|
Post by Eggman on Nov 18, 2003 21:39:43 GMT
I think this pic was taken at the time of "Hello Goodbye" where they look like in this pic
|
|
|
Post by Otacon on Dec 28, 2003 5:48:14 GMT
back up...there is a Sgt Pepper movie? Why must I always be the last to know of such things?
This is pretty weird though...the mysterious Beatles cover band, William Sheppard/Shepherd, Billy Shears.
Things are adding up...we NEED to get a copy of that band's albums...we need to get as many clues as we can about this man and listen to his voice pre-Faul (asuming it is the same man of course)
Damn it, I think we finally are on to some concrete evidence as to finding a past to our Bill.
|
|
|
Post by marthadear on Dec 28, 2003 6:48:06 GMT
"Billy Pepper and the Pepper Pots" In case you guys might be interested... this site claims to have a copy for sale... www.netsounds.com/nshps.cgiI have to admit, this is a strange coincidence, though I hardly think it amounts to a "switch". L*
|
|
|
Post by marthadear on Dec 28, 2003 6:54:20 GMT
John does not look like john and Faul looks like a cut-out *scratches head* They all look like cut-outs to me. It seems as if the one who created the album cover meant them to stand out that way. I do not see one standing out any more than the other.
|
|
|
Post by marthadear on Dec 28, 2003 6:56:08 GMT
back up...there is a Sgt Pepper movie? Why must I always be the last to know of such things? Yes, there is. LOL* I remember my sister and I were enthralled with it when we were young.
|
|
|
Post by Pataphysical on Dec 28, 2003 16:31:51 GMT
Eggman's picture is of the Beatles during the "Hello Goodbye" promo film (11/10/67) pasted onto the Sgt. Pepper album background. Faul shaved his moustache off the day after the Sgt. Pepper photo shoot (April ? 1967), and John got rid of his before the "All You Need Is Love" telecast (6/25/67).
|
|
|
Post by Quarryman on Jan 10, 2004 4:27:16 GMT
The 60IF document says
"When we had all but given up the right man was found. His name was William Sheppard and he was with the Canadian Military Police."
Then Sun King (the guy with all the documents) says:
Bill knew THE BEATLES during their 1964 North American Tour. Mal Evans introduced Bill to Ringo then Ringo to the others. Bill was able to imitate quite ALL Beatles voices and had a "slight similiar" Paul look.
Sun King has been caught in an out and out lie it seems and no one is questioning that?
Rather you ponder the difference in the spelling of "Shepherd?"
Talk about being blinded to the truth!
|
|
|
Post by gracemer on Jan 10, 2004 4:50:00 GMT
Well Quarryman, this is more like it insofar as disagreeing with 60IF. Now, concerning
"Bill knew THE BEATLES during their 1964 North American Tour. Mal Evans introduced Bill to Ringo then Ringo to the others. Bill was able to imitate quite ALL Beatles voices and had a "slight similiar" Paul look"
that's not in 60IF (I just want others to know that).
I'm not doubting that SK said this, but could you direct us to that post so we can put it in context?
Also, just because he's come across (possibly) new information that wasn't in 60IF, that doesn't make him a liar. You ought to have checked with SK for his input before calling him names. That's just rude.
|
|
|
Post by Quarryman on Jan 10, 2004 20:37:59 GMT
Look people, Sun King has the original 60IF document, right? The quote I posted of his is from this very thread. In fact, I didn't take anything from anywhere else, but within this very thread.
So, Sun King says that Bill knew the Beatles in 1964 and was introduced to them by Mal Evans. In the 60IF document, put here by Sun King, it states that they searched for a replacement until a suitable one was found, in Canada. This search must have taken place in late 1966, correct?
If Bill knew the Beatles in 1964, then why did they have to conduct a search in 1966, which eventually led them to Canada?
The 60IF document makes it appear that they FOUND this guy in 1966, but Sun King contradicts that by saying the Beatles already knew him in 1964.
Now, I would say that this is a lie. If you really wanted to stick to form, you would have just said that part of 60IF was misinterpreted or Sun King's latest statement about 1964 was a result of a language barrier. Instead, you pile on me for suggesting that Sun King was not being genuine.
Considering all the doubt that has been heaped on Sun King lately, whether it be from Isaac Phaire, to Uber doubting the story and his own photo proof, to the notion of waiting until the war is over, I am surprised that at least SOME of you aren't beginning to question Sun King at all.
Like I said in anthoer post, he seems to have "to the death" believers here, almost like a cult, as he does not defend himself or offer the proof that would shut me and all doubters up. It would be so simple to do so.
He has all these documents, people are already threatening his life supposedly, why not just put it all out there, which would remove the danger because then all the proof would be available for all to see?
SUN KING CAN END ALL THIS CRAP INSTANTLY AND PROVE THAT PAUL MCCARTNEY DIED AND END THE THREAT TO HIS AND ANYONE ELSE'S LIFE BY SHOWING THE WORLD THE DOCUMENTS!!!
Don't you see that?
WHAT IS HE WAITING FOR? There is no good reason to delay any further. If they are already gunning for him, then considering how powerful they are, they are going to get him. They are the CIA, the Illuminati etc, right? They wil get him. He has to act now to save himself.
If he does not, his legacy will be NOTHING, as he will never have had a chance to get all the info out and expose all the liars.
Does he want his life's work to be worth nothing? Only by releasing all this stuff can he save himself and become a true hero to so many who want Paul's memory cherished the way it should be.
Instead of all the delays and empty promises and guarantees that the material he has is the only trustworthy stuff, why doesn't he come clean?
There is no reason to sit on a secret this big, when it will most likely cost you your life for nothing.
|
|
|
Post by googoo on Jan 10, 2004 22:45:25 GMT
You are jumping to conclusions. I have every reason to believe Sun King, and none at all to doubt him...least of all because you want call into question the semantics of a twice-translated document 60if doesn't make it clear whether Bill was already known of or not. Quarryman, you are trying to interpret (or lure the rest of us into interpreting) the document like a fundamentalist would a religious text, and calling the rest of us a cult? Get real. I for one don't take 60if as the ultimate authority on truth, any more than I would ANY other piece of written information. But I know Sun King has presented it to us in good faith, and he didn't write it himself, so as far as I'm concerned he is welcome to contradict it if he finds out other information. There is, however, NO contradiction in what you are pointing out. The statements are complementary. To say, the right person was found, implies that certain characteristics were met, not necessarily that the person had never been known or heard of before. David O'Selznick took longer to find the right Scarlett O'Hara than was needed to locate William Sheppard. In fact, Vivien Leigh had expressed interest in the role and was turned down by Selznick almost two years prior to finally meeting her, and in the time between he considered her carefully as a possibility. Yet, even though she was already known to him, it is still proper to say, "When we had all but given up, the right woman was found. Her name was Vivien Leigh and she was with the Old Vic." It would be ridiculous to accuse someone of being a liar for saying that Selznick had finally discovered his Scarlett. FWIW, I would have a hard time believing Bill was suddenly "found" as a complete unknown in the middle of Canada, even if 60if stated so in clear, unopposable terms. I believe he was already known of AND the plan to use him as a replacement was already in place BEFORE Paul was killed. Just call it a gut feeling, and, I sincerely hope I'm wrong about it. I'm willing to consider different possibilities. Quarryman, you are WAY out of line. In pressuring Sun King to release the document, either you don't know what you are asking, or you know exactly what you are asking and you care nothing for his safety. Personally I would rather see him safe than anything else, even if it meant burning the document and never speaking of it again. I will support him no matter what he chooses.
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Jan 10, 2004 23:52:58 GMT
If Sun King as Nepalese papers and photos from the EMI archives given to him by an EMI source . . .
and he put the Nepalese docs online,
there's a good chance his EMI source would die in a conenient "accident" and King dismissed or even charged with theft.
That's only one possible scenario. We really don't know the details. The least you could do would be to read throught the archives, absorb what has been said, thing things through and ask your questions politely.
If you're that convinced your hosts here are irreconcilable frauds, why don't you just start your own forum with honest people?
I don't get it.
|
|
|
Post by Quarryman on Jan 11, 2004 0:57:27 GMT
I have every reason to believe Sun King, and none at all to doubt him
Why? What has he done but alluded to documents that he alone has seen?
you are trying to interpret (or lure the rest of us into interpreting) the document like a fundamentalist would a religious text, and calling the rest of us a cult?
Actually, I'm not. I was just looking at and commenting on two seemingly contradictory statements made on this thread.
Do you not find it interesting that you are willing to pore over every album, photo, song or statement made by just about anyone even remotely involved with the Beatles, but you don't seem to want to take a good long look at the 60IF document? I'm not beseeching you to do so, because you are going to believe what you wish to believe. However, I find it strange that you would give all these "clues" and what not the utmost scrutiny yet accept everything SK tells you on faith. I'm the one who has to "get real?"
In pressuring Sun King to release the document, either you don't know what you are asking, or you know exactly what you are asking and you care nothing for his safety. Personally I would rather see him safe than anything else, even if it meant burning the document and never speaking of it again.
I disagree. I think that he HAS to go public if he wants to protect himself. What is he waiting for? He makes absolute statements that the man known as Paul McCartney is a fraud, started this whole 60IF thing, joins in with others who describe "Faul" as arrogant, mean, nasty etc...He has already taken the biggest risk by revealing that he knows all this stuff and can prove it. Why wait? The powers that be are already pissed off and want him. Does he think that by sitting on this info he will be safe? HE ALREADY KNOWS TOO MUCH, RIGHT? As for not caring for his safety, that's not true, and a rather cheap shot. I don't wish ill on anyone. But as you may have surmised, I don't really accept the danger theory. Like 60IF, there are too many holes in it.
I will support him no matter what he chooses.
Why? You don't even know him. He could be anyone, anywhere, playing the ultimate prank on people. Why is everyone so willing to accept what he says at face value? The internet is a haven for scams, you know?
If Sun King as Nepalese papers and photos from the EMI archives given to him by an EMI source . . .
and he put the Nepalese docs online,
there's a good chance his EMI source would die in a conenient "accident" and King dismissed or even charged with theft.
I disagree. If they already know who his EMI source is, they would have already whacked him. Why are these all powerful, controlling entities allowing this to go on? If they wanted to keep the story under wraps, the SK and his "source" would already be taking the dirtnap. There is no point in keeping them around and hoping they are scared enough not to release the info, when they could just go and get it with ease.
That's only one possible scenario. We really don't know the details. The least you could do would be to read throught the archives, absorb what has been said, thing things through and ask your questions politely.
I have read the archives, the FAQ, pages and pages of threads and a lot more material than I would wager most people here have (except for those that have been here from the beginning). I've thought things through and have come to my conclusions, and I don't believe I've mistreated anyone, called anyone names or been impolite.
If you're that convinced your hosts here are irreconcilable frauds, why don't you just start your own forum with honest people?
I don't have time, really. I also don't feel like pulling all my vintage stuff out of safe deposit to compare. I have a few materials here at the house which I've looked at that tell me all I need to know. I just want to see this supposed proof that is going to blow me out of the water.
Why is that so crazy and threatening to you all?
|
|
|
Post by gracemer on Jan 11, 2004 1:11:05 GMT
Not threatened, just bored. Read previous postings, take it up with Sun King directly. You can send him a private message you know. Then you won't have to look like such a jerk.
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Jan 11, 2004 1:11:56 GMT
and googoo--right on about Vivian Mary Hartley (AKA Vivien Leigh)She read the book in '36 and KNEW she was perfect for it. (And she was right) And it wasn't until George Cukor brought her to Selznick (or, wait, was it David's vrother, Myron Selznick???) to the pre-production shooting of the burning of Atlanta (actualy the old "King Kong 'set) that Selznick believed it might work. I think Myron introduced hewr to him by saying, "David, meet your Scarlett O'hara!" David O said that in seeing the light from the fire dance off of Vivien's beustiful green eyes and face convinced him to screen test her.
(Actually, I had also read that Myron sent David a copy, for privately screening, of, I think it was "Fire over England"( or was it "Storm in a Teacup?) a little British War epic, that FIRST made Selznick even consider to meet her that night's events.
A career of triumphs and losses; Leigh seemed mainly inspired there after to work with her soon to be husband, Sir Lawrence Olivier, and to mostly pursure serious stage ventures.
I think she only made 7 films after GWTW, including "Streetcar Named Desire", and "Roman Spring of Mrs. Stone" (with Warren Beatty!!!!!) and "Ship of Fools" with Lee Marvin, about a wandering ship containing Jewish persons who,in futility seek refuge from the Nazi regime during the early 40's.( Tragically, they are denied ever landing anywhere and forced to return to Germany.)
Leigh died from TB in 1967 at the age of 54. She was then rehearsing (or maybe performing) in a Broadweay play aout a lady dying of consumption (based on "Our Lady of the Cameilias", which is related to the story in the Verdi opera, La Traviata.")
Leigh wasn't, I don't think, planting a clue tat since she was playing a TB victim, she would die of TB.
Ironic, yes. But I don't think she was planning to die. She had a real zest for life. Ironically, also, Vivien means "full of life, or lively." The Sacarlett charactor is often referred to in GWTW as being , "so full of life, high spirited." And she was. To the point she was diagnosed as MANIC-depressive in her later live.
She also chose to spell her name with masculine spelling, i.e., "Vivien", as opposed to "Vivian", which is the regular feminine spelling in Britain.
Also, she had a partial Irish-French parentage, as did Scarlett in the book. And a whimsical face with a cheshire cat smile. Like Scarlett.
Ms. Leigh dies while reaching for her TB medication. They found her prosrate on the floor with her hand out near the bottle of TB pills.
With news of her passing, lights were dimmed on Broadway and the British West End that night.
|
|
|
Post by Quarryman on Jan 11, 2004 1:45:44 GMT
Okay, I'll take it up with Sun King directly. Nice to see that I've been treated with so much dignity here.
Then you won't have to look like such a jerk.
Gee Gracemer, if you were a non-believer, then using such language would get you banned now, wouldn't it?
True colors, eh?
|
|
|
Post by gracemer on Jan 11, 2004 2:02:05 GMT
What, "jerk"? ;D If you say so. If that's what it takes to get you to behave. As far as I'm concerned, you've been treated with more dignity than you deserve. Been watching your posts...suspect you've been banned before and that's why you're so touchy.
There's non-believers who state their doubts, present their evidence, ask questions, wait for answers, and don't get ugly. They don't get banned. If you'll notice, you haven't been banned yet either, but I think you want to.
|
|
|
Post by googoo on Jan 11, 2004 2:23:44 GMT
Perplexed, I adore Leigh... I do believe she was a casualty of psychiatry. It was likely a combination of the side effects of her TB medication and the TB itself that earned her a diagnosis of mental illness in the first place. For years she was put through harsh therapies that couldn't have helped her condition and in the end she wasn't given the medical attention she really needed. And what was Olivier thinking in all that... Tuberculosis has long been thought of as the disease of melancholy, and constant fever brings on mania. But if there was any doubt of her mental stability, electroshock treatment would guarantee breakdown of the nervous system. Not to mention, I'm sure being packed in ice was as good for her lungs as it was for her emotional state. It's a shame that someone so full of life had it so beat out of her
|
|
|
Post by Quarryman on Jan 11, 2004 3:36:24 GMT
I haven't been banned. I thought that if one got banned, they were unable to access the forums anymore. That's what I heard when I visited Isaac's webpage and the macca4ever forum.
Do I want to be banned? What a silly question. I'm having too much fun.
I enjoy the website and Uber's website too. A lot of work went into that and I think it's quite good.
I just don't believe it and now that it seems SK has been called out, I am eager to see if they will admit what I believe to be true.
By the way, I give them HUGE credit for reviving a decades old controversy and giving it as much life as it had almost thirty years ago. Not an easy task.
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Jan 12, 2004 0:10:43 GMT
Well Quarryman, this is more like it insofar as disagreeing with 60IF. Now, concerning "Bill knew THE BEATLES during their 1964 North American Tour. Mal Evans introduced Bill to Ringo then Ringo to the others. Bill was able to imitate quite ALL Beatles voices and had a "slight similiar" Paul look" that's not in 60IF (I just want others to know that). I'm not doubting that SK said this, but could you direct us to that post so we can put it in context? Also, just because he's come across (possibly) new information that wasn't in 60IF, that doesn't make him a liar. You ought to have checked with SK for his input before calling him names. That's just rude. Just nothing to add. Perfect!
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Jan 12, 2004 0:59:27 GMT
Vivien returned to Atlanta in 1962 for the Second premiere of GWTW, in wide screen 70 mm. (no no no please.....) My friend, a prominent Atlanta society lady withj several guilds, was chosen as her host and sponser, to help her get around and to see she had everything she needed, and was treated right.
Well, she said that Viv was full of stories, and on the surface charming, but one shortly percieved her nervousness and difficulties. Actually, she said she was nuts, but she loved her anyway. but those of us who loved Leigh understand. Chris and googoo are quite correct.
Shock therapy, anyone?
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Jan 13, 2004 3:45:48 GMT
Getting back on topic, has anyone posted photos form inside this book yet? I can't seem to find them in the James Paul forum. I have a copy, so perhaps I could scan them in some time if it is yet to be done.
|
|
|
Post by PaulBearer on Jan 13, 2004 15:05:56 GMT
Yes please.
|
|
|
Post by beatled on Dec 12, 2004 23:16:27 GMT
Got the book finally, and it says inside first published in 1964. So.. that would probably mean later, how much later I don't know. This picture (and others) makes me distrust it... http://*banned link*/Shoebox/TrueStory/TrueStory1.jpg[/img]
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Dec 12, 2004 23:37:57 GMT
Page 123 of the June 1964 Bantam edition:
|
|
|
Post by BeatlePaul on Dec 13, 2004 0:08:38 GMT
http://*banned link*/Shoebox/TrueStory/TrueStory1.jpg[/img] Doctoring, doctoring, doctoring doctoring.....the history and the truth. Fantastic find, JoJo and TotalInformation!
|
|