Anybody asked for a DNA test?

[EricHufschmid]

Today there is a quick and inexpensive way to resolve the issue: give McCartney a DNA test to see how closely he matches his relatives.

All McCartney has to do is give us a hair from his head. Then we need some samples from his relatives. All we have to do is meet each of them somewhere, hold open sterile plastic bag, let them grab a loose hair, and put it into the bag. It takes less time and effort than giving an autograph, or posing for a photograph.

This would be the way to make the "conspiracy nuts" to shut up...unless he is not the real McCartney, in which case he would be terrified at the thought of somebody stalking him for a DNA sample.

The interesting thing about DNA tests is that all we need is a tiny sample from any of his cells. So if anybody knows where McCartney gets his hair cut, all they have to do is drop by and grab some of them.

DNA tests can also be done from cells in your mouth, or flakes of skin. So even if McCartney does not want to cooperate, somebody could get a sample of his DNA if they can just get close to him.

The DNA test costs only a few hundred dollars. For example:
www.familytreedna.com/products.html
www.dnanow.com/instruct.html

Of course, if the government does the testing, the results would be meaningless. We would have to ensure that we have honest people involved. That could be difficult.

So why not try to contact him and ask for a DNA sample?

[SunKing]

...after such a multi-billionaire cover-up?...
Ask NASA to let you analize lunar rocks....

EricHufschmid: here we are more fortunate than other "conspirators".
Facial comparisons HAVE full legal value.
Like so many other evidences collected here.

[Perplexed]

Contracts. Legal rights. Authorized use. Trademark Name. Commercial Entity. Advertising provisos. Photographic likenesses distribution. Artistic agreements. Fulfillment of Artist/Management/Producer contracts. Persuant to party of the first part, party of the second part; forthwith and ensuing; proviso, personnel all present and accounted for; documentation filed, title granted; fully authorized permission; medical waivers;mechanical rights defined; signatures notarized, valid instruments of a commercial franchise in perfect order.

Everything has been legally satified; fulfilled to the exact letter of the laws, domestic and foreign, commercial, maritime, and broadcast ready. Jot AND tittle.

Everything looks in fine order to me, sir.

So, these medical questions are of no real concern. All we need to be reassured is just to know that you still maintain a good, strong pulse; and from all indications, you definitely do.

Any questions?

[PaulBearer]

This has been brought up a few times before. Click on search and look for "DNA".

Getting Paul's real DNA would probably be a problem. It would be argued whether or not it really was his DNA after all this time on whatever particular thing it is you're getting the DNA from.

And then there's the amount of money Faul could spend to have the results doctored. You would have to find a way to do it without his knowledge.

[abbey]

Wouldn't it be a bit difficult to get Paul's DNA since nobody knows where the body is? You would need either a hair sample or a bone marrow sample, right?

If you could get one from Faul, like a hair sample...anyone want a fling with him and just grab some hair in the process?

However, you're right, if it was done in a government setting, Faul would definitely stop it. Gee, wonder why, if he IS Paul...HAHA! If he were Paul (and we know he's not) then why wouldn't he submit to a DNA test to prove that he is who he says he is?? It would have to be done by a private agency we could trust.

The comparison between Faul and Mike McGear would be interesting. Or if you could get Paul's DNA and compare it to Mike and then Faul's kids. Would Mike's be similar to Paul's? I'd think so, but I'm no medical expert.

We know Faul will never submit because it would prove once and for all that he has been living someone else's life for 38 years!!! Also his children would be illegitament; his marriage to Linda and Heather would not be legal; the property he owns might be debatable as to true ownership, especially the house at 7 Cavendish in St John's Wood. With all that riding on his identity, you can bet he would NEVER EVER voluntarily allow a DNA test to be done.

[EricHufschmid]

I didn't realize there was a search button. Sorry to bring up a topic that was recently discussed.

[BillyJones]

Perplexed - HUH?!

[BillyJones]

Eric - don't be sorry! We're very happy to have you here with us! P.B just wanted you to know about it, is all. The DNA issue needs to be discussed as often as possible. If it's done in a true & fair manner, it would resolve this issue once & for all!
Abbey - hear, hear!

[Perplexed]

Billy Jay-I was flying in elliptical orbit that night. (Step away from the Bailey's Irish Creme..........)

My "point" (if I can ever get one to gel) was, in that confusing post, was this:

EMI etc has access to the best lawyers in the world. Doesn't it seem like they would have made everything technically kosher long ago? (regarding name, property, entitlements, liscences, etc etc etc.)

As far as DNA testing, well, I dont know anything about it. But I just have a notion that there would be nothing to match his against for a comparison.
I don't know about sibling similarities, but Mr. McGear would offer privacy issues to resist that kind of intrusion. He would refuse indignantly and, if one really thinks this through, it's clear that he would appear justified in doing so. I mean, like the motive wouldn't be obvious----isn't it tacky to consider? I also think that folllowing a knighted celebrity around Scotland in hopes of snipping a lock of hair or capturing a tiny layer of dead, sloughed off skin cells in a bug jar would land the perpetrator in the looney bin. I mean, that would be the zenith of poor choices. A pathetic option. Nutty. ("Oh, god, here comes that crazy man/woman with the bug jar again------be real nice and give him/her this hangnail I just bit off. That should give this person a thrill and perhaps they'll finally leave me alone.....or, he could shout, "Security!")

I am being severe in this post.

But really, really, think. Those are not honorable or sensible deeds.

[EricHufschmid]

^{Posted by Perplexed on May 3rd, 2004: As far as DNA testing, well, I dont know anything about it. But I just have a notion that there would be nothing to match his against for a comparison.}


You match it with a sample from McCartney's relatives. DNA tests show how closely related one person is to another. Some people use DNA tests to determine the father of a child, for example.

Therefore, if you could get a hair from Faul's head, and a hair from any of McCartney's relatives, you could show that the differences are so extreme that they could not be close relatives. You could then announce to the world that DNA tests prove that McCartney is dead.

You could even figure out who Faul's relatives are by testing everybody on the planet.

As SunKing points out, the facial comparisons are evidence that McCartney is dead. The photos that show the real McCartney is shorter than Faul are even more evidence.

Further evidence -- to me at least -- is that the Beatles stopped going on tour for no apparent reason right when they were becoming famous. It appears as if they were hiding from the public.

The fact that websites like this exist can even be used as evidence that McCartney is dead. Consider it this way: Imagine lots of websites around the world claiming that you died 40 years ago during some bungled, government murder, and that your friends and relatives accepted some other guy as a replacement.

Wouldn't you -- and some of your relatives! -- contact the website and tell them to stop it? Wouldn't you be willing to send a hair from your head so that they could identify your DNA? I bet that some people would file lawsuits to shut down sites like this.

Why would the real Paul McCartney or his friends and relatives tolerate these web sites? Doesn't the existence of these websites suggest the McCartney is dead?

Or am I incorrect about this assumption? Is this type of abuse common in the entertainment business? Do famous musicians frequently find websites claiming that they were murdered years ago?

From what little I know about this issue, politicians are the only people who tolerate abusive remarks and wild accusations. For example, a few days ago I notice a rumor on the Internet that George Bush's brain was replaced with Folger's Crystals to see if anybody would notice the difference. I'm not sure if his brain really was replaced, but politicians are willing to put up with abuse.

However, McCartney was not a politician, so why would he -- and his relatives -- put up with such abuse?

When I mentioned McCartney was dead to some people, they look at me as if I am getting carried away by believing every conspiracy theory. What can I tell them? To look at this website and study the photos? This is too complex for most people. Most people don't think very much. They just watch television and mimic one another.

However, if we could announce that a DNA test proves that McCartney is dead, the "common person" would listen seriously, even though most people don't know what a DNA test is.

[Perplexed]

You're a very intelligent man, Eric. I confess I am not up on the DNA testing procedures and uses.

You are clear and right on in everything you said.

I don't know. For some reason, I have a sense, or maybe a misperception (I've been wrong in a big way several times here) but I sense that trying to "tell" the world about this would eventually amount to trying to tell the British government, lawyers, court, Queen, etc. After all, that is the jurisdiction under which billy lives.

But, in a way, is like trying to warn "Don Corlione" that maybe his children and co-workers are into some really scandalous stuff, you have proof, and he'd better straighten them out, or he may suffer for there "ganglike" actions.

Mr. "Corlione" already knows. And in this situation Elizabeth knows whatever the case is. She knighted him. She is not stupid.
Are we going to try to tell her that she allowed a mistake? Or tell Parliament that their intelligence people acted on their own and did this diabolical plot? Parliament won't believe it, number one, which is the end of it there. (I do not use this analogy to imply that the Queen is a gangster, far from it; just that she is the "boss" in her realm. On the side, I suspect there may be a good hearted gangster or two out there in the world. But, what do I know........)

There is no case that any of common folk could prepare about PID that does not already have a counter cooked up somewhere in readiness. On paper, or in some smart lawyers mind---its a fait accompli. It has to be by nature.

The highest levels in Britain, as far as those who might need to know, already know, and spend resources insuring a smooth continuation. There is no way to "provoke" a discovery of this PID possibility, under any means.

They are on ready to put the fix on whatever happens. THINK. Could it be otherwise, if it were true? Does anyone here think that anyone could "surprise" his handlers or whatever with anything new, or disturbing, that they haven't prethought a strategy, or have human resources brilliant enough to disarm the "leak?"

But you are so right, that Western mainstream minds (esp American) are by-and-large incapable of processing this kind of a scenario. Or, grazing over all the bits and pieces and forming a coherent sense of what could have happened. Not formatted to do so, not interested in doing so, not in the habit of trying to do so, and generally not willing to invest much time or thought energy into thinking about it.
But, the fact is, we have absolutely NO idea what we are really looking into, in terms of the real facts. We have clues and photos, and long sustained rumours. Very indefinite. We have some fascinating ruminations and speculation. A lot of it macabre.

The powers that be have taken this story and made it a well guarded, almost military, secret. We are free to believe whatever we like, privately and so forth, but to stand ready to challenge the public paradigm is fruitless. They will act in defense however that entails. No one could have stopped the Crown from their actions in Granados a few years ago. I think they take this as seriously.

Privately, (well I give it away now) I wish they had a more elastic philosophy about it. Or rather, I wish that a more elastic approach was possible in this case. But, rationally, it isn't I don't think. If you carried out dangerous, controversial orders for your King or President or whatever one has, wouldn't you expect that that same potentate would protect you to the last?
Isn't that common sense?

A lot of people who believe in PID don't like things staying the same. But maybe that is impatience. I think it may be that, if we really knew all the background in this mystery, we might well say, gracious, they did the right thing. We might want to just walk away from all this and let it go. We might all desire that things go on as they are, Paul protected.
That is a possibility. That is plausible. I may be justified in what I suggest here.

If PID is a falsehood, an empty hoax, then maybe all of us who "came under the spell" will use this phenomenon to work out whatever mental conflicts we have and grow from it.

If it is so, and a person cares a whit about this,I think step one is to think about it as a national act; one that had justification both moral and political at the time. Remember that it had to be supported; it was no act of a single man. Try to see where, in a covert way, expressions of deep sorrow and respect toward James Paul have been displayed curiously amongst the clues, and maintain a grateful attitude toward "Bill" for his participation.
And allow and acknowledge his sizable musical contribution and talent in the scope of his own continuing life and the Beatle's lives. Let's be positive. Let's look at it thankfully, and understandingly.

I have thought about this since late August of last year. It is the only way of dealing with it that makes sense to me now after frankly what has been a excessive preoccupation. (Of ideas, not personalities.)

Its the best way to be about all of this stuff. God is in charge. Many unusual things are happening. If He doesn't allow it, it DOES NOT happen. The "enemy" can only do a thing if God allows it. Read the book of Job.

My thought is to consider possibly WHY God might have allowed all this to happen. I am not so vain as to think that I will really figure that out; God hasn't made me anything as special as to know mysteries; but I can embrace the idea that in His wisdom, He is using the whole entire Beatle's story to make a point.

And all I can feel about that right now is, based on God's excellence, is that it is going to be a GOOD one.

[SunKing]

EricHufschmid said:

^{Posted by Perplexed on May 3rd, 2004: As far as DNA testing, well, I dont know anything about it. But I just have a notion that there would be nothing to match his against for a comparison.}


You match it with a sample from McCartney's relatives. DNA tests show how closely related one person is to another. Some people use DNA tests to determine the father of a child, for example.

Therefore, if you could get a hair from Faul's head, and a hair from any of McCartney's relatives, you could show that the differences are so extreme that they could not be close relatives. You could then announce to the world that DNA tests prove that McCartney is dead.

You could even figure out who Faul's relatives are by testing everybody on the planet.

As SunKing points out, the facial comparisons are evidence that McCartney is dead. The photos that show the real McCartney is shorter than Faul are even more evidence.

Further evidence -- to me at least -- is that the Beatles stopped going on tour for no apparent reason right when they were becoming famous. It appears as if they were hiding from the public.

The fact that websites like this exist can even be used as evidence that McCartney is dead. Consider it this way: Imagine lots of websites around the world claiming that you died 40 years ago during some bungled, government murder, and that your friends and relatives accepted some other guy as a replacement.

Wouldn't you -- and some of your relatives! -- contact the website and tell them to stop it? Wouldn't you be willing to send a hair from your head so that they could identify your DNA? I bet that some people would file lawsuits to shut down sites like this.

Why would the real Paul McCartney or his friends and relatives tolerate these web sites? Doesn't the existence of these websites suggest the McCartney is dead?

Or am I incorrect about this assumption? Is this type of abuse common in the entertainment business? Do famous musicians frequently find websites claiming that they were murdered years ago?

From what little I know about this issue, politicians are the only people who tolerate abusive remarks and wild accusations. For example, a few days ago I notice a rumor on the Internet that George Bush's brain was replaced with Folger's Crystals to see if anybody would notice the difference. I'm not sure if his brain really was replaced, but politicians are willing to put up with abuse.

However, McCartney was not a politician, so why would he -- and his relatives -- put up with such abuse?

When I mentioned McCartney was dead to some people, they look at me as if I am getting carried away by believing every conspiracy theory. What can I tell them? To look at this website and study the photos? This is too complex for most people. Most people don't think very much. They just watch television and mimic one another.

However, if we could announce that a DNA test proves that McCartney is dead, the "common person" would listen seriously, even though most people don't know what a DNA test is.

George Harrison wrote:

Blood From A Clone

and

Brainwashed

George Harrison 's Lyrics at:

www.top50lyrics.com/g/george-harrison-lyrics-1635.html

[BillyJones]

Perplexed - I understand that you're a deeply religious person. I guess if you believe in Christianity & believe that God sacrificed his only begotten son to wash away the sins of man, why wouldn't he sanction the murder of a young gifted musician?
Somehow I don't think that Paul feels honored. I believe that he feels abandoned by his God. He WAS Christian. Irish Catholic to be precise. He went to mass. He said the rosary over & over while the cancer ate away at his mother & eventually killed her. He was a good kid. WHY would God make an example of him? Personally, I don't think that God had ANYTHING to do with what happened to those men!
I really think we should leave God out of this. I REALLY do.

Eric this is for you. A VERY young Paul McCartney. I'd say in his late teens:



A very early photo of Paul & the boys:



Now a young Faul. By young , I mean within a year of his joining the band. From the filming of Magical Mystery Tour:



Faul & Jane, circa 1967:



He really does seem to be a taller person than Paul was. And he's built differently than Paul, also.

Now look at this:



It seems to me that Paul was trying to appear taller in this photograph. Why? How tall was Paul REALLY? In the photos posted here it's obvious that Paul was built kind of like Robin Williams. He has a small torso & longer legs! Now look at this photo of Faul & compare his height to the others - 1967:



He's wearing flats & he's the tallest one! And his torso & legs are in proportion to each other! A person's bone structure CANNOT change!

Look at this photo of The Beatles from 1966:



Paul & John appear to be around the same height!

Now this one from A Hard Day's Night:



George, Paul & John - all around the same height & build.

Check out this photo of Faul & the boys from A Mad Day's Out photo session - 1968:



Look who's ducking. I wonder why?

Here's another:



He's a bigger guy than John. There's just no getting around it!

Here's another:



Again, here's two photos of Paul:





Paul was a LITTLE bow-legged...

Now Faul, a snapshot taken by a fan in 1967:



Faul, 1968 - A Mad Day out photo session!





He's built differently & he's NOT bowlegged!

Another photo of Paul, 1964 or 65? :



Faul, 1968:



Look at their legs, the length of their jackets. They are built DIFFERENTLY than one another. Faul IS a bigger guy!

Another photo of Paul & the boys, scanned from a vintage magazine:



Now Faul, 1967:


img47.photobucket.com/albums/v145/Kissmekatie/Bill_1967_again.gif[/img]

Again, Paul - 1964 or 65?:



Now Faul, 1968:






Finally The Beatles circa 1965:



Now the Beatles - from the Sgt. Pepper photo session:



Just compare Paul from 1965 to Faul from 1967. The differences are pretty obvious!

[abbey]

Excellent work, Billy!!! The differences are so obvious. Faul was bigger and taller, not to mention the various comparisons we've done with feet, ears, space between the eyes. The were two different men.

To comment on Perplexed: Paul had everything taken away from him. He was given no choice, no say; he was cold-bloodedly, brutally murdered. He could never have done anything would warrant his being treated in this manner.

We must fight on until everything is proven and Faul falls.

[LUCY]

Billy said:

if you see the wide shot of this image ( from one of the anthologies) you can SEE that the floor was slanted for the shoot, to make the height difference less obvious.

[BillyJones]

LUCY - thank you so much for that information. It's invaluable!

[BillyJones]

Perplexed -we know that you're only trying to be fair. However, what should be uppermost in our minds is that PEOPLE WERE MURDERED BECAUSE OF THIS TRAVESTY! Paul & Brian being the first. We mustn't forget Brian. He was also a victim of this lie. I don't know what role Faul might've had in it. I know I should care, but I don't. All I care about is that the truth comes out. So that all of the people whose lives were changed or ended can MOVE ON!!!
My dear friend, you HAVE to get off the fence. This is a very real situatiom & we need your keen intellect to try to get to the bottom of this. Who CARES if they've anticipated our every move? WE ARE IN THE RIGHT! If you truly are a follower of the way you have to know that GOOD HAS TO WIN!!!
Faul is not representing the good in this situation. Paul was the good. He wasn't an angel by any means. However, he WAS a decent human being. He was only 24 years old when his life was snuffed out. It was a CRIMINAL act of the worst kind!!!
We HAVE to do something about this because it's the RIGHT THING TO DO!!!

[Perplexed]

Bill Jay, well, I can certainly avoid talking about God, or religion in my posts here. I have laid it on a little thick.

I am no great saint, I can't boast of a great Christian "performance."
Perhaps God Himself is tired of me presuming to reference Him so often; perhaps even He'd like me to scale back.

A possibility.

Anyway, I can do that, although no one can determine His actions.

Well, your last picture on your long picture post--isn't that from the Hello, Goodbye video? I know that was in the same time (spring 67?)but that pic is actually from the video of that tune, filmed at a theatre I think, not where the album shoot was done.
They had to put those duds on twice.

And the first pic of Paul in the junked out warehouse or whatever--that looks odd to me. The clothing seems unknown to 1962-65--but maybe not. Those strange pants and Keds? And who went around in a Tshirt then? We do it all the time today, you know. But it just looks sort of unnatural---its a strange pic.

Actually, all your pictures . Well, never mind. I can't tell anymore.
Lets just summarize and say that the Beatles all had very flexible appearences. Especially George.

[abbey]

Perplexed said:

Bill Jay, well, I can certainly avoid talking about God, or religion in my posts here. I have laid it on a little thick.

I am no great saint, I can't boast of a great Christian "performance."
Perhaps God Himself is tired of me presuming to reference Him so often; perhaps even He'd like me to scale back.

A possibility.

Anyway, I can do that, although no one can determine His actions.

Well, your last picture on your long picture post--isn't that from the Hello, Goodbye video? I know that was in the same time (spring 67?)but that pic is actually from the video of that tune, filmed at a theatre I think, not where the album shoot was done.
They had to put those duds on twice.

And the first pic of Paul in the junked out warehouse or whatever--that looks odd to me. The clothing seems unknown to 1962-65--but maybe not. Those strange pants and Keds? And who went around in a Tshirt then? We do it all the time today, you know. But it just looks sort of unnatural---its a strange pic.

Actually, all your pictures . Well, never mind. I can't tell anymore.
Lets just summarize and say that the Beatles all had very flexible appearences. Especially George.

Perplexed, I appreciate your devotion to your religion and even wish a few more guys were as decent as you seem to be.

However, like Billy, I don't have any sympathy for Bill. He has made FULL advantage of the situation that was afforded him. And never once did he even offer or try to tell the truth, even after he became so rich he could have hidden anywhere, particularly if he had remained single. So far the body count has been Paul, Brian, one mystery girl possibly, Mal, John, George, and how many others we haven't heard about because they weren't in the limelight? How many more have to perish mysteriously before this cover up is blown sky high and the truth comes out???

And the TRUTH WILL WIN!!! I, for one, will fight to see that it happens.

[EricHufschmid]

_{On May 4th, 2004, SunKing wrote:
George Harrison wrote:
Blood From A Clone
and
Brainwashed}


Those strange lyrics remind me of something. I faintly remember a news report years ago in which Paul McCartney (Faul) admitted to releasing an album either anonymously, or at least he didn't put the name "Paul McCartney" on the album. The news reports explained it something like: McCartney knows that his music will sell simply because it has his name on the album, so he released this album anonymously to find out if people liked his music when they did not know it was from him.

Is that true? I tried to search for info on it, but I need some way to narrow the search.

If I remember the news reports correctly, it is yet another clue that McCartney is dead. It would be equivalent to Michael Jordan putting on a face mask and going into a basketball game with somebody else's name on his shirt. After the game is over, he takes off his mask and says, "I was just wondering if people would consider me a great basketball player when they did not know I was Michael Jordan."

When I first heard that report, I was wondering, why would such a famous musician have such tremendous doubts about his musical ability? Well, your site explains it. Faul did not become famous because of his musical ability; rather, he was famous because everybody thought he was McCartney. He was wondering if he actually had any musical ability.

When the song “Band On The Run” came out, I was thinking to myself, this came from Paul McCartney? The music was nice, but something about it just didn't seem to fit with my view of the Beatles. My assumption was that without John Lennon to help with the lyrics, McCartney was struggling to write lyrics, and suffering from low self-esteem.

Also, it seemed as if the lyrics were written by somebody who was flipping through a thesaurus trying to find words that rhyme, with no regard to whether they were making any sense. But your site makes me wonder if the lyrics are Faul's way of complaining about the situation:

Stuck Inside These Four Walls,
Sent Inside Forever,
Never Seeing No One
Nice Again Like You,
Mama You, Mama You.

He is stuck forever in the role of Paul McCartney, never able to see his own mother.



If I Ever Get Out Of Here,
Thought Of Giving It All Away
To A Registered Charity.
All I Need Is A Pint A Day
If I Ever Get Out Of Here.

If he ever gets out of where? His role as Paul McCartney? And what will he give away to charity? The millions of dollars in made in his false life? It sounds like he is saying, "Help! I don't want this money any longer! I want a real life! I don't even need much money!"


Well, The Undertaker Drew A Heavy Sigh
Seeing No One Else Had Come,

Was Paul McCartney's undertaker sad that nobody came to McCartney's funeral?


And The Jailer Man And Sailor Sam
....
And The County Judge Who Held A Grudge

I don't know what to make of those lines, but perhaps the “jailor man” is a British secret agent, the Sailor Sam is a military person, and the “County Judge” is somebody in the British legal system.

[Perplexed]

Sailor Sam, SS, Secret Service?( as a general moniker for intelligence, no connectioin to the German one)

[Elidor]

McCartney has used pseudonyms a couple of times for releases. The first album release was the instrumental version of Ram, under the name Percy "Thrills" Thrillington. It was a purely orchestral version of the album. What was curious was that it was a good few years after the orignal album's release.

More recently, in the 90's McCartney has put out dance music albums under the name "The Fireman". He's done 2 to date as far as I know. I got the first one (Strawberries, Oceans blah blah) and I thought it was pretty good.

I know that pre-66 Paul McCartney wrote a song for someone else under a pseudonym because, he said, he wanted to see if it would sell. As far as I remember, it was a UK no1, but someone can check that if they want.

[Perplexed]

Was it "Those Were the Days?"(my friend, We'd thought they'd never end....)

[BillyJones]

Very good, Eric! That song has been discussed before. You hit every nail on the head! Perplexed - SS, you might very well be right! I do believe that in the beginning Faul panicked a little. I don't know what was done to calm him down. Maybe I don't WANT to know!

[BillyJones]

Well, your last picture on your long picture post--isn't that from the Hello, Goodbye video? I know that was in the same time (spring 67?)but that pic is actually from the video of that tune, filmed at a theatre I think, not where the album shoot was done.
They had to put those duds on twice.

And the first pic of Paul in the junked out warehouse or whatever--that looks odd to me. The clothing seems unknown to 1962-65--but maybe not. Those strange pants and Keds? And who went around in a Tshirt then? We do it all the time today, you know. But it just looks sort of unnatural---its a strange pic.

Actually, all your pictures . Well, never mind. I can't tell anymore.
Lets just summarize and say that the Beatles all had very flexible appearences. Especially George.

Perplexed - thanks for the info as to WHERE that Sgt. Pepper photo came from. I do know that the boys wore t-shirts back then. If you look at the photos from the Hamburg days, the boys were wearing black t-shirts with their leathers. It would make sense. Who wants to wear a white shirt with black leathers! As far as the photo of young Paul being strange, I have to agree. He was built SO differently than Faul. Again for comparison:

An early photo of Paul. However, he was with The Beatles, so he was definitely 19 or older:




Now a photo of Faul leaning, probably taken sometime in the 1970's or 80's:



They RESEMBLE each other. However, they don't look identical. Faul is a bigger man. Look at the size of his hips & knees! His head is longer & narrower than Paul's was. He also has a larger forehead. I've found this to be true in photo after photo. I will be adding photos to my thread concerning it sometime soon!

A photo of Paul ( with The Beatles in Paris ) in a position more comparable to the one of Faul in white:



The difference in head size is pretty obvious. Also, I've noticed in photo after photo that they each have very different body language. They also stand differently. Look at how Faul is standing in the photos that I initially posted to this thread. Then, look at how Paul is standing. Paul almost always stood the same way. Faul almost always stood the same way. Each of them stood differently!

Another of Faul, early 1970's:



Again, a photo of Paul from the early 1960's:



They do seem to be standing similarly in these photos However, Paul was built DIFFERENTLY than Faul. I wonder if there is a way to measure the length of Paul's legs & compare them to the length of Faul's? There's no way their legs are the same length!