August 24, 2018 at 6:01 pm #855415
In FAC484 audiochat I suggested Paul McCartney might be a woman. While I didn’t really venture to explain, I thought I’d set out my reasons here. There are two things in particular that point me there, and neither have anything to do with the shape of Paul’s body.
So let’s start with the more interesting… Sir George Martin, The Beatles record producer was granted a coat of arms on 15 March 2004. He is sometimes described as the ‘Fifth Beatle’ and the arms designed for him is very interesting, displaying only three Beetles. I’ve read this explanation – three Beatles and a tire tread, the fourth Beatle having been squashed under a car, confirming Paul is Dead!
Hmmm… Well, an amusing pun, but having studied basic Heraldry as part of my college education I know the depiction is based on a written description, so we need to examine that text for clues.
Arms and Crest of Sir George Martin granted on 15 March 2004
Arms: Azure on a Fess nebuly Argent between three Stag Beetles Or five Barrulets Sable.
Crest: (upon a Helm with a wreath Argent and Azure) A House Martin proper holding under the sinister wing a Recorder in bend sinister mouthpiece downwards Or.
Motto: “Amore solum opus est”, or “All You Need Is Love”
Blazon of Arms, English translation: A blue shield with a broad horizontal stripe, silver (depicted as white) across its centre in the heraldic style of clouds, with five horizontal black bars, set between three golden Stag Beetles.
As long as all elements are rendered following the standard rules there is some leeway in creating the pictorial design. I therefore do not take any great significance in one Stag Beetle being slightly bigger than the other two as this is not stated in the description. So, four members of The Beatles but only three Stag Beetles depicted on the Arms. If we are looking at a literal translation, which Beatle is missing and why? What clues are there in the Heraldic symbolism?
Beetles take the same meaning as flies, a bearer of pestilence, the Stag Beetle however is a proper heraldic device and is always depicted in male form with stag antler type jaws. Interestingly, the Stag Beetle is associated with witchcraft, the Devil’s imps, Oak-ox, Thunder-beetle, and in English the stag is a male red deer.
So we are looking at three golden male beetles surrounding a silver cloud shape – ‘Nebuly’ being derived from ‘nebula’, the Latin word for ‘mist, vapour, cloud’. Further, Gold/Or represents the Sun, masculine. Silver/Argent represents the Moon, feminine.
In the Prosthetics, Photoshop & Green Screen thread I have put forward the idea that female is hidden. So, the shield depiction could be read as three men surrounding a female hidden in a mist. Sitting on the cloud are five black bars, visually they represent musical staff notation, but also we could have a reference to a fifth person – either George Martin, the so called ‘Fifth Beatle’, or could it actually point to a second Paul, like the five letters in the word ‘APPLE’ – stArr Paul Paul Lennon gEorge?
On to the crest…
Blazon of Crest, English translation: Perched on a Knight’s Helmet draped with blue and silver silk, a natural looking House Martin holding a golden Recorder diagonally under it’s left wing, pointing up to the right, mouthpiece downwards.
George Martin/House Martin seems a reasonable connection, the producer’s influence over The Beatles; but I think this might be misdirection. The House Martin takes the same meaning as ‘Martlet’, a stylised version of the swift or house martin, and it signifies nobility acquired through bravery, prowess or intelligence. Its meaning becomes much more interesting because the Martlet is also used as a mark of cadency signifying ‘the fourth son’, and who was the fourth son? Well, Paul was the youngest of the four Beatles. The House Martin can denote either duck or drake, it is depicted on the crest in natural colours so wears blank and white, duality. Also, under the left wing, a golden Recorder, this could link to the record producer, but Paul McCartney is famously left handed, so again there is a stronger association to Paul than George Martin.
Reworking what the coat of arms is depicting: Central to all is a cloud with staff notation signifying the musical magic George Martin produced, the central pivot between the spokes of the ‘Fab Four’. We have creatures at three levels; in 1965 each of the four Beatles received an MBE (Member of the Order of the British Empire for Gallantry), John Lennon returned his medal in 1969, Paul McCartney subsequently was granted a Knighthood in 1997. So, below the clouds cast back down to earth, commoner John, his notoriety depicted in the slightly bigger Stag Beetle. Elevated above the clouds, the highest seats in the synagogues, Ringo and George. All three depicted as male Stag Beetles, bearers of pestilence, the Devil’s imps. Then, sitting pretty above the other three, Paul dressed in black and white, duality, both female and male. In his left/sinister hand a golden recorder which takes the same heraldic meaning as flute – ‘a musician or ceremonial trumpeter, the call to battle, the mustering call for a crusade’. The mouthpiece down pointing, so the call comes from below.
With regards to the golden Recorder, it is interesting to note that before his fall, Lucifer was said to be the director of heavenly music, his covering being that of precious stones and gold, and that he had pipes built into his body. Also, ‘bend sinister’, the position of the Recorder pointing upwards to the right, is occasionally used as a mark of illegitimacy.
I hasten to state, this is the coat of arms of the late Sir George Martin, and it is him, not Paul McCartney who agreed the symbolism used. What I’ve read above is there to be seen. Paul is the left hander, the fourth son, and he also appeared to be the piper. It was his decision that ended The Beatles. Why isn’t Paul depicted the same way as John, George and Ringo? What is it that makes Paul different?
I know from the FAC484 audiochat Rick is of the opinion someone else wrote The Beatles music; I do not. In interviews, when Paul gets onto the subject of ownership and money there is always an underlying tension, like a person who was previously tricked out of his inheritance. I think really that’s what the extending copyright court cases were about; not to stop us using The Beatles music, but to stop corporations binding their product to his songs, making money off his sweat equity. These arms agree, the house martin signifying nobility acquired through bravery, prowess or intelligence, not through birthright.
And John Lennon’s opinion… Well, I now have a whole new understanding when he sings ‘above us only sky’. – ‘Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons.’August 24, 2018 at 8:03 pm #855418Tom DalpraParticipant
”Is Paul McCartney a woman ? ” you ask.
You and the odious bullshit artist Jungle Surfer, then.
No, and why the fuck would he be ? Is my reply.
Fuck knows what the actual meaning of George Martin’s coat of arms is,
but to conclude it’s indicative of Macca being a woman seems like ridiculous reaching.
It’s fine. You’re in the right place. This is a world of disinformation here. There’s all sorts of bullshit talked about. Check out the silly EGI sub blog for example – same sort of shite.
So crack on. Just don’t expect me to do anything other than diss this type of trash when I see it.
DalTampraAugust 25, 2018 at 8:54 am #855420
Tom, I don’t watch Jungle Surfer but from my understanding he pushes the view that cross-dressing actors, musicians, etc. are having surgery to become the opposite sex. I don’t believe that at all, I think it is all prosthetics and camera trickery. That is my motivation for posting. These people are liars, fraudsters, they pretend to be something they’re not to encourage young people into destructive life patterns. By putting on a different face they take limited liability for their actions, and as such, put themselves above the law.
When I tripped over PID it fascinated me, I enjoy puzzles so I wanted to see if I could work it out. From watching as many Beatles interviews as were on YouTube, I couldn’t dismiss there was something odd about Paul. The dynamics of the group changed from Paul being the smart alpha up until late 1966 to him becoming an idiot beta later. Why? And as early as 1965, interviewers in America are asking does Paul use a double. Why?
I’ve asked myself what would make Paul more special than the other Beatles. Maybe I’m barking up the wrong tree, but as we’ve discovered (which I don’t think you subscribe to) crossdressing is everywhere in entertainment. That would be a thing that made Paul special, and as a woman, I can see the advantages if I was famous of pretending to be a man. When I take off that mask, I disappear into nothingness and can be as boring and ordinary as everybody else.
Here are two video clips produced by the BBC from January 1982 – for me, two different Pauls, they have different personalities and one looks 5 years older than the other.
Roy Plomley’s 40th anniversary ‘Desert Island Discs’ recorded 20 January 1982
Nationwide interview, aired on 8 January 1982
Do you think they are the same person? And if not, what does it tell you about Paul?September 8, 2018 at 11:26 am #855662
When I originally started researching PID, all I really wanted to do was find the evidence to dismiss it. But the more I looked it became clear there were definitely two Pauls, and in a different way to The Beatles using doubles as a diversion. While a possible explanation was Paul had died, something John Lennon said in one of his interviews absolutely confirmed to me this wasn’t the case, and I’ll look at that in the next post.
So before moving on to the second reason I ask the question ‘Is Paul McCartney a woman?’, I’ll look closer at the videos I included in the last post.
As previously stated, these two video clips were made by the BBC and recorded about two weeks apart in January 1982. The stills that will be shown on the left are from an Arena Special celebrating 40 years of Desert Island Discs, Paul McCartney being the guest on that anniversary broadcast. Paul was also coming up to his 40th birthday and if he indeed did retire from performing in late 1966 when his five year contract was over, this would have been the event to smoke him out. And what we see, someone with quite narrow shoulders and a small head. This is the person I ask my question about.
The stills on the right are from a BBC Nationwide report recorded a couple of weeks earlier than the Arena filming. We would not expect to see any major differences between the Paul in one recording to the Paul in the other. In some ways they are very similar, yet in others they are definitely two different people. The Paul on the right looks distinctly older, having a bigger head, longer neck, wider shoulders, harder features, definitely male. Could it just be down to Paul wearing more prosthetics and makeup and bulkier clothes in the earlier interview to the later?
No, I don’t thinks so. The last two stills of left Paul have very different eyes, a feminine gaze. If you watch the two videos, left Paul uses his expected left hand, right Paul uses his unexpected right hand. They have different characters, left Paul ‘the sensible one’, and where as left Paul looks down and to his right when thinking, right Paul looks up and to his left. Right Paul looks like he’s a bigger person…
So, they are not the same person and yet they look very similar. Brother and sister similar perhaps? I find that notion very interesting because I’ve never considered that possibility before, and we do know Paul has a brother. I mean, if you were going to pull off a stunt as big as that, blood would be the way to go, and it corresponds to my second reason for thinking the original Paul might be a woman, which I will discuss in a later post.September 10, 2018 at 10:46 pm #855720
In working on this puzzle I have followed the official Beatles history as documented at Beatles Bible website. It lists every date The Beatles played before they were famous, and kind of blows the claim that they were a construct not from Liverpool out of the water. I can confirm the real existence of a few of the venues they played at, and it makes sense that it is the version of events closest to the truth. The lies have only been cranked up since 9/11.
I can see that, perhaps observing what was happening in the US with the likes of Buddy Holly and Elvis Presley, the British establishment wanted to have a piece of the music money pie. They liked the idea of plucking working class nobodies out of obscurity. Young lads, not knowing the ways of the world, would except contracts that on the face of it appeared a very good wage compared to their peers, but short change in comparison to what the share holders would earn off their backs.
Extract from the 20th June 1963 Incorporation document of The Beatles, found at Companies House
So using their contacts in the northern cities, they searched working class music venues. When I listen to Paul McCartney interviews when he gets onto the subject of ownership and money, I sense an angst. He states in a 1987 BBC Wogan interview his first wage was £15 a week, so that doesn’t sound like he or any of the other Beatles were shareholders.
And I do absolutely believe Lennon and McCartney wrote all the songs attributed to them. Someone had to, and if it wasn’t them, why would Paul even care how they were used. He has made it clear over and over that he does not want his music used to overlay the selling of products in adverts. When he wrote ‘She loves you’, I’m guessing it’s because she did love you, whoever that ‘you’ was. The fact he has brought two court cases to increase copyright duration on his work until at least his death seems to me seeded from an embitterment of the music industry fostered in that first five year contract where people with no talent got to call the shots because they held the power via the shares.
David Frost interview with Paul McCartney, BBC, 15th April 1964
Transcript starting at 1:33
DF: Have you got any ambitions in other sphere completely, I mean do you want to be Prime Minister one day?
PM: No, I don’t want to be, no nothing like that, no. Retire… [nodding his head] that’s quite an ambition.
DF: Retire? When do you think you’ll achieve that ambition?
PM: [pulling the gesture below] The way things are going, a couple of years…
PM: [moving hand away] No, no, I don’t… No idea…
Transcript starting at 4:09
DF: Of course, everybody I imagine says to you the pop world is very short lived. What will you do when the phase passes… Does it worry you?
PM: No, I couldn’t care less really, I don’t think, if we flopped tomorrow. It would be sad, but it wouldn’t really worry me.
DF: Could you go back to doing something else?
PM: I don’t know. I’d miss doing this. I think I’d think of something else to do, something I’d like to do.
DF: What would you do?
PM: Write songs for other people. I enjoy doing that.
DF: Anything completely different?
PM: Completely different… Retire, that’s completely different, really…
Paul McCartney is giving someone the finger on national television in 1964, the shareholders perhaps?
What happened a couple of years after the 1964 interview? When was Paul apparently replaced by Faul? When did the original five year Beatles contract, said to have been signed on 1st October 1962, end? When did Paul buy a farm in Scotland? When did the way the The Beatles present themselves change? Are we seeing an intersecting point? Has Paul just told us what he did? I think so. And John will pretty much confirm it four years later…
Lennon Revealed: Larry Kane interview with John Lennon and Paul McCartney, US, 1968
Transcript starting at 7:44
LK: One final question. In all the time you’ve been Beatles, before you were just people from Liverpool, there was always a question somebody asked you, when’s the bubble going to burst. The bubble hasn’t burst, and it doesn’t seem like it’s going to burst.
JL: It just flew off.
LK: Do you ever envision a time of just ceasing being The Beatles and going off on your own. Or even working together.
JL: We do work on our own anyway now.
LK: You can never be anything else but The Beatles?
PM: We are The Beatles, that what we are.
JL: We are also Apple as well, see. We are like Dr Jekyll and Mrs Brown, but they’re both meant to be nice.
An interesting reference considering the person sitting next to John appears to be a different Paul to the one who said he wanted to retire. Listen to the change of tone; 64 Paul “you get a bit of power…we can turn around to Brian and say could we do such and such a thing” a clear direction compared to wishy-washy 68 Paul “you know, we don’t plan anything, it just happens“.
And of the references?
Dr Jekyll: A character from ‘Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde’, he creates two potions, the first transforms him into Mr Hyde, the second transforms him back into Dr Jekyll, and so on. – SUBSTITUTION
Mrs Brown: Refers to Queen Victoria’s relationship with her highland servant Brown. It is said she believed in spiritualism and that her dead husband Prince Albert would visit her via John Brown. – SUBSTITUTION
This is confirmation for me there are two Pauls, and I now believe there always were.September 11, 2018 at 5:01 am #855723antipodeanParticipant
Whats interesting is the hair. The redder hair (which could be the studio lighting)is from the earlier show. The more greying hair is from the later show so it couldn’t have been dyed. But the shows could have been pre recorded, so you wouldn’t know which was filmed first.
But the bottom line is that if I was shown each photo without the other I would automatically say it was Macca.
I’ve just shown the above to the missus. She reckons the 2 shows would be 10 years apart. The Paul on the left looking older.
Also the Paul on the left (hair style) reminded me of Tom Conti.
September 11, 2018 at 9:48 am #855736
- This reply was modified 1 year, 2 months ago by antipodean.
Antipodean, I absolutely agree with you about the hair. As you say the colour is different, and also the texture, the way it sits on the head. The Paul on the right appears to have more wiry hair compared to the softer hair of the Paul on the Left. Yep, I’d agree with the Tom Conti look. I’ve been picking at this story for a few years on and off, it’s invariably when I mention it to someone else, another bit of logic clicks into place. That’s really what I’m looking for, a logical story based on tangible evidence in the public domain.
Regarding the recordings, I feel pretty confident that this is an accurate estimation of the time between the two videos. It is a matter of historic record that the Desert Island Discs episode was recorded on 20 January 1982, with the actual 40th anniversary broadcast airing on Saturday 30 June from 6.15-6.54pm, BBC Radio 4. The Arena documentary which the video was actually made for, airing on 23 February at 10.05pm, BBC2.
The Nationwide programme featuring Paul McCartney talking about his new album aired on 8 January 1982 at 6.00pm, BBC1. And while we don’t know the exact date of recording, it was definitely recorded before the Arena video, and given the content Paul talks about, his approaching 40th birthday and that he wasn’t interested in rushing the album out for Christmas, it places the recording probably early January, which is in line with the eight day turnaround for the news report that featured a reference to the upcoming Desert Island Discs anniversary.
I think anyone can download the Desert Island Discs audio from the above link, not just if you are in the UK. You’ll notice Paul is happy telling us about his childhood, family, how he met John, the early Beatles, a space (can’t remember), then onto Wings and Linda.February 18, 2019 at 7:34 am #857107AnonymousInactive
Is Paul Mcartney a woman…
Seek Jesus while you still have time.
Pray to the father and ask to be guided to the truth of all things.
Do not delay.February 19, 2019 at 12:56 am #857110napoleon wilson( non mason )Participant
bad ass.February 19, 2019 at 12:57 am #857111napoleon wilson( non mason )Participant
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.