Sunday, 2 February 2014

Mathematical notes: squares, Pythagorean triples, primes

This post is very off topic.

[EDIT: begun August 2016 ... This post is in grave need of simplification in wording. I rushed out this post when initially I posted it. I will be fixing it in the next few weeks or so. As drafts change in days to come, please bear with me. I will leave it up every time I have changed something and will state when the edits are finished. Also: the primes work is not here, despite the title, because my hard drive failed some years ago through a mechanical failure, leaving me without my work and no means at the time to get the special dust-free data recovery room treatment for the hard drive.]


Summary of some of my mathematical work:

Squares relate to 12: 


All even numbers share that they can be *evenly, completely* divided in half, without going to smaller portions than numbers, called "natural numbers", which are created from 1+1 ...
In other words, all even squares share a relationship in their roots, where the roots (and they, themselves), are at least divisible by 2. No fractional numeric representations are necessary for them. The numbers are representable in whole units of 1, also when divided in half. Odd numbers, of course, are not.

And, specific to squares of even numbers: we all know that even squares are related by being divisible by 4, with their differences (the intervals when you subtract a smaller one from a larger one) being uneven sets of 4 (multiples of 4, but uneven sets, that is, 4 times an odd number).

What about odd squares? They seem to have no relation (except being odd).
Odd roots and odd squares are both odd. This is a basic relation between odd squares, but that would seem to be it -- the only relationship they have.

Or not quite.

Some are factored by other odd numbers than the root: those are composite odd numbers. These squares have roots with "roots" in odd numbers multiplied together.
Some are prime odd numbers (where no smaller multiples combine to make them: they are divisible by only 1 and themselves).
And the ones with odd number composite roots, are squares which do not relate to all other odd squares based on their roots.

But is there any *general relationship between odd squares, into infinity*?

Yes. Though first, we need to treat of odd squares divisible by 3 (which means the root is also divisible by three. This is not counted. Is this "cherry picking", that is, bad use of selection in logic? No.

Squares of numbers divisible by 3 and odd as well (3, 9, 15, 21, etc. as roots of squares), involve such a small portion of the odd number scale (3) that they have their own pattern, which I will not go into here. But what I discovered is that the *other* odd numbers from 1 as a start point, on up through 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19 ... do have a relationship when squared. It is these, which I call "non-3 odds" and "non-3 odd squares". In a way, they are more "important" for correspondence, because they are greater in number than the "3-odds", as I call those divisible by three, but also because the *reason* that the 3-odds don't fit the pattern with the others is that they interweave too often into it.

The stunning thing is that there is a pattern at all, for the other odds, the non-3 odds.

And that it is:

- *absolutely consistent, without skipping anything*,
- increases by exactly 1 step (I will show what I mean in a moment) for the non-3 odd roots which are 2 apart in root (5, 7 and 11, 13 are the first two such root pairs, of an infinite amount),
- and increases by exactly 1 step for the non-3 odd roots which are 4 apart (1, 5 and 7, 11 are the first two such pairs) -- though these have a different step than the odd roots which are two apart (I will show what I mean, as I said).

Another stunning thing is that the *reason these steps in roots (and steps in squares which I will show) is there, is not just that squares always increase arithmetically in the same way, odd or even. That way, by the way, is that the increase between all squares (consecutively) is exactly the next *odd number* up, in increase. You will find squares at 1, then plus 3, then plus 5 ... into infinity. But as I was saying ...

The reason the steps I will show for non-3 odds is so important, is that it occurs at a relationship between 1, 3, 5 ... (odd numbers) and 1, 2, 3 ... (all numbers, called "natural" numbers, but really it's all numbers, if we use the scale of 1, since fractions are merely representing a larger amount on the number scale, in a smaller way, where 1 becomes "1/2" or ".5" in 2, and 2 is written as 1. The new 2 is a four, relative to the 1/2.

I will show the 1, 3, 5 ... and 1, 2, 3 ... relationship -- but have *not* written out the reason these things are important.

Not yet.


So what is the relationship between non-3 odds as squares?

It is in their *difference*, that is, in the number of numbers between them. If you subtract one non-3 odd square from a larger one, it will have a set pattern for how large the amount is between (and including) the upper one. (Remember: when you subtract, you are really finding the *number of spaces between* numbers; you are *not finding the numbers between them*. For example: subtracting 0 from 1, you find that there is one jump of space or identity between 0 and 1. But you are not finding *the number of numbers between 0 and 1*; that would be 0. This is important in realizing the distinction between *difference and interval*.)

Difference is not interval. Interval is the space as having *how many numbers in it*. Between 0 and 1, the space has 0 numbers (0 full counts) in it. Only at 1, do we have a number (a full count).

Difference -- as with square number pattern for non-3 odds we see below -- *includes the final count, the final number*. Thus: between 1 and 25 (the first non-3 odd interval at all, with non-3 odd roots 4 apart in this case), we have an interval of 23 between units 1 and 25, but a difference of 24, which includes the final count of a unit (25) as a number at the end of the intervals of each unit between the 1 and the 25.


Squares always involve only the factors (the numbers multiplied together) which made the original square. For a prime number (say, 17), the factors (divisors) of that square will be only 17 and 1, just as with the root. For a composite number (say, 15 or 18 or 35), the squares of those numbers will also involve only factors which went into the roots: 1, 3, 5, 15 for 15; 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 18 for 18; 1, 5, 7, 35 for 35 ... when squared or a root.

That relationship between odd-number squares, when 3 is not a factor, is deeply intuitive -- so much so that it is superficially counterintuitive: odd roots (factors) for squares have odd and odd factors themselves, some being primes as well. So ... where could there be a common link in these squares, besides their being odd?

The commonality occurs in the differences between those odd-number squares, the intervals between these squares including the upper square of any two of them. So: subtract a smaller "non-3" odd square (a square whose root and therefore whose self, as a square, are not divisible by three), and subtract it specifically from another "non-3" odd square, and that total will be ... related to all other non-3 odds, forever.

What is that relationship? The simplest part of it, is that they all have differences related to 12, doubled, which means that all of the differences between their squares have a difference of some multiple of 24.

The pattern in how many 24s fit between those odd squares (the ones not divisible by 3, in root and therefore also not in square), is itself interesting. They relate to the numbers which actually create squares.

Squares are also called, by mathematicians, "perfect squares" or "power of 2". I will call them squares during this section.

We will cover what the pattern is and why it is interesting. -- But from this point forward, my edit of August 2016 ends. The more awkward language of when I "bashed out" (rushed out) the original page, follows. I had had the work done for some time, but was in a hurry finally to get the page up.


Discovery: Differences between odd squares, discounting multiples of 3, and initial 1, are all divisible by 24, in a pattern alternating all odd multiples of 24 with all multiples of 24.

Thus: Other than 1, any odd square not divisible by 3 - (i.e., minus) next odd square below not divisible by 3 = divisible by 24.

And: Pattern of these differences is 1, 3, 5 ... *24 alternating with 1, 2, 3 ... *24.

The reason for the effect will be discussed at the end of this section, because the proof is less important or beautiful and interesting than the implications for cosmologists who talk of "dodecahedronal space" --

and because of the beauty of the fact that, though all even roots reconcile by being composites with 2 and their squares reconcile by being divisible by 4 (thus reconciling the square of the first prime, 2, to all other even squares, not only to 4's multiples as roots) ...

odd roots do not reconcile to each other: some are primes, some composites but not all of each other.

Yet here the odd roots, when squared, do reconcile: in their differences.


Treating of only the roots of squares which are odd and not divisible by three (henceforward called non-3 odds):
for various reasons, which we will not discuss here, we find the following:

i) As the roots increase after 1 by a difference of 4 and 2, into infinity


1--5   4
5--7   2
7--11  4
11--13 2

ii) The differences in squares increase in a pattern related to 12, in double form as 24:

1--25     24
25--49    24
49--121   72
121--169  48

iii) Which makes a pattern of multiples of 24 as follows:


iv) The pattern of differences between squares of non-3 odds as roots asserts itself as alternations of:

Increase in multiples of 24 by one more 24 each time (all sets of 24)
Increase in multiples of 24 by two more 24s each time (all odd sets of 24):

1, 3, 5 ... x24
alternating with
1, 2, 3 ... x24

v) Which is like saying the differences in the roots of non-3 odds (different by 4 and 2, alternating into infinity), each of which is a double or half of the other.

The beauty of this is in the fact that odd numbers represent numbers as if 1 is a countable half-unit and the rest of the differences are countable whole units in difference of 2:

5 ...

Is like:
2 ...

In difference.

And of course, all whole numbers from 1 into infinity are like treating even numbers as halves:

3 ...

Instead of
6 ...

So when we find the difference of 2 in our non-3 odd roots of squares, they function as half-sized increases of units of 2:

2, 4, 6 ... in sequence is 2, 2, 2 ... in difference, and in half-size that is 1, 2, 3 ..., while in units of 24 that is what we have for the difference between squares of non-3 odd roots which have a difference of 2:

5--7 squared = difference 1x24
11--13 squared = difference 2x24 ...

While for the difference in non-3 odd roots which is double-sized, as 4, we have the difference in 24s using a double-sized root number (1 is 2), then increasing by 2 ever after (6, 8, 10 ...), then doubled, then divided by 4, which of course gives odd numbers:

2x4 becomes 4, divided by 4 becomes 1
2x6 becomes 12, divided by 4 becomes 3 ...

The reason to relate it this way is that 2 and 4 are consistently the difference in the roots for non-3 odds, and the relation of the amounts of 24s in the differences in the squares for non-3 odds also relate to the root difference.


Understanding number's processes by nature of powers (squares are the 2nd power), helps in finding applications.

But as to implications for other things already:

it is common now to speak of the universe's functions (energies and "dimensions" of power for its existence, if one can call time and space "powers", but they are), as if they are in dodecahedron relationships.

I think this is a byproduct of the interrelationship of number powers themselves; they function in relation to 4 and 3 in special ways (for squares, the most basic power other than 1, and in increasingly "chaotic", i.e., different but related ways -- yes, all related to the number 4 still), which I won't get into here, but suffice to say that the even squares come in on multiples of 4 in difference from each other, in odd sets: 0--4 is 1 4, 4--16 is 3 4s, etc. There is much to be said about what happens for the 3s, which I will leave at this time. This relationship to 4, in squares, manifests as differences in multiples of 24 for non-3 odds as roots as well, and makes them give the "dodecahedron" effect in the math of the universe, too, I think.

It also may be why the ancients were interested in using base-60, or were given that method, if "weird theories" are to be included in our discussion for interest's sake, for fun (the "Atlantean" or other lost-civilization diffusion theory, or even, for some people, the "alien intervention" theory, or some combination of these).

60 is a link between base 10, and base 12 through its half (6), and halves and doubles with the ability to represent a half-unit inside a basic unit as well, are related to 1, 2 and 4.

If 2 is the unit, 4 becomes the first double, and if our unit can also represent its own half, 1, we have a system which interlocks 1, 2, 3 ... as a concept (as 2, 4, 6 ...) with .5, 1, 1.5.

And of course in regular units, we can't express "."-anything, since our first unit is the concept 1. So if we move to 1, 3, 5 ... as half-unit expressions, combined with 2, 4, 6 ... as whole-unit expressions, we are okay (and this is what numbers do, of course).

But when linked as 1, 2, 4 ONLY and explicitly, the relationship of odds to evens is heightened for us.

Squares have this built into their pattern very explicitly. And I think it's what's giving the dodecahedron mathematical result in some ways, for the universe scientists.

For more on the current dodecahedron idea of "space" in the universe, modern findings by astronomers about interference patterns of background "noise", and the relation pf all of this to Kepler's ideas, Leibniz and Descartes, see particularly the last chapter in "Descartes' Secret Notebook".

Not a clickable link, but just an image of the front cover:


The proof of the discovery:

Because ...
Above 1, when odd roots squared (including multiples of 3), and when we subtract 1 from the square, the result is an even number always formed from multiples of even roots (positive integers, to be technical) on either side of the odd square root:

2, 4 for 3: 2x4=8; 3x3=9; 9-1=8
4, 6 for 5: 4x6=24; 5x5=25; 25-1=24
6, 8 for 7: 6x8=48; 7x7=49; 49-1=48


And since for non-3 odd roots, the even numbers on either side always include a multiple of 3 and a multiple of 4 on either side, the result will be divisible by 12 (in fact, by double 12, or 24).

However, the specific pattern between the non-3 odd squares is itself a feature of the skipped numbers in the roots. Going up 4, 2, 4, 2 into infinity (1->5, 5->7, 7->11, etc.) gives the spacing for the numbers of 24s between the non-3 odd squares.

This is an oversimplification, not a complete proof, but it should give the gist of how this happens.


What sets Pythagorean triples apart from other squares, in the process of their creation up the number scale.

The integer or fraction (calling it "n"), sitting at the halfway point between b and c, by 2, multiplied by 2,

and then multiplying that result by c-b itself, gives the square of a. Of course this can also be done in the other order, where we multiply c-b by 2, then multiply that by the integer or fraction sitting at the halfway point between c and b.

Thus: 2n*(c-b)=a squared, where n=the number at halfway point between b and c. 

This can be expanded to understand how we get this: 

Taking the number which sits at 1/2 way between b and c [n=integer or fraction at (c-b)/2]. In other words, the difference between b and c has a number sitting at that spot. The number will be even or will be odd or will be possibly a fraction which will always be a half notation. -- Of course, when n=fraction it will be only in half format, that is, only at some integer + .5, not any other fraction such as 4.4, since a, b, c are integers, and dividing an odd difference between b and c will end up in the halfway point will be in a half-notation, i.e., .5]. ...

And then performing the process of multiplying that by 2 and by half of the very difference it sits between,

gives us the "a" in our a,b,c triple, but gives it to us squared.

1. Background:

1. i) a, b, c in a Pythagorean triple are roots, of course. They are numbers from units on the sides and diagonal of a rectangle (and the special case of a square is slightly different, and we will wait to get into that), where the units for each side all relate as whole numbers.

These roots have special properties. One such property is that a, when squared, becomes the difference between b and c, when these are squared. This is known as the Pythagorean theorem, that a squared plus b squared equals c squared.

Or, to put it another way, c squared minus a squared leaves b squared.

1. ii) Also, any three numbers, multiplied by the same amount, leaves the same proportionality between them.

So, if a number, say, half way between b and c of any three numbers (not only a Pythagorean triple), were multiplied by the same amount as b and c were, then that number would remain half way between the new composite (multiple) of b and the new composite (multiple of c).

This holds for all numbers, of course. Here is an example with a Pythagorean triple:

1. iii) However, when any two numbers are squared, of course, the second number is multiplied more than the second number. For example if b and c are squared, the second would be c.

So c, even when it is the very next number after b (that is, it is b+1), is multiplied by more than b was to achieve its square:

b is multiplied by b
and c is multiplied by b+1, if c is itself b+1.

This holds for all numbers, of course.

1. iv) Pythagorean triples may use b and c roots which are more than one or just one apart. So, for the 3-4-5 triple, ignoring the 3 for a moment (which is the a), we find that 4 and 5 are one apart. And the same is true for 5-12-13. (Both of these sets are also called "primitive" Pythagorean triples, since they are not multiples of the roots, that is they are not multiples from any previous set of triples; multiples of the sets are also triples: 6-8-10, for example will work as a Pythagorean theorem solution for the squares of 6-8-10 and comes from, of course, 3-4-5 each multiplied by two, for the roots 6-8-10.)

1. v) Some Pythagorean triples (primitive or not) use b and c which are more than one apart. We have already seen one: 6-8-10, where 8 and 10 are two apart (b is 8, and c is 10, and b+2 is 10).

But the first primitive triple which has a difference between the larger amounts, which we will call b and c respectively, is 8-15-17.

1. vi) If we multiply b and c in a Pythagorean triple by the same amount, the halfway point between b and c, no matter how much difference is between them, will remain at the halfway point when we multiply them.

1. vii) And of course, if we multiply to the squares of b and c, the half-way point between them is no longer a multiple of the original halfway point between the roots b and c. This is because b and c have not been multiplied by the same number, so the halfway point in the difference of b squared and c squared has shifted higher inside the difference than it was; the half-way point between the squares of b and c is therefore NOT anymore a multiple of the original halfway point.

2. Special reason this post is written on this topic:

2. i) Something wonderful occurs if the number we multiply b and c by is the difference between b and c times 2.

2. ii) The half-way point between b and c of course is still a multiple of the half-way point at half-way between the new b (the multiple of b) and the new c (the multiple of c), but the half-way point is now a squared as well.

So, for example, 4 and 5 multiplied by the difference, which is 1, of course leaves us at 4 and 5. The half-way point (4.5) remains 4.5. Multiplied by 1*2 (that is, multiplied by two), gives us 9 at the halfway point.

4 becomes 8, 5 becomes 10, and the halfway point in the new difference of 2, is 9.

9 is 4.5 times two, and two is itself the difference between 4 and 5 (which is 1) times 2.

2. iii) But 9 as 4.5 times 2, is also the first time when what our Pythagorean triple root "a" shows up between multiples of 4 and 5. Of course, 3 is the root of the difference between the squares of 4 and 5 (which are 16 and 25, respectively, and have a difference of 9).

In other words: by multiplying by 2 every time, no matter what the difference, we get half-units, but this does not mean we simply multiply by 2; we use the difference itself, which if anything greater than 1, will actually mean we multiply by MORE than 2 in fact.

For an example with a greater difference between b and c, we may look at 8-15-17.

The difference between 15 and 17 is 2. Multiplied by 2, it is, of course 4.

Multiplying 15 and 17 by 4 gives 60 and 68.

Their difference is now 8, and the halfway point is 4 away from 60 and 68, respectively, between them. This gives us 64 as the halfway point.

And 64 is, of course, a square, and the square is the same amount as will become the difference between b and c when these reach their own squares.

It is also the first time when the root of 64 (which will be our "a"), appears between b and c in a multiple.

Yet it appears first, here, in a process whereby 16 is multiplied by 2 times the difference between 15 and 17 (which means multiplying 16, the mid-point between 15 and 17, by 4). We did not reach 64 by multiplying 8 by itself (i.e., 8 squared).

Remember, we reached the square of 3 by multiplying 4.5 by 2, which is two times the difference (i.e., 1) between roots b and c, which were 4 and 5.

2. iii) What this means is that while a is smaller than b and c in the roots, its first appearance as a multiple between b and c in multiples occurs at halfway between b and c multiples.

It also means that this particular multiple gives "a" in square form.

And this a in square form will be the full difference, not the total from zero to halfway between b and c when b and c are squared.

2. iv) So whereas a is not part of a b and c relationship in terms of the difference between b and c when b and c are roots, it is part of a specific half-way point relationship at a certain point in the multiplication of b and c before they are multiplied fully by themselves to become their respective squares.

At this "sweet spot" multiplication level, the relationship of the difference of b and c and the halfway point in roots is reflected also with the ultimate difference between b and c as squares.

b and c have a halfway point unrelated to a

b and c multiplied by two times their difference gives a halfway point related to their original halfway point as a multiple of that halfway point also by two times the difference of b and c

and b and c multiplied by two times their difference also makes the halfway point's full amount (back to zero, not just back to b's multiple) an amount which will become the difference between b squared and c squared, which is a squared.

2. v) If we use non-Pythagorean triples, we find there is also a relationship which works between b and c, but it will not be a multiple of a.

For example, with 7-8-9, when 8 and 9 are squared as b and c squared, the difference is 17.

Halfway between 8 and 9 is 8.5, of course.

And two times the difference of 8 and 9 is two times one.

And two times 8.5 is 17.

Two times 8, which is 16 and two times 9 which is 18 do bracket 17.

And 17 becomes the ultimate amount between 8 and 9 squared.

But 17 is not a squared, which is 7 times itself, or 49.

2. vi) So a principle which relates to the half-way point of difference for all triples, not only Pythagorean triples, and which uses the full difference times two, between b and c, relates all triples and gives us also the special case where the half-way point becomes a square, when the process is used for Pythagorean triples.

2. vii) This may explain why the special properties of the "Plimpton 322" Babylonian tablet about Pythagorean triples would show up.

For more information about the tablet itself, though not all of the implications of it, see

 Image cached on Wikipedia here.

2. viii) And of course I have suggested, or argued above, in part A about squares in general, that the reason for the use of a sexagesimal system of Babylon and other early societies, is that squares themselves have a relationship to 24 in their difference, in so many cases (all odd roots which are not divisible by 3), while I did not cover how the even roots relate to 4 in difference and where the odd roots divisible by 3 fit into that.

But suffice to say, for the moment, the special relationship of the halfway point in the difference between b and c, to the same difference multiplied by two, and the result for the halfway point's being related to a and in fact its being the square of a, which will become the difference between b and c when squared, is very interesting.

2. ix) This Pythagorean triple result at the halfway point in that special multiple of b and c related to two times their difference actually comes from a physical square. When the sides of two times b and that of two times c are drawn out physically, the halfway point will be reflected consistently, of course, as the corner point through all multiples of b and c, as long as b and c are multiplied by the same amount.

So a square using an edge of 4 and a square using an edge of 5 share a half-square edge, with the diagonal consistently through the halfway point at halfway between them, with an edge of 4.5

But a square of the square of 4 and a square of the square of 5 do NOT share a multiple of 4.5 on their halfway point between their edges, thus not either on the diagonal point halfway on their corner.

But the reason the difference is to be multiplied TWO times so as to find the "sweet spot" for the first occurrence of "a" squared, is that we are dealing with two sides, two edges, of a real square.

2. x) This also explains why the square root of 2 has such interesting properties and does not seem to fit whole-number Pythagorean triples, though it is one of them in two sides:

In multiplying even sides for a right angle, without considering the next square up in size, say, 4 and 5 as squares,

we are considering a side of 4 in relation to itself, or of 5 in relation to itself, not comparing where squares of that size would relate to each other if overlapped.

And only Pythagorean triples related to (using) 4 or 5 of the old unit (i.e., non-primitive 3-4-5 triples) will occur on the sides, of that rectangle 3-4 with hypotenuse related to 5; and if we were to use the old units, we would have to reduce the rectangle to a simple square to get a relationship of 1-1-square root of 2. In other words, 1-1 is like comparing anything to itself: it is not a rectangle, but itself a square, and the squares on its side relate as overlapped: a square of 1, then a square of 1 then a square of the square root of 2 as sides, not a whole unit at 2. This has a difference between b and c, but the halfway point will be short of halfway between 1 and 2 (which would be 1.5).

Yet for our finding above, the halfway point has to be not only greater than 1, but relate to it in whole units, to be a Pythagorean triple.

For example:
2 times the difference between b and c would be 2, if c were a full 2 (that difference is of course 1, and 1 times 2 is 2), as would be the case for a whole-number Pythagorean triple. Half way would be 1.5.

But our "a" is also 1. As such it can only occur in whole units. (Unlike 4.5, in our example of 3-4-5).

And since the square root of two is less than 2, in such a way as to be not a multiple of any set of multiples of halfway between that and b, which is 1, the halfway point will not reach a whole unit of 1, ever.

And thus will not give the next square size up in any unit. The only way is to add the whole 1 to itself and make the square the next size. But rectangles (non-squares) have the property which relates them potentially to a square of either side amount. We could have a square of 4 and include a square of 3 within it on the same corner.

This means we can only consider Pythagorean triple relationships for where a square (of side 1) is increasing at intervals of 1 (so with a new side 2, side 3, side 4 ... of size 1 per unit). Any time we treat of the whole result as a 1 again (where 2 becomes a new 1, or 3 a new 1 ...) we have reset, as it were, the relationship of units in the sides to the relationship of units in the diagonal.

But with Pythagorean triples, in whole numbers, what we are doing is finding a unit whose intermediate square (a halfway side amount, say, 4.5) will relate to that particular unit of 1 inside the 4 at the next square down and 1 inside the 5 at the next square up, and relate to all other expressions of multiples of sides of 4 and of 5 in such a way as we have seen above.


I will write up the final item when I have time.
It is:
The exact pattern which is found in primes, early on in their population of the whole number scale up to infinity, using the differences between squares (square numbers) as the counter of how many primes are between each square number. The pattern is complex but exact.


  1. Hi Clare-

    This is off-topic, but I just wanted to let you know that I thought the interview you and Nick did on PID with Jim Fetzer was excellent. I'll probably listen a second time, once it's posted. Not sure if you guys are finished with the topic, but, for what it's worth, I'd still be interested in future shows on PID

    1. Thanks, Amanda. Well, the blog page is Dec 2013, though I keep having to repost it and it might change in future. There are two other shows from Jim and me on Paul's death: Jan 2012 and Jan 2014, as well. Search for them using my name in the search field on --- and thanks for your support. :) ---- When the show is posted, go right away and leave a positive comment, if you will, since the shows always bring out the worst in so many people. You can also contact me by e-mail by asking Jim for my e-mail, if you wish. Thanks.

    2. Hi Clare-

      Jim just posted the show and I just posted my comment. And thanks for mentioning those earlier shows. I heard the Jan 2014 one (I think I actually posted the last comment), but wasn't aware of the one from 2012. And, thanks, I'll email Jim for your email--that would actually be helpful.

    3. Clare is an Idiot Savant, good at math, a failure at world view.

    4. Ah, Anonymous person --

      if your worry is PID (Paul's death in the Beatles), you could start here, just maybe:

      Sir George Martin CBE was The Beatles' producer, arranger and mentor, who signed them to EMI and worked on the vast majority of songs throughout their career. He was awarded this coat of arms (heraldic crest) for his knighthood in 2004.

      The centre of his heraldic design is a car-tread which 'squashes' the 4th original 'beetle', but also includes the new bandmate.

      3 beetles ("stag beetles")

      tire-track-like white design with a squished edge (car crash implication)
      and 5 lines (5 total Beatles).

      "For (God and) Empire" -- the love of the music and continuance of the Band after the death (though some would say also more sinister things, but I doubt it on Martin's or the main Beatles' part intentionally). God and is partly obscured: sure, it is intended, too, but whether with or without the God intention, the message of empire loyalty (country loyalty) is there.

      "Love is the only work" (in Latin): the work of the lie to keep the love flowing out from the Beatles instead of risk their end, AND just in general that that was their message.

      3 beetles for the "living Beatles" at the time 2004, he said.
      But that leaves out John. Forever. No way.


      it is, and it isn't.

      White squash tire tread (double meaning: white car and squash).

      And 5 marks (tire tread lines, also like musical lines, of course) for all 5.

      White *(Beetle VW white in Abbey Road, multiple other images and movies, but not all) smush. (White car=what killed him and he was a Beatle? Or just that once they used a white Beetle they continued?)

      If they'd told, he wouldn't have to do this; he could have 5 Beetles.

      So it's actually honouring, not an outrage to show such a thing, and clever, forever recognizing and immortalizing the event, plus the multiple ways the band existed, his favourite group.

      It existed as 4 (3 and the place/manner of death for the 4th), it existed as 3 at the time of his crest, and existed as 5 in reality totally.

    5. Or you could consider this, to open you up a bit -- not all visual or audial people can notice or, to be neutral, "think so", but some do --

      kjaze February 28, 2014 at 11:43 AM

      First, I've been a bass player for over twenty years. Paul impressed me in the early days with the complexity of the bass parts that he wrote and played. Even more impressively, he hit the part harmonies while playing and rarely looking at his hands.
      Inexplicably, in performance videos after "Rain", Paul looks at his hands as often as a less-skilled player like myself would. During the rooftop concert, he plays nothing difficult while singing; and still looks at his hands now and then. Actually his playing then wasn't terribly interesting. I'm a fan of JPM, but I have to be honest about that.
      Secondly, Ringo declares himself the last living Beatle in a article. Even the most lackadaisical Beatles historian knows that JPM co-founded The Beatles, long before Ringo joined them as "...a setup affair" [as Sir Paul made the mistake or clue of saying once]. Is Ringo just having a joke, or just letting some truth out in a deliberately casual context? I would think the latter. Especially after watching the Letterman interview. Anyone can recognize an "oh shit" moment if they care to.

      Clare KuehnFebruary 28, 2014 at 11:49 AM

      Thank you. Please tell that to Ian and the rest.

      Cheers! Yes. I agree. Not that he's not a wonderful contributor to the Beatles in many ways, and the psychological change for all made some great results, but death is death, newness is newness. Beatles without Paul would not have flown on, but sadly, by not recognizing the new member, he could not necessarily do what he does best: piano and other instruments and maybe bass right-handed.

      When you said Ringo said he joined them as "... a set-up affair", that was Sir Paul, making a clue or error.

      Ringo was mentioning he is the last remaining Beatle; of the 4 famous ones (pre-1966, which made the band's fame), he is.

      Agreed about the Letterman 2009 clip. Yes, indeed. The minute I saw that [in the 2010 "The Winged Beatle" movie's opening scene], I knew I had to pay close attention to the case.

    6. Anyway, Anonymous person: if your worry is Sandy Hook or any other issue, such as Columbine, on the blog, then best to get more informed about those. For Sandy Hook a good summary of some of the info is now in the 1st hour of

      There are also some excellent videos on the aliases for Peter Lanza and family, and the CIA connections: -- On Peter Lanza, CIA op with aliases (more in comments from videomaker under "About").

      Lanzas and principle of Sandy Hook - related:

      NO deaths in SSDI from Sandy Hook:

  2. Clare, this site might interest you.

    1. Thanks. There is an excellent post at the very beginning of, about how to tell the difference. But then people come on saying they think they see 2 Pauls from the USA beginning (Ed Sullivan show). The problem with forums; sigh. :)

    2. Yes, that was a good post. It doesn't take much for a thread to get derailed by a poster who probably doesn't have much else to say. I'll try to get that thread back on course.

    3. It is regrettable that too many people now have begun to think the Beatles were a revolving door of doubles. Not only is it, first off, i.e., prima facie, irreconcilable with the general sense of crisis which would drive a replacement, but even if it had been done, no evidence other than snapshot differences of expression and impression drives the conclusion. In other words, it is disprovable, but since:

      - to show Paul's differences one must first posit that impressions which show differences really are from different people -- as the first post pointed out -- and then see if those differences hold up as consistent and impossible from one person changing in time and expression, or if, when going back to the idea of one Paul, those differences could be properly reconciled (and they can't) ...

      - the method used to posit that the others were replaced is not wholly wrong, just confused, forgetting to re-compare to the basic bone structures and mannerisms of the others.

      Snapshots can confuse impressions. It is why, on the one hand, PIAers (Paul is Alive-rs) think it's all snapshot differences, and why, on the other hand, PIDers (Paul is Dead-ers) sometimes confuse mere snapshot differences of the others.

      Eek. Tiring for me.

  3. Thx for the replies to these off topic comments.

    If you had stated 'a revolving door of doubles' on a Pid forum it likely would have sparked comments about the album Revolver being about just that. Early errors in research from the first forums seem to have taken root and are being regurgitated to a certain extent and it's made it's way to the new forum...yes, it is tiring but I try not to get caught up in the confusion which most likely stems from lazy research.

    1. Well, I left the comments open only on this math page, so replying here is fine. I got ridiculous and repeated types of comments on the PID page, so only someone wise or wily would comment here. :)

      I know that they'd have said that about "Revolver", but the reality is that though such a thought is adducible evidence (evidence in the sense of something before a final decision is made, not in the sense of true, decided evidence of a case), the early Beatles material is hardly about crisis or death in the band. The major shift occurs after the death. The kinds of things they had before were typical of multi-themed art and avant-garde stuff, even when macabre. There is just too much weight to the common sense side of a single replacement and no foresight, to give the other side much truck.

      However, it is not conclusively provable they DIDN'T know; that is the kind of thing which is not formally provable either way.

      It's just not.

      My take is that he was murdered, but that no, they did not know the double beforehand, except in another context, say, as a leader in the Indica scene. It seems he may have known them there, since he said Yoko came to him before John met her (in his interview with Howard Stern, 2004), to ask for Beatles material.

      He is likely cultic -- good and bad, but connected -- and is definitely interested in Crowley. He gives a 2-mid-finger sign in his Mal footage from the trip, with a cigarette in his thumb and forefinger (unsure what it's supposed to mean, if not victory), and TWO 666 signs (one with each hand, you know, the "okay" sign with thumb and forefinger circled and 3 other fingers up), when he was knighted, and does it with a very serious face and takes a moment to make sure the camera gets it. It's in one of the Rotten Apples or related videos.


    2. So ... I think this was an intel-cult hit. And I think it was a car. And I think he was lured to some rendez-vous and hit, or run over, at a speed. I do not think he was in a car. His feet ended up bent or broken, shoes off or dissheveled, his head split open and parietal bone lying up at an angle to his head. These are indications -- from multiple clues and the drawing -- indicating he was hit, personally.

      And it can't have been in a really highly conspicuous location. So I think he was lured.

      The initial situation was likely explained as an accident to the remaining Beatles and Epstein, but it must have eventually come out that he might have been murdered.

      I can't, of course, close the possibility they were blackmailed from the beginning, but the Mal Evans page seems to suggest they were shocked and overwhelmed. Which is as I'd have thought.

      People who start to think they were, themselves, some fantastical Tavistock wonderboys, totally into bizarreness and Crowley beforehand, are, I think, delusional.

      HOWEVER, to me, that does not mean they were not curious or dabbled. For instance, Help! the movie is all about a weird Masonic ring from a far-Eastern cult. And the "semaphore" images which they strike as poses do seem to be Crowley imagery, though it's always claimed that semaphore didn't look aesthetic and they just wanted to give an impression of it. (Help! is written as a kind of high-schoolish silliness and they may not have thought much of it; it could have been to interest them, set them up, or it could be a fluke.)

      If they were "involved" in anything beforehand, I think it might have been as low-end curiosity; if Paul and Paul's brother got into Crowley, it could well have made them hang out with the man who became Sir Paul.

      But one way or another: Paul was not a sadist weirdo. Curious, maybe, but he was just not a complete sicko of spirit. -- Curiosity can kill the cat, though. Or he was set up.

      The Billy Shears books suggest Paul knew and wanted to die for the band. Hardly likely; sounds to me like apologetics from Sir Paul. However, is there some ring of truth to his involvement in something beforehand? Maybe.

      I don't think they knew quite what they were dealing with, though, if they did dabble with others who were more powerful and connected in those ways.

      But I digress.

      One thing I'd caution you about is that "lazy research" is not usually the cause of deluded thinking: I deal with this in 9/11 and other research groups all the time. People can think they're the most dedicated one by holding the most outre "truth" position, when it is actually untenable, and truth-seekers can become radical doubters of all things to the point of forgetting basic common sense as a comparison at ANY point, and they can also go the other way and become set in their ways as much as any skeptic-doubter can.

      Sad, but true.

      Glad to have someone to discuss this with.

  4. Yours is a logical conclusion based on the available evidence (clues) . The death by car wreck rumor from back in the 60's has never been disproved and IMO is still the strongest of clues. This does not necessarily mean that any of the other 3 were witnesses so the door is wide open to speculate that they were themselves deceived on this, the first clues are incomplete and Paul was intentionally taken out.

    As for the clues, John alludes to it in one song then repeats it in another, it is corroborated in Ringo's song, then again by Viv Stanshall. I do not believe Faul impersonated Stanshall but do think he may have had a hand in writing Billy's Back. This book may have been closure for him after a lifetime of living a lie, some mis-info thrown in as an insurance policy (he has family). I have not read it except for what's been uploaded here and there.

    I have seen some of the same esoteric hand gestures you mentioned including the horned devil hand sign given by Sir Paul during a 70's benefit concert; he still uses hand signs. To what extent the others were involved I'm not sure because it was not blatantly displayed as it was with the Stones. But I have reason to believe that John already had an occult bent prior to Yoko which made him vulnerable. He claims he came up with the band name which he received in a vision (flaming pie) some may think this is typical Lennon humor but this was not the only time he was influenced in such a way.

    Similar to the lower degrees of freemasonry (blue lodge) initiates are at first fascinated by the lure of power and sign up but are thereafter kept in the dark by those in the higher degrees who are themselves deceived by those above them. These guys were to young to figure out how they were being used by those around them and this includes the film director (Help) and possibly even their own photographer. There is more that can be said about Indica.

    1. Well, yes, the evidence is consistent about the car wreck and/or street hit (also depicted), and the damage to Paul listed and drawn is consistent, too, with a hit unprotected, on the street.

      I agree that John was into weird things and all of them could have been having fun with ideas or introduced to basic cultic thoughts, which are hardly that weird anyway: ghosts, reincarnation, symbols (art) and prayer as magic.

      John's process from "Beat" to "Beatles" (not a very nice name, actually; kind of boring) is pretty well documented. I think his exasperation with the question really did lead to the idea of an (f-ing) flaming pie as a real joke.

      But once it became beetles in esotiricists' hands, well, the possibilities were endless.

      All I can find about Vivian Standhall is how he sang in "Magical Mystery Tour" about death in a car crash, and others thinking he is Faul (and other nonsense), and that he was produced by Sir Paul (using Sir Paul's pseudonym Apollo C. Vermouth).

      But the car impact on Paul is:

      - supported by the injuries in the Lennon drawing
      - thus corroborated in the injuries in "Come Together"
      - supported in the "Beatles Oldies" album cover (car coming for head of Beatle, probably Paul)
      - Ringo's "Don't pass me by", which you mention
      - Two instances of cars passing behind Sir Paul's head (mimicking Paul in metaphor) in "I am the Walrus" track of Magical Mystery Tour movie, or was it "Strawberry Field"? I can't remember.
      - Abby Road album cover implication, and Julian Lennon's "I don't wanna know" and "Spies Like Us" promo video with Sir Paul and mimicking Abby Road cover
      - Photo of John playing dead on the road in front of his psychedelic rolls royce
      - Photo of John (taken by Yoko) with stethoscope to the ground in front of a white VW Beetle car (most times the car is white, so maybe the death car was white), Beetle doubling as Beatle
      - Sir George Martin's coat of arms' central tire-tread image
      - "Blue Jay Way" imagery of George Harrison on the street and, in the end, implicitly hit by the car behind him (fade to white)
      - "Free as a bird" video (done as a history of the Beatles overall), 1995, showing in one scene Paul death head in 1960s Police Van window and car impact with crowd straining to see in front of the car for who is hurt
      - Disclaimer 1967 February Beatle Book fan magazine (UK only at the time), mentioning death by car impact ("crash", in this simplified version).

      Car crash / impact on road.
      And on and on.

  5. Good research.

    As your own research shows there is a preponderance of evidence in both song, video (I am the Walrus) and album covers during the 1967 year that a reasonable person familiar with the songs can at the least conclude there is a preoccupation with death and mishaps involving cars. With the strongest clues IMO being penned into songs by the Beatles.

    John does contradict himself over the group name. In response to a reports question he replied 'the name is meaningless, we could have been called The Shoes' There is disturbing (to me) quotes from John where he gave some insight into how the inspiration for his song writing sometimes happens and it is consistent with his 'flaming pie' comment. There is a reason Yoko (Satans Bed) was able to get to him. There is a reason that many artist in this music genre gravitate to the occult.

    In John's later years just prior to his death he wrote a song that suggests he was aware of the pit he fell into and was trying to climb out. I hope he made it out.

    Stanshall's song "Death Cab for Cutie' is what made it obvious for me regarding Paul.

    1. Very good. I am sure that the young Beats types becoming Beatals and Beatles was a 1950s play on music words. However, I know there were interests and dark currents around and in the lives of John and the rest.

      Which song do you think was about an emotional hole he fell into?

      Different people have different ways to realize the likely truth of PID or any coverup. Some never do; and of course, some false cases catch people with a wrong a-ha moment, but it is fair to have different things make people sit up and take note, even become convinced long before all evidence is in.

      For me, it was the preponderance of serious references; I could see that the references were not made up by the public, in the sense that there were constantly interlinked themes, and people mourning losing someone do indeed find ways, clever ways, to refer to the deceased (or simply a lost love or whatever).

      Then I compared back and forth with the photos; some photos confused me at first, but then there were always things which had transformed differently from the head after 1966 vs before, except where there were a really stretched, deformed (doctored, misrepresentative) face (Sgt Pepper's gatefold with Sir Paul, not yet knighted, is one; White Album glossy photo of Sir Paul, not yet knighted, is another).

      I already knew as a kid, but didn't know I knew. The man on the bus (now Sir Paul) was so different than boppy lively moving Paulie (except when Paulie was calm, but then he had a teenager-like 20s style, too). I assumed the movie was made long after Paul looked mid-20s and even then, I thought he looked odd.

      Anyway, after learning the forensics questions (carefully, not quickly), and yes, looking at more than the forensics scientists did, and searching through the comps (not always well done) on PID sites, realizing that yes, Paul died ...
      I saw the drawing and said, oh my. And started my blog page on it.

      Thank you for conversing on the matter. If you wish to converse outside of this, contact me on Twitter or Facebook (my name in each case), and we can chat.

    2. You should also note that not only PID uncareful comps but also the Billy Shears books claim Sir Paul played Vivian Stanshall. (PID claims also range on fora to Neil Aspinall and Denny Laine and Phil Ackerill, all utterly unsupportable if one goes beyond smattering the mind with multiple faces and thinking that the Beatles were some revolving door act. -- "Revolver" album was, of course, a play on the spinning of records, and a dark joke. To go further is, I think, irresponsible, for these young men were possibly into odd things already and maybe Paul even had premonitions of death, but the shock of the events of Sept 11 1966 are so clear once one sees it, that I think any Beatle foreshadowing is in the mind of the beholder. Not so, perhaps, from people around them and some of their budding interest possibly in Freemasonry, per Help!, but even that is questionable.)

      Here are some thoughts I posted in e-mail, re. the alternate Paul theories (a thread of e-mails follows):


      On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Clare Kuehn wrote:

      N sent me to this link:

      He did so, because the Billy Shears book of Memoirs talks at length as though Sir Paul was not only a session musician, Jim (with a top Mason for an uncle, who ordered Brian Epstein to take him on), but also as though he actually played Vivian Stanshall of the Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band, and that Viv never existed.

      The idea, Nick, comes originally from the implication of the song Death Cab for Cutie, sung in the Magical Mystery Tour film, that the song is for Paul.

      Of course, in a sense, it is. Backward, John's gibberish in the audience says "Paul died" or "Paul is bloody" (I forget which). It was laid into the film backwards; it's not a backwards track with forward meaning as well.

      The scene shows a very hefty man with awkward movements and a striptease.

      The man not only seems to be blond, but his eyelashes and whole colouring are blond. In other photos, such as in the video, the comps are done of (for example) 1:20 Sir Paul grimacing and then yes, his face overlaps with the heftier man of a wider head and jaw -- due to different EXPRESSION.

      Also, the eyes look similar in that image, due to the size of the images and the expression change.

      Did Sir Paul ever play Viv? VERY POSSIBLY.

      But as a consistent thing? No. Can't be.

      Even makeup does not change basic face and head structure.

      Does Viv (or Sir Paul) wear a fake moustache in one? Yes. We can see that at 1:06.

      Remember, though, the face shapes, the head shapes, the general slightly finer look to Sir Paul.

      The Billy Shears books are written as a game. They are about encoding and double meanings often contradicting the main text. They are also about apologizing for Sir Paul without a "sorry" (that is, excusing Sir Paul).

      To some degree, they might well include things which Sir Paul or another close to him lied to the author about.

      We have to be very careful. We cannot take them at face value, if the aspects do not match other lines of inquiry or form reasonable alternates if there is no information to correct them.

      I am hoping that Nick will not take offense that I caution right while he's getting enthusiastic. I remember running by him the information about the drawing, on air, and he thought I meant it was just that the death was on John's mind.

      The drawing's significance goes way beyond that.

      (e-mail part 1 cont'd in next post)

    3. (e-mail part 1 continued from previous post)

      Similarly, we have to be careful properly to represent the value (in the sense of accurate valuation) of the Billy Shears books.

      For example, the nuns of a convent in France come out on a hill with shovels in the middle of the night in the original telling of the burial.

      Yet when discussing Strawberry Field, the overtext (the "word stacking", the boldened type, which sometimes has alternate meaning from the text) states that the author is now discussing the burial.

      And alternate lines of reasoning suggest Strawberry Field's hill, too.

      If that is the case, not France as burial place, then the author was, let's say, told the real area, and decided or was told to disguise it -- not everything is so disguised: Sir Paul's guilt over having to lie re. Paul's paternity of certain children is constantly emphasized and seems quite honest.

      Best wishes, both!


      On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 3:04 PM, N wrote:

      just take a look in google images of Phil Ackrill, that tells the story


      Note the following: (general info)

      Link to image:

      Now note what's happened. A man (Phil Ackerill) with a very triangular and high-set brow (longer face than top of head) and a strong bottom shadow on the nose (looking triangular) is compared to one who has his jaw quite open, making his mouth narrower than it would be at rest, and who has a shorter nose but pointing down a bit without a strong shadow, and who has greater distance from browridge to eyes (for brow hairs are not raised much, we can know from other photos by comparison: he's mostly just moving the mouth).

      Impressions do not make a careful look.Phil Ackerill does not match head shape. Really look.

      These PIDers are doing what PIAers do for Paulie and Sir Paul: they put up a lot of pics and one's eyes gloss over the telltale differences.

      For Vivian Stanshall and Sir Paul, I have discussed below some problems between them.

      One problem not mentioned before by me is liddedness. Vivian had shallower lids over the eyes, Sir Paul droopier. Note left eye.

      But most important is that Viv had much narrower eyes to a wider nose flare at bottom (not so much nostril stretch from flare, but wider set angle and wider nose overall). Yes, he's wearing a fake moustache, it seems, in this image, but the rest is off for the same head size.

      I am not going to go into Neil Aspinall or Denny Laine. These are also so off that it is bizarre to me that people "see Paul" in them. However, I could make some general, not forensic comments here, so we don't get too long and detailed about it all: what is happening is that the slight refinement of Denny (vs the thicker set of angles in Viv, ironically) fool some people about Paul, and the eagerness and sometimes almost innocent look of Neil and longer face he has are combining with the sometimes earnest -- though rarely innocent -- look of Sir Paul.

    4. And to Anonymous:

      If you wish or need to, you may re-use anything I say here or on the blog, in your posts anywhere, with my full permission, if not misrepresenting the statements -- with credit to the appropriate page, if you can.

  6. Hi Clare
    With regard to the band name, I could be reading too much into this. It may just be that John really didn't think it was a big enough deal to provide a straight answer and hence, his contradiction here. The quote I gave previously is not exactly what he said but he did say 'shoes' (

    Aside from Coleman's take on this (the radio interview). I don't need Coleman to recognize the occult / masonic hand gestures or the company that John later kept to know he was at least at the time dabbling in something. Occultist believe that occult power can be gained when their true intent and purposes are obscured behind symbols from the uninitiated while the initiated understand them; the same being true with words that have dual meanings. It is esoteric. Many Fortune 500 companies use esoteric symbols; Time Warner being one, Target Dept.stores is another with their masonic fertility symbol which is also an all seeing eye and a power circle that probably most wiccans would recognize but does the average Target store shopper know ? Despite this I still cannot say with certainty that the Beatles name is anything more then what John stated but his later comments lead me to believe he went thru a spiritually dark period. During his Quarry days he drew an Aztec painting on the ceiling of the Casbah, Pete Best painted a dragon. His close friend Stu Suttcliff was photographed giving a masonic triangle hand sign. Revolver according to B.Miles was suppose to be titled Abracadabra or Four Sides of the Eternal Triangle . The song Tomorrow Never Knows was inspire by the Tibetan Book of the Dead (Leary's version) which was based on the Egyptian Book of the Dead, (Scarab Beatles ??)

    The name of the song is Help Me to Help Myself.

    Well, I tried so hard to settle down
    But the angel of destruction keeps on houndin' me all around
    But I know in my heart
    The leaves are shining in the sun,
    That we never really parted.
    Oh no, oh, help me, lord,
    Oh, help me, lord,
    Please, help me, lord, yeah, yeah,
    Help me to help myself,
    Help me to help myself.

    They say the lord helps those who helps themselves,
    So I'm asking this question in the hope that you'll be kind
    'Cause I know deep inside
    The leaves are shining in the sun,
    I was never satisfied
    Oh no, oh, help me, lord,
    Please, help me, lord, yeah, yeah
    Help me to help myself,
    Help me to help myself.

  7. Your observant, yes interesting differences between Sir Paul and Paul who was more lively and animated.

    As I previously mentioned, there were errors early on in research that folks are still stumbling over now. The Laine, Ackrill, comparisons to name a few. I think Phil is still alive and performing. I don't believe Sir Paul was the Mystery Tour Stanshall (intentional misdirect ?). A forum adm. who believed the D. Laine theory also wondered if the Beatles were Celestial Beings come down to earth to spread good will.

    Thanks for the invite, but I don't have accounts with them. (be careful what you put on Facebook) I know the forum thing is not for you but if you change your mind check it out.

    1. Be careful what I put on Facebook? I don't put anything on there. I use it to reply to stuff. And at this point, with my conspiracy knowledge reputation, I don't give a flying ... kite.


      "They" know me. And general people know me.

      As to the Vivian Stanshall thing: it is more dangerous as a misleading idea (though whether someone thinks Laine or other people were Sir Paul, and also has nonsense ideas which are other, is not an argument as to whether they were right about Laine or anyone else, of course: that is an ad hominem attack, yet of course, Laine and so on are not Sir Paul).

      The Vivian Stanshall thing was picked up in the books which are a game but seemingly also a revelation, the "Billy Shears" books. The books are a long acrostic, with many letterplays and wordplays, double meanings, extended expressions of many claims, etc. But they seem to be a leak anyway: they have a personal quality to the emotions at times, not just a first-person narrative voice. I think they're a leak, from Sir Paul and/or someone close to him, but they do a lot of misdirection as well -- as I'd expect.

      I am not saying Vivian wasn't supported by Sir Paul, or helped -- and the Bonzo band is the first credit in the Magical Mystery Tour film. But Viv is not Sir Paul.

      Yes, Paul was more lively -- but of course sometimes he was sedate, and people confuse that kind of sedateness with Sir Paul's, or Sir Paul's friendliness with Paul's lively friendliness.

      As to Johnny:

      I am sure he learned a lot, about trying to ask for help to grow, to kick his drug and self-hate habits (lots of testimony he was suffering from anorexia on and off near the end), and so on. I also think yes, his interests dipped into alternative religion to the point that the spooks who were into the weirder side of prayer (i.e., ritual magic(k)) could well have interested him for a while. Naturally a fun kid with a strong mind, John could also be interested or dabble in anything.

      He would know they were allied with spooks, but the degree of cognizance of how they were used may have taken some time for him to know or balk at. Their primary interest was their music and promoting love; to be fooled into doing that for MKUltra types would be easy ... most of us would want to help to promote these things, and it would feel like our idea.

      That's always the way. And it wasn't all bad.

      If John did anything of the "sign the deal with the devil" or anything, it would have been in a fit of rage or curiosity; if he dabbled, he'd have been drawn into the creepy intel circles, but balked at crap as likely as done anything. This is where people who accuse him forget his basic crap detector side. But because some people don't know how to be intelligently curious, writer-like, artistically-open, they also think any dabbling is, of itself, a flaw. Not so.

      Once one does, however, if one does, then it's whom one knows; and at that level he would have been around those who kill. And they did.

      These are my thoughts on any personal relationship John may have had to occult aspects of Beatle signs and talk. I don't think it was his primary focus. And really, it doesn't so much spring from youthful curiosity (1964 or so) but from the accelerating phenomenon, game-changer: Paul's death. If one misses the latter, one cannot understand the odd things which occurred later in the Beatles' material, image, etc., as you know. -- Most of the "weirdness" was grief and Paul adoration, anyway. The spook (intelligence circle) weirdness was, I think, mostly not their own interest, or at least mostly Sir Paul's, not their own.

  8. Love this work Clare and like Jim, I was reluctant to 'buy' this story but have been 'turned' by the evidence. But something crossed my mind recently which perhaps throws some cold water on my enthusiasm and I'd appreciate your comments. In John's blistering attack on 'Paul', "How Do You Sleep?" he sings, 'the only thing you done was Yesterday....." That was written in '65, hence by the 'real' Paul if PID is true and John would not say this to 'Faul', it would make no sense. Thoughts? Regards, Eamonn

    1. Hi. Sir Paul didn't write "Yesterday" and it's the biggest hit of the figure most think is one man named "Paul McCartney". It's a slam to the 5th Beatle.

      Having said that, I think John and Sir Paul did try to be friends, and at times did need each other emotionally, etc. It was clearly volatile and blaming, but hopeful at times. However, I have no doubt Sir Paul was told of John's death ahead of time (his interview on the subject on the day after it happened shows not only his saying, "Drag, isn't it?" but also a huge involuntary smile when asked when he heard it). The smile is not necessarily pure happiness, but rather the kind of thing which happens when a real emotion is touched off and a person is trying to suppress. A smile has a nervous honesty. It was half his face and he tried to hide it. I don't think in an integrated, full way Sir Paul wanted John gone, but that he was in some way (flip-flop) okay with it. It was convenient to him. And Sir Paul has a good side, and many nice moments, but he also is okay with bad things if they're convenient to him. We all are, but a spook type/cult type can be moreso, and more often would be the type already, going in.

    2. Let me add:

      "The only thing you done was yesterday
      And since you're gone you're just another day"

      As "one figure" Sir Paul "did" the song "Yesterday". But he did not.
      As two real figures, the original one is gone and the second is not as great as the first -- especially, of course, anger comes out at Sir Paul because John mourns his original friend Paul, and also, Sir Paul is not as good since he and the rest left the Beatles, since the breakup, which everyone knows and assumes about these lines.

      As a worse musician overall -- though I don't slam his great stuff -- Sir Paul is getting insulted.

      But John is also spewing grief as anger about the death, at the poor 5th Beatle who helped them. The 5th Beatle is here was "never as great" after Yesterday, since one of the two figures in the "single figure Paul" died and "WAS GONE" since then (approx. 1965, i.e., since 1966).

      The whole thing mixes two meanings: the post-breakup period and the post-death period. It also is nasty at the poor helper, Sir Paul. It is also accurate about his difference in quality of friendship and musicianship overall.

      (And when I say the "poor helper", I mean that emotional aspect of the situation. I do not mean he also wasn't a whole bunch of other things in the situation, which has creepy elements, which I rarely talk at length about, because I do not want to confuse the new person who cannot wrap their head easily around this.)

      By the way:

      I didn't "buy" this whole issue easily, nor any coverup issue. In fact, I started studying it with an assumption about it as a supposed nonsensical, mythic public mistake -- but I was careful to really think through every aspect as I went. As such, I quickly realized there were far more possible reasons to think this, at least, than I had thought there were.

      And then some very strong ones.

    3. Even if one were to believe that John was aiming this song at the real Paul, the line, 'the only thing you done was Yesterday....." would not be a true or accurate statement to make about him. It is not really an accurate statement to make about either of them (Paul or Faul) hence, I believe the intent was to insult him and the insult goes deeper if you were to reason that John knows he's not Paul.

      Since Faul really had nothing to do with the song 'Yesterday' then what John is he really saying is "the only thing you done was Nothing!"

      I don't believe John's insult is justified but he was taking a shot at him.

    4. That is what I said. -- That he's nowhere near as good. And he's not saying Paul only did Yesterday; it's the famous song and it's a short form mental comparison with Sir Paul's always-lesser works (in anger, he is suggesting that Sir Paul is always lesser).

  9. I am going to post here a reply to an e-mail I got.

    I have to divide it into 2 parts because of character amount for the blog comment limit.

    The to whom I was writing was a person who had wondered whether Paul was slowly phased out. The writer was interested in and trained in seeing movements. This is my reply. I post it here because I think it will give some people some assistance not only in seeing proportional differences (how to categorize and try on different ideas), but also movement differences, and then balance those with *informed* common sense from the case.


    A----, I understand your equivocation on the points [of movement under discussion here, in the two men over time].

    I also understand not liking the blustery dismissal you received from N---- through me.

    However, despite your degree, the basic awkward holding-in of energy, the neurotic copycat aspect of Sir Paul after late 1966, and the oval face with longer nose, and mimic-mockery (not mockery unkindly, just a word to try to capture the fakeness) are all there after 1966. Sir Paul bounces around without natural happiness, or shall I say, when he is happy it is a relaxation inwards, not in a certain way a whole-body burst, as with Paul, outwards -- except with different before and after conditions for Sir Paul.

    These are overarching feeling states, not specific moments where his face is happy or something. He is generally more postured, more stolid.

    Sir Paul is also in that sense more *awkward*, though fluid in his awkwardness. It is a kind of holding back, withholding even when he is expressing. (I am intimately aware of this kind of thing. It is not always something which "shows" in a showy sense. And Sir Paul has some moments of freedom, but in a very specific way.)

    Now, I realize you are looking at the different clips in openmindedness, a kind of generalized glaze or haze, to pick up whatever might come to you. However, there comes a point to categorize types of behaviours and transitions of personality through the items. Since Sir Paul -- let us postulate for you -- could bounce and swing a knee and head just as Paul could, and this would be the kind of swingy movement which a more contained man musters when copying a more fluid one, where the more contained person gains a moment of natural swing, let us note that Sir Paul is in 1967 Hello Goodbye. Can you at least grant that?

    Okay. Now Paul, when moving, could hold in his energy, but rarely was it a resistant holding in. Usually, it was a tired or relaxed calm. Out of that, came bursts, not of a bounce in silly but awkward movement (as with Sir Paul in "A Day in the Life"), but first there might be just swinging, happily or distractedly but not as a *poseur, not playing up to others*, unless Paul was literally having fun. Do you know what awkwardness I mean for Sir Paul: when someone *deliberately moves their arms up, not naturally in an emotion*?

    So instead, Paul might in a chair while waiting unhappily for a press conference to finish, impatient and tired and quiet but not working at self-containment for the audience, unless also angry. He is not *posing* as much.

    When Paul worked at major self-containment, it was clear anger.

    Paul didn't just move; he felt. This makes a radical difference in the body.

    When Sir Paul feels, he is emotional but he is not usually in some very key ways, flowingly present; there is a terror at times and buried quiet disquiet at others.

    These are statements to help you; they are somewhat descriptive directly of what movements one sees but *mostly they are approaches to help see mentally the categories* which the two men have -- in my strong and very psychologically experienced point of view.

    (Cont'd ...)

    1. This is part 2. (Continuing then ... though now I find I have to do 3 Parts not 2)

      In other words, once having cast my eyes on the periods for the men, gathered all the looks of each in the different videos, etc., satisfied myself that anything before late 1966 can indeed be accounted for by camera and lighting and nothing after can -- and yes, I tried on different ways of seeing, such as the one you are using --

      once having cast my eyes on the materials then with different mental lenses, always comparing emotional and physical looks and states for the men in different situations, as well as physical proportionality,

      these different mental lenses showed the most natural and only possible category for the materials was, to me, definitely the *consistency of needful coherence* in the materials before late 1966 and *different needful coherence* after late 1966.

      In other words, any changes one sees in Paul before late 1966 are consistent with psychological type in the moment, and same for after late 1966.

      Sure, a knee can bounce, a person glow with a winning smile, but *how winning*, and *what was going on just before it in their body and what after*, in the feelings and body? This kind of statement is meant to help you see what I mean; it is *not possible to describe in detail, any more than literally making someone see proportion shifts as meaningful is not possible, and why so many people refuse to accept what they can see are differences in two men proportionally*.

      Let me re-state that in a different way:

      For us, as you know, to be wrong about Paul's having been replaced at all, there are too many little things which come into proper relationship, details indescribable in their infiniteness, for every changed expression and movement, once one mentally "sees" (tries on) the "crazy" idea that Paul was replaced.

      So too, when one categorizes ONLY 2 Pauls and ONLY 1 switch date, there are too many little things about expressive movements and their *reasons in the body psychology* which again are indescribable in their infiniteness, for every changed expression and movement, which one mentally "sees", for that to be the wrong assumption among other possible assumptions.

      (Cont'd ...)

    2. Part 3 (Continuing and last part ...)

      So I described some movement reasons, above, and some movements, but that is not how to see it, and so I described *raison d'etre* thinking. Yes, it means *trying on a conclusion before one is finished with one's decision*, but one must actually compare the hypotheses as *mental categories, overall hypotheses as pictures of what to look for*, only this method will do.

      One gleans some suggestions from movements one notices, and their emotional cues before and after and what movements they came from, and then one tries on, mentally what types of people do those things in those combinations or roughly those combinations. Some movements will suit two types or more. However, the typical combinations and recombinations in the men we are talking of suit only separate types, with one mimicking the other sometimes.

      To see this: Get a feel for *what if it were one man before late 1966*, and feel the type of body psychology movement ("feeling"); do it sympathetically (not in pity, but in concert with your own inner body feelings). Then you will note that all moods and types of body flow are consistent for the *type* or category of person Paul was, and the type of person Sir Paul was.

      A *type* means more than one movement; it means process and reason between movements and other indications of state of mind.

      And yes, one can *apply* type as much as *derive* type. So do a bit of both: derive a rough type and then apply in different ways: apply as if there were constant switching, but do it carefully, and apply as if there was one major trauma and a replacement.

      Only the latter actually fits, I argue and will continue for a moment with that:

      Everyone has things which set them apart. Use those, not the similarities, and see whether the person with *that* kind of difference in that *kind* of situation or moment would:

      - have more or less of certain movements in general or in certain types of situations
      - follow certain movements with others and certain moods with others or not, in certain types of situations

      Once you do this, I am hopeful and fairly certain -- though you might not, but my point is that one ought, if it is done correctly -- that you will come to the same mental conception that not only I have, but that common sense about tragedy and replacement due to likely infiltration plot fooling John at first, also dovetails with, or in common parlance, confirms.

      And thus, I will state categorically -- though formally speaking I can always give, if you like, the caveat, that it is my strong informal-expert opinion, for though I never went to school for this (I grew up in a situation of carefully self-destructing trauma and am a deeply frustrated natural and always-observing artist, in combination with the psychological awareness) -- so I will state categorically that Paul was maturing a bit and of course not always showing his emotions but the direct-emotional *overall type* of person and body until late 1966, and not afterward,

      and afterward our Paul figure has some direct emotions but is not the *overall type*, thus sometimes moving in a flow of emotion, but with great stiltedness before and after, sometimes posturing during (holding back), and when more normal is calm but not *relaxed* in some indescribable ways.

      I cannot put it into words more than this, without trying, like you, to speak of a flourish here, a manner there.

      Try the categories: Beautiful Boy died in late 1966; Beloved Man but more damaged and living a fraud and probably benefitting from or even participating somehow in a crime to become a double, entered our public lives in late 1966.

      My best wishes, of course, and what stridency I have here is merely extreme surety, not outrage at your process.

  10. I should add the following note, because the main page on Paul and Sir Paul is undergoing changes & does not include this right now:

    Not all songs are about Paul's death, of course, but some are, rather blatantly (some less so but still contain a reference).

    Savoy Truffle, the weird "silly" song is blatantly about not fluff -- but stuffing the pain away with food, because metaphorically speaking, "Obladiblada" doesn't say or indicate "where you [Paul] are" or who he is now:

    "You might not feel it now
    But when the pain cuts through
    You're going to know and how
    The sweat is going to fill your head
    When it becomes too much
    You're going to shout aloud

    ... We all know Ob-La-Di-Bla-Da
    But can you show me, where you are?"

    1. Hi,
      I see you posted on the pidfreeforum site, they can use a good research mind over there. There was no need for the Mod over there to choose this moment to issue a warning about posting off-topic comments on the main page when you are posting as a guest for the first time and on a forum that is slow and off the radar anyway. This was a heavy-handed welcome. He seems like an over protective parent there.

      As for motives on what may have happened to Paul, the JFK link is just one of a few and IMO not very plausible since it is unlikely that a hit would have been put on him for what he was thinking to do but had not actually carried out yet. Also, if they really believed Paul was conspiring with Lane then Lane would have also been a target and the main target.

    2. Hi. I replied to a post from last September there, yes.

      Yes, indeed, Paul was more a risk than Lane himself, in a way. Popularizing Lane's work within 2.5 years of the murder of JFK would be very much not okay with the CIA and Mi5.

      However, wrecking and deflecting the coherence of the Beatles would also be a dream for the intel-cultists.

      Lane in effect did a service for intel: he collated and organized things on the opposite side, so that intel could see who was against or for the issues. Some have called Lane an agent, but I think not -- too dedicated and too savvy about the horrors.

      But Paul's being even likely to mention that the book was okay and he'd read it would NOT, NO WAY JOSE, be okay. :)

      It is very much a mixed bag ... who gets killed and who does not. Major popularizers of the idea are not welcome but activists on a topic are more a thorn, such as Lane, quite often.

      DA Garrison lived, but his witnesses died.

  11. Well then, you picked the right forum member to explore your theory with as he claims to be well read on the subject of JFK, he also previously posted on it at another forum. Despite his claimed knowledge of the subject I have yet to seem him develop his theory beyond a motive. He also went off track with a post about Paul's possible retirement.

    1. Hi it's Clare, but I am on someone's mobile phone. Well, I wasn't trying to get into a major discussion about it. I noticed that there was a post about my work and felt I should answer the questions.

      On the other hand, Paul could not just go into retirement: it's psychologically impossible for all concerned. As well, JFK cover-up is a huge motive: the Beatles were immensely influential just in the sense of noticed, so anything they talked of became for millions, a normalized topic in many ways.

      On the other hand: to rock the positive and coherent energy of these feelers, these movers and shakers, would be a greatly desired thing. If their own man could be integrated into the group, so much the better.

      Paul has to have been assassinated. The strongest reasoning supports it. Death by arranged car impact or more methods as well, is implied also by the quick replacement -- not as good a replacement as people now feel Sir Paul was, but no-one would tend to have thought it, then or now.

  12. I agree that he did not retire and I really don't believe it deserves serious consideration. He (Paul) in the 64 Frost interview mentioned it but only in answer to a question and it helps to remember he was only 24.

    I can accept the idea that his disappearance was due to a hit put on him, this is plausible to me, so is an accident but when one is aware of and considers what happen to Brian and others within a 2 year time frame it then becomes logical and reasonable to think in terms that someone wanted him out of the way for some reason.

    I only go where most of the available facts/evidence (clues, news, statements etc...) points to regardless of how it may negatively reflect back on the band. So far this approach has not led me in the direction of JFK.