Published images of Faul in '66

[astro4]

On 26th November 1966, the New Musical Express (NME) had this rather dark image of the ‘new Paul’ with the caption: 

PAUL McCARTNEY returned to London this week from a nine-day holiday in Kenya. He is pictured above with the moustache and slightly shorter hair he used towards his disguise. 


It’s hard to believe that any NME reader could suppose that this person was James Paul McCartney...

That’s my favourite image of the new Faul, as he emerges from Nowhere, and steps into History. Yes, he’ll do it! He will even forsake his own identity, to rescue The Beatles.


A month later, the weekly Disc & Music Echo had this even more unlikely image of ‘Paul McCartney’ (Dec 24)



Then on December 24th the NME had Faul composing at the piano, subtitled “GEORGE MARTIN and PAUL McCARTNEY (dig the Pancho moustache) at work in EMI’s studios during the recording of George’s United Artists single of Paul’s film music.”




Much the same pic appeared in the Daily Mirror on 22nd December "Shhh! Composers at Work", with the explanation that George Martin was writing down what Paul played, for a film score. Again we see the long, thin face and wonder how anyone could have believed this was JPM? 


A week later (December 31) the NME had a full-page interview with the Beatles, and its images showed Faul looking radically different from the others. Its subtitle said, “On the left Paul sports a new fashion – a jacket with silk lapels and a big floral tie-at the premier of Hayley Mills’ film, “The Family Way” for which he wrote the music.”

The Beatles Book

In contrast with these weekly British music mags, the ‘official’ monthly Beatles Book kept using images of the old (real) Paul right through the year 1966 as if nothing had happened, and my impression is, that they may have slightly elongated his face in their pictures through that year (I’d appreciate comment here). Its pics achieved a kind of artful melding of the two faces.


A new era in PID-ology dawns as newspaper databases become online-accessible: tho many don’t yet reach back to the 1960s.
I hope its of interest, if these are 'the' four published images of the new artist, in the year 1966. If you know of any others, -please put them in - or just cite the paper, I'll find it.

Lennon: ‘Man you’ve been a naughty boy, you’ve let your face grow long’ – Magical Mystery tour 26 mins.

[because]

I remember subtle and sometimes not so subtle shifts in JPM's photos but especially beginning with Sgt Pepper. I noticed the difference in the voice. I remember thinking that I didn't know Paul could sing so high. What was interesting about early PID is that when we were told that Paul was alive - we accepted it. Well sort of. I knew definitely that Paul was gone when I saw him on the McCartney album cover. But the ability to. Compare old and new was severely limited. To this day, I feel like it is almost sacriligeous to suggest that the one people accept as Paul Mccartney is not. Most people don't notice the difference - even people I know who were real fans. For me, it is all about the difference in his energy. ...and the look in his eye. Paul sparkled even when he wasn't "on". Faul does not.

[astro4]

Compare this 1966 thread with an earlier thread of '67 images: invanddis.proboards.com/thread/3311/valis-post-material-thread-locked showing The Beatles Book photos.

(Does anyone know how to control the size of the images? They come out far too large when I put them up.)

[cherilyn7]

Jun 2, 2014 17:59:22 GMT -5 @bigbob said:

Everybody enjoys 'let's pretend' games when they're children. PID is a great way to continue that until you're a cabbage.

Personally, looking at this pic of Faul trying to pretend to be Paul with 'a new look', I was reminded of the time David Bowie tried to replace Cilla Black as Ziggy Stardust.

Yes, you mean effeminate?

[astro4]

Here for comparison is the first pic of Faul in International Times, Britain's 'underground' newspaper - with no moustache.


I've missed out the bottom of the pic, but he's wearing a smart suit. That issue featured an in-depth interview by Barry Miles: www.internationaltimes.it/archive/index.php?year=1967&volume=IT-Volume-1&issue=6&item=IT_1967-01-16_B-IT-Volume-1_Iss-6_008-009 - Is it too small to read the print? You can see that the interview has  a pic of Paul on the LHS, subtitled 'Paul and Miles at a recent Indica gallery opening' i.e. last summer, plus also a pic of Faul on the right - so Barry Miles knew exactly what was going on.

[NothingIsReal1985]

May 30, 2014 18:15:38 GMT -5 because said:

I remember subtle and sometimes not so subtle shifts in JPM's photos but especially beginning with Sgt Pepper. I noticed the difference in the voice. I remember thinking that I didn't know Paul could sing so high. What was interesting about early PID is that when we were told that Paul was alive - we accepted it. Well sort of. I knew definitely that Paul was gone when I saw him on the McCartney album cover. But the ability to. Compare old and new was severely limited. To this day, I feel like it is almost sacriligeous to suggest that the one people accept as Paul Mccartney is not. Most people don't notice the difference - even people I know who were real fans. For me, it is all about the difference in his energy. ...and the look in his eye. Paul sparkled even when he wasn't "on". Faul does not.

I couldn't agree more... very insightful and thought-provoking. I've not only noticed with with Paul, but ALL of The Beatles and countless other celebrities, especially those I am a big fan of. It's a demonic, Satanic ritual for the CIA, Military Intelligence (MI-5 & MI-6) and the Illuminati to replace EVERYONE [from time to time, of course] -- thus everyone eventually becoming victims of impostor-replacement(s), with ORIGINAL individuals usually NOT living past the age of 30, when their mind control and programming breaks down beyond 'repair' -- not just some or most famous public figures, so there's NO exception to the rule(s) whatsoever.

If the outer appearance(s) -- of either the early doubles/multiples or clones, etc. of the ACTUAL person, as well as the impostor-replacements -- don't tell the story of these individuals NOT being the original person(s), then their energy profiles, vibes [or vibrations], presence, disposition, personality (and ESPECIALLY the eyes) tell us, those of us who are sensitive and perceptive to such things as this, EVERYTHING we would ever want to know. The old adage "The EYES are (the) windows to the soul" didn't come to be for NOTHING, for there is MUCH truth to it. Here's a (rather sad) example:

ORIGINAL Brendon Urie (ca. Early 2006)


IMPOSTOR "Brendon Urie"/Frendon Urie (ca. 2013-'14)


A BIG difference, eh? One is obviously a natural-born human being with a warm, friendly, relaxed, Godly, etc. countenance (as well as outer beauty) and humane, sparkling eyes, but the other one is a cloned Synthetic Humanoid with a rather sinister, cold, vacuous, demonic, Satanic, robotic, soulless gaze, not to mention that he doesn't really look human and is UGLY as SIN. The lopsided smile -- and other facial features also switches sides, as is often the case with clones.