Sunday, April 8, 2012

Debunking the alleged 'Fauls'

Keith Allison
His hair parts on his left and his earlobes are attached. If 'the real Paul' had those features, why make them the opposite, especially if they aren't to begin with.
His beard grows differently than any McCartney's does, too.
His eyes are level, unlike any McCartney's; they all have a lower & angled left eye.


Phil Ackrill
Like Allison, Ackrill's hair parts on his left and his earlobes are attached.


Pearl Witherington
Another left hair part and attached earlobes.
Again, if 'the real Paul' had those features, why make them the opposite, especially if they aren't to begin with.
In Pear's biography, She Landed By Moonlight, it is stated that she was 5'8".
Here is Pearl meeting the Queen in 1997.
Here is Paul meeting the Queen around 2001.


Vivian Stanshall
Hair parts on the left, and he seems to have attached earlobes.
A very different nose than that of any Paul. Looks much more like John's.
He had a live performance career up until his death in the '90s.
One of the main rationales for Viv-believers is that "James looks exactly like Viv."
James doesn't look any more or less like Viv than he does Paul. Same goes for all of Paul & Linda's kids. (although he does look a little like Paul).
Besdies, even if he did look like Viv, all that proves is that Linda slept with Viv, it doesn't prove Paul died and was replaced by Viv.
And remember! Linda was Notorious for sleeping with celebrities.


Denny Laine
His hair parts on his right, but his earlobes are attached.
He's also a very small, petite man. Isn't 'Faul' supposed to be very tall?! He's about the same height as Ringo.
He also has very distinctive, wonky teeth. All the McCartneys have the same teeth, except for the angling of the upper molars, which changes from week to week.
His hair is parting on his left here.
He also has low, flat eyebrows. Most McCartney's have arched, looped eyebrows.
A ghost-writer  maybe, but how this short man with no similar features to Paul became 'Faul' is beyond me. Besides, who became Denny Laine? Remember he was in Wings with Paul.
vintage sleeve
Here he is with the Moody Blues. If any of them became 'Faul' you'd think it was the one 2nd from the right.
The Moody Blues with The Beatles.
Here he is in the '70s with the same ears, teeth, eyebrows and height.


Tara Browne
At least his hair parts on the right. Although he looks more like George with those canine teeth.


Dino Danelli
Hair parts on the left, sometimes middle. There seems to be two different jawlines going on. His eyes are much further set apart than any McCartney's.
But again, he has been performing live all these years. 


William 'Junior' Campbell
He has a lower & angled left eye and his hair parts in the middle-left. He's also a left-handed bass player from the Scottish band Marmalade, who had a hit with their version of Obla-di Obla-da.
The only remotely feasible one that I can see. Though it would be interesting to see his conflicting live performance schedule compared to McCartney's.

There's also the matter of Billy Pepper and the Pepperpots.
This collage consists of an album cover for a group called The Primitives, associated with John Cale and Lou Reed of The Velvet Underground, and one of the photos from the MerseyMania LP by the Pepperpots.
They are two photos from the same shoot. Why did Reed & Cale use it for their album cover? Neither of them are in the photo.
Here is the full album cover for MerseyMania. They have another album which is titled 'More MerseyMania' but neither this album or the other one include band personnel names, etc
the backs of both albums
From this one, grainy, poorly-lit, even more poorly-scanned photo, some PID/WRers have concluded that this is Billy Shepherd. And that the Sgt. Pepper cut-out is a "clue", because "they look exactly the same."
The only time the name Bill Shepherd appears on the LP is on the disc label, as the composer, along with Jimmy Fraser.
Also notice the Pickwick name is on both the Primitives and Pepperpots albums.
After much research, I would venture to say that this band was not an actual band, and that their recordings were hastily assembled to cash in on the Beatles craze, which was common at the time.
I've found that Jimmy Fraser and Bill Shepherd were composers who specialized in that sort of thing.
Allegedly the songwriter associated with The Bee-Gees named Bill Shepherd is this same guy.
The young men on the album cover could most likely be models and not even the studio musicians who preformed on the recording.
Though the 'Pepper cover coincidence' deserves acknowledgment, I would guess it's either a coincidence, or it's all a planned part of the PID motif.

4 comments:

Bruce Free said...

After a long search (still going) I think all four original Beatles were replaced somewhere in 1966 whilst being in the US (yet it might have been earlier). After that, they are unattractive, depressing, older looking, dark figures that have nothing in common with the charismatic shining individuals we saw before. Many tracks on the later albums sound like Beatles tracks that were already recorded before.

The problem I have with the theory that the Beatles never existed and have always been a game of multiple persons acting as doubles of imaginary "real" persons, is that it does not fit with the initial collective reaction to the Beatles. At first they appeared as "light" only to become "dark" afterwards. The change of vibe thus only occurred at the end of 1966 when suddenly for months the Beatles seemed to have disappeared into nothingness.
We know the Beatles already had their doubles, and they already appear on photos as well.
It also does not fit the fact that the Beatles obviously sounded different from all other performers. If this is a phenomenon that can be manufactured, why has it never happened again?
You cannot look beside the fact that Faul or the Fauls suck big time when he or they cover songs from the Beatles. Why is that? Why can't they do it better now if it has always been a manufactured sound?
It seems clear to me that there were at one point the REAL Beatles, uniquely talented individuals, that have been replaced and ever since the only real Beatle sound could only come from a recorded album. If the Beatles were always manufactured, there was no reason for "them" to stop touring so suddenly. The only "live" concert they gave ever since was probably not even live, well hidden away on a rooftop so nobody could see them play backing.

As a singer and songwriter, I can tell you like so many others that the original Beatle music is the most inspiring music to write music oneself. I have seen your article about how the Beatles supposedly stole in one way or another most of their ideas for their own songs. I was really not impressed by it. If you're looking at copycats, maybe have a look at those creeps the Beach Boys? Surfin' USA, complete rip off from Chuck Berry. You have no such example from the Beatles. And rewriting your own songs is actually something pretty natural to do that has nothing to do with missing originality. I have done this myself too and I think it happens a lot. Some songs seems to contain more than one potential direction to follow.

What needs to be investigated is which are actually original Beatles songs and which are not. Or do I have to believe a silly song like "Wild Honey Pie" is actually from them? And why can't any Faul bring a decent version of the Long and winding road if there was no real Paul McCartney to begin with? He or they recorded multiple other versions later on and they are all of terrible quality. Why does Faul play back this very same song in the Let it Be film? Really, if one investigates the music it is quite clear that there was a great effort in trying to emulate and imitate something that was original.
Everybody likes the Beatles because for what they originally were. That is just the light that the evil masonic bastards stole and projected into four puppets. That is the logic behind the corruption and the manipulation of something that originally is good. Like, originally salt was healthy but today the salt people buy is an industrial version, chemically prepared and poisonous for the body.

Anyway, I think those that want to promote the view that there never were any real Beatles to begin with are making a fundamental mistake and are doing a huge disservice to the truth. It's exactly where they would want you to take this. Like the philosophy that everything is just a dream. There are limits to what a lie can, and being original, interesting and provoking creativity in countless others is not one of them.

Cheers!
Bruce

Linus said...

Remember the Beatles were polished by Brian Epstein. We were given their shiny charismatic side under his management. Look at them before he signed them. After he died they were free to be as they wished. In fact, Epstein’s reigns were gradually fading long before ’67. Is Revolver not as dark and depressing as any other later album of theirs, if not more? Take The Beatles For Sale for that matter.

Which later tracks sound like earlier recorded Beatles tracks? If that is the case, then perhaps they had more in common than you give them credit for? Even just thematically speaking. Are you saying you’re not sure which are which?

It IS the initial collective reaction that leads me to lean on the idea that they were pre-fabbed. For lack of time and a better phrase, it’s all “too good to be true”, or

Not everyone would say later renditions of Beatle songs suck. This is subjective territory. There’s also aging, as well as giving old songs modern spins. I can’t play songs of my own like I did when I was in my early-20s, nor would I want to. I’ve seen McCartney perform live twice in the last 15 years and he performed the early Beatles songs fine.

If their new musical ideas were un-reproducable live, there is a perfect reason to stop touring.

The cameras were up close on them when they played the rooftop in ’69, and they did a great job. Not to mention the countless concerts they put on in their solo careers.

I too have been endlessly inspired by The Beatles’ songwriting, from their entire catalog.

Why wouldn’t Wild Honey Pie be by them? I don’t like it either musically speaking, but they were free to experiment how ever they wished, and I can respect that.

Why are the Beach Boys creeps? They were open about the inspiration behind Surfing’ USA, and it’s winks very hard at you. It’s the shtick of the song. Berry was even eventually given writing credit on the track. Be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, all their other songs, particularly after ’65 were highly unique and innovative. I don’t have a similar example for the Beatles because they didn’t even think to try that. All of the inspirations they wear on their sleeves are more subtle. By the way, almost every example on that post of mine is from books by musicologists and from quotes by The Beatles themselves.

Not everyone likes The Beatles for what they originally were. Many people didn’t start liking them until after ’65. Then there’s people from the later generations who only like their later stuff.

I would say those that cement themselves into one sectarian view without exploring other possibilities are making a fundamental mistake and doing a huge disservice not only to the truth, but to themselves. That, I feel, is where evil bastards would want you to do.

Looking at everything through standard PID glasses only may seem like the appropriate path at first, but it's a dead end. Or, more specifically, it's not what it appears on the surface and needs to be looked at from other angles.

paulyangel said...

i've only come to this subject quite recently but i have to say i think pictures can be very misleading.... i've seen various pic's of the different ears of paul and it's quite convincing however upon watching a video on youtube of a Paul interview from 1964 there were moments from the live action footage where he would turn his head in a certain way and his ears would look like some of the ear shots from the so called fake Pauls i've seen so i do think angle can make a difference to how features look..... also the hight thing isn't so convincing to me ..... check this out
http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/the-beatles-pose-for-a-group-portrait-holding-striped-umbrellas-at-a-picture-id136916298
the above link is from a photo shoot in 1964, you can see their heads are all about the same height (except for ringo) but john is stood on a stone of some type which is a good 3 to 4 inches tall thus making paul taller than john in 1964....also the jane asher and paul pic's, different hights but no context, she could have had heels in some shots.... look at these two links to geri spice and her husband
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/05/20/19/28E68A2100000578-3089854-image-a-35_1432145270522.jpg

http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/galleries/x701/60726.jpg

two different pictures, same clothes, same day but in the first shot not much hight difference yet in the second she appears shorter than him, i don't know the reason for this but clearly photographs can give different impressions even though logically geri haliwell didn't shrink on that day.....

paulyangel said...

just as a side note i did some investigation into the time line of vivian stanchall and found he was on tour in the usa with the bonzo dog do dah band at the same time that paul was in st johns wood recording his macartney album.... i also found an artice a guy had written about seeing him (viv) somewhere up north on the 8th septemer doing a tour with the band, this was the same year paul married linda on the 12th september and although the dates don't entierlly clash it seems unlikely with wedding preparations he would be out on tour..... the physical effort of the viv disguise also seems unlikely too..... if you've seen any behind the scenes footage of actors using prosthetics etc it takes hours and a lot of skill to transform an actor into a character (especially with viv in the period when he has thinning hair) it just seems too much effort (especially before 1966 when the supposed person playing viv didn't need to cover up he was a paul replacement) also i'm not sure back in the 60's the transformation through disguise would have been as good as modern day methods, he certainly doesn't look like someone with a fake face and hair???