or deliberate leak. I would guess the latter. It seems to me that this gathering of publicity agents, Intelligence types (spooks), musicians and performers called the Beatles liked to toy with us. They leaked it to see if anyone would catch on.They could always deny the photograph to have any substance, and most people would accept the denials.

A swift boat to fame

I spent hours yesterday, 2/13, going over Swift photos again, and could not justify the original assertion that she is a twin. As a rule of thumb for this and all other projects under review, if I cannot tell them apart with the naked eye, I cannot claim them to be twins. Mea culpa. Taylor Swift is not twins. However, do see a very interesting photo at the very end!

We just happened to discover that Janice Joplin/Amy Goodman were twins. In their case, they are fraternal. There might have been some plastic surgery on the way, as with twins Paul and Mike McCartney above. But with the Joplin twins there was a wide gap in the talent department – no way could the demure and laid back Joplin we know as “Amy Goodman” have stood on stage and belted out songs as her sister below on the right did.

More to the point, however, is the phenomenon of twins in pop culture. It is far more common than I ever knew to suspect, so common, in fact, that my fellow researcher MH thinks now that twins might be a requirement for the upper echelons of stardom in films and music. He has unearthed a wide variety of twins, twelve sets for sure so far including Joplin, McCartney and Elvis Presley (the latter two first discovered by Miles Mathis). I will unveil the others, but we are slowly working our way up to important ones, ones that frankly, will blow my socks off if indeed they turn out to be matched sets.

Before I unveil today’s set of twins, who are not part of the twelve mentioned above but who are easy one to spot, I have to ask myself the question: Why twins?

Intelligence loves twins because they can be in two places at once, run projects at once from different locations, and step in and out of each other’s shoes.

The Beatles, we know now, were an intelligence project with intense recruiting beforehand, including selection of the McCartney twins to play the part of “Paul,” the cute one. Tyrone, a frequent commenter here, thinks that they were running several sets of the group around Great Britain and Hamburg before finally settling on the four (actually, five) they did. And look what they have done with two Paul’s! They were able to slip each in and out of the role (it is original “Paul” in the movie Hard Day’s Night, and the other twin played “Paul” in the movie Help!, for instance.) They were able to run the “Paul is Dead” psy-op on us, extending the shelf life of the group, and selling millions of clue-laden albums.

With the Elvis project, they were able to have one performing in Las Vegas while the other made crappy movies in Hollywood. So it does offer flexibility.

But if it is Intelligence at work, there must be more to it than money, which is never in short supply for spooks. I imagine that having twins as pop icons is added leverage for managers – if one is sick or loses interest, the other can fill in. Each can have different talents, as with the Joplins. (Original “Paul” was much better at interviews than his brother, Mike, the better musician and the guy we know today as Paul McCartney.) Or if one gets uppity and demands more money, they can divide and conquer.

I can’t fathom out the entire spectacle of twins in politics and entertainment. It is beyond me how they spot them other than to keep track of every set born in the country. They do have that capability – maybe “Twins” is a name on the door of a special-purpose NSA surveillance office. I do know that Elvis was spotted early on, and that there are no photos of the two together, to my knowledge. Just that aspect of twins management takes personnel and effort. They can never appear in public at the same time.

I met a man in our local gym from Los Angeles, retired now, having worked decades in the music business back there. He told me one morning that he had developed, in days of more primitive technology, a way for aspiring young musicians to make their own demo tapes renting his equipment. I asked him if he spent some tedious days and hours listening to mediocre performances, and he said no. There is tons of talent out there, and those tapes were mostly quite good. But to make it in the music business takes more than that. “You also have to get lucky,” he said.

More than that, I would add, you have to be related to wealthy families, be part of a bloodline. Then, even without talent (are you listening, David Crosby?), you can have a career.

I used to work for a very wealthy old woman in my early career whose daughter was Stockard Channing. She played a lead role in Grease, worked on Broadway, and even had her own short-lived TV show. I was curious how she made it, as her mother certainly had no talent. I was told by a person whose name and face I’ve long forgotten that Stockard merely had the time and money to wait, train, and be selected for parts, as her wealthy background gave her a foot in the door. Who else has that?

That is food for thought. As we continue to work twins here, we can further explore the phenomenon. It is pervasive.

Here is a set of twins that was so easy to spot I could do it without running faces side-by-side: Taylor Swift. She’s an Intelligence creation, possibly talented, but certainly not the one writing her songs, which do not sell nearly as much as claimed. She’s a manufactured star, but then as we are learning, not only are they all manufactured for us, they are all related too. Swift comes from a line of Merrill Lynch presidents and eastern prep schools.* No grueling coffee shop gigs for her – she had a foot in the door the day she slid down the right birth canal.

It is easy to see that Taylor One on the left has a longer face, and that these are probably identical twins. Taylor Two on the right has a more square face, and a slightly less upturned nose. But honestly, who is going to spot this unless looking for it? They very much resemble one another.

So, setting their pupils at exactly one inch apart and splitting the faces, I get this:

Swift Swift

And the differences are readily apparent. Taylor Swift is twins. Which one performs? Given the wealthy background and prep school education, I would venture that both perform, as did the McCartney boys. Next time you see her performing, check out the chin, a little longer on one. That is the easiest way to tell them apart.


Update: Taylor is not a twin, but who is she really?


This is said to be a photo of her and her mother. Problem however – that appears to be a mannequin. Somebody’s joke? Or is she, like others in the music business, not really a member of the family whose name she bears?

The McCartney twins


For the benefit of those who assume we don’t know what we are talking about, we who say that Paul McCartney is twins, here they are.

Young PaulMike McCNote the differences: The one we know as “Paul” on the left has a slightly longer face, lower ears, wrap-around eyebrows, and eyes that droop far more than “Mike’s” below and on the right.  This after plastic surgery. They appear to have been fraternal twins, not identical.

As I understand it now, both Paul and Mike played the part of “Paul” in various gigs up until about 1990, when original Paul retired, and Mike became the permanent Paul.

Of course, a commenter below mentioned the possibility that the guy we now call Paul  might have his own double too, a younger man made up to look older. He said a friend of his attending a McCartney concert thought that the drummer was ghosting McCartney’s voice for various songs during the concert. They are squeezing the last drop of blood out of the enterprise.

And keep in mind, Paul could be Mike could be Paul. We have no way of knowing which twin was which and assumed the role of Paul during the early days of the Beatles.

Postcard from edgy Portland

It is very good to be removed from party politics, TV news, newspapers and radio and Huffington Post, but reality takes a while to sink in. We have to avoid fake reality and then realize that it is fake before we can begin to see things as they really are. Time offers perspective. Reading helps.

These days when I am driving Denver traffic and turn on my radio, I enjoy listening to Rush Limbaugh – I don’t care about his content, which is designed to manipulate a broad class of potentially thoughtful but utterly clueless men (yes, men). (Yes, clueless.) His tone is appealing – he is older, and has been publicly savaged and ridiculed by “the left,” but seems mellowed and even occasionally insightful. I recommend him to any who are disenchanted and searching for answers. He doesn’t have any, but he does serve as pleasant elevator music while you move on to your next destination.

I have been wondering about the post below about “Paul/Mike” McCartney turning up now and then as “custodian” at his childhood home. What is striking is how pedestrian he is in appearance and attitude, joking, winking, sharing a secret with us. He’s not wealthy or surrounded by adoring fans nor is he sporting an MBE medal. He’s just a Liverpool bloke. He’s been retired for decades. He cannot help himself in appearing on camera, just as John Lennon returned from death to film Let Him Be. And it is comforting to know that they are just men who were hired to play parts, and who, hopefully got a nice pension out of the deal. Judging by their appearances and circumstances, these are not wealthy men at all.

They are winking at us, and in a friendly non-sinister manner, telling us that it was all for shits and giggles. And I am deeply grateful to both of them. I would love now for Sir Paul to come down off his perch, acknowledge his twin, and maybe they could even sit down and play “The Two of Us” together, one right and the other left-handed. I just realized this morning what that song was about. I wonder who wrote it.

One gratifying aspect of blogging is to meet some nice and really insightful people, who know their own names and stop by here on occasion. Without permission I am going to reproduce two comments from “Tyrone McCloskey,” perhaps a real name, but who really cares? Content matters most.

Implications? Perhaps “Paul” said something and this is his punishment (for those who think like television writers)- Or, the Beatles drew crowds that they didn’t deserve, the hype drawing the kids in live (nobody could hear them play and so they wouldn’t know if they were any good), but the TV and film stuff was understood by the actors to be just a role for which they mimed recordings made by others- They never felt the power because the forces that we thought were swirling around them never reached this troupe- The audiences on film and video could have just as easily been paid extras- (Sinatra a decade and a half earlier went through the same paces with paid bobbysoxers screaming and crying on cue) They never expected royalties, just a pension, and the gig finally ended- This may explain their casual reaction to the mania and their ability to crack wise so easily- None of them took any of it seriously because they knew it wasn’t real- Court historians have been paid since the dawn of writing to fabricate, fabricate, fabricate… so whatever their backstory, front-story, it all came through corporate owned media so all narrative tropes are fair game- Resting…

And later in response to another man who has been all over attacking the notion Beatles were not as they were portrayed to us:

GvdH- I was born in 1958- I marinated in the Featles and the goddamned 60’s- You couldn’t escape every detail of the 4 mop top’s lives if you tried- It was rammed down our throats-Certainly no one wants their heroes outed as frauds, but why are some people chosen over others to succeed? It is never just talent- It’s talent that fits a favored agenda of the culture creators, even as that talent, if it exists at all, needs a firm guiding hand- And that agenda always serves their best interests, not ours- Great music that midwifed the mind destroying drug culture is what the Beatles handlers were after and they succeeded –

Another thing the Beatles were designed for was to create a consensus market for pop music- Thousands upon thousands of musicians followed their lead in pursuit of similar wealth and fame- The market pushed out variance and guided a relatively small number of acts to the charts and the playlists of the corporate owned radio and television networks- 50 years on, look what we have rammed down our throats today: lip synching CGI tramps like Taylor Swift and those other synthetic creations that teach pre-adolescent girls that stripper culture is the highest aspiration- For boys, it’s crossdressing and/or ghetto warriors- There won’t be any chance for stable families to grow out of that muck- The population will continue to shrink in the west- But then, population replacement (hello Syria, welcome to Germany) goes back to the Old Testament, and likely well before that-

Enjoy yourselves … I am in Portland for a few days. It is a strange place, saturated in faux-pwoggy causes, hairstyles, and Boulder, Colorado-like smug self-satisfaction. Again, so nice to be removed from it all.

Some of the rest of the story unfolds

A reader of the Mathis paper on the McCartney twins supplied the video above answering the question of what happened to the twin who stopped performing. He is*, possibly, hidden in plain sight. (The people who do do these scams do not have a lot of respect for our intelligence.) Mathis has added six pages to the paper discussing this matter. While at first it appears to thicken the plot considerably, it answers nagging questions.

The man in this video is said to be John Halliday, custodian of the McCartney childhood home. He looks an awful lot like the original Paul, who Mathis refers to as Mike (if we did not know one from the other as children, either could be right.)

If so, stop and think: This man owned the world back then, entertained the queen, starred in movies, and supposedly wrote Yesterday, a song so famous that royalties would support him for life. Here he is reduced to a man seemingly less than serious, drinking beer and leading a quite ordinary and mundane life.

Implications, please. Implications.
*The man in the video looks to be 55-60. Don’t be fooled by the eye lines, as there was probably plastic surgery done early on. And he is not missing a tooth – original Paul had a narrow palate, causing some misalignment issues, apparent in this man. Paul and Mike are 73 as of this writing, so this video would probably be taken in the time from possibly 1998-2003?
PS: I understand the problem that people have with this – first, most people choose beliefs over evidence. Beliefs are comforting. Also with the Beatles, they assume the group formed naturally, so that monkeying with twins is not natural. If you alter that perception, and think of the Beatles as a group that was scripted, scouted, recruited, trained, just like the Monkees, then this might make more sense to you.

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.