|
|
Post by authentic on Nov 1, 2003 4:52:55 GMT
Hello Guys, New member here...I've checked into both websites of your theory, actually many times . I've also read many posts and I fell that I'm pretty familier with all the evidence presented...
Ok, yes you have proven that billy Mccartney has been replaced by a imposter by the name of William shepperd, Billy Shears, or William Campbell what have you. I feel the evidence is accurate and I'm not going to refute this. The bone structure is completely different and the height is noticeably different so...Yes they ARE two different men so...
Paul is Dead ?
Now...What evidence do you have to prove that billy Mccartney is deceased, being replaced doesn't force you to presume that this man is DEAD!
Now with the story...
Yes, the story is very convincing yet is it factual? I say yes some of the information in the story can be proven to be true, but it has very little to do with the whole idea of Paul to be dead. A story doesn't have to be construed as true just because one or two meaningless sentences are facts. Possibly paul quit the beatles and they paniced, or maybe even he was replaced for something else. Of course he could possibly could well be dead...
Paul replaced ? Yes.
Paul dead ? Possible, not likely
Again, nice to be joining you guys...
I'll leave it to your minds.
authentic
|
|
|
|
Post by PaulBearer on Nov 1, 2003 9:44:29 GMT
If he was only replaced (and no doubt Scatterdome's theory on this could be recited somewhere along this thread) why all the Paul is dead clues and not Paul was replaced clues?
|
|
|
|
Post by Imgonnaopenmymind on Nov 1, 2003 15:14:29 GMT
Because if the clues are discerned, nobody's gonna be looking for the real deal if they think he's dead, which gives him more privacy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darkhorse on Nov 1, 2003 15:27:03 GMT
Doesn't explain John's sadness. At least if Paul was alive he'd have his friend to visit.
|
|
|
|
Post by pennylane on Nov 1, 2003 16:17:09 GMT
I agree with darkhorse, it doesn't explain the changes in John. also the mysterious deaths don't make sense with that senario..
|
|
|
|
Post by authentic on Nov 1, 2003 17:18:55 GMT
Possibly, yet there is no authentic proof...Clues are not considered to be geuine. I also found these so called clues to be redudant for goodness sake. Im sure the examples are obvious... I'm not trying to deny your theory just I want to find the truth!
Just as all of you do...The last thing I want to do is sound arrogant.
Possibly...
Publicity stunt ? This might sound completely idoitic, but it must have gone through every single one of everbodys mind if they are actually considering all possibilities. They sure got alot of poeple wondering if he was dead... Do you think they would sell more or less albums trying to find out if he was actually a dead man?
|
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Nov 1, 2003 19:20:47 GMT
Well, my pet theory has been that a knowing high level attorney at EMI might have asked for and approved many of the clues.
This was, if the truth ever came ouut, or if the public didn't accept Faul, (which they did), then the record company could, in court, if named in a fraud suit, use the clues as disclaimers. The might be used to indicate that there WAS public acknowledgement of the switch (albeit surrepticious,spelling?) and this might alleviate some of the record companys liabilities with a lenient judge. Just a thought.
Mabe they already had a secret trial and its buried in law books somewhere. Like, there was a secret plaintiff, a secret trial, and a secret ruling, based on these concepts. In this way, any subsequent suit is thereby can be rejected out of hand. Just a thought............
In America we have, is it Norem's Book of Law? Cases, cases, cases, year by year a book.
|
|
|
|
Post by mike on Nov 1, 2003 21:14:19 GMT
I believe Paul was replaced, but I don't 100% believe the KKK theory, although it is possible. Maybe they meant Paul was not literally dead, but figuratively. Like he quit the band or something. But Paul and Faul are not the same person. But if Paul was alive, why would he let this impostor William Campbell take his identity?
|
|
|
|
Post by authentic on Nov 2, 2003 2:57:46 GMT
You almost can always pursue a case if you have a lawyer...You could most likely sue for fraud. Like many other cases if you have a complaint you go to court.
BUT...
What matters if you actually win...
P.S- Having a case and winning a case are two different things...Which is extremely apparent.
|
|
|
|
Post by beldabeast on Nov 2, 2003 4:42:21 GMT
Hello Guys, New member here...I've checked into both websites of your theory, actually many times . I've also read many posts and I fell that I'm pretty familier with all the evidence presented... Ok, yes you have proven that billy Mccartney has been replaced by a imposter by the name of William shepperd, Billy Shears, or William Campbell what have you. I feel the evidence is accurate and I'm not going to refute this. The bone structure is completely different and the height is noticeably different so...Yes they ARE two different men so... Paul is Dead ? Now...What evidence do you have to prove that billy Mccartney is deceased, being replaced doesn't force you to presume that this man is DEAD! Now with the story... Yes, the story is very convincing yet is it factual? I say yes some of the information in the story can be proven to be true, but it has very little to do with the whole idea of Paul to be dead. A story doesn't have to be construed as true just because one or two meaningless sentences are facts. Possibly paul quit the beatles and they paniced, or maybe even he was replaced for something else. Of course he could possibly could well be dead... Paul replaced ? Yes. Paul dead ? Possible, not likely Again, nice to be joining you guys... I'll leave it to your minds. authentic Good post . Paul being replaced , while probally just wishful thinking , would explain all the hard evidence just as well as the death theory . Me ? I think he is most likely , although not certainly dead . For now I am satisfied with proving there are two Pauls . Once that is generally accepted , others will join in to find out what happened to him. |
|
|
|
Post by Eggman on Nov 2, 2003 13:05:26 GMT
And what about the 60IF document, it says that Paul was dead not replaced  |
|
|
|
Post by Imgonnaopenmymind on Nov 2, 2003 15:05:09 GMT
Well, its veracity and truth (regardless of the face comps, which can be considered legal evidence in a court of law) is doubted by many.
Plus, there are supposedly over 10,000 photos, papers, and all that crap that go with this. We only have a condensed version. Unless there's a full version posted right away or proof that there is one is posted, we can doubt that such a thing exists.
|
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Nov 2, 2003 17:55:35 GMT
Simply, starting from September 11th 1966 THE GENIUS is NO MORE among us.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheeCavendeshLane on Nov 2, 2003 18:52:18 GMT
Why is John Sad? The anti drug people are always pointing to
a change in affect towards depresssion brought on as a result
of drug use. Maybe all the Beatles became more somber or sober
after they were turned on, not nescessarilty depressed. In fact,
they were no longer what they had represented themselves to
be the embodiment of--innocent, care free Youth. They were
Holden Caufield by something. They themselves acknowledged at this time that they wanted to move in a different direction; that
there were more important forces in the world than fast cars. Maybe
it was the awareness of death and something to do with the long
view so to speak of the Maharashi. Drugs and the Maharashi and
growing just a little older coluld have done it. Or Drugs and the
Maharashi and Death: Tara died and Brian Died. There is no doubt
Lennon loved Brian. I think Brian and John and Paul were lovers,
for sure Brian and John. At any rate, Brian's death was not easy
on John. I think its interesting that the speech reversal on John's
recorded comments after Brians death is 'Cant Be Beatles Now'. Did
he mean that they really cant do it or that this death took the heart
out of it. I also think the clues on the record covers become part
of the cover up and are not part of a revelation. When we see a taller
Paul on Sgt Pepper--I dont think thats clue necessarily, I think its a
taller guy. They could have put the other 3 beatles on stilts to
compensate but I think they wanted to begin the process of assimilating this new guy into the Band so that his presence should
be invisible to us in time. The changes in appearance arent clues put there for us to enjoy, they are evidence that its a different guy and that Paul has been replaced; the 'clues' follow to cover-up the apparent differences--its as if they are saying, just in case you notice anything different, here are some 'clues' that show we are just hoaxing with you. I think that it should be a more coherent story that Paul was replaced but did not die. That he was replaced because he became incapacitated or disabled. That the intention was to be the
Beatles till his songs were recorded . That replacement was honor to the memory of the healthy Paul and was also a way of keeping the world and the world press away from the incapacitated/diabled Paul. So Paul could leave in peace. I think this way every one close to Paul and the Beatles are quiet about it. Having said that let me say that I am not saying that to put it forth as an alternative to 601f, I am just saying that to share what I have thought in the past. I thought Sgt Peppers was about a death, the death of the Beatles. The death of the Beatles because Paul was could no longer function as a Beatle. I think there was enmity towards the replacement Paul but also some acknowlegment that the guy was also doing a service to Paul. Having said that let me say that I do in fact think Paul is Dead. I think the
Beatles album, which is really the finale album, is too graphic and horrible to be anything other than a depiction of the violence of Paul's death and the uncanny circumstances of living with a replacement. I think 60if is uncanny. Its as if it was channled.
|
|
|
|
Post by innspector on Nov 3, 2003 17:32:20 GMT
If Paul was to only retire from public appearances, why we hear his voice no more in the Beatle's songs from Sgt.Pepper to Let it Be.
Faul could stand in for him, while he sings the songs in the studio. But that isn't the case. He is dead.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scatterdome on Nov 5, 2003 21:30:48 GMT
If he was only replaced (and no doubt Scatterdome's theory on this could be recited somewhere along this thread) why all the Paul is dead clues and not Paul was replaced clues? Because if the clues are discerned, nobody's gonna be looking for the real deal if they think he's dead, which gives him more privacy. Also, we know the Beatles intended for the switch to eventually be discovered, and that it would be long after Paul and Brian recovered from the constant-Illuminati-harrassment nightmare of 1966 Beatlemania—otherwise, they wouldn’t have given us so many clues! Why “Paul Is Dead” and not “Paul Was Replaced?” Because they were trying to get us to think a little deeper, on a multi-layered level necessary for their plan to achieve its ultimate long-term goal—getting the world to think in ways that would help the masses uncover the ancient conspiracy of the Illuminati (Blue Meanies.) And of course, I’ll once again provide the link to my theory (“Paul was replaced in ’66…”): 60if.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=paul&action=display&thread=1063219993And another link to a thread where some good discussion on this popped up: 60if.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=paul&action=display&thread=1063892646Doesn't explain John's sadness. At least if Paul was alive he'd have his friend to visit. If you were John in 1967, and had recently realized that the Illuminati control the world after the power elite suddenly turned against you and your band when you went psychedelic in 1966, wouldn’t you look a little sad? He knew that their plan could offer the world a rare chance to break free from the Illuminati’s millennia-spanning mind control. In 1967, the Beatles, especially their leader John, were carrying the weight of the world on their shoulders. “With our love we could save the world / If they only knew” And what about the 60IF document, it says that Paul was dead not replaced Sun King has told us that 60IF was given to him by people working at EMI who knew Brian. If EMI doesn’t have Illuminati agents working with the upper ranks of its staff, then the Illuminati don’t exist, since according to the most plausible theories on the Illuminati, control of major media companies is one of the largest factors in their continuing control of the modern world. (And if they don’t exist, then 60IF seems more valid, since the document, strangely, doesn’t even mention the Illuminati.) More on this at these two threads: 60if.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=60ifclues&thread=1066387943&action=display&start=6060if.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=conspiracies&action=display&thread=1066992690If Paul was to only retire from public appearances, why we hear his voice no more in the Beatle's songs from Sgt.Pepper to Let it Be. Faul could stand in for him, while he sings the songs in the studio. But that isn't the case. He is dead. Remember, the Beatles wanted us to eventually figure out what they had done. If they made the transition too realistic, they’d risk us never figuring it out, and thus they’d never prove the point they were trying so hard to prove. Also, they knew Faul would be in situations where he would have to show the public that he could perform (example: the film “Let It Be”), and that he would eventually be performing live again. Therefore, it made more sense to have Faul sing most of his own parts from the getgo; they knew his vocal and visual imitation was exactly good enough to fool the world just for a while. (I think James Paul may have sung both "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" and "She's Leaving Home" as his way of saying "Let me introduce to you the one and only Billy Shears" and "Bye Bye," respectively.) Once again, I’ll close this post with the scene from Yellow Submarine where the Beatles and Lord Mayor devise their plan to save Pepperland (the world) from the Blue Meanies (Illuminati.) Lord Mayor: “You could pass for the originals” Ringo: “We are the originals” Lord Mayor: “No, no, Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Heart’s Club Band.” John: “Well, they couldn’t be much with a name like that.” Paul: “Sgt. Pepper?” Lord Mayor: “You could impersonate them and rally the land to rebellion!” And here’s the link to the “Yellow Submarine” thread, where I have a longer post on this on the third page: 60if.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=60ifclues&thread=1064668996&action=display&start=0 |
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Nov 6, 2003 14:59:07 GMT
FIRST OFF, Cavendish: Get a damn grip pn yourself, man. "John, Paul, Brian were lovers..." NO WAY. Do not swallow the Albert Goldman crap lies. Absurd! That is like saying, "Michael Jackson had wild animal sex with Lisa Marie Presley..." LMAO.
Secondly, in relation to this thread, it stands to reason that it is highly unlikely that PAUL lived after Sept. 1966.
I feel it would have been IMPOSSIBLE to remain totally secluded ALL THESE MANY DECADES. Like, the real PAUL never seen anywhere, i.e.a grocery store or ANYWHERE? No "insiders" blowing his cover for money to the Enquirer? Also outside the realm of human nature!
It is wishful thinking to entertain the notion that PAUL could lead a hidden, secret life completely undetected for 4 decades while FAUL pathalogically clamors for every ounce of attention he can possible grasp.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scatterdome on Nov 6, 2003 20:12:55 GMT
Secondly, in relation to this thread, it stands to reason that it is highly unlikely that PAUL lived after Sept. 1966. I feel it would have been IMPOSSIBLE to remain totally secluded ALL THESE MANY DECADES. Like, the real PAUL never seen anywhere, i.e.a grocery store or ANYWHERE? No "insiders" blowing his cover for money to the Enquirer? Also outside the realm of human nature! It is wishful thinking to entertain the notion that PAUL could lead a hidden, secret life completely undetected for 4 decades while FAUL pathalogically clamors for every ounce of attention he can possible grasp. While I think it's possible James Paul still lives, I think it's far more likely that he died in 1973.I first thought of that date while listening to the "Band On The Run" album (released 12/5/73), realizing that it's a soulful work of musical genius and original songcraft, and then realizing that no solo McCartney album after that comes close. So I did some research on the "Band On The Run" sessions, and quickly found what very well may be the fingerprints of an Illuminati assassination of James Paul towards the end of the sessions. In order to avoid repeating myself too much, I'll instead provide the link to that page of my theory's thread, for many more details I have written on the possible "Band On The Run" assassination element of my theory: 60if.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=paul&thread=1063219993&action=display&start=15But, just to lay down a few basics, I will reiterate a couple of the points from that link here: I think James Paul could have managed to stay hidden from even the Illuminati from 1967 to 1973, when the least amount of other people would have thought to look for him. But after the switch, the Illuminati would have had everything to gain and nothing to lose from his death, unlike the death of one of the public Beatles (at the time), since James Paul's continuing existence would have been the biggest threat to potential exposure of the switch, and his death would not make a martyr out of a Beatle since it would have gone unnoticed and unreported. I think the Illuminati may have paid or threatened Denny Seiwell and Henry McCullough to both quit Wings WITHIN THE WEEK BEFORE the initial sessions were scheduled in Lagos, Nigeria, knowing that it would likely get James Paul to appear out of the woodwork to fill in on drums and lead guitar, in a city where news of his death would never surface. (Isn't it strange that they both chose that moment to quit??) The Illuminati may have even been informed by Faul (who had joined one of their branches by then) that James Paul already intended "Band On The Run" to be the last album in which he'd be the primary songwriting mastermind, and so they would have really had nothing to lose by killing him after he'd laid down the necessary parts in the studio. (I don't think Faul necessarily knew his higher-ranking Rosicrucian(?) brothers would use the information to kill Paul, but he would have been obligated to tell them whatever he knew, as one of the conditions of membership.) One clue that James Paul intended "Band On The Run" to be his last full collaboration with Faul: the song titled "Picasso's Last Words." Any one else's thoughts on the "Band On The Run" element of my theory would be a good addition to my theory's thread; no one but me has addressed it yet, so it's be great if someone posts something either pro or con, after fully examining both my detailed post on that thread, and the link provided within. |
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Nov 7, 2003 2:24:22 GMT
Just a reminder.
99% of the population either doesn't care/doesn't believe/doesn't want to hear anything about a subsititution or death of Paul.
So, are the Powers That Be doing a (a) good job or a (b) bad job keeping it under raps?
I guess they are doing a good job. They don't want anyone to know.
So, chances are, to accomplish this, there must be far more agents on this particular job than there are peope on this discussion board. Or are there just a few?
Are 5000 NWO agents that good at keeping a secret?
Let's all really think about it.
5000 people actively involved that keep this thing covered up, under wraps. Do they meet one a month to review plans, report "outbreaks"? Do they have a weekly newsletter, or just regular internet postings? Do these agents do other things? Do they have a list of things to do? Do they have day jobs, too? Have they all sworn blood oaths? Do they meet in the woods at midnite on the 13th on the 33rd parellel and chant "Long live the Devil and Die Beatle, Die?"
How old are the masterminds of the original Paul McCartney scenario? 35, 45, 52? So they are 72, 82, and 94 years old now. Do they each train up one son to pass along the secret? Is there a set number of people that can know?
Does David Rockefeller call up Prince Charles on the bat-phone and say, "we've kept the McCartney thing a secret just one more day, sir!"
""Ah-ha, good," he replies with a devilish grimace, "Those imbeciles will never know, NEVER KNOW I TELL YOU---BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA! How's the Diana cover-up going?"
"Oh, about as well as the JFK debackle; so long ago and still we're having to take care of business."
"That's just great, Davie. Keep up the good work and thank that looney tune Sirhan Sirhan for getting a good shot at the pope for me.", said Charles.
"No, sir, that one was for Robert Kennedy, and he had a better target training, ya know. You must be thinkng of that..."
Charles interjects, " It's always just one more militant extremist. If you've screened one extremist, you've screened them all. Well, coincidentally, I'm taking the anti-gravity hovercraft over to the extremist training ground in Cornwall. They've recruited some mean spirited bingo ladies from the local church to fill in for the ones we lost in the secret plane crash last Tuesday over ............."
"I wasn't told, sir!", Rockefellers voiced quivering.
"Oh, you'll hear the cover story on FOX in about an hour EST, if we can reach Rupert on the phone in time, that is. So hard to get in touch with lately! It seems he's gotten swept away on-line lately on some web-site about Marilyn Monroe's supposed suicide......."Charles intoned.
"Funny, she JUST happens to be here with me, right now! Say hello Marilyn!" David said. "She's been staying in the guest suite, recouping from her little cosmetic treatments at Camp David."
A sultry voice gently caressed the Princes' ear from the tranatlantic connection, "Hello, your highness, Chuckie Baby, Mr. Prince and Future King! How are YOU?I'm off to Mexico for some more black ops, Hollywood style."
"I'm capitol, M.M., tell me,are you still helping to keep those borders open for Georgie?"
"Oh yes, my Prince! But can you tell just one, itsy-bitsy, teenie-weenie, tiny little thing?"
"Yes, whats that, my lady?"
"Just what exactly, IS my motivation?"
How are all these elements acting together in concert----and not really ever making mistakes that are telling?
And Scatterdome, with regards to John playing Superhero to the world by concocting this grand convoluted scheme to bring exposure, why did virtually no one get it? (Please don't be offended at me posing this------I am trying to see it. I just remember that even the Illuminati are fallable human beings too.)
|
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Nov 7, 2003 14:35:22 GMT
SCATTERDOME- These threads are some of your best posts I've seen. Kudos. But you're getting off on a misleading tangent, hung up on the excellent Band on the Run album, twisting that as "proof" Paul lived long enough to record it. That contradicts the massive plethora of evidence and heavy innuendo the Beatles themselves laid on us, and the photographic and audio evidence. Therefore, look at it this way: The BOTR album was FAUL's best ever simply because the hired, mercenary songwriters had a good, productive year. Hell, even JOHN and George could have contributed heavily to the project on the sly. The fact that that standard of quality has NEVER been achieved again by FAUL in all these DECADES points to my conclusion. By the time of Venus & Mars, he was down to a couple excellent songs and the rest, passible filler....(I refer to the good ones: Venus & Mars/Rock Show) consider it. Faul bought songs from a staple of pros who remained totally unknown. They too got rich. Everyone from the Monkees to Neil Diamond has done it. Oh, by the way...Elvis, falsely crowned the greatest entertainer of our lifetime, NEVER WROTE ONE SONG. He used other people's material exclusively.  |
|
|
|
Post by PaulBearer on Nov 8, 2003 15:40:03 GMT
Yes, but at least Elvis didn't try to deceive anyone into thinking he'd written the songs himself. Never said "Written by Elvis Presley" to the best of my knowledge.
I didn't know that Neil Diamond didn't write his own songs. Some of The Monkees songs were written by Neil Diamond supposedly so if he got them from someone else again...a chain of deceipt?
Again, with The Monkees, they never credited their names to songs they didn't write. The true authors were always shown on the song credits. The so-called scandal over the deceit that The Monkees were only pretending to be a group was just a mountain out of a molehill as they never made out to be anything but actors playing a role; however the public had chosen to put their blinkers on and didn't want to know that so acted unjustifiably "outraged" when this "scandal" that they didn't play their own songs came out although, by the end of it all, they really had learnt to play and write their own songs which was actually their undoing, not because of a lack of some genuine talent (though their third album which was the first one where they had full creative input at their own insistence because of the public backlash was a commercial and creative failure so it took a while for that latent talent to shine through) but because the TV studio didn't like losing creative control of them. Just when they were beginning to stand on their own two feet, they were cancelled. The final episode, scripted by Micky Dolenz, was one of their best ever episodes and the following movie "Head" a cult classic. If they hadn't been cancelled by a jealous network and but instead left to their own creative impulses for a third series, who knows what would have emerged from them?
But how did I get on to this? My point is, some famous singers and groups over the years got famous over other people's songs but thefact is they never pretended to write the songs themselves but credited them to the proper authors; they never used deceit unlike Faul, MJ and many others.
|
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Nov 8, 2003 17:00:36 GMT
Elvis NEVER WROTE ONE SONG. that was not his gift....everyone has different abilities. He was credited as co-writer on some early songs, strictly through an arrangement made by the Colonel. |
|
|
|
Post by Scatterdome on Nov 10, 2003 21:58:14 GMT
And Scatterdome, with regards to John playing Superhero to the world by concocting this grand convoluted scheme to bring exposure, why did virtually no one get it? (Please don't be offended at me posing this------I am trying to see it. I just remember that even the Illuminati are fallable human beings too.) But we are getting it now! Remember, I think they knew (and intended) that the truth would eventually be figured out once the forensic comparisons inevitably became widely available with technology, just as certainly as they knew they could initially fool the world for a while with Faul. Sun King’s comparisons have only been available to the public for a short while (barely over a year, right?) and as far as I know, this is the first messageboard on the internet collecting the thoughts of people who have seen the forensic evidence and are convinced of its validity, so what we’re seeing on this forum is the first geographically-borderless gathering of minds who are truly equipped to get to the bottom of the mystery the Beatles so cleverly provided us. And even if both the 60IF document and my alternate theory turn out to be pretty off-base, this messageboard is still on the right track, as it’s the first internet messageboard mostly uncluttered by posters interested in the “Paul Is Dead” theory who haven’t yet seen the forensic evidence. Therefore, this forum has the best chance of emerging as the first source of public awareness of the true story of the Beatles. It may be hard to imagine that you’ve stumbled onto a website where you’re now currently playing a role in a historically significant cultural event, but as far as figuring out the Faul mystery goes, this forum is the cutting edge, my friend! This forum is the first example of the level of public speculation that the Beatles intended to inspire with their clues, knowing that it would be many years down the line. And even if the website is shut down tomorrow, at this point there is bound to be many more to come. The Beatles’ plan was successful—the forensic evidence is now out and the truth is going to emerge soon! (And when the world needs it most- good timing, fellas.) “Just a boy and a little girl / trying to save the whole wide world “ -- John Lennon, “Isolation,” 1970 SCATTERDOME- These threads are some of your best posts I've seen. Kudos. But you're getting off on a misleading tangent, hung up on the excellent Band on the Run album, twisting that as "proof" Paul lived long enough to record it. That contradicts the massive plethora of evidence and heavy innuendo the Beatles themselves laid on us, and the photographic and audio evidence. I don’t consider it “proof;” I just consider it a potential indication of a possibility strong enough that we shouldn’t dismiss it, in the name of healthy speculation. I have loved the Ram album since childhood, and more recently discovered that my opinion of Band On The Run is just as high. I hear not just good production and arrangements but brilliant, soulful-sounding songwriting on par with much of the Beatles’ later work, and even surpassing much of their early work. If it’s not the work of one Beatle-quality songwriter (or songwriting team), those two albums are a collection of the best songs of many different songwriters, which is possible (but not what my ears hear.) And they’re certainly not Revolver leftovers… Maybe Faul was, for two whole albums, a songwriter on par with John and Paul. But how many of those have we known in the music world? And what are the chances that the Beatles found such a songwriter on the sly who also looked a lot like Paul in 1966, compared to the chances that they merely found a solid performer/lookalike who, irrelevantly to the Beatles, might turn out have conventional songwriting abilities? On that note, if James Paul wasn’t behind those two albums, it’s more likely that Faul, possibly from the getgo, had one brilliant, well-paid ghostwriter or ghostwriting team supplying him songs, who either reduced his/her/their contributions or ran out of creative steam after Band On The Run.The idea that Paul died in 1973, or any time other than autumn '66, does not conflict with either the evidence or the clues. The massive plethora of evidence is really only evidence of two Pauls, not necessarily evidence of Paul’s death in 1966. And the innuendo the Beatles laid on us that “Paul Is Dead” was intended, above anything else, to get their fans to think a little deeper and learn how to uncover a multi-layered mystery. On this forum, we have definitely arrived at the third (and maybe last) layer, but since we already know there’s three layers, why not speculate, considering how clever the Beatles were, that there might be a fourth? I’ll demonstrate what I mean by layers, starting from the point of view of an average person who has heard of the “Paul Is Dead” theory: LEVEL 1: “There’s no way Paul McCartney died in late ’66— that’s ridiculous. We would all surely know. You’ve got too much time on your hands if you think there’s clues on the Beatles’ albums.” LEVEL 2: (After being shown dozens of blatant, Beatle-provided clues pointing at Paul’s “death”): “OK, the clues are there, but it was just a very clever publicity stunt. The Beatles were very creative.” LEVEL 3: (After seeing forensic proof of two “Pauls" along with the 60IF document): “OK, wow—he really did die! They were telling us that he died because he actually did! And wow, here’s a convenient explanation from Brian’s former coworkers at EMI to go with it, to verify that he and Paul died in 1966!) LEVEL 4: (After realizing that the forensic evidence of two Pauls is not necessarily evidence of death, that the Beatles’ and “Paul’s” music from ’67 to at least ’73 is some of the best music ever written, that the Beatles’ influence on the world hurt the Illuminati’s agenda more than almost anything had before, that EMI is an Illuminati organization, that the Beatles were heroes, and that they were already clever enough to set things up so that we’d arrive at “Level 3” far in the future): “Maybe after autumn 1966, Faul stepped into Paul’s role publicly while Paul continued to contribute to the Beatles’ music-making behind the scenes, which would explain all the excellent music; also, maybe the insiders at EMI behind 60IF have their own reasons for wanting to delay and/or distort the truth by throwing the first public investigation off course!” If the Beatles were indeed intentionally providing us a multi-layered analogy of Illuminati behavior to get people to think deeply enough to figure out how the Illuminati operate, then the existence of such a “Level 4” would be consistent with such an analogy. For example, compare the way knowledge is compartmentalized within the different degrees of Freemasonry to the way I have laid out the above “levels/layers.” So even if my tangents about Band On The Run end up being a dead end, I think it’s important we keep our minds open to any possible “fourth layers” to this mystery in general, whether or not my particular “fourth layer” is correct. I know it’s possible that Faul’s best work could simply be the work of many well-paid ghostwriters. I know my speculations are not “proof;” I’m just trying to set an example of the many levels of speculation necessary to keep this forum healthy, because after all, “The farther one travels, the less one really knows.” By the way, thank you for the compliment, Ian!  (Note to readers: your opinions of my opinions on songwriting will be influenced either for better or for worse by hearing some of my music, so here’s a self-promoting (or demoting) plug in the form of a link to my band’s page at mp3.com: www.mp3.com/Scatterdome ) |
|
|
|
Post by Darkhorse on Nov 10, 2003 22:08:12 GMT
FIRST OFF, Cavendish: Get a damn grip pn yourself, man. "John, Paul, Brian were lovers..." NO WAY. Do not swallow the Albert Goldman crap lies. Absurd! That is like saying, "Michael Jackson had wild animal sex with Lisa Marie Presley..." LMAO. Secondly, in relation to this thread, it stands to reason that it is highly unlikely that PAUL lived after Sept. 1966. I feel it would have been IMPOSSIBLE to remain totally secluded ALL THESE MANY DECADES. Like, the real PAUL never seen anywhere, i.e.a grocery store or ANYWHERE? No "insiders" blowing his cover for money to the Enquirer? Also outside the realm of human nature! It is wishful thinking to entertain the notion that PAUL could lead a hidden, secret life completely undetected for 4 decades while FAUL pathalogically clamors for every ounce of attention he can possible grasp. Ian is many times MY spokesperson. |
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Nov 10, 2003 22:16:25 GMT
Ian is many times MY spokesperson. : do you remeber...once I told you were my spokesperson....so now Ian is my spokeperson too!  |
|
