I'm sure many of you have visited several websites claiming "undeniable proof that Paul is Dead." I first was made aware of the "new clues" when the producer of Coast to Coast asked me to appear on the August 18th show to discuss this great mystery of rock 'n' roll history.
I was very impressed with the amount of time and work that went into this site. I enjoyed watching as the photos morphed into each other and I thought the argument to be very interesting. For a moment, I was whisked away back to a time of playing my records backward and doing the research that would turn into "The Walrus Was Paul." I then remembered a "strange" phone call I received late last spring asking me for an interview. The caller mentioned that any assistance that I should give him could make his work more "attractive" to a prospective publisher. I have a feeling that this"forensic" evidence was the purpose of a book proposal.
Now, I have an extremely open mind, and I love a great mystery. If I don't agree with a certain viewpoint it doesn't mean that I have closed my mind. I'm just a hard sell. If I'm a hard sell, imagine a publisher who has a number of legal issues that must be dealt with before a work sees print. An author must have proper credibility and the supporting research to prove any statements that could imply legal consequences for the publisher. Some publishers are willing to take a risk if the research checks out, but please remember that a publisher will research the material with the proper experts it should choose. Authors' interpretations, no matter how passionately felt, must be verified by the proper authorities. It takes more expertise than reading a work on "The Forensic Analysis of the Skull" and stating your interpretations as fact. Scientific information in the hands of laymen can be misapplied. Remember what Alexander Pope said, "A little Learning is a Dangerous Thing." Theories arrived at through personal research work great in explaining episodes of "Quincy" and "Columbo" but is hardly the last word on the subject UNLESS it is in the hands of a licensed and experienced field expert. In this case, the matter achieves credibility. I have seen no evidence that anyone making these "forensic" claims is either licensed or considered an expert in the forensic field.
Now, I was notified of the show by Coast to Coast a little over a week before the show took place. I had a conversation with Lisa, the producer, where we both thought, "What if this IS true?" For me, it was 1969 all over again. I read the document "60IS" and quickly formed an opinion here (I'll discuss this later). I am not a forensic expert and I didn't shell out $145.00 for a copy of "The Forensic Analysis of the Skull." As a matter of fact, I didn't spend the night before the show at a Holiday Inn Express either. However, knowing my limitations, I searched for an expert opinion in the field. In this case someone who had undergone the proper training and was employed in the proper field. Luckily, I had a contact who arranged a conversation with a member of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation who had trained in forensics at the world famous "Body Farm" in Knoxville, Tennessee. This contact was very helpful and arranged a number of contact numbers of forensic experts throughout three states. I asked for an opinion that I could post on this site that would include internet site sources for readers to make their own explorations. The text is as follows:
"The resolution of the pictures is not comparison quality- different angles
are not a scientific way to examine photographs especially to back up an
argument. Different angles are there to give an overall view only but not
for comparison. It has to theoretically be an exact of the one you are comparing it against.
*Changes in muscle movements in various photographs cannot be seen with the
naked eye but can change measurements if you are comparing only photographs.
That is why unless you can see beneath the skin to the actual muscle-then
you cannot say precisely what a facial measurement is especially using two photographs that are that dissimilar in expression for comparison.
*Facial identification and reconstruction is a very complicated process
which requires measurements using actual human skeletal remains not
photographs. Even anthropologists have difficulty sometimes reconstructing
the depth of tissue around the eyes and nose to fully determine the person's
weight. This website has attempted to take photographs and apply scientific
principles in forensics that are just not applied that way.
*Eye color can be manipulated very easily and Paul could have contacts in or
anything in those photos of eye comparison-that is a very weak argument when
calling your claims forensic science.
*Also with the eyes, you cannot compare photos of eyes where in one picture
the person is looking in a different direction. There again, I am referring
to comparison photographs used in forensics. Those photos have to be as near exact as possible.
*Ear identification-which they refer to on their website has not been an
accepted science. Refer to www.forensic-evidence.com. It explains a few of
these principles. Holland had a case of ear id. Inspector Van der Lugt
testified to the id of an individual based on ear evidence. You can find this at www.forensic-evidence.com/site/ID/IDearNews.html. It talks about the fallibility of this idea. After all characteristics that forensic scientists
look for in identifying are INDIVIDUALIZING characteristics not CLASS characteristics like the antitragus, tragus, helix, helix rim, and antihelix The court
just could not accept his testimony because this is not yet a clear, concise science."
For my own "unscientific" observations, I was puzzled by the Brian Epstein double. Here are the photographs that prove it! Then the morphing of Paul's face onto that of Tara Browne, and the suggestion that Tara Browne had the same features to be the "double." There has never been a mention of Browne's musical abilities, only his abilities to attract and hang out with rock icons. Browne was a trust fund baby and didn't need the money. I suppose what made me roll my eyes and discount the theory completely, was the mention that DORIS DAY may have had a double as well! Doris Day?? Forensic proof of a conspiracy to replace the blonde actress? Wait! I understand. Rock Hudson was injected with the AIDS virus to keep him quiet and to keep the Hollywood secret that Doris had been replaced. Well, you get the idea. The purpose of forensic evidence is for EXCLUSION not INCLUSION. Paul's facial structure should NOT be that of Tara Browne. Brian Epstein's facial structures should match exactly, thereby proving that only Billy Shears/William Campbell/William Shepard provided the only match in a great, hidden British conspiracy.
Simply put, you just can't replace everyone with a double. Especially with Tara Browne who had little if any musical talent, and Brian Epstein who had tried to commit suicide after the Beatles final tour. Sadly, He would be successful with his next attempt on August 27, 1967. Epstein was blamed for the terrible nightmare of the Beatles final tour by the band members and was sure that when he was told the group intended to stop touring then his life just as well may be over. Doris Day? I'm still at a loss of words concerning her possible involvement unless the clues lies in "Please Don't Eat the Daises." Could that refer to a BURIAL scene? Doesn't Paul have a red rose in his mouth on "Red Rose Speedway?" When you simply look for clues it's amazing what you can find isn't it? Unfortunately, this is as exact as Paul and Brian being kidnaped by the KKK and Paul dying from medical complications from Irritable Bowel Syndrome and explosive diarrhea.("60IS" document) Please! Gimme some Truth!!
The Forwarded Email from Coast to Coast
The day of the show Lisa forwarded an email from the site asking if I was "familiar" with the "new" clues. I'd like to share the email with you. I have removed the email addresses, but I have a print out of the actual email for conspiracy theorists--if needed. It appears there were some legal concerns over the "forensic" and "audio clips" and the email was received from one of the owners of the site.
Here is the email and my response:
I haven't gotten permission, so It might be better just to link to my
page and I'll take the photos down if anybody complains. I think I can get
away with this purely for research purposes,(sic) as I am not trying to sell a
product, but it might cause you guys some problems. I believe the audio
samples are legal as long as they are under 30 seconds in length, but I
could be wrong about this.
Well, yes you are wrong about this. Please read the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Photographs have licensing fees and restrictions. Permissions can be given BUT the subject area has to be approved by the copyright holder. There has never been a time that an audio section of thirty seconds can be used under "Fair play Copyright Law." Before 1998, the maximum time for a sample was NO more than five seconds, and even this was debatable. Audio samples have many more restrictions now. Doing the pilot of "VH1 Confidential," when we examined the "Paul is Dead Clues," VH1's legal department could not license ONE SECOND of actual Beatles' recordings. This included backward tracks which, I admit, was actually a shock to me. Now, if Viacom's VH1 can't obtain permissions what does this say about individual websites? There was no profit obtained in the viewing of the segment and the show has not been offered for video or audio release. When I asked my intellectual properties attorney, Norman Gillis, he told me "No pictures or audio unless you own the rights or have permissions." Mr. Gillis is a leading expert in this field. I suppose you could say that if you promote a website it is technically "published" and that could result in a number of legal issues. Of course, the first stage is with the receipt of a cease and desist letter.
You might just find a few good public domain photos from '66 and '67 and do a rough side by side on your site. Be careful though, many photos of Paul
appear to have been drastically altered when the "Anthology" project came
around; their attempt to re-write history if you ask me.
Interesting. To do this scientific comparison you randomly choose "public domain" photos from '66 and '67 and place them side by side? Don't you think that proper measurements and perspective play an important role here? According to the reply I received concerning the photos this would violate several principles of forensic science. (Refer to the above forensic statements). If photos of Paul used for the Anthology have been "drastically altered" (in your opinion) then obviously ANY photograph can be as drastically altered by picking them randomly and without regard to the proper measurement, distance and perspective. Many photos can be altered with Photoshop or any editing program. I think this hurts the new "evidence" argument significantly. I also think that any photographic evidence of this type would be dismissed in any court of law.
I hope your guest is familiar with all the new evidence. Most of us now
think the "car crash" story was actually a cover for a kidnaping that went
wrong, resulting in Paul's death.
Who are "us"? From what I understand about the so-called "60IS" document is that the author was George Harrison who gave "undeniable" proof of the death and replacement of Paul McCartney to his "eastern" friends who then translated all the evidence into an "eastern language" to hide the truth from publishers who would try and destroy the evidence. This "evidence" was translated into English in Italy and was to be published after George's death on the Internet on Paul's 60th birthday. Of course, George must have seen the date of his own death to make sure that he died before Paul's 60th birthday. Then again, dead men tell no tales so obviously George can make no response to this incredible theory.
It is extremely convenient to include the dates following the Beatles last concert on August 29, 1966 until September 14, 1966, to set up a possible conspiracy. In Mark Lewisohn's "The Complete Beatles Chronicle" there is no mention of any activity concerning the band from those dates.
The bizarre theory of the Ku Klux Klan following the Beatles to Great Britain, kidnaping Paul and Brian Epstein, having Paul die from some "strange" medical emergency, killing Brian as a "sacrifice to their (KKK) God," and arranging a burning car crash to cover up the "kidnaping" sounds incredible to say the least. It is true that the Klan picketed a Beatles performance in Maryland, and may have been behind some threatening letters mentioning assassinations of the Beatles while they performed on stage. In Memphis, during the last American tour, a string of firecrackers was set off and the Beatles looked at each other to see who had been shot. These events helped the Beatles make up their minds to end their tours and concentrate completely on the studio environment.
The "misreading" of the Sgt Pepper's drum skin is also interesting. There is never a mention in Beatle history of any event befalling the group on that date. When I found the message, the first thing I did was to research September 11, 1966. The results did not follow the urban legend. In William Dowlding's "Beatlesongs" and in H.V. Fulpens' "The Beatles: An Illustrated Diary" there is a mention of McCartney being involved in a car crash in early November and quite possibly on November 9, 1966. My purpose was not to prove the accident occurred on this date because there is no physical evidence of the accident other than in these reports, however, documented sources are much more reliable than a "secret" document with no collaboration and no credibility.
November 9, 1966, was in fact a Wednesday and is the line from "She's Leaving Home" that George stoically points to with his thumb. November 9, 1961, was the date that Brian Epstein discovered the Beatles at the Cavern. The bass drum, Mandela, would represent a circle of completeness for the band.
According to the proported "60IS" document there is a mention that the last song the "real" Paul wrote was "She's Leaving Home" and that is the reason George is pointing out that particular reference. Paul's inspiration for "She's Leaving Home" was taken from the headlines of the London Daily Mail : "A Level girl dumps car and fanishes." The girl's name ws later found to be Melanie Coe and the article appeared on February 27, 1967. Of course, if Paul had died on September 11, 1966, he wouldn't have been able to have read this story.
As you can see in the new section "Who Is
Faul?" the song "A Day In The Life" is actually about the Beatles friend
Tara Browne, who was hanging out with Paul on the day he supposedly
disappeared. A rough facial comparison show's that Browne's features are
actually a very good match for Faul's! Even if he is not Faul, he would be
another one of the "mysterious deaths", as he died in a car crash on the
very day Faul first appeared in public.
Now this I can agree with. This statement is pretty much accepted as to the identity of the victim of the car crash. Tara Browne was killed in his Lotus, however, to suggest that Tara Browne underwent the transformation into Paul's double following the date of the car crash. Let me see, the plastic surgery had to be scheduled, completed, musical skills learned, vocal ability matched as closely as possible, new songs recorded and all this done by the end of November, a little over two months, just in time to be one of the main co-writers of one of the most revolutionary albums in musical history. Of course, this theory would apply to ANY double theory wouldn't it?
According to Lewisohn, John and Neil Aspinall traveled to Paris to meet Paul and Brian Epstein in Paris the weekend of August 17-18, 1966. On Tuesday, September 20, Paul was back in London working on the musical score for "The Family Way." On second thought, if Tara Browne replaced McCartney he would have much less time to acquire his song writing ability.
Please be sure your guest is familiar with this list; it is an incomplete
list of people close to the imposter who have died under mysterious or
John Lennon was shot in the back by a "lone nut" (we all believe in
Sadly, I agree a "lone nut", Mark David Chapman, murdered John Lennon. The amount of classified government documents concerning our government's interest in John Lennon may very well suggest some form of hidden conspiracy.
George Harrison was stabbed while sleeping in his bedroom in
1999 by another lone nut who somehow managed to make it past his armed
guards, barbed wire, attack dogs and 20 foot fence. He survived, but died a
short time later of cancer (infected knife?);
Actually, George wasn't asleep or in his bedroom during the attack. Harrison confronted his attacker in the downstairs area of the HArrison mansion.. The mentally deranged assailant was convinced that the Beatles were witches and when George starting chanting Hare Khrisna the attack began. George had undergone cancer surgery a year earlier. I suppose the "infected" knife theory suggests "live" cancer cells much like the conspiracy theory involving Bob Marley. Due to the expert testimony concerning injections of live cancer cells that was discussed on "VH1 Confidential" I find this theory to be highly unlikely.
not one, but TWO members of
the group Badfinger, the first band Faul produced for Apple Records,
"commited suicide", Pete Ham and Tom Evans. Think of that, two people from
the same band!
In 1996, I attended and spoke at the Chicago Beatlefest. I was privileged to meet Joey Molland, guitarist for Badfinger, and his wife Kathie. I have always enjoyed Badfinger's music. Kathie mentioned to me that her sister was married to Pete Ham. She was living with the musician and was pregnant when he committed suicide by hanging himself in his garage. He left a suicide note claiming his action was due to his manager and the inability to receive his royalties. Tom Evans hanged himself eight years later in his garden, depressed over his financial
condition. Ironically, his friends planted a tree in his memory. As far as band members' premature deaths as a sign of conspiracy, I'd suggest looking into the Grateful Dead's loss of keyboardists, the ultimate hot seat, or maybe the strange case of Spinal Tap's drummers.
Brian Epstein, the Beatles manager, "overdosed on sleeping pills" in 1967. We actually contend that Brian was also killed and replaced
at the same time as Paul, but his look-alike had to be gotten rid of for one
reason or another.
It would be very helpful to find the answer to "one reason or the other." It is true that Brian overdosed and died on August 27, 1967. Again, too many look-a-likes really diminish this theory. When Brian died the Beatles were essentially on their own making their own decisions.
Brian Jones of the Rolling Stones was good friends with
the Beatles and played with them both before and after the switch; he was
found drowned in his hot-tub in 1970 and though at the time it was ruled an
accident, it is now widely accepted as a homicide;
Here are some more corrections. Brian Jones died on July 3, 1969, in his swimming pool--not a hot tub. It was ruled "death by misadventure" or a open verdict. Sadly and mistakenly, the church felt that his death may have been a suicide. All the Stones knew the Beatles, but Jones was closer to Lennon. Shortly before his death he had mentioned to friends that John Lennon, Jimi Hendrix, and he were putting a band together. Eyewitnesses have come forward to give new testimony that strongly suggests murder. VH1 investigated the Jones' case on "VH1 Confidential" and was informed of a death bed confession by one of the construction workers who has always been a strong suspect in the case. The witness recanted the story later and said that he was only helping an author with a book proposal. Strong evidence remains, however, but it looks like that at this time the case will not be reopened.
Mal Evans, the Beatles road manager, was shot to death by police in 1976 after a "misunderstanding"
when they thought he had a gun (they say).
I'm a little surprised you didn't put Mal Evans in your Badfinger conspiracy. He actually produced more albums by the band than either McCartney or Harrison. Following the Beatles' breakup, Evans moved to California. He just couldn't cope with the transition. He was divorced and living with a girlfriend when in his depression he became upset and brandished a replica gun. She called some friends, and those friends informed the police. When the police came, due to the call, Evans flourished the replica weapon and the police shot him. He was cremated but his ashes were lost and have not been found to this day. When John heard the fate of his long time friend he supposedly stated, "That's just like Mal, ending up in the dead letter office."
I hope the show goes well! I can understand if you wanted to go with
someone a little more experience for the actual interview.
I think the show did go well and everyone had a great time. Just remember that to make a credible argument you have to have all your facts in line. If one argument can be easily dismissed, a pattern develops suggesting a lack of research which affects credibility. Following this misunderstanding the whole argument tends to fall apart like a house of cards.
My next posting will be the questions that should be answered to prove the conspiracy---