|
Post by PaulBearer on Aug 16, 2003 12:57:11 GMT
Tombstones?
|
|
|
Post by Forum Manager on Aug 18, 2003 0:26:16 GMT
Campbletown? what about Sheppardtown!
|
|
|
Post by pennylane on Aug 18, 2003 3:17:18 GMT
since Mull of Kintyre wasn't written until 1977 I doubt very much if this is a clue to a burial plot. It was just written about the place that he had found solace with linda..
|
|
|
Post by byrdsmaniac on Aug 25, 2003 23:39:22 GMT
It would be interesting to see what Officer Bill died of.
|
|
|
Post by zeleny on Aug 27, 2003 0:39:26 GMT
espionage, eh? i always wanted to be a spy. well maybe if a couple of went us went, and disguised it as some kinda vacation or something. that might work. When I was 4 years old (in 1969) I told my mother I wanted to be a spy when I grew up
|
|
|
Post by PaulBearer on Aug 27, 2003 4:47:51 GMT
And are you? ;D
|
|
|
Post by nutshell on Aug 27, 2003 10:40:21 GMT
I wonder if it is possible that nobody knows exactly about this guy William Sheppard. I mean, Beatles were so famous at that time that a so amazing look-alike shoul not have passed unobserved. People who happened to be his relatives, neighbours, school mates... Why nobody comes out to tell about him and his disappearance? I believe PID theories are quite as famous as himself. Why nobody calls a phone to say: "I knew him, and suddendly he was missing" ? And I wonder also if anybody (wife, children and so on) who is missing a dearone would not look closely to photos and movies to clear the doubt that "that" Paul is actually the lost father, husband or son. What about this, in your opinion?
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Aug 27, 2003 12:14:06 GMT
there are millions of people who deliberately disappear every day...walk away and create new lives. (And that's without even touching on the people who join the witness protection program.)
There are also people who have no immediate family or close friends...
|
|
|
Post by nutshell on Aug 27, 2003 12:32:23 GMT
That is true, milions of people disappear every day... but how many of them dare re-appear on a magazine cover or in the most viewed music videos, even if in a disguised look? How is it possible to make a person disappear and then put it under the nose to everybody? And to hope that nobody will recognize it? No neighbours? No friends? No relatives? No human relations of any kind? And when the "rumor" was at the top, still nobody wanted to clean personal doubts? Once again I beg your pardon for my English... Kisses
|
|
|
Post by pennylane on Aug 27, 2003 12:36:16 GMT
you make a very good point nutshell (and by the way your english is wonderful, better than mine and its the only launguage i have... ) but consider the point that they picked someone who resembled paul, gave him plastic surgery then released him on the world. Anyone who knew faul before would have been so used to seeing paul that they would never have connected the two.
|
|
|
Post by Eggman on Aug 27, 2003 12:37:00 GMT
I forgive you, your english is better than mine!!!! ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by nutshell on Aug 27, 2003 13:07:01 GMT
Spanky and Eggman, I am so confused and grateful for your kind words that, as poor Massimo Troisi said, I'm going to "put my head under your feet, and you can walk on it!". Spanky, you're perfectly right as we are talking about a period in which nobody had a suspect... but later, when PID thing became famous? I put myself into the shoes of a woman who has lost husband, or son, or friend. If the raissemblance of Faul to Paul was so strong that he won a look-alike contest, everybody who knew him could not help notice it. So, when the rumor was to his climax, how is it possibla that nobody said "oh, funny. Bill could have managed it, as he was so similar to Paul. And, curious, the name of the imposter seems to be just William Sheppard!" . No, we must think to something elese. This version seems to me hard to believe (in spite of this, I am convinced that Faul is not Paul). So, what about?
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Aug 27, 2003 13:33:46 GMT
If the raissemblance of Faul to Paul was so strong that he won a look-alike contest, everybody who knew him could not help notice it. Billy Sheppard NEVER won a Paul McCartney lookalike contest! Keith Allison was the winner of that contest! (he IS A REAL, NATURAL lookalike!) NOT Bill! Have you erver seen that page of this forum? Please remember that Bill was a military man!
|
|
|
Post by nutshell on Aug 27, 2003 13:53:30 GMT
I am simply astonished! So, my dear Sun King, how did it happen that Beatles knew Sheppard? Is there any theory on this point? Did CIA itself look for the man? And - back to the point - how could it happen that nobody thought to sum the disappearance of a man called William Sheppard with the sudden rise of a rumor involving a man with similar features and the same name? Is William Sheppard another false name?
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Aug 27, 2003 14:16:41 GMT
Bill was a friend of Mal Evans (Beatles' road manager). Mal knew Bill during 1964 Beatles North American Tour. Bill showed Mal he was a good Beatles voices imitator. Mal introduced Bill to Ringo. After James Paul's death Mal and Ringo remembered about that canadian policeman guy who was able to imitate "so good" James Paul's voice....
But you could ask me: "Where have you read that...." Never mind....already written into....
|
|
|
Post by DevilsAdvocate on Aug 27, 2003 15:59:08 GMT
But you could ask me: "Where have you read that...." Never mind....already written into.... ...written into what? The same document that claims Paul was a lefty even though it was well-documented prior to '66 that he was right-handed and only played the bass left-handed?
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Aug 27, 2003 16:26:18 GMT
...written into what? The same document that claims Paul was a lefty even though it was well-documented prior to '66 that he was right-handed and only played the bass left-handed? Paul has said in numerous interviews that he is, and always has been, left handed. "Paul is right-handed but plays left" is an urban myth.... The culprit is...Philip Norman, author of "Shout!", a 1980s biography of the Fabs that borrows heavily from Hunter Davies (the authorized biographer) and invents therefrom a few unwarranted myths. Here's the passage in Davies (1968): "His [Paul's] guitar cost fifteen pounds and Paul couldn't get anything out of it at first. There seemed to be something wrong with it. Then he realized it was because he was left- handed. He took it back and got it altered...." And here's Norman (1981): "Paul, strangely, made little progress [at the guitar]. His left-hand fingers found it irksome to shape the patterns of black dots shown in the tuition book, and his right hand, somehow, lacked the bounce necessary for strumming. Then he made the discovery that, although right-handed for every other purpose, he was left-handed as a guitar player". Considering that McCartney, who worked closely with Davies on the earlier book, must have been the early source that he was left-handed, and has since corroborated the fact that he's left-handed, one can only wonder where Norman got his information. In "A Day In The Life" (1995 Delacorte Press), author Mark Hertsgaard asserts that Paul was right-handed - the only thing he did left-handed was play guitar. From Rolling Stone issue 482, September 11, 1986 Kurt Loder: On a more trivial but similarly ancient note, a new biography of you claims that Paul McCartney, the world's most famous left-handed bassist, is actually right-handed. True? Paul McCartney: No, I'm quite definitely left-handed.
|
|
|
Post by DevilsAdvocate on Aug 27, 2003 16:39:47 GMT
And yet I have a Beatle trading card from '65 that says that Paul's actually right-handed.
And if Faul were a righty, wouldn't he have said that he was, indeed, a righty to help his cover?
|
|
|
Post by zeleny on Aug 27, 2003 16:39:54 GMT
And are you? ;D I can't answer that.
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Aug 27, 2003 17:12:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by DevilsAdvocate on Aug 28, 2003 11:12:04 GMT
Okay, that's a picture, but how does it answer my questions: why, if Paul was left-handed, do I have printed material prior to '66 that states he was a righty, and why, if Faul is a righty, would he stick to the lefty story?
See, I'm not trying to debunk this -- I'm just trying to make sense of it, because there's too much conflicting information on both sides of the argument. The problem is that we have too much hearsay, too many third, fourth, fifth, and seventeenth-party sources and no actual direct source except for Paul/Faul/Whoever and Ringo (and possibly George Martin, Neil Aspinall, Jane Asher, Mike McCartney, Pete Best -- who no one's said anything about).
It's all too much for me to take...
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Aug 28, 2003 13:32:47 GMT
Okay, that's a picture, but how does it answer my questions... He is finger-painting with his left hand.
|
|
|
Post by DevilsAdvocate on Aug 28, 2003 13:35:20 GMT
That still doesn't answer either question, though. Besides, you'll notice that it looks like paint on his right hand, too, and most people who fingerpaint use both hands. It still doesn't explain my trading card printed in '65, nor does it explain Faul sticking to the lefty story when he's clearly a righty.
|
|
|
Post by LordChinfist on Aug 29, 2003 2:44:35 GMT
Paul plays the piano, with both hands of course. If he can play piano with both hands, wouldn't it be possible that he could fingerpaint with both hands, regardless of whether he is right handed or left handed? I don't play the piano, or any instrument for that matter. For all you piano players out there, would you consider yourself at least mildly ambidextrous, as you would need to be adept with fingers of both hands to play the piano? Does the fact that you use both hands to play the piano carry over into other activities and enhance the ability to use both hands in those activities? Just curious. If that is the case, it would not be accurate to determine Paul's dominant hand by observing which hand he is using in photos, except perhaps if observing which hand he uses to write with.
|
|
|
Post by godgifu on Aug 29, 2003 7:44:21 GMT
Good theory on the burial site! Even if it is true that Paul's body was disfigured when found (and I admit, that explaination for Paul's death seems a bit dubious, however I still agree that something happened to the real Paul, since it's clearly not the same guy in the photos) it wouldn't be a difficult thing to hide if using it in faking the replacements death. If the man supposedly died in a bad car accident or even was supposed to be murdered and left in a field for a few weeks, a badly decomposed body could still be passed off to the family, especially if the authorities assured the family, saying the dental records/fingerprints match. And I doubt that if someone I knew died that I would be going around thinking "He probably didn't really die, he just assumed the identity of a famous rock star" so I'm not surprised that no one's come forward about that.
|
|