Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

 It's very unfortunate that the "Paul is dead" theory ever got legs. And not only did it get legs, but it's often associated with the JFK assassination and the claim that Oswald was innocent. The presumption is that if you believe in one, you must believe in the other. 

Well, I believe in the innocence of Lee Harvey Oswald, but I do not believe that Paul McCartney died in 1966 and was replaced. 

Supposedly, the man who replaced Paul was 4 inches taller. This collage was sent to me by a prominent espouser of this theory. In both images, Paul is with his then girlfriend Jane Asher.

He seems to be about the same height in both pictures. She's the one whose height looks different. She seems much shorter on the right. But, there are numerous images of the two of them together, and that image on the right is an outlier. But, what can account for it? Well, you can see that both her knees are bent, which lowers a person. His right knee is bent, but he may have been up on his toe, whereas, she is squatting some. And what about her footwear? What if she was in flats on the right, whereas she usually wore heels? But, regardless what the explanation is, the idea that Paul got replaced by a guy who was 4 inches taller is ridiculous. That wasn't going to fly with anyone.  

Then, there is the issue of his teeth. 

So, supposedly, the replacement Paul had good teeth, but the original Paul had big spaces. But, if that were true, then it would have appeared so in all his images, and the whole world would have noticed it. Here are his teeth when he was young, before, he, supposedly, got replaced: 

Here he is older.

So, on both you see the recessed second right incisor and the prominent and slightly misaligned right canine tooth. Again, we have to remember that Paul McCartney is one of the most photographed persons who ever lived. You have to go by the preponderance of the evidence and not obsess about outlier photos. I read that he chipped his left center incisor in a moped accident and had to have it restored. And who knows what other dentistry he has had. And he's old now, so does he have dentures? Does he have implants? He certainly has pearly whites. 

As a former chiropractor, I connect with this collage.

Wow. It shows how deeply ingrained postural habits are. He has the same head bearing, with the slight right lateral bending and left rotation and then the slump through the torso. You are looking at the same neuromuscular signature there. And we are talking about something that people do without even being consciously aware of it. 

But, the biggest reason of all why it is impossible for Paul McCartney to have been replaced is his talent. He is one of the most gifted and talented musicians of all time, and the idea that they found someone who not only looked extraordinarily like him but had his voice, his guitar playing ability, his drum playing ability (a lot of people don't realize how good a drummer he is. When asked if he thought Ringo Starr was the best drummer in the world, John Lennon said he wasn't even the best drummer in the Beatles.) 

But, it wasn't just his playing ability, it was his songwriting ability and his lyric writing ability. Take McCartney's song Blackbird from 1968. It's a masterpiece. So, besides looking like him, the doppelganger could create like Paul McCartney too? 

We know that looks comes from genetics, that every person is a random mix of the 46 chromosomes of their 4 grandparents. But, where does musical talent come from? It's not understood nearly as well as physical traits. But, the idea that Paul McCartney was replaced with a dead ringer lookalike who could also create and perform musically at the caliber of the original is mathematically impossible. Absolutely impossible. 

It's time to stop the nonsense that Paul McCartney is dead and has been since 1966. And as an ardent defender of Lee Harvey Oswald, I vociferously denounce the Paul is dead theory precisely because it is often bundled together with Oswald innocence, which is most unfortunate for the latter.