Coming back to the songs in reverse again. I was originally intending to add a few examples within this blog post, but I got side tracked because this particular subject is quite complex, with many twists and turns the deeper you go. In fact, to be honest with you, I could present you with a whole array of them, all from the same band, and related to the individual singers after the band split up. I am referring to The Beatles of course. Since 1969, there was a controversial newsflash that the real Paul McCartney died in 1966 due to an alleged car crash, and that the ‘Paul McCartney’ we see today, supposedly a session musician, ‘a man of a thousand voices’, took over from the former’s role after his death. This followed plastic surgery carried out in Africa to make him look more like Paul McCartney, and training to play a guitar left handed. It’s quite an interesting concept, and I have to say, it is quite a mystery. You may think it crazy, but I’ve discovered that the deeper you explore, the more clues start to appear from some of the most intriguing places. The more you delve into the case, the fascination only continues to grow. In fact, I feel The Beatles themselves began the whole backwards music in the first place. I’ve even seen footage of George Martin, The Beatles record producer, giving a demonstration of turning records backwards to achieve a different sound, proving that they were known to experiment in such a way. Take The Beatles single ‘Rain/Paperback Writer’ for example. I have made many discoveries of ‘clues’ in their songs post 1966, but to be honest with you, I certainly can’t take the credit for recognising them, this is a topic that many, many out there have been researching for decades. I can, however; point you to some rather interesting and intriguing books and some of the interesting clues I’ve discovered, that I know many people have already pointed out before. I just thought I’d give my own take on the subject myself.
Now, before I continue, my mother was a huge fan of The Beatles and loved Paul McCartney the most, well, the one she recognises from her younger days anyway… My mother also has a photograph of herself standing next to him, well, the person she thought it was anyway… This was post 1966, I have studied the photograph myself, and the earlier photographs of Paul McCartney. I’m sorry, but I’m going to have to say, I see very little resemblance to the earlier Paul, the facial features may look similar, but the shape of his head is VERY different. I can clearly see a difference between a long face and a round face. In my opinion, they are NOT the same person.
First of all, as a point of reference, I can mention two books which I feel could be very eye opening regarding this whole controversial subject. One of the two books I’m going to refer are the following. The first is by the author Dr Nicholas Kollerstrom, ‘The Life and Death of Paul McCartney 1942-1966: a Very English Mystery’ ( https://bit.ly/2WHYG9W ). Whether you find the subject interesting or not, Dr Nicolas Kollerstrom, has some fascinating insights into some very controversial subjects such as 9/11. He’s written some really interesting books; on subjects the mainstream media wants to cover up. The book encompasses research he has gathered from other researchers on the subject of ‘Paul Is Dead’, the name given by researchers themselves. I have to say, a lot of the book is fascinating, and eye opening, he goes into a lot of depth. I’ve even discovered that he mentions about this instance where this ‘Paul McCartney’ travelled to Japan during when he was a part of his band Wings. Since The Beatles travelled to Japan before late 1966, they took fingerprints of the members of The Beatles. They still had their fingerprints on file, and when ‘Paul McCartney’ was arrested for possessing drugs, his fingerprints were taken. They discovered that this ‘Paul McCartney’s fingerprints did NOT match the fingerprints they had on file for Paul McCartney. They received a phone call from the United Kingdom to give this ‘Paul McCartney’ permission to be released. Have you ever heard about that during the 1970s? I bet you haven’t, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen either. I’ve read of all sorts, including the effect it all must have had on Jane Asher, the former girlfriend of the old Paul McCartney. To me, I could swear she’s been affected by a form of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. It must have been tragic just imagining what she must have seen in those mid 1960s relating to what happened to the old Paul McCartney. She must have been hit with one heck of a sledgehammer, with a reoccurring nightmare. Even songs like John Lennon’s own ‘Come Together’ song has references to his own nightmare too, just think about the words in the lyrics. Was he seeing some kind of a zombie of Paul McCartney coming back from the grave? Why? Is it because the second ‘Paul McCartney’ looked too eerily similar to his old friend, the original Paul? It must make you wonder, well, it makes mewonder anyway. There’s a lot of strange goings on surrounding the mid to latter half of The Beatles, even in the earlier Paul McCartney’s own interest in Mark Lane’s research, into JFK’s assassination, showing that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent. We are dealing with some very deep subjects here, that go way beyond The Beatles themselves when we consider subjects like this. Think about it, some of the big newsflashes in the 1960s include the assassination of John F Kennedy. It was on everyone’s mind at the time, as it was clearly on the pre 1966 Paul McCartney’s mind as well. Think about it, he was just as concerned about his death as all of the peace seekers were in the 1960s.
The second book I’m referencing, which was actually mentioned within Dr Nicholas Kollerstrom’s own book, is part and parcel of these unusual ‘clues’. It’s also rather a mystery, an anomaly even, and requires analysing, in and of itself. The book is called, ‘The Memoirs of Billy Shears’ ( https://bit.ly/2UwU2Je ), the illusive name of the person suspected of taking over Paul McCartney’s role, or William Shepherd or Campbell if you want to use the longer term some people have been using. The book itself is somewhat of a riddle of sorts. Even the cover of the book alone looks strange, you could even say, the shape on the front cover almost resembles the signature illuminati’s pyramid, with an ‘eye’ where the ‘o’ in the word, ‘Memoirs’ is showing. The way the book is written has a pattern of it’s own, to mathematical precision even. It’s a book where the content itself spans 666 pages, over 66 chapters, and it was even released on 9th September 2009, that’s 09/09/09. Turn those numbers around, and what do you have? ‘666’. It’s an incredibly ominous book, in number patterns alone. Can you see now how patterns are being used in this world? This is no joke, just look it up for yourself. The book’s author is by someone called, Thomas E. Uharriet, but it’s supposedly ghost written for the person who played ‘Paul McCartney’. It’s incredibly unusual, to say the least. Think of it what you will, but I find several factors about this book fascinating in itself. Just the mathematical precision alone is quite a feat by itself. This book wasn’t written by an amateur, a lot of pain staking work has gone into creating this riddle of pages. I read Dr Nicolas Kollerstrom’s interpretation of the book. He actually contacted the author of the book, Thomas E. Uharriet, and mentioned how pressured he was to release his book to make sure it was dated, 09/09/09. Why was it so important? Just a thought… Then, take the way the book is written, the first letter on every other line within each chapter is supposed to spell out the chapter’s title or meaning itself. That is some pretty extreme mathematical patterns and accuracy there. It’s like it’s been written by a master of wordplay. It sounds more like a riddle within riddles. I’ve heard that the book itself contains certain lies which makes sure the book couldn’t be of any use to prove anything. The last time I checked, I discovered the book cost around £30. That’s quite a lot of money to charge just for a book. Clearly it has been deliberately listed at such a high price value to prevent all except the most determined researchers from purchasing it. It sounds like a sneaky way of trying to clear someone’s conscience, from the backdoor, don’t you think? Well, whatever you may think, you have to admit, it is a rather extremely intriguing book on all accounts, especially to go to such extraneous lengths to make/write it in such a way. Who would go to such extremes? It would have had to take someone with an extremely mathematical OCD precise mind, at least.
In reference to the post 1966 version of ‘Paul McCartney’, he said within the ‘Magical Mystery Tour’ film that he was 30 years old. The film was shown in 1968. Now, if Paul McCartney was actually referring to his own age, then since he was born in 1942, that would make him 26, not 30 years old. Why would he need to say he was 30? To me, that sounds like he was trying to give us all a clue that he is not the real Paul McCartney. It’s almost funny in a way that this ‘Paul McCartney’ is blatantly giving away these clues and wondering if we’re ever going to start picking up the pieces in the aftermath, if you have a keen eye. It’s like he’s deliberately laying out some kind of a riddle, like it’s some sort of a game to him. I’ve also discovered that he’s been using anagrams in his own alias during his musical career with Wings too.
Coming back to John Lennon for a moment, and Paul McCartney’s reactions and emotional expressions towards him. Now, I’ve learnt quite a lot about The Beatles the more I researched, and I have to say, there is a very clear contrast between the Paul McCartney of pre 1966 and post 1966. His mannerisms and body language I can recognise within old films causes me to believe that the two Paul McCartneys are two opposite sides of a coin. Now, coming back to the idea that this post 1966 ‘Paul McCartney’ said he was 30 in 1968. That would make his date of birth 1938. I find this particularly fascinating because I have an interested in people’s Chinese Zodiac signs. I have actually carried out my own personal research on their two personalities based on their zodiac signs, and I have to say, it’s interesting to say the least.
Now, we all know that post 1966, there were a lot of arguments with The Beatles themselves, there was a lot of friction, and they were also no longer dressing or looking the same as they did prior to 1967. Take pre 1966 Paul McCartney’s year of birth, 1942. That would make him the Horse. However; if you take the age the post 1966 ‘Paul McCartney’ said in the film, ‘Magical Mystery Tour’, then his date of birth would be 1938. That would make him the Ox. You may not realise what those two zodiac signs mean by themselves, but I went a step further. I compared the Chinese Zodiac signs of the other members of The Beatles. John Lennon and Ringo Starr were both Dragons, and George Harrison was the Goat. Between themselves there would be friction between the other members of The Beatles, by their own signs.
Now, take pre 1966 Paul McCartney sign of the Horse. Take the Dragon and Goat. Did you know that the Horse is compatible with the Dragon and Goat? They would all be in harmony simply because Paul McCartney, the Horse was among them. He would have drawn them all together, kept them together, helped smooth over any rough edges. Also, Jane Asher’s own zodiac sign of the Dog, was on par with the Horse, so they were balanced, neither compatible nor incompatible. John Lennon himself went through a harrowing childhood. In fact, his own mother was killed in a car crash. He ended up living with his aunt. He became a bit of a tear away since then. It’s understandable really, he’d been through hell growing up, it’s not surprising he suffered so much. Unfortunately, that also meant he could become a bit aggressive. He even admitted it himself years later, before he tragically died. Anyway, coming back to Paul McCartney, the Horse.
The Beatles on an episode of Morecambe and Wise’s, ‘Two of a Kind’, broadcast in April 1964.
I can remember seeing an old episode of ‘Two of a Kind’ starring Eric Morecambe and Ernie Wise, a classic example of one of Britain’s best comedy double act legends. On this particular episode, it was amazing to see such comedy legends, Morecambe and Wise, standing next to one of the biggest British bands of all time, The Beatles. It was comedy meets music. They were both taking Britain and the world by storm, both in their own unique way. I could see both John Lennon and Paul McCartney’s reaction to Eric and Ernie during their speech towards the end of the programme, and I have to say, something quite telling stood out to me. Apart from Paul McCartney’s rounded face, which is very different from the long face of the post 1966 version, his mannerisms were very shy and timid. I saw how each of The Beatles reacted to Eric Morecambe, and I was analysing it closely. I could see, each were friendly and funny, joining in the joke. However; by the time they got to John Lennon, I could see something VERY different. I felt like John Lennon took the joke too personally, because I could sense hostility behind his actions. To me, it looked like John Lennon was intimidating Eric Morecambe. John Lennon took Eric’s hand, leaned in, and looked him up and down, like he was trying to size him up. The audience started laughing, but for some reason, I found it odd, because I felt John Lennon was a bit too forward, more than the other two were before him. I felt he was acting quite arrogantly towards Eric Morecambe, which I felt was uncalled for… I could see poor Eric began to look uncomfortable after that, I could see him shuffling his collar. I know what it’s like to be bullied, so I could feel for Eric’s anguish. He turned to Ernie and said, “I bet you didn’t expect that, did you?”. It sounded to me like John Lennon’s reaction wasn’t rehearsed, and Eric didn’t expect him to turn on him like that. Ernie just burst out laughing, so I could see Eric felt uncomfortable. When I heard Eric say, “Well, it’s a bit strong, isn’t it?”, and Ernie said, “No, he’s right”, I could also see he had nowhere to turn, he was stuck between The Beatles themselves and his partner Ernie Wise. I could see Ernie didn’t seem to understand Eric’s predicament very well, but from my position, I saw how uncomfortable Eric was becoming. So, in classic Eric Morecambe style, almost instinctively, he deflected it in his own professional comedic charisma, by turn away from them, and instead commenting on Ringo Starr sitting at the back at the drums, saying “Oh hello Bonzo”. Ironic, isn’t it that the name ‘Bonzo’, relates to the latter ‘Bonzo Dog Do Dah band’ of the late 1960s? I felt that Ringo was his safer port of call of that experience. A way to seek some relief from what he’d just been through. Then Eric says, “Get em’ off Ern, they’ve done enough”. Ernie, “What do you mean, ‘done enough’?” Eric, “Well, they’re getting insulting now, get em’ off”. I get the feeling that was Eric’s insecurity coming out there, through the humour. You see, Eric Morecambe could never stop the comedy routine, even into his family life, so he was always the comedic. I feel he was letting his insecurities show during his comedy performance here. I could see the difference between the body language of Paul McCartney and John Lennon, and it was so interesting to see how contrasting they both were. Paul was very fidgety and nervous; he couldn’t keep his hands still, he was also folding his arms in front of him (a defensive manoeuvre). However; John Lennon kept his hands behind his back, I couldn’t see any nerves coming through, so if he had any nerves at all, I’d say he was hiding them well. I wonder whether he treated his nerves in an aggressive way, and let out his emotions on the offensive rather than the defensive, like Paul.
This next video shocked my mother when she first watched it because as soon as she saw the look on Paul’s face and his mannerisms, she could tell it was the earlier Paul. For me, personally, when the camera focuses on Paul, I can see sadness in his eyes and face. To be honest with you, I can even recognise myself in his expression. It’s like I’m looking at a mirror image reflection of my own feelings of sadness. Maybe it’s just me, but I can sense genuine feeling and emotion in his face and eyes. I can tell he’s not arrogant, he’s not flippant, he’s serious. You can see a kind, genuine and sincere face, a face of someone who cares. Watching this video, it leads me to believe that the earlier Paul was more thoughtful and started to question the world around him. I wouldn’t be surprised if he ended up biting off more than he could chew, and something tragic happened to him in the end because of it. Maybe he knew too much. I can think of several great and good influential people who died tragically during the 1960s, John F Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. as two examples come to mind for a start off.
Beatles 1966 Last interview
Now, take post 1966 ‘Paul McCartney’ sign of the Ox. Here we have a clear contrast. Take the other three Beatle’s signs of the Dragon and Goat. You know I said that pre 1966 Paul McCartney was compatible with the Dragon and Goat, well, the Ox is most certainly not. In fact, I find it rather ironic that his sign is parallel opposite, not only to The Beatles themselves, but to Jane Asher as well. The Ox and Dog are NOT compatible in the least. However; I discovered Linda Eastmann’s Chinese Zodiac sign as well, the Snake. The Ox and the Snake ARE compatible. Isn’t it funny that this ‘Paul McCartney’ marries Linda Eastmann? It’s quite ironic really. You know how nervous and fidgety pre 1966 Paul McCartney was? Well, this post 1966 ‘Paul’ is most certainly not. I have seen many photographs and interviews of him, and I do not see the earlier classic example of someone shy and timid. He is anything but.
Here is an example of this post 1966 ‘Paul McCartney’. Look at the expression on his face. Do you think this is the same Paul McCartney within the previous videos above, pre 1966?
Also, I feel the next one is a very interesting photograph as well, showing post 1966 ‘Paul McCartney’ lost in a conversation with Linda Eastmann. Notice he’s so entranced by Linda Eastmann, he’s forgetting that he is holding his cigarette in his right hand, not his left. He’s supposed to be left handed. He also holds it right handed in the album cover Abbey Road, which people have considered to be part of the clues of ‘Paul Is Dead’ as well.
There was also a lot of friction within The Beatles after the incident over hiring a new manager for The Beatles, following Brian Epstein’s death. I feel there’s something odd about that as well, for reasons I’d discovered relating to a spiked orange slice Ronnie Lane of the Small Faces said he took at a party around 1967, which gave him with a severe illness that carried with him throughout his life. He said that Brian Epstein was also at this party. So he must have taken one of those spiked orange slices too. I find it odd that they say he died of a drug overdose, it makes me wonder whether it had something to do with that spiked orange slice. Clearly, Ronnie Lane must have been at the wrong place at the wrong time.
Anyway, there was friction between post 1966 ‘Paul McCartney’ and John Lennon. ‘Paul’ wanted Linda Eastmann’s father to take over as their manager, but John wanted Allen Klein. Now, I’m not debating about who was right and wrong here, though I can see that Allen Klein was untrustworthy in the end. I wonder what was the REAL reason John didn’t want Linda Eastmann’s father taking over. Now, if this post 1966 ‘Paul McCartney’ isn’t the real Paul, then you can start to understand why John didn’t want Paul’s choice. Then it would all start to make more sense.
Take this next image as an example of the post 1966 ‘Paul McCartney’ showing his laid back, confident body language during a show called the ‘Tonight Show’ in 1968. Can you see the difference between the body language of the earlier Paul in the show ‘Two of a Kind’ broadcast in April 1964, and the image of this post 1966 ‘Paul’ on this later ‘Tonight Show’ in 1968?
Lost in an Alien World 