Visual Cranberry Sauce
Twenty-first century technology has given us a number of means to cataloguing, comparing, manipulating, storing graphic and sonic data to a degree unimaginable in 1969, when the PID rumor began. Naturally, those who persist in maintaining this belief have turned to photographs and recordings in order to prove that McCartney died in 1966.
Photographic Evidence

Looking at any photo of Paul McCartney from the 1940s to 2007, one can immediately recognize his most salient facial feature: a slight inner-eyelid fold that makes his eyes seem to slant toward the outside of his face. While inner-eyelid folds are common among eastern Asians, they are relatively rare among Europeans. Proponents of the PID story say that the public therefore concentrates upon the eyes as a McCartney identifier, and neglects other parts of the face that exhibit more severe changes. This trait was one also the one most easily corrected by cosmetic surgery.
Two very popular PID websites, The King Is Naked and James Paul McCartney (1942-1966) have given an extensive look-see into the possibility that while the eyes match, much of the face doesn’t. The most prominent feature is the size and shape of McCartney’s head.
Figure 2. John Lennon and Paul McCartney 1964
In the above photo, Lennon and McCartney are the same distance from the camera lens, and their facial angles are practically identical. In this photograph, Lennon’s face appears rather long and rectangular, while McCartney’s face seems smaller and rounder. Superimposing McCartney and Lennon’s faces, from the above photo, onto their pics on the Sgt. Pepper Lonely Hearts Club Band album, you can see that properly scaled, John's head seems to fit well (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Sgt. Pepper photo with 1964 Lennon image superimposed
Superimposing McCartney’s head into this picture, however, yields a startling result. One finds that inserted at the precise scale of the Lennon image from the same 1964 picture that between 1964 and 1967, Paul’s head seems to have inexplicably grown larger. Most important: the shape of his face has apparently changed from round to long and rectangular.
Figure 4. Sgt Pepper photo with 1964 McCartney image superimposed 
In order to drive the point home further, proponents of the PID rumor have compared photos of McCartney to those allegedly belonging to William Campbell, alias Neill Aspinall. In particular, they note the similarity of the elongated, pointy chin of the "imposter."
Figure 5. “William Campbell”
Figure 6. Paul McCartney c. 1967 (left); Neil Aspinall and John Lennon, 1964 (right)
Figure 7. “William Campbell”/Paul McCartney comparison, c. 1968
In addition to the alleged change in facial shape, PID proponents also point to changes in eye color (from brown to green) and laterality (from left-handedness to right-handedness). Also, they note that between 1966 and 1968, McCartney apparently grew a couple of inches.
Figure 8. Lennon and McCartney, 1965 (left); “I Am the Walrus” video from Magical Mystery Tour (right)

Figure 9. McCartney and girlfriend Jane Asher c, 1965 (left): McCartney and Asher c. 1967 (right).
Voice Analysis
Any Beatlephile can tell you that McCartney’s voice changed during the group’s existence. Comparing his performance on “The Night Before” to that of “Blackbird,” for example, one notes obvious differences in sound that reflect varying vocals techniques. In the former, for example, the voice originates more towards the back of the throat, and thus contains a bit of a rasp. The latter originates more in the area of the nose, which (in technical terms) emphasizes the upper partials of McCartney’s voice, making it seem “softer” (or whiney, depending on your perspective).
Figure 10. “The Night Before” and “Blackbird” excerpts
During the PID rumor’s heyday in 1969, a Miami, FL disc jockey prompted a well-respected linguist, Dr. Henry Truby (University of Miami) to determine if there were two different voices attributed to McCartney. After poring over and analyzing a number of singing and speaking recordings, Dr. Truby realized that there were not two Pauls. There were three.
In order to save time and space, I’ll cut to the chase and say that I have absolutely no dispute with Dr. Truby’s analysis. Three different men sang or spoke for Paul McCartney between 1962 and 1969. While this would constitute court-quality evidence, it in no way proves that the former-Beatle died in 1966 or any other year. It can only be used as supporting evidence for that thesis. After all, there are better explanations for why there were three Pauls—especially when you know who the other two were.
Don't forget. Go to Can of Worms for part III of Angie's interview.
Labels: Paul-Is-Dead, pop culture



12 Comments:
At 4:27 AM,
Rayke said…
I know of a lot of bands who have other people write their music, and sometimes even sing for them, or play insturments for them. (See- Hinder. Most talent-less band on the planet.)
The fact that there were "three different" Pauls throughout the Beatles discography (?) doesn't surprise me in the least.
But maybe when you tell me about the people who actually did the singing for him, I will be.
At 4:30 AM,
Anonymous said…
hmmmmmmm, i will need to come back to this in a few days ..
At 4:30 AM,
Anonymous said…
in a way, in the photo of john and paul both photos look about the same length to me.
foam
At 12:45 PM,
X. Dell said…
Rayke, deception in the record-making process is really born from multitracking, during the 1960s. From Hinder to the Monkees, the method of production is obscured.
One of the people might surprise you. Note that I included both singing and speaking.
Foam, are you referring to the first Sgt. Pepper photo?
At 2:51 PM,
Rayke said…
Ah. Speaking as well, then? That's definitely odd.
Has it actually been PROVEN, like 100% fact, that someone else was "speaking" for him? Like for audio interviews...? Because that really would be strange.
Also, when are you going reveal the big "thing" that you, yourself, have discovered?
At 8:20 PM,
X. Dell said…
Rayke, I'm going to put it this way: there were three different voices said to have belonged to McCartney. Dr. Truby proved this beyond a reasonable doubt, and he would have qualified as a court expert.
The big secret starts at the end of the next post.
At 1:28 AM,
Libby said…
...in the 2 pix of mccartney & jane asher, either paul got taller, or jane got shorter!!
At 11:40 AM,
X. Dell said…
Well, Libby, women have gotten short with me. Could happen to someone else, I suppose.
At 2:46 PM,
the.red.mantissa said…
interesting ... particularly the sgt pepper picture comparison.
At 7:04 PM,
X. Dell said…
Mantissa, yeah. Some of this stuff will get you a-wonderin'.
At 5:27 AM,
Marc said…
The picture of McCartney on the Sgt. Pepper's album cover was a cardboard cut-out, that the other three Beatles were propping up - hence, making him appear taller.
although this action itself is commonly regarded as further evidence of the subterfuge.
but anyway, even if William did replace Paul, he turned into a decent musician - maybe even better than the original. being commonly regarded as driving force behind the Beatles later (psychedelic) artistic direction.
At 11:25 AM,
X. Dell said…
Hello, Marc. Welcome to The X-Spot.
The cutout thing I've not heard before. Where did you get that piece of information from?
As far as the musical merits of "Beatle Bill," I would repeat the old saw, there's no accounting for taste.
Post a Comment
Linkbacks:
Create a Link
<< Home