New member with new observation. (Moved)

[davetripper]

Hello, all fellow truth-seekers.

I am Dave, I live in Minneapolis, MN (USA) and am I ever glad I've found this forum! I have been a Beatles fan for about 30 years now, and not until a few years ago had I learned about what I now believe to be the truth about Paul McCartney.

It started when I got one of my daily humor emails which featured a link to a Britney Spears subliminal message. As I am a big fan of conspiracy theories, this prompted me to do a Google search for musical subliminal messages.

Long story short, I stumbled across the "Paul is Dead" thing almost immediately. Now keep in mind, not every conspiracy theory I stumble across captures my interest. It seems the ones that do interest me usually turn out to be frighteningly possible, if not 100% factual.

Many people have scoffed at the fact that I believe in the McCartney conspiracy. For the sake of retaining credibility, I have resigned myself to appear as though I don't believe it until I can gather and present the evidence to non-believers in a rational, intelligent manner.

Here's the new angle I mentioned, and I believe this is kind of a unique observation unto myself:

In the world of professional musicians, I have noticed that big-name bands and individual performers tend to have similar legacies to their predecessors. For example, I've noticed Ozzy Osbourne's legacy to be similar to that of Bob Dylan's, in terms of longevity and versatility in musical subject matters.

I went on to compare other bands/individuals when I discovered the most unusual comparison: that Metallica seemed to mirror the Beatles' legacy. The odd thing was, I made this discovery almost a year and a half before having a clue about the Paul thing.

Similarities: Both took the world by storm simply by taking existing sounds that were already popular yet underrated and combining them into forms that could be appreciated by many. Both had made albums which majorly contributed to new sounds that would be embraced by many imitators.

Both bands followed that formula until something major happened and forced a change to their sound and style. In both cases, many rejected their newer, more innovative styles. Some accepted both as being just as enjoyable, and in both cases, many more legions of fans were drawn to the newer styles.

There was still a "missing link," if you will, however. In Metallica's case, the change was brought about when bassist Cliff Burton was killed --- get this --- in a BUS accident which pretty much severed his head! He was replaced by Jason Newsted, who bore a noticeable physical resemblance and singing style to his late predecessor, but was by no means an exact duplicate.

I failed at the time to draw the parallel, and had almost given up trying to tie the 2 legacies together, until I found out about the theory about Paul McCartney (bass player) killed in some horrifying accident which rendered his entire head unrecognizable. However, the important difference, which would prove to be the Beatles' undoing, was trying to pass Paul's replacement off as the original real deal.

Metallica, on the other hand, admitted to their loss, yet found a replacement and pressed on at their fans' request. What I wonder is, would the same thing have happened if the Beatles had gone that route? The world may never know.

I don't know, I guess that's just my theory.

Would love to hear any comments on this matter!

P.S. Even more interesting is how there is now a band which deliberately mixes the looks, styles, and songs into a mishmash known as "Beatallica!"

[unrepentant]

"Metallica, on the other hand, admitted to their loss, yet found a replacement and pressed on at their fans' request."


maybe the members of metallica had more class and decency than the surviving beatles did in the 60's. they were probably unaware of the mcartney switch but i doubt they'd have gone along with a replacement of burton even if they were "in the know".....EVEN with the obligatory death threats.

this "death threat" thing is hollow if you ask me, especially in the beatles case, as all they'd have to do would be hire another armored truck and call another press conference, then tell the world what happened. do you really think the powers that be would have assasinated the entire group after the group mentioned the death threats at the press conference??? that would be the equivilent of a nuclear bomb going off in america, as the political upheaval which ensued would rival the greatest in world history.

so to address your question about what would have taken place if the beatles kept "billy" and forged ahead with paul's tunes....well, i don't think the beatles could have endured the firestorm of questions [possibly implicating them in paul's demise] so they'd have most likely broken up sooner. i have also thought about a kind of who's who of artists performing the remaining JPM catalog, possibly with the 3 beatles offering contributions. what DID happen is almost too crazy to contemplate....almost too obscene to believe.....but sir faul seems to be handling it rather well.

[davetripper]

Given who Metallica's nfluences are, (Diamond Head, Motorhead, SamHain, etc.) I'd say you're right about them not knowing of the Paul switch. And no, I don't believe the Beatles themselves were directly threatened, either. I think that if there ever was such a threat, it was more directed at their loved ones, or other people important to them whom they would have found it impossible to maintain constant surveillance over.

Thanks for the response. BTW, I've found other points you've brought up to be most interesting, too.