Created Dec 31, 2015 green 005,000 brown 720,000
Paul McCartney Dead?
Some Brief Logic
Pre-67 Paul Photos
Post-66 Paul Photos
Other Attempts that Failed
If Paul did die, how did it get covered over so well? If he did not die, why does this rumor persist? Is some or many someone's trying to screw with our heads and make us look silly? I believe it is just that! They want to see how gullible we are and if they can fool us, we might start to doubt ourselves or if someone tried to convince us, we might not trust their judgment any more. So lets get this right and have some fun, too, as well as grow much smarter.
We are going to establish some rules of evidence for photographic analysis. Is that important? It sure as hell is! Many try to judge this case based on wild criteria or just gut feelings. But those are not very good or sound methods. We can do much better.
Despite what some have published in the past, saying you can match key features and come up with a match or reject a match. I am telling you they are liars and deceivers. I declare that you can find similar individual features and yet have different people. I will have examples as we go along. Some say ears are unique and I say they are not.
In the case of Paul Mac, we have a dividing line between 1966 and 1967. It was in late 66 that Paul was said to have died and been replaced by a look alike, sound alike.
So we only have to be able to distinguish between those 2 years and that turns out to be easy. Lucky break there. Then we have to find face shot angles of the same type for both before and after. Front of ace shots can be at face level or slightly from a raised position or from a lower position looking up at the face. Or there is the side shot, from the left or right side. We look at features on the face and head as well.
We just happen to be very lucky in that our investigation involves a man who has had hundreds of photos taken of him and his band mates and thru google images and stills from numerous videos of the Beatles, that we got tons of evidence to use. This means that there should be no problem solving this one way or the other. We will not be left hanging as we might be with many people who were not famous.
This is important because in other psyops such as Sandy Hook, and other such investigations, we do not have many photos to deal with so those cases are tougher. We might still be able to reach a verdict on some but maybe not on all. It we have some very good matches, that lends credence to other possible matches, but not necessarily certain. It is important not to overstate your case to be credible. If you got 6 good matches out of 12, that is very good. If you only have 1 or 2 out of 12, that could be a problem. So being able to eliminate errors by having many different angles, we have a good chance of success, since only one person is involved.
But as well, we have many psyops now that claim "crisis actors" have appeared in more than one psyop and they show similar looking people. Are these the same? Are they photo-shopped into the photo? Are they different? To be honest, there is not enough evidence to prove it one way or the other. This is because making an ID of someone thru photographs requires lots of photos of similar looks, angles, and expressions and; Many different looks and angles and expressions with 3 or 4 of each type. All this if we are going to depend on the naked eye.
CIA type Or NASA type photographic experts use very precise measurements and often enlarge photos or shrink them to equal proportions with other photos so that measurements can be made and compared. But our case will not require that at all. You'll see. The naked human eye is still a pretty good judge of faces. And we have the context of these photos taken to help us as well. Info about photos is always helpful such as known the date, place, circumstance, etc.
Another thing to avoid, is trying to compare extreme facial expressions with flat neutral expressions. The less expression, the better. There is less distortion that way.
Another challenge is comparing youthful pictures with old age pictures. As people age, they might get fat in the face or whither, thin out and sag, with age. Comparing old to young is tough at best. It is best if you have lots of in between years of pictures so that a slow gradual progression can been seen and accounted for, that makes it a lot easier. It may not be possible, otherwise.
But in the case of Paul, we are so very fortunate. We got plenty of everything. We can not fail to arrive at the truth on this investigation. But the time we are done, you should be able to decide whether Paul is different from 66 to 67 or later. We do this by using sound procedures and I can show you others who have been quite stupid or were trying to deceive and trick. So you will have a contrast between how to do it right and how it is often done wrong.
This will help you to separate lies from truth in when someone says some crisis actor was in different parts of the country at different times and situations. They may have been some crisis actors acting in different events and places. But then again maybe not or only a few times.
Now we also have to be aware of another limitation it analysis of face photos. The CIA is a renown expert in makeup and disguising agents. If someone wants to fool you, it is easy to do and there will be little you can do about it. But knowing this, we might recognize that certain features can look different from different angles and that makeup, so often used on photo shoots of celebrities like the Beatles could make our job tough, if makeup was used to soften certain features. I don't think that will be an issue, though. With women, it is more possible that this would be an issue.
Photographers and PR people want their clients to look their best. So making features look less prominent or more prominent may be desired. Bigger breasts, less nose, etc. So these are all things to keep in mind. Perspective, such as one standing closer to the camera than another, can make one look smaller or taller to the other than is the case. A camera looking up at a face or down at a face will alter appearance. So we got lots to look out for. It will be fun! And we will solve the mystery once and for all. I guarantee it.
I have always found it funny that some who claim that Paul did die that that too much money would be lost if they allowed that to be. But if they got a replacement look-a-like, then maybe they could keep the money wagon going. Indeed, this is not so far fetched at all. There was a lot of money being made off the Beatles. But it was not the Beatles that were making it. Their handlers were getting most of the money and ownership of the musical rights and publishing as well.
So the incentive would be there, if Paul had died. But how easy would it be to find a look alike who also sounds alike and has music talent alike? The odds are very much against that. And lots of people knew Paul. Wouldn't more than a few notice changes or gaps in memory or something? Of course they would!
Even look alikes are going to be a bit different. This is something that would get noticed and it would be hard to keep quiet. Impossible, really. So I think the whole thing is far fetched. But if one also accepts mind control as a reality, and plastic surgery, too, then there is slight chance it might work, but its still very doubtful.
Now here is the biggest problem. If one was trying to hide this, the Beatles were being very stupid because they were dropping all sorts of hints about Paul being dead. An accident? No Way. Deliberate? Then Why? Are they trying to blow their cover and ruing their money game? That is the way it looks and that makes no sense since the Paul replacement was obtained because they wanted to keep the money coming in.
That they were dropping hints says to me that This whole story was bullshit! That is what I have always thought, anyway. But regardless, the pictures are going to reveal the truth because there are so many pictures to be had. We are so lucky in that respect.
Pre-67 Paul Photos
Back to Top
Here is the first stumbling block to get our of the way. The fat faces of certain times and photos. They got these puffy looking cheeks in some of the early Beatlemania. But the reason for that is that they got broad wide smiles that push their cheeks outward and make them look puffy. See for yourself. In the later days, you will not see the bit smile of the early days.
There are others, too, but these should suffice. I am not going to use these types that much. The cheeks become relevant when Paul gets really old. The USA Capitol Records' Beatles VI cover shows the smiles and chubby cheeks as well but there was only 1 picture of it. My copy is back at the old homestead Or I would scan it. Maybe another time.
Now the straight face looks. The really young ones first. They do help in getting a good look at the ears that get covered when they are Beatles. And the unmistakable eye brows that are quite the standout in Paul, the (our left) one. The nose is average facing the camera.
Note the ears bend forward. The middle two show the inner ear shape real well. Paul's ears are consistent throughout his career. But they are often covered except for the bottoms or outer back edge.
1b shows Paul from the side some and his nose tip is very pointed rather than blunt round. 1d has the nostril area look round. the lighting is from above, creating that look. 1e is much different as the light is in front of Paul. It should be understood that all the Beatles were on tour a lot from 64 thru most of 66. They were often tired, stressed, on the go, might have ate a lot at times and faces filled out or have the lean look from stress or maybe even recreational drugs. Anything is possible. So we are going to get variations, quite possibly, in photos from different times. 1c looks fleshy but whether this is real or not is hard to determine. If there was ever a face I doubted, it would be this one, 1c. But if you look at the Beatles VI LP shown previously, Paul looks just like this. He just loses the suit coat for the LP shoot. So It is him! He as being fed well at the time, I assume.
Above ^^^ An observation to make here. The nose nostrils area might seem wide. But his nose line from top to bottom is very narrow and straight so that the nostril area look bigger than it is. You'll see this better in coming photos. Note that the photos above are washed out and do not have a lot of shading detail to flesh out some features. Carefully note the ears in both the 2 and 3 series. Consistent and prominent.
Above ^^^ 3a has some color and shading and its slightly different in appearance since it is not the common black and white. You'll note that in all his pictures, the eyelids downward to the outsides. 3c the nostrils look flared.
1st one above shows clearly the brows and ears. We don't get to see the ears much once they hit it big. In 2 and 3, we get a great view of his lips, the upper one being distinctive. His expression in both is reserved, expressionless. These are among the least distorted. In 2, we can see the straight line on his nose running down. Same for 3. In these young shots, the chin looks slightly wide. But later pictures reveal a very slight double chin and it is very pointed from a side new.
Above, two things to point out here. The chin in 3rd ( and even the 2nd) shows a very slight double chin. The 2nd also shows the thin upper lip. The 4th shows the chin pointing out and the thin upper lip. You'll notice these are all semi-side views. Its the best I could do for the pre-67 years, without intense searching. In all these, the slope of the nose is very straight. Not sloped out or in, but straight. It leaves the nostrils looking a little more prominent in some photos. Lighting and angle of the face to camera makes a difference, too. 1st shows brows and the ears are consistent in all.
Below left is from the post 67 Martha My Dear video on Youtube. It actually could be from the Blackbird video originally. I put it here to compare. 1st, it is a nearly perfect side profile. We get a great look at the ear which is just like the early photos that reveal the inner ear. The straight nose, a dead ringer. The pointed protruding chin! We have not focused on the lips but the upper lip in both below is subtle and consistent with pictures that clearly reveal the upper lip. We'll get there. But in this, we have the ears, chin, and nose matching. The context is that this is Paul during the White Album. Good enough! 2nd photo is from pre-67 I believe. The left photo does have Paul looking a little thinner in the face but in this pic, it might only be the angle that causes this impression.
Below left is from the early days, Maybe Ed Sullivan or even earlier. Notice the pointed nose and its straight, small upper lip and the ubiquitous ear although its kind of blurred and lack contrast. But just to the right is a 67 Pepper photo with his head not quite fully sideways like the left one. The ear is all Paul. The chin sticks out though not quite as much as the left due to the sideways angle not being as extreme as the left one. Its the same. The mustache obscures the lips. The nose is a dead ringer. Even the jaw of both matches. And the far right photo? Lips look OK. The brows are vintage Paul, as are the eyes. Ears can't be detected because of hair. The Chin is all Paul.
And remember, the left pic is early Paul and the two to the right are clearly 1967 vintage Sgt. Pepper Paul. And the pre and post are exact matches in too many features to say this is any other, than Sir Paul McCartney, MBE. I want to post more post 66 photos just to rub it in a little.
Post-66 Paul Photos
Back to Top
1st one has all features in clear view. How bout that left brow, huh? Same for 2nd, which shows the slight double chin better. No change in the 3rd one. the 4th is interesting since Paul generally does not smile enough to allow his teeth to be seen but he has the 2 big upper front teeth. They will be making another appearance. The nose looks straight in its slope though the light washes it out some. Chin matches. The brows fit. Ears are obscured. The eyes are obvious Paul. The teeth are the only thing we had not previously seen. But these are all Paul. and they match pre-67 as well as post-66.
Now below is Paul with those 2 front teeth again. And in the photo below, we can see his typical ears and left brow and common nose as well as the double chin. Paul all the way.
Another one with his teeth:
Below: More of the same, for your satisfaction. The older Pauls show the sagging that inevitably comes with old age and drastically messes with making identification if one does not have gradual photo changes leading up to it. And despite a beard like around his first solo album, does not hide the fact it is still Paul.
Below is just to make a point about color matching. In the early 90s, LL Bean was trying to do their own catalogs in house. But getting the products to match actual colors with scanned or photographed colors with desktop computers was a challenge. Calibration equipment would come along to make color coordination more reliable. But below shows the same scarf and jacket but with different color castes. The back ground might be a screen but it never changes color very much. But it is classic Paul all the way. Are the suits different colors to begin with? Are the scarfs different colors or just caste different? Maybe developed different, boosting the red, green, and blue hues. Its interesting to ponder. Can it be solved without asking someone who was involved? If you had the right equipment, it would be possible.
Back to Top
I want to address the height issues since some have suggested Paul was too tall in Sgt. Pepper pics. Below left appeared earlier near the top of this article.
Paul does not look that small above nor below, either. Above John looks like he might be the tallest since he is furthest back and still near Paul's height. George in front looks the tallest but it is because he is closer to the camera I think.
Below, Paul looks at least as tall as John, who might be standing back slightly further than Paul and George.
Paul seems considerably taller below. Is it an illusion? Is he standing on something because his feet and legs are not visible, it could be possible. Or is he just standing in front of the others to make him look taller? Your call. Its still the real Paul, though, and not some replacement. Below right, Paul is clearly slightly in front of John and George. Could he be standing on something as well. It is at least possible. It does appear that this LP was trying to promote the silly story of Paul being dead. So they might have boosted Paul to make him look a little taller and make people wonder. You never know. But he does seem far taller than John, which I do not think was the case. But this is an insignificant detail. But it does help explain those that say this is a replacement Paul because he is taller, if he is taller. I wonder too, if the right photo was not a cut and paste operation which would have been done by hand back then with an exacto blade or similar.
Below, all the boys grew mustaches for this concept LP. And they are deliberately looking somber as they are supposed to be in mourning. I do wonder about who the master mind behind this thing was. If this was intended to be resurrected years later as seems to be the case now, then this might have the hand of demonic providence to it. Or it was just a gag by the boys to create some mystery and have a good joke and it simply would not die. Or they would not let it die. Who knows! But its been busted now. And they switched places for this shot. Then went to the light board to see which shots were better to use or not. This photo looks like the boys were pasted against the background of the celebrities.
Other Attempts that Failed
Back to Top
We see the left one in the pre-67 photos. Not his most typical look which is why I believe it was selected to be the "before" shot. Then the 69 shot above. He says it was 69. It looks more like 76. It looks like he does in 76 except that the other picture from then have him with a mustache. His wrinkles do obscure his over all look only slightly. The brow is still there. Ears look OK. and I suspect many of Paul's early shots darkened the brows for effect. His brows are not darkened in the 69 pic, at least not as much. Eyes have the same slant but wrinkles obscure it just slightly. Eye color the same in both. The head is just ever so slightly facing center to maybe center slight right. But the left shows his face ever so lightly to the left, so that the nose points just left of center. Its the same nose, however. Chin and lips the same. The right face is a little more worn and maybe thin. But this is still the same Paul in both photos. Paul Dead? Debunked!!!
Why did this guy choosed a picture from 69, which I doubt, when he could have one of many from 67 or 68. There is no good excuse for that. I believe whoever made the comparisons above, tried to find two pictures as different looking as possible. He was trying to fake us out. The proper approach is to find 2 pictures near to each other in time, on opposite sides of the change date alleged. It is only by comparing the most similar shots that you get a proper contrast to evaluate. You would not compare a latter side shot with an earlier front shot. There are better post-66 shots than the one on the right above. So we have exposed a poor method of research, if not deliberate attempt at a fraud.
Despite the years, all features match. And this was a good attempt and method. Different times but the very same sort of expression. Well done!
Below, someone merged the old with the new. As you can see, the contrast in age and sagging is substantial. The editor tried to find a contrast to blend. He did well. But the left side was tilted slightly to our left so that the ear is not as forward poking as the right one. The left eye is more open and the left brow more raised. The right photo was a more straight unemotional expression and the eye lid is more closed. But all the same, this was not a bad job overall. There are nowhere near as many old age photos as there are the younger ones. So the editor had his work cut out for him. Its not bad job. I wish he did not have to age.
Back to Top
I chose songs like Yesterday, or "And I Love Her" for the soft low sound without the background instruments being too loud. Michelle My Bell. Here, there, and everywhere, for a little higher voice.
Then I sought out Martha My Dear and Blackbird. Then She's Leaving Home. Golden Slumbers, too.
Both sets sounded exactly the same to me. Now, there is a more perfect test, perhaps, but I have not the money nor the traing to use voice recognition patterns. But the simple human ear is not a bad judge. This combine with photos, to me, makes it quite clear that Paul never died and he continued to this day. Another psyop destroyed.
I could do the same to the flat earth but others have done that well, So I need not bother. But it all has to do with ocean navigation and map making charts of the world at various time. Charles Hapgood did a great job with his "Ancient Maps of the Sea Kings" book. Gavin Menzies also does a wonderful job with his "1421, The Year China Discovered America." Menzies was a submarine captain for the British or Canadian navy. I forget which as I read it in 2004. But He knew of the vast navy of ancient China and followed the course recorded by a Chinese Admiral. You learn a lot about navigation. Navy navigation, regardless of the country, does both electronic navigation and the old sighting by hand held instruments so that they have a back up and constantly reaffirm each other or challenge one another, perhaps indicating a malfunction in electronics. Ships are often hit and damaged so being able to do it the old way is important.
If one understands navigation well, then one can see the earth is clearly spherical. If one understands prism and other types of glass shapes like half spheres or lenses, then you know how light can bend and refract. Flat earth was started as another psyop to fool people and discredit them. As well, they hope to cause doubt in real psyops like the Hampstead Cover up, or 911, Sandy Hook or so many other carried out in this new century of lies.
How hard is face recognition? Watch this! The author of this piece on the net, says the comparison is easy. I disagree. for one, she did have plastic surgery. I think she looks damn cute in either photo. But I think these are some of her better photos, too. And she is 30 years older on the right. Jan Asher was Paul's girlfriend for a while. But the cheeks are more pronounced (sagging) on the left. I'd say the two faces look very different because of weight loss or age. But the one of the right must be near to 50, if the left is 20 and for 50, she is looking out of sight.
But this is a good example of how plastic surgery or make up or fake body or face features glued on, can do wonders to disguise someone. Spy types use these skills a lot to disguise who they are. So without the extra info supplied, we would never guess these two were the same. So details do matter. But then again, how do we know the two are the same person? Because someone told us? The ears on both are obscured so that I can not see if they match or not. I would need more photos. The noses look similar, but this was changed, it said. My opinion is that the eye appears to be different. Is the difference in the fleshy face to the later face just a loss of weight or age? I would to see more pictures. Three just happen to be a lot of photos of her throughout her career. Since women wear makeup far more than men, it complicates analysis. But this is a good thorough challenge. Hard call and that is what makes it fun, but I can't spend any more time on this for now.
Current Satanic Activities
Back to Top