Afterthought: John Halliday outed as Paul, updated

I am using the original blog post posted in June of 2016 in order to bring it forward with all of the comments below intact. But I want to make some additions, and do some speculation. The first post was very short.

From this point forward I refer to the original Paul McCartney as Paul, and his replacement as Faul. I do not know their real names, so that will have to do.

First, I want to go back to the original photo that started me on the McCartney twins hunt. I call it the “Boat Photo.”

Boat photo with arrows

Continue reading “Afterthought: John Halliday outed as Paul, updated”

More McCartney stuff

page-118

[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

image

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.

image

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:

image

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?

taylor-swift

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

PaulMike

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.