There’s only 2 Paul McCartneys, 2 Paul McCartneys, 2 Paul McCartneys, 2 Paul MacCartnneees
Thu 4:43 pm +00:00, 8 May 2025
Source: https://pieceofmindful.com/2022/05/03/sir-faul-2/
It all started with the boat photo, and two “Paul’s” visible. I have arrows pointing at them in the photo above. I saw this photo long before I discovered the McCartney twins, and it stuck with me. But I did not know to follow my instincts. It just struck me as very strange.
Years later (it is now 2022), I do not think the guy under the arrow on the left is Paul. The secrecy around this band would preclude any photo of the two of them together. He is someone else. But the guy in the middle (I can see his cowlick) is Mike McCartney. It is not his twin brother, Paul. Mike is the guy we today call “Macca”, or “Paul McCartney”. He is a huge phony.
We were walking through Barnes & Noble not too long ago, and I came across a book called The Lyrics, supposedly the words and stories behind all of the musical work of Paul McCartney, maybe the biggest walking impostor of a genius who ever tread on our planet. Lorne Michaels, the man behind Saturday Night Live, calls him a “fucking Mozart.” That’s OK by me, as I do not care for Mozart either. I do not buy all the stories about this child prodigy who was writing complete symphonies at age six. He was a project. So is Sir Faul. He is a guy who is perfectly comfortable taking credit for the works of scores of anonymous others. He did not write Yesterday. Neither did his brother, Paul.
In the video above, Fil of Wings of Pegasus analyzes McCartney’s singing from 1964 and 1968, and declares that no indeed, Paul did not die in 1966. Only idiots think that anyway, but I suggested to him in comments under this video that he also analyze the video below, Till There Was You, from 1963, the original “Paul McCartney” singing at a Royalty Command Performance in 1963 in London. Fil, who is Fil Henley, surely knows not to go there. Inside the music business, what I write below is well understood.
The guy was a pretty good crooner, but bobbed his head too much. I can only think that this song, which appears real, is a good demonstration of some talent in the band, but no Mozarts. Just well trained muscle-memory guys. In 1966 they would stop live performances, and suddenly, as if by magic, they got amazingly good on their instruments and started writing music far above their pay grade. I do think they supplied, like the Monkees, vocal tracts, but I do not think they wrote the songs nor played the instruments. The Brits must have had their own version of the Wrecking Crew. The Beatles, like the Monkees, were a project. Where do you think the people behind the Monkees got the idea?
So I decided to rewrite Sir Faul, and call out the guy. The second thing that prompted this is a concert tour he is going to do in the coming months. He is almost 80, and his vocal chords are surely past their best days. His playing ability, to me, has always been suspect, that is, he is right-handed and yet plays left-handed. I suspect ghosting going on there. He has surely worked hard at switching dominant hands, but it is so much easier with someone who has accumulated so much fame just to hire it all out. What I think audiences will see in the coming performances is a ghosted voice and instruments, and a man who just cannot let go of being the most famous musician on the planet, a fucking Mozart.
I’ve added a word or two here and there, and replaced gifs with face splits. Enough of this monkey.
The main characters:
There are three players here. Not knowing their real names, I will use their public identities.
“Paul McCartney” is the original Beatle we came to know, the “cute one,” the one who co-starred with Mike in the movie A Hard Day’s Night. In scenes from that movie where “Paul” is wearing a fake mustache, it is Mike. Keep in mind that we do not know that “Paul” is his real name. It could be, like “John Lennon,” a stage name, an invention by those shady men behind the curtain who formed the “Beatles.
“Mike McCartney” is Paul’s twin brother. Again, we do not know that this is his real name, but for purposes of this essay we will call him “Mike.” He, for the most part, played the part of “Paul” in the movie Help! He is known today as “Macca.” Paul mostly disappeared from public view, and has re-emerged on occasion, as will be seen below.
“Mike McGear”
is a hired actor. He claims to be Paul’s brother, but bears no resemblance to either Mike or Paul, as can be easily seen. McGear is a “lifetime actor,” or a person whose entire life is a lie. If the Beatles were going to use “Paul McCartney” as a set of twins, then it was necessary for Mike McCartney to step out of his life and allow a replacement in. To pull this off, the handlers invented the character McGear.
I cannot help but notice that McGear bears a strong, perhaps familial resemblance to another character in this stage play, covered elsewhere, another lifetime actor called John Lennon. I say this because of the curvature of the nose lightly to his right. I see this same feature in Lennon. It could well be that they are keeping it all in the family.
The Hoax
In the fall of 1969 radio disc jockey Russell Gibb, WKNR-FM in Detroit, received a phone call from “Tom,” who told him that Paul McCartney had died and had been replaced in 1966 by a lookalike. Thus began a cottage industry that continues to this day, now called “PID”, or Paul is Dead. It is continually churned, new clues added now and then.
It is misdirection, designed to get us asking the wrong question. Paul McCartney was indeed replaced by a virtual lookalike, and I know who the replacement is. It was not hard to discover. If I could do it, so too could all of the sleuths who make those PID YouTubes and run those PID web pages. Why don’t they? It is, I suspect, because they are tasked with keeping the mythology alive. They are disinformation agents.
The phone call to WKNR and subsequent publicity was obviously a staged event. The troubling question why? Had the managers of the Beatles not done the whole business with album and song clues, the whole switch would have gone down seamlessly. It was done so well that we would never have known to question it. Why did they clue us in? Did they overplay their hand?
The Beatles in 1966 stopped performing in public. In a period of five years they released a series of albums – Rubber Soul (1965), Revolver (1966), Sgt. Pepper (1967), White Album (1968) and Abbey Road (1969). After the phone call to WKNR we would learn that the albums were littered with clues hinting at the death of Paul. Hundreds of thousands of kids rushed to buy them to examine the clues and, if somehow able, play the songs backward. (I never could pull that off.) We love a mystery, and they provided it.
Below is what is in my view the most impressive album “clue:”
That is the drum from the cover of Sgt. Pepper. If you mirror the top as the bottom, as done here, see how it spells out I ONEIX HE ^DIE. That could mean he died on November 9th, September 11th (Europeans list date and month rather than month and date, our custom) or they could be taunting us with 911 clues. (I ONE=11, IX=9.) Although the Twin Towers had only been recently completed at the time of the PID hoax, it seems that the numbers “9” and “11” have significance preceding, or even superseding, the events of 2001.
Who knows, but good lord! The effort, the sophistication of the PID psyop is impressive! There had to have been some of the top graphic artists of the time behind it. I can assure you it was not four twenty-something mop-tops who assembled the album covers. I also suspect they did not write the music or play the instruments in the studio. We had a long discussion in a previous thread where some claimed that the rooftop concert was lip synced. These were not the musicians we were led to believe them to be.
[By the way, who but an idiot savant could have uncovered such a “clue” as this? It was obviously leaked to us by the people behind the hoax, wanting some credit for their genius.]The boys as kids
Here’s a photo of the McCartney boys, Paul born on 6/18/42, and Michael, we are told, on 1/7/44, (am I seeing two 8’s?) or eighteen months later.
As I studied this photo, I realized that these are indeed brothers, as the eyes, nose, mouth and ears are a match. The one on the left looks two, perhaps three years old, which would make the other 18 months old. But wait! At that age he should exhibit more babyish qualities, in fact, should still have baby cheeks and be smaller in size. But these two kids could easily be the same age.
I began to suspect I was looking at twins. I found other photos:
That’s a lovely family shot of Mary and James and the boys, but again, I am not seeing eighteen months age difference between left and right. In this photo I noticed something that would appear again and again over time. I originally thought that it was Paul on the right, but looking at later photos, I discovered one key to telling them apart – one of them parts his hair on the right, in fact has what looks like a natural cowlick, or an unruly section of hair that goes against the grain of the rest. 
In later years that cowlick would turn up in the twin I call Mike. (Note that Mary has dressed them in identical shoes, socks and shorts, and shirts of the same maker. It was common practice in those days to dress twins alike.)
Getting our bearings here, I can now assert that Mike is on the left here, meaning that must be Paul on the right. The cowlick is apparent again. Paul has lost a front tooth, so he must be about six. Again, they are dressed alike.
But I did find a photo of the two where there is a definite age difference. This photo is said to be of Paul and his younger brother Mike.
It is hard to say which twin that is, but I am guessing Paul due to the part on the left. There is, however, a slight problem here – the one on the left is not Mike. It’s a girl wearing a dress and strap-on shoes, girlish in style. I don’t know who she is, perhaps a cousin. That they assert this to be Mike and Paul … it reinforces the age difference, but is absurd.
There are other photos of the boys in this era, such as the one on the left here, an obvious shot of a set of twins, Mike with the cowlick on the left. Check here for yourself, and see what I saw. What a revelation!
Photographs of the boys dry up after this time. They will appear again in the late 50s, and then again as fully formed Beatles.
The fact that these photos appear on a massively censored Internet troubles me. How deep does it go?
In the meantime, Mike McGear appears around 1962.
Mike McGear
McGear is one of the hardest aspects of this psyop for people to grasp (along with the role of Jane Asher – see below). If a guy has a musical career, claims to be Paul McCartney’s brother, and no one contradicts him, who am I to doubt?
We have found in these complicated and long-running stage acts that there needs to be certain characters in play to misdirect us and distract us from the truth. McGear, who doesn’t even remotely resemble a McCartney, is such a character, He is a lifetime actor hired to play the part of Mike McCartney to allow the real person to slip into the role of Beatle Paul McCartney.
McGear apparently got married without the presence of fake Paul, who had to be pasted into photos. Below is supposedly McGear’s wedding day in 1968, also attended by “Paul” and his girlfriend, Jane Asher.
The composition of this photo makes it appear that he’s an awkward man, even gawking at Angela’s chest. The wavy vertical line between “Paul” and “Mike” is just sloppy darkroom work, even to the degree of embarrassment for some lowly technician. Notice that “Paul” has that cowlick, which always gives him away. There are two sets of people in the photo, Paul and Jane, and Mike, Angela, the young boy and the older woman. “Paul” and Jane and McGear were not together that day, so “Paul” had to be added. Real Mike McCartney did not attend fake Mike McCartney’s wedding, it appears.
Same day, and an odd one, as Mike and Angela are not even front and center at their own wedding. They don’t seem to be important players. Notice again … the cowlick. That’s Mike, not Paul and Jane Asher. Mike and the man next to them were pasted into this photo. They are looking one direction while everyone else is looking at the camera. Another fake.
Just for fun, let’s take the same photo and see where they eyes are looking:
My guess on this, an informal photo taken while setting up for real photos, which would explain the back of the head in the foreground. They are staging, as all of us who have been through wedding ceremonies know about. That’s why participants on the right are distracted. I think the three on the left, Jane, “Paul,” and the older man (said to be Paul’s father, but possibly another lifetime actor) are inserted later, in the darkroom. A floating hand on Paul’s shoulder (red circle) is a clue. That often happens in paste-ups.
Anyway, forget Mike McGear, who is mere misdirection. He’s fake. They had to fake “Paul” being at his wedding, so did it in the darkroom.
Jane Asher
We are all familiar with the concept of a “beard,” or a professional starlet (usually) used to conceal the fact that a male star is gay. They are all over Hollywood, from Angelina Jolie to Kelly Preston to Katie Holmes. They are also present in politics, Melania Trump coming to mind. Hillary and Bill Clinton have been referred to as a “double bearded” set.
But beards perform other functions, as well. Jane Asher’s bearded role was that of “Paul” McCartney’s girlfriend in the early years. He supposedly moved in with her parents, Margaret and Richard Asher, a music professor and a doctor. Peter Asher, of Peter and Gordon and later a music producer, is Jane’s brother.
George Martin was one of Margaret’s most prominent students. It is my suspicion that much of the early music of the Beatles was written in the Asher household, though not necessarily by any of the Beatles. Yesterday and Michelle have highly sophisticated chord progressions, far beyond the capability of a twenty-something kid with no formal music training, in my opinion. I’ve long wondered if they are George Martin compositions, or perhaps a committee in which he participated. Often referred to as the “fifth Beatle,” he was the only one with serious musical training.
Jane’s bearded role, to be seen in public with both Mike and Paul during these years, was not something she relished, if these photos are any indication. This was an acting gig and done to misdirect and sow confusion. How can we claim they are twins, or that Paul has been “replaced” when Jane is there riding sideboard, seen with both. She provided continuity.
Anyway, that was Jane Asher’s role. Look at the fun she is having! Have you ever seen three people so deeply in love?
How to tell them apart
The above photo montage is page 118 from the book Face to Face: Analysis and Comparison of Facial Features to Authenticate Identities of People in Photographs, by Joelle Steele. Oddly, Ms. Steele, a facial recognition expert who has been called to testify in court on occasion, cannot tell the difference between Paul and Mike. Given her obvious qualifications, I would attribute that failing to the power of groupthink. Claiming that there are two “Paul’s” would endanger her career. I do not suffer that problem. My sleuthing “career” has never paid me a penny, nor will it ever.
Here are photos in order, left to right, top to bottom, year given by Ms. Steele:
1957: Mike
1959: Paul
1964: Paul
1965: Mike
1966: Mike
1968: Mike
1975: Mike
1977: Mike
1985: Paul (He’s alive! He’s alive!)
1995: A composite photo, upper half Paul, lower half Mike, or so it appears to me. The people behind Sir Paul are aware of the eyebrows.
2004: Mike
2007: Mike
Easy enough, right? I learned to tell the difference early on by the hair part, but in addition, Paul’s eyebrows wrap around and down, his ears are lower on his head.
Here are two photos of the brothers, side by side, both at young ages:
I am now going to do a face split – I set the pupil distance on both photos at one inch. Little known fact, as we age, our skulls are fully formed by late teens or early twenties, and do not change thereafter. So if I compare the left side of 1957 Paul with the right side of 1959 Paul, we should get a precise match.
We do not. The mouths do not line up. Neither do the noses. Mike (left) has an eyebrow that ends well above the eye pupil, while Paul (right) dips down further. The ears cannot be judged, as angular distortion plays a role, but in my judgement, as many thousands of these as I have done, face splitting will more often tell me that two people are not the same as when they are. These are two different men. I would guess they are identical twins, as there are other clues, hair part on the right for one, the left for the other. One right-handed, the other left. (They placed Mike behind a piano back in the days, as he had not yet mastered left-hand playing. I must say, playing left-handed now as he does (unless he is being ghosted) is quite an accomplishment.)
After a serious amount of gazing at computer screens, you too will be able to see the differences. But one other way to tell, and this is with a hat tip to the work of others, can be found in this YouTube video. It is an 8:32 piece, and I am not showing it here – just go to the link if you have time. I will capsulize with this screen grab:
“Paul”, on the right, has a “…narrow palate that causes his upper left molars to be misaligned and angled inwards.” Mike on the left (note the cowlick) has regular teeth. “Grendoza,” the maker of the video, uses the word “had” instead of “has” as the video is intended to advance the PID psyop. But it will come into play again momentarily. For now, understand the three easy recognition tools to distinguish between Paul and Mike: 1) wraparound eyebrows, 2) cowlick on the left versus part on the right, and 3) misaligned upper left molars.
In the video we learn that Paul and Mike have been stepping in and out of the role of “Paul” since the beginning, on Ed Sullivan, and as part of Wings up until about 1990. At that time it appears that Mike permanently took over the role, and Paul was retired.
The following clip, supplied by our writer Tyrone, is instructive of just how “in your face” they have been with the McCartney twins.
At 1:28 we find Paul talking about their dress style, and at 1:48 it is Mike! They pull the switch right before our eyes, expecting us not to notice.
(2022 again: The more I look at this, the more I suspect that Mike came out of makeup before the video with Paul’s eyebrows. They know all about the differences. I suspect that is Mike, playing Paul. It reminds me of the 1995 photo above, where makeup artists have given Mike Paul’s eyebrows.
John Halliday
The following video is about three minutes, It is worth a watch:
It came out a few years back, and was brought to my attention in the comments. I can add a little clarity to it by use of Photoshop:
I was able, on the right, to capture a moment in the video where Halliday is looking at us straight on. Here is a face split.
Look for alignment of features, as the years have not been kind, the lines around the eyes possibly evidence of plastic surgery. But the same features are present, with longer ear lobes, of course. “John Halliday” is in my view “Paul McCartney” in retirement. I’ll go one step further – John Halliday might be his real name. If you watch the video, do pay attention to the teeth. Screen grabbing them proved impossible. (I learned later that “Halliday”, caretaker of the McCartney childhood home, had been fired due to drinking on the job.)
In the British peerage you will find a man named “Halliday Mccartney”. Strange, it is.
Paul in later years
More fun: Richardjuckes in the comments below my recent Bill O’Reilly piece offered up a video of Dhanny Harrison, George’s son, doing a 2013 cover of For You Blue, a George Harrison composition. (I do suspect that George wrote his own music, including some high quality work in later years.) In it he noticed that both Paul and Mike were present in the still photographs used. Here are two screen grabs:
The photo on the left is Paul wearing a wig, and heavily made up so as not to look his 71 years. He has, by that time, developed severe wrinkles around the eyes, not apparent here on either one, either slick photographic retouching or makeup. Richard noticed how, for purposes of this video, Paul and Mike were wearing the same clothing and wig, indicating that the psyop is still in active production.
Conclusion
The Beatles were an expensive and highly sophisticated psyop, introduced on the scene in the wake of the fake John F. Kennedy assassination. I was around then, and remember all of the screaming girls, and although I was too young to understand the word “orgasmic” or realize that what I saw was an outpouring of pent-up sexual frustration AND grief over JFK. I suspect at this time that the two events, both highly choreographed, were timed to happen as they did, part of a major restructuring of our society, and destruction of a once great land.
And Paul is alive. He’s a set of twins, by the way. And, oh yeah, John Lennon is a whole nuther can of worms. I thought at one time that there were twins there as well, but I could never nail it down. But he’s alive, I think. The working class hero was set up to take a fall, to inspire a whole generation to follow a supposedly idealistic but mushy-brained pop star, who was then offed in public. I think of it is a “killing hope” project, and not the first. Some other day.
