|
|
Post by jackfate00 on Sept 29, 2003 18:34:51 GMT
For those who believe Paul is dead, I was hoping someone might answer the following questions:
1. WHy has no one leaked? Surely Yoko knows, and there would be strong incentive to report this rumour.
2. Who is writing Faul's music? McCartney's style has remained relatively consistent for 40 years now.
3. Who is Faul? Who did they get to surrender his identity to become someone he's not? And does Paul's father know about this?
4. Shouldn't Faul avoid much publicity? The Beatles Anthology, among other things, is something I would not do if I were Faul.
Dave
|
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Sept 30, 2003 12:38:44 GMT
jackfate00 -Dave - [glow=red,2,300]WELCOME!!![/glow] The answers to ALL your questions are ALREADY in this forum. Please check them out.
|
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Sept 30, 2003 22:16:53 GMT
Welcome dude. You have to use a different thought process sometimes with issues of deception and impersonation. There is and was so much at stake, from so many different facets in this case. Yoko, for example, has a ve$ted interest in the Beatles legend remaining intact. Yes, I feel she knows the 'truth' and is a major player in the game. Remember that Yoko was voted just last year as #3 on the list of "Top 50 Most Powerful Music Industry" people by Billboard Magazine. FAUL was voted UNDER Yoko, at #4. So, I feel that together they work to churn out the products. There are people who know. They will not or do not want to talk about this topic in public. Impersonation has been utilized successfully in the political, musical, entertainment, and religious realms time and time again. Considering that in the Fall of 1966 the Beatles were the most popular and powerful entertainers in the world, they had to continue for hundreds of reasons. How many sorrowful people killed themselves in response to Kurt Cobain's death? HUNDREDS WORLDWIDE. Imagine how many would have lost control of themselves had they been told Paul was DEAD in late 1966....  |
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Sept 30, 2003 22:59:33 GMT
Ian -PERFECT as always-
You, A MASTER!
|
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Oct 1, 2003 2:24:18 GMT
Thanks, Sunny- That means alot coming from the true master!  Together we can all solve this case, and facilitate some sort of official, public conclusion or admission! |
|
|
|
Post by TheeCavendeshLane on Oct 1, 2003 2:32:58 GMT
The remaining Beatles had a financial incentive to keep the image of Beatles going in 1966. In fact, when the Beatles broke up, the Bealtes were broke according to John due to problems at Apple. Also I dont think they had favorable contracts with records companies as the Beatles and that they had more favorable contracts as single performers. In other words I think they needed the money and needed the Beatles to exist for a while. In 1966 Mike McGear couldnt afford to open a Beauty Salon and he was banking on Paul's success
to bring in the money to open a shop. I always sort of wonder why
anyone would allow them to put clues on the album covers--I think the Beatles as such were sort of prohibited from putting anti war songs on their albums. They had to stay away from the too conttroversial. I always thought it was odd that their drug use references apperared ot be more apparent than their sort of social conscience references. It was as if some one was trying to influence kids to use drugs. Why do all this hush hush stuff and then put clues on the albums? One answer I thought off was that maybe the bad guys didnt know that there were clues until the albums had already been out there for a few years and there too many to recall. I also think that the differences in McCartney arent clues at all--they are facts. Its possible that they hired tha Paul as sort of shill and that he later decided that he was going to be more than they wanted him to be so the others eventuyally grew to hate the guy. Also I think if it were like a national security thing it would ahve been easy to convince the 3 remaining Beatles to pitch in for England and deal with the fact of the Faul. I think they may have said all right but people are going to know and I think they may have been shocked and annoyed when it went so seemlessly.
|
|
|
|
Post by victor on Oct 1, 2003 2:36:49 GMT
"...How many sorrowful people killed themselves in response to Kurt Cobain's death? HUNDREDS WORLDWIDE."
are you sure about that?
"Imagine how many would have lost control of themselves had they been told Paul was DEAD in late 1966.... "
i don't know. probably a few. but ask yourself.... to someone who's already at the end of their rope, finding out that the world is so completely full of crap that it REPLACED PAUL McCARTNEY with a lookalike and fooled everyone....well, i think that would send lot of people over the edge too.
and imagine what OTHER crazy conspiracy theories could be true if paul is really dead and has been impersonated these last 37 years.
almost no possibility would be too crazy to consider.
|
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Oct 1, 2003 2:57:54 GMT
"...How many sorrowful people killed themselves in response to Kurt Cobain's death? HUNDREDS WORLDWIDE." are you sure about that? VERY sure about that. In fact, Victor, I would not repeat it here unless I were. It's a widely-broadcast fact that within the first year or two since Cobain's death, well over two hundred kids killed themselves, because they couldn't live in a world without their rockstar in it, or because they were grief-stricken. Even more sadly, many of these suicides all over the world mimicked Cobain's death with a shotgun blast to the head. Of course, if you were a fan of Kurt & Nirvana, you'd have already known all that. Any more questions?  |
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Oct 1, 2003 3:00:56 GMT
Neo, you have awoken! NOW you are starting to GET IT. Switch to TECHNICOLOR, People!
|
|
