The 'Paul Is Dead' myth began in 1969, and alleged that Paul McCartney died in 1966. The Beatles are said to have covered up the death, despite inserting a series of clues into their songs and artwork.
The story goes that at 5am on Wednesday 9 November 1966, McCartney stormed out of a session for the Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band album, got in to his Austin Healey car, and subsequently crashed and died.
Somewhat improbably, McCartney was said to have been replaced by a lookalike, called variously William Shears Campbell or William Sheppard. William Campbell allegedly became Billy Shears on Sgt Pepper, while William Sheppard was supposedly the inspiration behind The Continuing Story Of Bungalow Bill (actually an American named Richard Cooke III).
In fact, the crash never happened. Between 6 and 19 November 1966, McCartney and his girlfriend Jane Asher were on holiday, travelling through France and Kenya.
However, a couple of relevant incidents did take place. On 26 December 1965 McCartney crashed his moped, resulting in a chipped tooth (seen in the videos for Paperback Writer and Rain) and a scar on his top lip, which he hid by growing a moustache.
Additionally, on 7 January 1967 McCartney's Mini Cooper was involved in an accident on the M1 motorway outside London, as a result of which it was written off. However, the car was being driven by a friend at the time; McCartney was at a party in Sussex. The driver, who survived the accident, was called Mohammed Hadjij.
The origins of the myth
Belief that Paul McCartney may have died in the mid 1960s began in 1969. The first known print reference was in an article written by Tim Harper which appeared in the 17 September edition of the Times-Delphic, the newspaper of the Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa.
Harper later claimed that he wasn't the original source for any of the claims in his articles. He said he was writing for entertainment purposes only, and said he got the information from a fellow student, Dartanyan Brown. Mr Brown is said to have got the story from a musician who had heard it on the Californian west coast, and that he also read the story in an underground newspaper.
The rumours gained momentum on 12 October 1969, after an on-air phone call to radio presenter Russ Gibb, a DJ on WKNR-FM in Michigan. The caller, identified only as 'Tom', claimed that McCartney was dead, and instructed Gibb to play Revolution 9 backwards, where the repeated "number nine" phrase was heard as "turn me on, dead man".
Listening to the show was Fred LaBour, an arts reviewer for student newspaper The Michigan Daily. LaBour used clues from Gibb's programme along with others he had invented himself - including the name of William Campbell, the alleged replacement for McCartney.
I made the guy up. It was originally going to be Glenn Campbell, with two Ns, and then I said 'that's too close, nobody'll buy that'. So I made it William Campbell.
The Michigan Daily published it on 14 October, under the title McCartney Dead; New Evidence Brought To Light. Although clearly intended as a joke, it had an impact far wider than the writer and his editor expected.
Shortly afterwards, Russ Gibb co-produced a one-hour special called The Beatle Plot, giving the rumour greater prominence; by then it was well on its way to become a national, then international, talking point, inspiring fans to pore over their albums for further clues.
A British version of the rumour is believed to have existed prior to the American one, with fewer details. The sources are unknown, but the notion of McCartney dying in a road accident appears to have originated there.
The Beatles' responses
Although The Beatles and their press office at Apple were initially bewildered and somewhat annoyed by the story's refusal to die away, there is evidence that the group members themselves found it amusing.
In an edition of Life magazine dated 7 November 1969, McCartney reassured fans that "Rumours of my death have been greatly exaggerated," paraphrasing Mark Twain. "However," he continued, "if I was dead, I'm sure I'd be the last to know."
The magazine's cover featured Paul and Linda with their children, in a picture taken on their Scottish farm. The cover featured the words "The case of the 'missing' Beatle - Paul is still with us". Shortly after the issue went on sale the rumours started to decline.
In his revealing Rolling Stone interview in 1970, John Lennon was asked about the death story. He responded in a typically forthright fashion:
I don't know where that started, that was barmy. I don't know, you know as much about it as me... No, that was bullshit, the whole thing was made up. We never went for anything like that. We put tit-tit-tit in Girl. It would be things like a beat missing or something like that, see if anyone noticed - I know we used to have a few things, but nothing that could be interpreted like that.
Lennon referred to the myth in 1971's How Do You Sleep?, his vitriolic attack on McCartney from the Imagine album. The song contains the lines: "Those freaks was right when they said you was dead, the one mistake you made was in your head".
McCartney parodied the rumours with the title and cover or his 1993 album Paul Is Live. The artwork was based on the Abbey Road cover photograph; instead of the 28IF number plate, a car shows 51 IS instead. To reinforce the cycle of life, he is pictured being dragged across the famous zebra crossing by one of the offspring of his sheepdog Martha.
You know what I don't understand? Why do so many people say it's absolutely certain that Paul is alive? Why is it impossible for him to be dead? I mean, look at it this way: While Paul was in Africa, he died in a car accident in England. Then, a perfect look-alike was found, and this look-alike just happened to be able to sing and play bass and guitar just as well as Paul could. The Beatles went on to make amazing music with this "Faul," secretly hiding clues about Paul's death in their music and cover art and such. And some of these clues were in their music/cover art/etc. even before Paul's death. Later, the three orginal Beatles and Faul had lots of arguments, and eventually the band broke up. After the Beatles broke up, Faul went on to have an amazing solo career that was probably what Paul would have done had he not died. And Faul is still fooling people today.
What's so impossible about that?
But even though I don't believe it, I still enjoy researching the myth and finding clues. It's a fun mystery.
"While Paul was in Africa, he died in a car accident in England... What’s so impossible about that?"
You'd have to ask Einstein (using your time travel machine), but I think bilocation is quite tricky to pull off.
The idea is that he died in England but the substitute (now Sir Paul) went to Africa -- first France and Spain, where in France he was unrecognized and unaccepted, according to Mal Evans -- for surgery.
John Lennon spoke about blackmail here http://youcanknowsometimes.blogspot.ca/2013/03/off-topic-new-paul-is-dead-clue-from.html
So let me get this straight. Paul dies in a car accident. Then the remaining Beatles, and close associates to the Beatles, cover up his death. Then the remaining three Beatles and the "look alike and sound alike Paul” proceed to send out clues to Paul’s actual death through their music and album covers?
Okay, can someone please explain to me why people would participate in the illegal cover up of Paul’s death and then try their hardest to tell the world the truth through abstract clues?
People really are idiots and will ignore reality if it helps them to hold on to their delusions. The mockumentry “Paul Really Is Dead” is a good example. I have read comments from people quoting “clues” from this film as though it was a real documentary instead of a tongue in cheek comedy.
When I read comments from people who simply refuse to accept reality, it gives me serious cause for concern regarding the future of the human species.
The mockumentary was disinfo in its overall purpose, or it was just generally convenient to anyone helping a cover-up, if there is a cover-up. It included some accurate points (as all good disinfo does) about what people CLAIMED from their reading of a range of so-called clues, but also strung it together without certain pieces of information. And it came out when Iamaphoney's "Rotten Apple" series and soon-to-be late 2010 film was due, "The Winged Beatle". Seems the "Harrison Last Testament" movie was put out to deflect attention from the other. Not that Iamaphoney -- whose name is a play on the idea that Macca is a phoney -- is perfect. He toys with some editing for emotional emphasis, but overall he provides many new or reminders of nearly forgotten pieces of information. For example, in "Rotten Apple 47 2", a clip from an old film on PID "clues" shows a FULL FRONTAL "OPD" patch (made from OPP, of course), in an alternate copy of the gate-fold of the Sgt Pepper album. Whether the image was from an album version lesser known now, or from an advertisement, the image is clear. --- The main item, however, in the series is at the very end of the 2010 film TWB. It seems indeed to be an old typewritten and handwritten page; it is, putatively, a page from Mal Evans' lost book (not diary). And it talks of the "clinic in Kenya" and how it had "done a good job" and how John was impressed and everyone was surprised because "it was really happening" and how depressed and angry they all were about it. If it's a real page, it can only be talking of the introduction of Macca in Nov. 1966. ----------- By the way, though the piece here at Beatlesbible recounts the typical IMPRESSION people have of "the clues" and "dates", the real date, IF Paul died, would have to be not Nov 9 but Sept 11 ... from the numeric date "clue" on the drum-skin of Sgt P front album cover. Many Americans in 1969 chauvinistically assumed that dates are always written M/D/Y but in Britain and Commonwealth countries, etc., they're written D/M/Y. -- As to the future of the human species I cannot comment, but you may find the optics on the real ears useful to make your determination before you despair of the sanity of all PID proponents, any more than they should despair, carte blanche, of the sanity of PIA proponents. Perhaps many in each camp are insane, but maybe not for arguing the issues either way. Have a look at the link I posted. John's drawing is very interesting; the OPD full frontal is there (and the other, few, provably "clue"-theme items, whatever they were created for). And also the ears with a demonstration of optics.
I know many people who think Paul actually died and take the clues very seriously. There is even a website that uses forensic dissertation to support this argument. I think Paul is alive, but I look at the clues for fun.
Well, you might have a look here: http://youcanknowsometimes.blogspot.ca/2013/03/off-topic-new-paul-is-dead-clue-from.html
first of all...if there was any question about his death being real and this hoax did take place, they would of dug up the body and did dna on it.....remember we live in the 21st century and have numerouse technology ways and means...
Mr Scott, you just can't go into cemetaries and start digging bodies up and performing DNA tests... They have a certain protocol for that and if it is true, do you think that the 'powers that be' would just allow that?
wait, you CAN'T just go into cemeteries and start digging bodies up? CRAP! I better go hide that shovel. . .
Who is "they" who would dig up bodies? People who want to protect the fortunes and embarrassment and loyalty? Or police? If you mean the latter: a double requires intel and police complicity (a few persons, as with media censorship: it's partial but effective).
I saw a photo where 'Faul' was clearly wearing a prosthetic ear piece and I got to tell you, that was the smoking gun that started my research and in other photo's you can clearly see that Paul 66 and prior had nice, smooth rounded ears with connected ear lobes and 'Faul' (after 67) does not. I doubt we will ever be told in a straight forward way but it certainly makes you go, 'hmm'.
Enough of this limping dog of a story.
Also: what of this claim by C. Bowin, about totally different earlobes (among other changes) makes you so defensive as to ignore the point? Or did you not bother to check it out? Look it up. I posted a link above, for part of that info, with more links given inside that page, as well.
It is interesting to me that it never occurs to any of you conspirecy nuts that the simple explanation for different ear lobes is the result of modern technology. This technolgy is at the finger tips of all who have a computer. It is called Photoshop.
Actually, no. The images are from different eras and part of the general record. There are falsies on Sir Paul most of the time, but there are some ears the forensic scientists showed in Wired Italia 2009 in the midst of their rather extensive study of the case, and these vary not merely in lobes. Sorry.
We have indeed been told the turth "in a straight forward way". It all started as a joke that got out of hand. The man did not die. His ears did not change between '66 and 67. People who continue to push forward this myth need to seek therapy.
You might wish to have a look at the upper leg of the antihelix, which, without intense foreshortening, is quite different after 1966. But let's say there were massive foreshortening: it would still contradict. It is wider, not narrower than the 1966 leg of the antihelix; foreshortening narrows, it doesn't widen. Also (as if there were more difference one needed as proof, but of course different ears will have many different features), it is further back than Paul's upper leg of antihelix, pre-1966. Go to the link I just posted.
I don't believe in this PID rubbish, but it's interesting to read about it. I doubt Jane Asher would feel comfortable being with a look-alike, and the band wouldn't carry on with the Beatles, even if they were paid to. They nearly broke up after Brian's death, and Paul is more important than money.
Tasha, I hear you. However, when one is familiar with the case (and has seen forever the difference, not in some haphazard way -- though some people really are only seeing it that way), one looks at Asher and the post-Epstein death differently. It would, instead, seem as though Jane did a charade for a while, perhaps even turning for comfort to the new man. Who knows, but one way or another, left. We don't know on that one, but it's not impossible that behind the scenes things were messy. My own guess is that they were going to reveal things and the charade got out of hand -- which also addresses your claim that at the intense height of their initial career, they would not have been wanting to quit but overwhelmed with Paul's death as well. About Epstein: it may well have been pressures about Paul's death also pushing that near break-up. One way or another, there is a 5th Beatle, friend and interloper at the same time.
I wonder why it is so imporatnt for some of you to believe this myth. It confounds me that people feel absolutly no shame in calling Sir Paul a fraud. I wonder how any of you would feel if a group of delusional individuals decided to take it upon themselves to strip any of you of your identiy. Shame on all of you.
In my opinion, acid head people are also called "dead people"; when Paul finally took LSD, John probably said "now, Paul is dead, at last" or something, hã?
Here's a theory: The Paul Is Dead myth, was a hoax, actually thought up by Paul, "Hey Lads, let's make up I'm dead!" and the rest went along not realizing how big the gag would get - all of this fueled Paul's overbearing ego - eventually they were too dug in to get out of it - and I it became a major element in leading to disharmony and the eventual break-up and the other 3 becoming "fed up with being sidemen for Paul" - that's John's quote.
Actually "Doctor" Robert (ha ha): Per the Mal Evans single page shown in "The Winged Beatle", John was distraught that "it was really happening" & how good the surgery was, that Paul had been to "the clinic in Kenya" which "had done a good job". The purported Mal Evans “Living the Beatles Legend” (supposedly lost book) page in TWB is at 1:01:00 (overall page shown but bottom blurred), and then 1:01:07 bottom of page shown only, but unblurred.
As to John's public statements: 1. J claimed on TV he'd heard it first from "the newspapers ... or uh ..." & looks very nervous for a split second (you can see the clip on Youtube or in "The Winged Beatle". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsPCQ932vlU at 40:05. 2. In a radio interview from 1970 about the Beatles breakup, J talks briefly ostensibly about Epstein's death, then says the album they made after the trauma (& lowers his voice and Yoko laughs) was "Sergeant Peppers, oh I'm not sure": joke for no-one but Yoko, or revelation going by so fast it's almost unnoticeable by mixing stories? In same interview J later talks more directly of Epstein's death & completely naturally speaks at length about Magical Mystery Tour (the real album made after Eppie's death) & his reaction to the death. Seems to be mixing griefs about Paul & Eppie for those in the know. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=317yvBXrXjw 3. In 1971 movie "Imagine", perhaps freed by USA breaking story of PID, George corrects J jokingly, a bit nervously, hiding his mouth with his napkin a bit, saying "The Fab 3" when J had been riffing on "The Fab 4". J jumps out of his seat, then realizes it's okay now to say that and calms down. (In "The Winged Beatle" the clip is shown, though for effect (and thus makes a literal untruth in the edit, unfortunately) the maker of the movie edits in J winking, which is from later in scene. See TWB (link above) at 45:00. 5. J drew an extremely macabre drawing in late 1971, when PID story was already out, but gave it to someone who wouldn't be in a position to make a bigger PID ruckus; thus = a privately public PID clue. It does not prove Paul died, but it is a PID-style clue. (Its poignancy also, however, would on its own indicate something serious might be real about PID clues overall.) Yet of course, a PID case is made on facial and earlobe forensics, not clues. For info on the drawing, plus PID forensics info links themselves: link.
The Paul is Dead myth started in America. A listener called into a radio show and put forward his theories based on album covers. A local journalist was listening to the show and then wrote a tounge in cheek article putting forth this "theory". He intended it to be a joke, but sadly many took him seriously. Paul had nothing to do with this myth being started.
Both the writer of this article and the commenters deem themselves experts on the PID subject. Dates, times and brand of car, it is all nailed down to perfection. Yet in this rumor there is huge discrepancy in the "facts." I cannot think of any historical recounting that has so much certainty as to facts and what did or did not happen to Paul. One thing is for certain that I know as a fan, the rumor was going round in London in 1967. It was because of the end of the 45 rpm record played up high with the end of strawberry fields song where John clearly says "I buried Paul." When the rumor got to America the new pressed editions of that song said "cranberry sauce." But rock stars were going down by the bucket if not by drugs then by accident. It would have been perfectly logical that Paul would be replaced by the English in light of all the money they were bringing into the Sterling crisis. EMI would not have allowed him to die either. It is more likely than not that Paul died and was replaced.
Here is the solution. Before 1966 Paul had dark brown eyes. After 66 Faul has green eyes. Game Over
It really happened.You can't just read about the theories,because it is fun.Someone's death it is not funny thing.They covered his death.Can you believe how many girls would kill themselfs if they knew the truth?For this reason the truth was ''hidden'' in songs,albums,photos... They hide the truth and putted it in so many songs,just for the real fans,because the real fans would know that nobody can replace their favourite singer and they would know,that something is not quite right.As i see here,the big part of people can't call themselfs:''Real fans of The Beatles'',unfortunately.