Paul is Alive… Kiss Him, Kiss Him

The Savage Young Beatles and Paul’s… coffin? Circa 1961. (Photo ©Apple Corps./Peter Kaye.)

Attention! This is a REBEAT magazine Special Report…Paul McCartney is DEAD! That’s right, Paul McCartney is DEAD! He died in a car crash in 1966 and was replaced by a lookalike named William Campbell to keep the Beatles in business. The clues are all over the album covers and songs recorded from 1967 on. Oh, the humanity!

Obviously, I’m joking. I mean, it’s the year 2014—no one still believes the “Paul Is Dead” hoax anymore, right?

So I thought.

One recent night, curiosity got the best of me, and I started down the “Paul Is Dead” (or “PID”) Internet rabbit hole. I stumbled upon a music forum where conspiracy theorists were knocking themselves out, still trying to discredit Paul McCartney’s existence beyond 1966—this time not by playing album tracks backwards, but with the help of modern digital editing software. They analyze photos of the pre-1967 Paul with today’s Paul, scrutinizing the shape of his profile, ears, and nose, arguing that they couldn’t possibly belong to the same person.

The PID-believers even refer to the “newer” Paul as “Faux Paul,” or sometimes “Faul.” There are sites dedicated to the hoax that encourage readers to submit new clues that haven’t been mentioned before. I saw comments on YouTube claiming that Paul had brown eyes, while “Faul” has much lighter eyes that are green or blue. I read that John and George were caught in a documentary referring to someone named “Beatle Bill.” And all across professionally-written music sites and blogs, I saw comments left by the conspiracy theorists vehemently insisting that Paul McCartney is dead and that the rest of us are just a bunch of imbeciles and oh, by the way, denial is not just a river in Egypt.

A diagram showing the facial changes of “Faul McCartney.” (From Plastic Macca.)

C’mon, guys. Really?

Apparently, old conspiracies die hard (no pun intended), if at all. It’s been 45 years since the “Paul Is Dead” urban legend was born, when, in 1969, a well-meaning listener called into a Detroit radio station and told DJ Russ Gibb about the rumor and its clues. I’m not going to list them—many are common knowledge among music fans—but the album cover that started it all is Abbey Road, which supposedly depicts a funeral procession.

One of the most comprehensive clue compilations I’ve read is found in an article written by Joel Glazier that was published in a 1979 issue of the Beatles fanzine Strawberry Fields Forever (founded by the late, great Joe Pope). In the editor’s introduction, Pope urges his readers to approach the article with an open mind; by the end of it, my eyes were glazing over, especially when the piece took a dark turn into Charles Manson, Satanism and The Rolling Stones’ involvement in helping to cover up Paul’s death.

I’ll say it again: C’mon guys, really?

They just can’t let it be (pun intended this time). The great wide world of the interwebs has given more fodder for the Paul Is Dead conspiracy theorists to play with. But no matter. Because Paul is alive, y’all! I’ve seen him in interviews, I’ve seen him perform, and there’s no doubt in my mind that he’s the same Paul McCartney that has been alive and well since 1942. Don’t believe me? OK well, then REBEAT magazine is out to prove you wrong. Here are my top factoids of proof that Paul McCartney is still alive and kicking:

Not you, too, Batman and Robin! (Cover by Neal Adams.)

 9.) He’s Literally a Nowhere Man

I’m sure if we looked hard enough all over the planet, we could find a man who looks exactly like Paul (and, for argument’s sake, the same exact height), or we could find one who sings just like Paul, or we could find one that has the same Liverpool accent, vocal nuances and wit. But in order to pull the rug over discerning Beatles fans’ eyes, the band had to find someone who possessed ALL of these qualities. Perfection just cannot be duplicated. Even the best Beatles tribute bands can’t find a member to play Paul that could fool this Beatles fan, let alone millions all over the planet.

8.) He’s Still Writing Silly Love Songs

Oh, yeah, “Faux Paul” would have to dazzle as a songwriter, too, unless he’s had some assistance from someone on the inside. Unlikely—Paul’s been churning out delightful earworms in pretty much the same style since the late-1950s. That kind of natural-born talent would be impossible to duplicate, especially for someone with a non-musical background that supposedly won a Beatles lookalike contest.

7.) The Man with Kaleidoscope Eyes

I have an old book on Paul (that was published before the invention of Photoshop) that includes color photographs—many taken in the 1970s and 1980s after he supposedly kicked the bucket. His puppy dog peepers are just as brown as ever, so take that, hoax-believers!

6.) The Left Hand Doesn’t Know What the Right One is Doing

It seems that the hoax believers never address the fact that their “Faul” is left-handed and plays guitar with his left hand, just like Paul. Only 10% of the world’s population is left-handed and trust me, if you reach your mid-20s right handed, it’s extremely difficult to learn to play an instrument the opposite way. The conspiracy theorists want you to believe that “Faul” not only looks and speaks exactly like Paul, but that he’s left-handed, too. Gee, what luck.




5.) Jane Asher Would Have Known the Difference

“Gee, Paul…there’s something…I don’t know…different about you. You look…you know…bigger these days and what was up with that little trick of yours during our shagging session last night? You never did THAT to me before. Not that I’m complaining.”

Trust me, gentlemen—you never would have tricked Jane Asher with a fake Paul. We women always know when something is up. (Linda Eastman wouldn’t be fooled, either, although she started dating Paul in 1968, post-mortum.)

By the way, in early-November 1966 (when the car crash that supposedly killed Paul took place) Paul and Jane were on vacation in Africa.

4.) Paul Dismissed the Paul is Dead Rumor As Rubbish

In 1969, Life magazine interviewed Paul McCartney, who was living in Scotland with Linda and their two children, about the Paul Is Dead rumors. The Beatles had already broken up, but it was still a secret to the world. He said:

“It is all bloody stupid. I picked up that OPD badge in Canada. It was a police badge. Perhaps it means Ontario Police Department or something. I was wearing a black flower because they ran out of red ones. It is John, not me, dressed in black on the cover and inside of Magical Mystery Tour. On Abbey Road we were wearing our ordinary clothes. I was walking barefoot because it was a hot day. The Volkswagen just happened to be parked there.

“Perhaps the rumor started because I haven’t been much in the press lately. I have done enough press for a lifetime, and I don’t have anything to say these days. I am happy to be with my family and I will work when I work. I was switched on for ten years and I never switched off. Now, I am switching off whenever I can. I would rather be a little less famous these days.

“The people who are making up these rumors should look to themselves a little more. There is not enough time in life. They should worry about themselves instead of worrying whether I am dead or not.”

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

3.) There’s No Such Person as “Beatle Bill” or “Beatle Ed,” So Quit It Already!

Many PID conspiracy theorists love to point out how George Harrison and John Lennon refer to the characters “Beatle Bill” and “Beatle Ed” on the Gimme Some Truth documentary. I’ve watched the clip in question and it’s glaringly obvious that these references were just John’s — and George’s — signature, sarcastic humor shining through as usual, poking fun at the media’s references to the band members (“Beatle Paul,” “Beatle John,” etc.) When George says, “I see Beatle Bill is making a pig of himself,” he’s obviously referring to Phil Spector, who is stuffing his face at the dinner table he’s sharing with the other musicians and Yoko Ono. If you don’t believe me, watch the following clip—the conversation in question starts at the 4:45 mark.

2.) Even Lennon Knew the Hoax Was Just a Joke

Speaking of John, he addressed the Paul Is Dead hoax in “How Do You Sleep?”: “Those freaks was right when they said you was dead…the one mistake you make was in your head.”

Ha ha. John Lennon called you conspiracy theorists freaks!

1.) Who Else Would Be Dumb Foolish Enough to Marry Heather Mills?

OK, that was harsh (sorry, Mr. McCartney.) But you have to admit it’s a perfectly logical question. Luckily, he’s forgiven, especially since he married the very amazing Ms. Nancy Shevell after recognizing his misstep.

So, rest easier tonight, Beatle-lovers. Our beloved Paul still lives and breathes.

About Pamela Sosnowski 15 Articles
Pam Sosnowski's love of retro music and pop culture all started when she saw the Beatles cover band 1964 in concert in the early '90s. It wasn't long before her obsession with the Fabs led to an interest in all things 1960s, probably because she never actually lived in the decade. Today she is the author of Go Retro where she ruminates about the people, places, and things of the pop culture past and is also a budding copywriter. She hails from and lives in the Boston area.
  • Charlie

    Great article, Pam! Nice addition to your Go Retro work. Looking forward to more of your humorous and insight.

  • Therese Bohn

    Bravo Pam! Congrats on your new venture, adding it with Go Retro makes the nostalgia all the sweeter! As to Paul, great guy, and I’d be happy to kiss him! (or at least a hug!)

  • Drue

    Comparing ears and nose. You only need a high school health class to read that both ears and noses are made of cartilage, and that it grows continuously throughout your life. Peoples ears and nosed are almost always noticeably larger (and lower) in old age. Do conspiracy nuts read anything except what another one publishes

    • MrMarco855 .

      The problem is his nose is smaller, not larger. His ears are totally different, not larger. I’m thinking Paul is dead because of what ‘Paul’ said not long ago on the David Letterman show. Letterman brought up the Paul is dead story, and ‘Paul’ said the Abbey Road cover had a lot to do with it. He said because he had no shoes on that people believed he was dead. He said ‘ I don’t get the connection’. Then he explained that he showed up that day with sandals on. He said it was very hot, so he kicked off the sandals and went bare foot. If it’s a very hot day you wouldn’t go barefoot as the pavement would burn your feet. His explanation is nonsense, and if that’s his story then something’s wrong. Also, when shooting an album cover, would he just show up and shoot the cover regardless of what he was wearing? In other words, I can’t believe he just happened to wear sandals without reason, especially since all the Beatles are dressed in a specific way as if to give some kind of message. Are we to believe John just happened to show up in an all white outfit, and Ringo in an all black outfit? There’s no way, and there’s also no way that footwear wouldn’t be discussed. This is an album cover that will be forever; you’re not going to just show up in whatever. Also, Paul is out of step, the other 3 are in perfect step. They claimed it happened to be the only shot where all 4 were in step. They’re stride was uniform but Paul was on his left lead while the other 3 were on the opposite lead. I can’t believe that walking across the street for the album cover would be so random and disorganized so that the 4 guys are just walking back and forth any old way.

      • Alyssa Campbell

        He was on his left lead because he is left handed.

      • Barry Trestain

        It couldn’t be could it that all this was just a massive hoax? The Beatles were having a joke with their fans leaving little clues here and there? It’s rubbish, a joke, a hoax for god’s sake get a life and just enjoy the music of John, Paul George abd Ringo.

      • Curt B

        yes nobody ever takes their shoes off when it is a hot day, only when it is snowing, don’t you know! The beaches are filled on hot days with people wearing shoes! Am I right?

        (Sarcasm FYI) 🙂

        • MrMarco855 .

          He was walking on hot asphalt. Which makes more sense to you; barefoot on a hot street or shoes on to protect from the burning pavement? If anyone can come up with an excuse for this anomaly, you’re trying too hard and refuse to accept the obvious truth.
          The next time it’s 90 degrees Fahrenheit, kick off your shoes and walk down the middle of an asphalt street. I’ll bet you run like a chicken trying to find cool grass.

  • GoRetroPam

    Thanks everyone for your comments. Glad you enjoyed the article!

  • beatlefan

    your “new Paul” was dating Jane in 1967, so you think she would´nt see a different? I´m tired of this,, if you´re sure that he´s a double, perfect double, that means “real” paul was nothing special. And that´s not true. Special people cannot be replaced by some ordinary guy who won a paul looklike once -_-

    • Mark J C

      Thank you, you prove my point quite well. He wasn’t the perfect double because he was right-handed . Jane and fake Paul we’re dating, but they didn’t see much of each other because fake Paul was on tour and/or fake Paul was in seclusion learning how to do things left-handed because he was right-handed before he became fake Paul. Why was he held so long in Japan in 1980? because the fingerprints of fake Paul didn’t match , repeat, didn’t match the ones that were taken of the real Paul in 1966. the Japanese knew it was a fake Paul and didn’t know what to do about it. It’s a matter of public record that think Paul in 1967 foot is guitar on as if you were going to play it right-handed and the other three beetles panicked! right on stage.

      • MrMarco855 .

        A lady from Germany dated Paul in 1962 before he was famous. They were together 2 years while Paul lived there and the relationship produced a child. The lady went to court not too long ago to force a dna test to prove Paul was the father, but to her shock the dna did not match ( This could be corroboration for what you mention regarding the incident in Japan). This German lady is still trying to force a dna comparison between the current ‘faul ‘ and real Paul’s brother or father. She insists she was 100% faithful for these 2 years, and if she wasn’t would she go public to prove her promiscuity?

        • Curt B

          This is why paternity tests were invented. Proof he was not the father does not prove he is not Paul. She may have thought she timed it right. Maybe she waited a week or two. Maybe a month. Her claim of 2 years seems unprovable.

          • MrMarco855 .

            It constituted proof to this person, given her story. Now she only needs a DNA comparison between ‘Faul’ and Paul’s brother or father.
            The lady wasn’t intent on proving this guy isn’t the real Paul,,,,,,,,,she obviously assumed that he was. She was after paternity responsibility. She was shocked when Faul’s DNA didn’t match the child’s DNA. She knew with no doubt,… that this was not Paul. Despite knowing that with certainty, she needs one more test to prove that she’s right. If the DNA of the brother or father of Paul doesn’t match the DNA of Faul,……….even a road block like you couldn’t slither out of that.
            Keep in mind; I’m not attempting to prove anything to you with this response. It’s a process, don’t be so defensive. There may be something you haven’t considered, or plan to deny. If and when proof is obtained,…………it isn’t a cause for celebration. I’m here expressing and sharing, so that other’s can consider this. The proof may never come from DNA, but absolute refusal to take the test is another indication that we’re right about this.Proof doesn’t have to pass the standard that you’ve deemed necessary. The prison’s are full of people that were convicted on circumstantial evidence alone. When enough circumstantial evidence exists to convince the ‘jury’,………..then we have proof.
            I don’t need the results personally; I know the truth and it means nothing to me either way on a personal level. I don’t accept deceit being passed down as if it is the truth. Our school books have plenty of that. I think it should motivate any right thinking individual, that it’s important to establish an accurate account of things that will remain when we’re gone. If I’m convinced that a falsehood is being passed on to others but I don’t react to correct it then I’m no better then you are…………I can’t have that happen so I will do what I’m capable of to correct this.

      • Michael Waters

        “Why was he held so long in Japan in 1980? because the fingerprints of fake Paul didn’t match , repeat, didn’t match the ones that were taken of the real Paul in 1966. the Japanese knew it was a fake Paul and didn’t know what to do about it.”

        Where’s the proof of this claim? You can’t just claim things without providing the proof!

    • MrMarco855 .

      Desperate people with tons of money at stake and all the resources in the world could pull it off,……….and they did convince you. The rest of us don’t think the two guys aren’t discernible. Not if you look closely, listen, analyze every aspect and aren’t in love with this guy. It hurts feelings to admit this, and I don’t make light of that. It’s very understandable; I couldn’t easily accept that Mickey Mantle was a fake but I would if the evidence was there. I prefer the truth versus defending a lie. Emotions get in the way of truth very often…………..

      • Michael Waters

        Yes, emotions DO get in the way of truth, but you haven’t proven Paul was replaced. You’ve made claims, and referred to proof, but the proof isn’t provided. That’s odd, isn’t it?

        I’ll admit my emotions argue against your theory. But you’ve got to admit the same. The burden of proof is on you to prove Paul was replaced. Not claim he was replace, but PROVE he was replace.

        This proof will have to be extraordinary, in order to prove an extraordinary and strange notion.

        In other words, you’ve got to convince rational people, not just gullible high school dropouts who might believe anything.

    • deborahcollins

      You’ve never heard of someone being bought off or threatened?

  • surge

    I’m sorry but this is so biased I cannot take your statements serious.
    Watch this film on the subject as it is not biased, and has major points. http://www.snagfilms.com/films/title/paul_mccartney_really_is_dead_the_last_testament_of_george_harrison

  • NajColdCase

    obviously biased in her beliefs. there is other info out there that contradicts everything stated here. look at the pictures yourselves. There needs to be photograph forensic analysis by someone interested who is qualified. It’s been mentioned prior to 1966 that PM’s shoe size was 8 and pictures showing the shoes and a zoom in verifiying it. eThe New Paul shoe size is 9 1/2/ There are pics of pre 1966 Paul with Linda Eastman and they they were about the same height and post 1966 Paul is obviously much taller and the list goes on and on. Russ Gibbs had stated that Paul is alive and welll. There are other explanations why Eastman was with two different Paul’s the deeper you go into the story. There are different levels to story, evidently.

    • MrMarco855 .

      NajColdCase,….There has been a comprehensive physical and science related analysis done, and the results are definitive; the man being presented as Paul McCartney these days is,…….not the real Paul McCartney. I don’t think there’s any question about it. Two individuals from Italy got together to prove Paul was not dead. The result was they had to delay release of their findings because, well, their findings were proving the opposite. Once they started to realize that, they had to be as thorough and careful as possible. They had careers and reputations to protect, but in the end they were confident enough to present their findings, knowing the repercussions would be a burden.
      They are a computer graphics expert and a cranial expert ( I forget the exact terminology for her position ). The expert in cranial identification has a list of well-known cases she was hired for and was successful with.
      They did face/head over comparisons, teeth and palate analysis, they show scars from surgical work on the face, they measure width between eyes ( this feature that can’t be surgically altered ), and a host of other comparisons including guitar play and voice. I’m sorry I can’t recall the name for reference, just google Paul McCartney cranial comparison from Italy( or something similar) and it’s easy to find. It’s intriguing and convincing, and difficult to debunk.
      There’s information available on other sites that’s not common knowledge and it fills in a lot of holes and makes things come together( no pun intended ). If you desire, respond and I’ll get more info for you to check. Until then,….Arrivaderci

      • Curt B

        Cranial experts without an actual cranial to examine, just photos. Great experts!

        • MrMarco855 .

          When one Paul’s head is 2 inches taller and the other Paul’s head is wider, a blind guy could make that call. The guy before 1966 ( The real Paul ) looked completely different than this substitute.

          • Michael Waters

            Curt’s point was that truly scientific comparisons CAN NOT BE MADE WITH PHOTOGRAPHS. And he’s correct.

            To qualify as scientific, the experts would have to have measured the current Paul and then compared those measurements with (non-existent) measurements of the old Paul.

            Obviously, the current Paul wouldn’t submit to these people’s measuring requirements (why would he?), and clearly no one seems to have the precise measurements of the old Paul’s distance between his eyes. It’s just not something anyone thinks of to have measured.

  • Jonny Joanknecht

    Not according to Ringo in his latest interview

    • Michael Waters

      Which comes from a Fake New Site. Yeah, I know. Fake News sites suck.

  • Turtle Turtle

    Sorry, but forensics have proven the PID theory to be ______ .

  • Marta

    Yes, because person wont look different when you take TWO PICTURES with DECADES of years between them.
    THERE IS THIS THING CALLED AGING.!

  • Gus Flannagan

    I have studied the changes in Paul’s physical appearance intently. For a start, there is a difference of 2 to 3 inches in length of his hair. If that isn’t proof enough, you can clearly see he has a slightly rounder face in 1968 compared to 1961. And if you’re still not convinced, listen to him talk – his voice is deeper than it used to be. I don’t need any more evidence, it’s enough for me. And there are plenty of respectable people who agree, such as David Icke and people like that. I rest my case.

    • Ric Flair

      anybody can grow longer hair, I use to have a mullet now I don’t, I’m still same guy

      • Gus Flannagan

        Yeah I know. I was joking.

    • MrMarco855 .

      One other difference that you didn’t mention; in order to make a proper distinction,…one that’s based on sound reasoning and evidence, a high level of intelligence is an absolute necessity. You’re ignorant attempt to entertain yourself,…. ………… though an accurate reflection of your lack of talent and class, isn’t enough to accomplish more then the most simple of tasks.

  • RayAnselmo

    100% Paul McCartney is alive. The Beatles did that “paul is dead” clues because they stopped touring because lennon was getting death threats and was terrified he would be shot on stage because of the Jesus thing and they were afraid their record sales would drop so they came up with Paul is dead rumor and put clues on the albums and the covers to keep record sales up. Now they would never admit it because the truth would hurt them as “The Beatles”, The Greatest Band Ever, financialy and through history. And that’s the truth!

    • MrMarco855 .

      They wouldn’t admit it but as long as you’ve figured it out that’s good enough for me…………..

  • 007

    paul is dead, RIP you ignorants……..

  • fun_keith

    Got to read the memoirs of Billy Shears. Real name is William Shepherd. Shears was taken from the wool references to a shepherd. The book reportedly a ‘fiction’ gives special thanks to Sir Paul McCartney for all the material. Quite amazing. Get it on Amazon.

    • Michael Waters

      It IS fiction.

  • MrMarco855 .

    Your evidence is that Paul denied being dead? Who would be dumb enough to marry heather mills? those freaks was right when they said you was dead? john calling theorists freaks isn’t the point. he is saying they’re right, that Paul is dead. didn’t you notice that?
    Very convincing stuff, but I’m sticking with the obvious,………….Paul McCartney died in 1966. The excuse he gives for being barefoot on the album cover gives away the lie. He claimed that it was so hot that day, that he kicked off his sandals to walk across the street. According to that, it’s more comfortable walking barefoot on scorching pavement than if he had shoes on his feet. He made up that excuse on the spot, or without thinking clearly, but it proves he’s being dishonest. Nobody would prefer walking barefoot on hot asphalt versus having shoes on to protect his feet. He ratted himself out……….

  • MyL

    Wherever you stand on the ‘Paul Is Dead’ thing, one thing must be understood…

    You CANNOT get a proper sense of someone’s height relation by merely looking at photographs, or draw any conclusions or suspect anything amiss (as some of you are doing) just because someone looks taller in Picture A than they do in Picture B. A number of things can affect how tall/short someone appears in a photo…angle of camera, lens setting, how near or far the person being photographed was to the camera compared to someone else in the photo, posture, etc.

    Case in point…In the early 1980s, photographer Dezo Hoffman published ‘With the Beatles,’ a book of the many photos he took of the Beatles, such as the famous 1963 session of them in the collarless suits. Contact sheets from that session are in that book, and as anyone with a copy of the book can see for themselves on pages 56 and 57, in some of those photos Paul appears a bit taller than the others (such as the photo that ended up on the back of ‘Meet the Beatles’)…yet in others (the ones with the stuffed animal,) John appears to be taller than the others. And these are photos from the very same hour!

    How could this be? Was something bizarre going on? Not at all. It’s just that sometimes Paul was a little closer to the camera, and sometimes John was.

    By contrast, look at the cover of ‘Hey Jude’ where all four stand side by side, equidistant from the camera. And sure enough, John, Paul and George all appear to be the same height with Ringo a little shorter. As it should be.

  • MrMarco855 .

    I don’t have to prove it was hot. Those are the words of ‘Paul’ himself. You’ll have to argue with ‘paul’ if you don’t agree that it was a hot day. Are you really paying attention? ‘Paul’ made the statement on the Letterman show. He was trying to explain the reason that he was barefoot that day. He stated that ‘it was so hot that day’, that I kicked off my sandals’. You can’t argue the point with me, according to ‘paul’ it was a hot day.
    Given that he describes the day as being hot, then all other things are relative. A day that is hot wouldn’t inspire anyone to remove any type of footwear, then walk barefoot on the pavement. You can search all ends of the earth, but you’ll not find another that agrees with that logic. Wait until a hot day comes to your neighborhood. Kick off your shoes and walk down the street barefoot. Then let me know how you enjoyed that. Blacktop or concrete will burn the skin off of your feet. I tried it when I was a youngster and I had to scamper to find grass to cool my burning feet.
    Some can find a way to dispute anything. I used ‘paul’s own words against him. I only made a very obvious observation; one that can’t be disputed without twisting and turning the truth. On a hot day, the pavement is hotter than the air. ‘Paul’ told us it was a hot day. The pictures show bright sunlight and the pavement is in sunlight. What’s there to refute? Isn’t it possible to accept the truth, or is that too painful for you?

    • Michael Waters

      Precisely how hot is “hot?” If my feet are feeling hot, and I decide to kick off my sandals, is there an official “hot” temperature at which this is appropriate? Is one person’s “hot” the same as another person’s “hot?” Can some people’s feet feel hot when others’ feet don’t feel hot?

      If “Faul” were really the fake Paul, why wouldn’t he have taken five minutes to figure out an airtight explanation, instead of the vague, natural, casual explanation you’re analyzing as if it was Egyptian tablets?

      • MrMarco855 .

        It doesn’t matter how hot is hot. It doesn’t matter that each of us at have a different interpretation of what ‘hot’ is. None of that matters, and you’re clearly missing the point.
        ‘Paul’ said ‘it was so hot’ that day. His interpretation of what constitutes a hot day is all that matters in this discussion. ‘Paul’ tells us that the day was hot, in his opinion, and as a result of it ‘being so hot’, he explains that he reacted to the hot day by kicking off his sandals.
        I’m taking his exact words and using them to show that he had to be lying. I base that claim on the fact that walking barefoot on hot pavement on a hot day would be far more uncomfortable then leaving his sandals on. There’s no credible way to dispute that, unless you continue to distort the point I’m making. It’s nonsensical to kick off your sandals, expecting that your bare feet will be more comfortable on hot pavement than with the sandals on.
        You ask me;…….. If this was a fake ‘Paul’, then why didn’t he take the time to come up with an airtight explanation. That statement tells me that you’ve conceded that the explanation he gave regarding kicking off his sandals isn’t plausible.
        Why didn’t he come up with an airtight explanation? Why are you asking me? He’s the guy that screwed up, and I can’t explain why anyone would make a nonsensical claim such as that.
        I make no claim that I know the reason for his blunder; that’s not my burden and isn’t pertinent to my assertion. The fact is, ‘Paul’ made the claim and he’s stuck with it.
        This blunder doesn’t constitute proof by any means, but it’s a piece of the puzzle. without a logical explanation, the statement that ‘Paul’ made was a mistake,……..that is, if he doesn’t want the truth to be revealed.
        Did you look at the pictures above? I mean really take a look at them? Look at the distance between the tip of the nose and the upper lip in each picture. one of them clearly has more space between his nose and upper lip. also,…………the older ‘Paul’ definitely has a much smaller nose, and it’s shaped differently. The ears don’t match at all either, but it’s not too obvious in these photos as ‘grandpa Paul’s’ ears are mostly covered.
        I try to be careful when I make a public comment, and I usually state how certain I am of what I’m saying. It’s okay to offer opinion, and it’s usually obvious if an opinion is being related. Sometimes I’m as certain as I can be, and I’ll state that as well. In this case, I’m a bit less than 99.99% certain, but I’m not far from being that sure.
        There are too many anomalies, too many physical differences, more discrepancy overall then otherwise would be the case. If ever I’m definitively proven wrong, I’ll be back to say I was wrong. I don’t expect that to happen however, but I’ve returned to accept fault a time or two in the past so it could possibly happen again………realize however, I’ve been wrong once or twice as I said, but that includes hundreds of cases on a wide variety of issues.
        Have you ever been aware of a professional boxing match that was a fixed fight? I’ve found several of them, I’ll relate one or two if you’re interested. If you’re familiar with well known fighters,…….you’ll be surprised by the names that were involved. Maybe we can agree on that issue, or maybe we’ll gnaw at each other on that subject as well….. Let me know, I’ll be glad to give you some fixed fights if you have any interest. Thank you,…….

        • Michael Waters

          Paul’ tells us that the day was hot, in his opinion, and as a result of it ‘being so hot’, he explains that he reacted to the hot day by kicking off his sandals.

          You’re correct that there’s a bit of illogic to Paul’s story.

          Trouble is, you’re on shaky ground to try to build a case on that illogic.

          This is because we all do slightly illogical things based on a thought, followed by the illogical action, and life goes on. At least, this is true in my life, it’s true for the lives of those I’m close to, so I’ll assume it’s true for Paul.

          Actually, I can easily imagine the thought “it’s hot, think I’ll take off my sandals,” which is fun to do. Paul walks across the road, gets somewhat hot feet, the photographer got his casual, unplanned, spontaneous shot, Paul thinks better of bare feet (or not), and the day moves on.

          By trying analyze that event as if it was a science experiment, you attribute far to much consistency to human behavior. Especially, a Gemini like Paul (I’m a Gemini as well–we do things others may not get, but we get it fine)

          Moreover, Paul is an extremely intelligent individual, both intellectually and emotionally (from what I can tell). In this recount of that photograph, he isn’t pretending it all makes perfect sense to an analyst like you, he’s simply telling us what his thoughts were and why he took off his sandals.

          To attempt to use that recount as a piece of the evidence to establish Paul’s death is far-fetched to the point of absurdity.

          But you disagree.

          So, we’ll have to agree to disagree ;-))

          • MrMarco855 .

            You’re stretching to your very limits. currently,….you’re teetering on the top branch of the excuse tree. There’s but one apple left at the very end of the highest branch. The apple is overripe, mushy in fact. from your vantage point you count 10 worm holes in the apple. your determination and refusal to give in doesn’t waver. there’s an apple up there,….risking everything is logical to you, you’re locked and loaded…….you’re obsessed with the apple,….you’ve gone to far to admit defeat .
            As you make your final, all out stretch toward the apple, the crowd below can’t take it. They run to hide, not wanting to see brains benedict all over the hot pavement( you left your shoes on ). You’re quite certain that the skinny branch holds onto the apple,…….won’t support your weight,….., but common sense wasn’t your major.
            You stretch just an inch farther,……….and at the very last second,………….I have to climb up and drag you back into the real world. ( film at 11 )
            I’m asking nicely Mr. Walters, don’t force me to go up that tree and bring you down. I know, I’m making perfect sense to a guy that prefers imperfect nonsense,…but I mean well.
            Well, let’s have one more go. Your most recent response is inclusive of these world class gems.; you say that we all do illogical things at times. I agree. Paul is capable, just as you are,… of doing something illogical. YES. (This is where a weak story crumbles ). When barefoot ‘Paul’ took his first step onto the hot asphalt, he would have quickly regain logical thinking.. He would have been seen hopping around on one foot,…..having only scorched one at that point. Even if Paul only made a bad decision, it would have corrected itself right then.
            You admit poor logic by Paul,… meaning it would have been logical to keep his sandals on ( The real Paul would have ). You state this is just a case in which a very intelligent guy made a very illogical decision. It was a bad decision certainly, but I’m referring to the statement that he made 49 years later,………… his explanation for being barefoot that day.
            In this case, the realization that he made a bad decision would have been quickly followed by corrective action. When Paul took one barefoot step onto the hot asphalt, he would have been hopping around like Hillary when punked with false winning numbers. Paul would have squealed and set new world records for the long jump and high jump in one powerful leap,……. in the direction of the nearest patch of grass.
            The photo on the album cover would have included Paul wearing sandals, IF your story was based on sound reasoning and,…….. first and foremost,……..the truth. But your story collapsed and Paul was barefoot on that album cover photo as everyone knows, and 49 years later ‘Paul’ told us an untruth ( another illogic, that’s 2 for those that are counting ).
            I intervened at that point,……busted his chops( whatever his name is ) and ‘Paul’ was barefoot on the album cover photo as we all know.
            I never say that I have great skills, my effort consists of a few simple things that don’t require adjustment or tweaking, not word games nor ducking and dodging, slippery explanations not , no lies to cover up, nor deceit of any kind. I listen to God, obey His Commandments, and the outcome is righteous each and every time.
            I tell the truth,……. present the facts and, when necessary, use sound reasoning, common sense and logic. I’m careful and reasonably intelligent. The truth is soothing and comforting. It allows for peace and for rest. it isn’t accompanied by guilt nor fear.
            A word offered humbly as advice,…. if you don’t mind. Between you and I, close friends that we are, I didn’t mention the paragraph in which you talk about being a Gemini,…… the same as Paul. You explained that Gemini’s do things their way, and achieve results. Between us, you should scrap that an scrap this advice to do that. The paragraph is a bit embarrassing given the conversation, if you don’t mind me saying. Peace and Love,……. to your family as well……

          • Michael Waters

            When you’ve bought into a preposterous premise, which you feel you must defend as if it was your life, everything reasonable will be “off limits.”

            Maxim.

            Enjoy your tiny bubble of true believers, and I’ll enjoy Paul as he ages with the rest of us.

          • MrMarco855 .

            I enjoy the guy myself,…….. But he’s not Paul McCartney….

  • MrMarco855 .

    Did you bother reading comments before posting? you’ll never guess how I concluded that the street was asphalt. I looked at the street,……. it’s in the photo that were discussing.
    The ‘hot day’ game again? I can’t prove it was hot that day? I searched for about one hour. I know what the temperature was that day and I can prove it. despite that fact, you’re argument isn’t with me, ‘Paul’ said it was ‘so hot’ that day. Look up his number and give him some shit.
    You couldn’t imagine doing such a thing right? Because he’s paul McCartney,…right?
    I researched and can prove what the temperature was that day. I’m using paul’s own words to prove he has to be lying.That’s assimplistic and straight forward as possible. no conjecture, nodecit. in spite of that, you guys go after me, changing my words, debunking things I’ve not said, going to thew ends of the earth to bring back shit that isn’t relative nor loosely related to the point I’m making.
    have you ever just considered beng honest? can you, i’m saying are you capable of, thinking, reasoning, using common sense and logic? i’ have no intention to belittle anyone, but how can I respond sincerely to unrelated assumptions and suppositions? you guys are very guilty in your responses, of presenting not one word that is fact, nothing that has substance or based on truth, whether provable or otherwise.
    You’re partner in crime, Michael Waters, informed me that both he and Paul McCartney are Gemini’s. Further, he assured me that gemini’s may have ways others find odd, but they always get results. this was offered to debunk what I’m stating. That embarrassing display of irrelevancy is stunning. Despite your foolish efforts, i’m under scrutiny and can’t be taken for what I present,……which is Paul’s own words. You guys should be ashamed of your intrusive nonsense. I have a suggestion for you guys; Please disagree with me all day and night on a hundred blogs. that’s fine with me. When you have only nonsense to offer in rebuttal however,…….save it. You only have to say,……….I understand what you’re saying but have to disagree. That’s fine. No bullshit no deceit. Most responses include rebuttal statements, but it’s not mandatory. it is better for yourself that way

  • MrMarco855 .

    The story that ‘Faul told that night was very short and quite simple. Despite that, you’re not comprehending it properly.
    I’ll ask this of you; on a day that you describe as being ‘so hot’, and on that hot day you plan to go for a walk, and you know that you’ll be walking on pavement on this hot day,…….then which would you say is the best option; Option#1-take the walk with your shoes on,………….or Option#2- take the walk with bare feet? Faul thought it best to walk on hot pavement bare foot. Do you agree?

    • Curt B

      an Alaskan and a Floridian will have different ideas of a ‘Hot day’. Same goes for a Englishman.

  • MrMarco855 .

    There are many photo’s showing differences between pre 1966 and post 1966 Paul. To make the claim that there’s no significant or discernable differences is either an intentionally misleading claim or one born of no concerted effort to make an educated determination.
    There are differences in teeth, ears, and overall shape of face and jaw line. the head size is much different, and it’s very easy to make that differentiation with the naked eye. post 1966, a careful examination reveals numerous scars on Paul’s face, an indication of many surgeries trying to ‘tweek’ the look they wanted.
    If these things honestly are not evident to you, maybe it’s a matter of whether or not you have the ability to make an accurate assessment,……despite that I can with relative ease.
    There’s a photo of the 4 guys in a ballroom, each wearing white tuxedos. Have you seen it? They’re standing side by side on a flat, level floor. They’re wearing similar/identical footwear, and the camera shot is such that there’s nothing misleading in evidence. Look at the heights of each man. Clearly, ‘Paul’ is at least 2 inches taller then John and or George. There exists no photo from pre 1966 that suggests that Paul is 2 inches taller than John and George. There’s no record to suggest that either. They’re identification cards from pre 1966 indicates that John, Paul and George were each 5′ 11′ in height.
    I understand about variances in photo’s that can be misleading, and I’ve taken that into account. In the example of the photo taken in the ballroom post 1966,…….. no such variance is seen. The same is true for the Sgt Pepper’s cover and the photo of them inside that album cover. In each case, Paul is consistently 2 inches taller then John and George. If this doesn’t inspire more thorough research,…. then maybe you’re not interested in doubting for some reason.

  • MrMarco855 .

    ‘Believable proof’ is a relative, and therefore useless term. Using vague language is an admission of a weak argument. You state that it’s a fact that ‘it’s impossible to find someone else who could sing as well as Paul, play bass like Paul, look exactly like Paul write as well as Paul and is a musical genius’. There are no such facts, not even in a child’s vivid imagination. What evidence do you offer to show ‘it’s a fact’? It’s an absurd notion, and you likely have no clear memory of any of the qualities nor abilities of Paul from more then 50 years ago.
    It’s not reasonable to claim that you know the details with enough clarity such that a valid comparison can be made without extensive work. You’re making claims that you can’t substantiate;…….
    I’ve heard numerous musicians and dedicated fans of Paul and others state that there are clear differences in all areas of skills and abilities between pre 1966 and post 1966 Paul. Some have said that the current Paul is much more sophisticated and talented regarding song writing and complex arrangements. The original Paul was self taught, the new guy was trained properly and it’s obvious to an expert that they’re level of talent is much different one from another.
    The obvious indication that this is an accurate assessment is the vastly different music produced after 1966 when compared with pre 1966. They went from bubble gum ‘I want to hold your hand’,……..to ‘Hey Jude’ and many other songs that are far superior in quality.

  • MrMarco855 .

    I’ll call you out on your silly analogy. Prove to me that you’re a different person then you were last year, using anything you choose. You say things without thinking, so I’ll think for you. Show me you can do what you claimed you could. I’ll wait right here.

  • MrMarco855 .

    You’re obviously being paid to be a demon. I’ll pray for you…………..

  • Chris

    Has anyone ever noticed that paul is holding the Cor de Anglais like a right handed person on the Sargeant pepper album kinda strange since he was supposedly left handed

  • Chris

    Wtf

  • Elpenor’s Ghost

    Reading through the comments below it’s hard to believe they’re not all intended to be ironic. Arguing” how hot is a hot day??” Is this like” how many angels dance on the head of a pin?”
    Look the Beatles were Scousers – Scousers like to deal in irony. You shouldn’t always take them at their word.
    Geeky American boys don’t seem to “get” English humour – no reason why they should – but it means they miss or misinterpret English references in Beatles lyrics etc
    .
    Re Sgt Pepper – the cover is NOT intended to represent a FUNERAL as Americans invariably think – Paul himself said it was a supposed to look like like a municipal celebration in the park with local dignitaries – hence the Floral display typical of gaudy British council planting of that era .( It’s the type of occasion where the Lord Mayor plants a tree to commemorate something – don’t you have this sort of thing in the US ?))

    Lyrics of”A Day in the Life – the man who “blew his mind out in a car ” was TARA BROWN the( then) 21 year old heir to the Guinness fortune -yes the Irish drinks people;. and yes despite the name, he was a man.

    At the time Brown was a very close friend of Macartney – and was killed in a terrible car crash in 1966 trying to protect his female passenger- and here’s one for the conspiracists – this same girl was killed in an identical crash ten years later …wooo! The reference to the “House of Lords” is about Tara’s father who was actually in the Lords. as an Anglo Irish peer.

    I suspect the slightly nasty lyrics were the work of Lennon who was miffed by Brown’s friendship with Paul and probably wasn’t too upset by the poor man’s tragic death. It’s surprising how this has been forgotten but it is all true varifiable fact .I’m English I know this stuff!
    PS while I’m about it a Helter Skelter was a type of ride at a fair – very low tech but fun. Apparently even Charles Manson didn’t understand what it meant.” A little learning is a dangerous thing” as Alexander Pope once wrote. !

    PPS Paul is not dead – he’s just old !

  • BLACK LION rica

    my only question here… is.. why they replaced the real paul mccartney even he’s not really dead?…. i really believe that real paul didn’t die in 1966 …because i saw the video of their reunion at the friar park that the three of them meets again… and thats the real paul mccartney.. and im always watching and listening to his songs when he’s with the band wings… and also i know the voice of the real paul compared to faul…