|
Post by MotherNaureSon on Aug 19, 2003 9:32:27 GMT
Hello all,
It’s been for a long time that I’ve been reading with interest everything related to the famous “Paul is Dead” story/rumour/conspirancy/hoax or whatever it is. After all these years we were able to gather a great amount of clues that "lead" to the conclusion that Paul McCartney died sometime in 1966 and was replaced and... well, you know the rest. The 60IF dosument adds the whole story an interesting and fresh approach, and some of the new evidences are strong enough to make us all start again and take this issue as seriously as possible in search of the definitive truth.
In my opinion, however, the way the problem has been faced is wrong from the very start. The rumour started in 1969 in the US, and since then almost everyone has been looking for clues that could lead to the fact that Paul was dead and replaced by a man named William Campbell. Now, with the 60IF we have a new name and new motives for that death, but now we’re starting to seek for clues to prove that everything happened as it’s told in 60IF.
In my opinion, we should forget everything we’ve heard or we’ve been told, and start gathering again all the evidences that can lead us to know something, not only to believe it. We have the album covers and the songs themselves. We have interviews and pictures. I’m sorry guys, but I can’t believe a document I’ve been told about, because my method would be wrong. I can see that we have two different McCartneys because the photographic evidence is strong enough to admit it. So, we can come to KNOW that Paul McCartney was replaced by someone in 1967, but i can only BELIEVE his name was William Sheppard, because someone says so. We must decide if we want to believe or we want to know. But I’m afraid the rest of the people want to know before they believe.
I’d like to use this thread to list every single thing wich is an UNDENIABLE evidence that something weird was going on in 66-67. Let’s discuss and filter all the album and audio clues we have and get only the undeniable ones, and after that, let’s try to write a fitting explantion for them. Maybe at last we’ll get to a brand new theory, or maybe to the one we already know.
|
|
|
Post by MotherNaureSon on Aug 19, 2003 9:32:56 GMT
For instance, and undeniable evidence for me is the final number in “Magical Mystery Tour”. I think it’s obvious that the black carnation McCartney wears is black because they wanted so, and not because they “ran out of red ones” as McC said in an interview. OK? So that’s an evidence of something, but it doesn’t mean anything on its own, since it doesn’t exclude the possibility of a joke of the Beatles to the core fans.
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Aug 19, 2003 9:46:56 GMT
now we’re starting to seek for clues to prove that everything happened as it’s told in 60IF
I don't think everyone is here just to prove 60IF is absolutely true. But you cannot deny that it sheds incredible light. The name William Sheppard for instance, explains "Billy Shears" and "Bungalow Bill."
So 60IF is either:
A) Written/compiled by George Harrison (and translated three times)
or
B) Written by someone(s) who has studied the situation much more than anyone else who had published anything on the matter up to that point.
And even if it is (A) -- that does not mean Harrison himself knew every detail. The Beatles were surrounded by intelligence operatives who were and are paid and trained to lie to people.
I, for instance, tend to think that the "KKK" angle is every bit the false trail the "Rolling Stone" angle was.
|
|
|
Post by MotherNaureSon on Aug 19, 2003 10:17:53 GMT
OK, let's focus on the name, now that you mention it.
The double's name could be William Sheppard, no doubt about that, but it's not sure. If you use the photographic comparissons to allegate that there are two different McCartneys I can agree with you, but there's no undeniable evidence to let us know the name is that one. It could be just Billy Shears, and anyway, I don't see why Bungallow Bill should be taken as a clue for the real name of "Faul", and not "Mean Mr. Mustard", Sir Walter Raleigh or Edgar Allan Poe, for instance.
We can say that Beatles use quite often the name William or Bill (Not so often, though), and that's it. Please, understand that I'm only trying to face the problem in a more "scientific" way.
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Aug 19, 2003 10:34:43 GMT
It could be just Billy Shears, and anyway, I don't see why Bungallow Bill should be taken as a clue for the real name of "Faul", and not "Mean Mr. Mustard", Because Bungalow Bill (a song about William Sheppard) crossreferences perfectly with the analogue name of "Billy Shears," introduced as a new member of the band. it's not sureOne could argue the same for the black carnation. I see what you're trying to do, and I don't mean to hijack the thread, but I wanted to correct the misconception about forum participants' attitude toward 60IF. Is "Billy Shears" any less a deniable "album clue" than the black carnation? I posit not, and that "William Sheppard" is a fitting explanation for it, in light of Bungalow Bill, 60IF or no. Carry on.
|
|
|
Post by MotherNaureSon on Aug 19, 2003 10:55:40 GMT
Please, explain that to me. It's not clear enough for me.
Yes, perfectly. Then I'd prefer to reject both clues. But, anyway, it's clear that Paul (or Faul) is wearing a black carnation, and no other Beatle does. That's obvious. We don't know if Bungallow Bill is referred to him or not. That's why I consider the flower a bigger evidence.
OK, then let's get on with this, I'd appreciate everybody's help. The hard thing is how to accept something. I'm afraid we should do it only if we think that it's too strange to be a coincidence, and that's too subjective to a "scientific" approach.
|
|
|
Post by Uberkinder on Aug 19, 2003 11:02:11 GMT
I agree. Surely if Paul is dead then many of the other clues will potentially prove true, but it is a good idea to figure out in this one thread what we know FOR SURE. Things that are simply too strange to ignore. We have the rest of the forum to posit any other possible clues.
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Aug 19, 2003 11:22:34 GMT
Please, explain that to me
A) Read the Bungalow Bill lyrics.
B) Follow the link provided and read about the man.
C) A shepherd shears.
----------------------------------------------
Anyway, for your UNDENIABLE list on this thread, there's always the Trudy voiceprint analysis.
|
|
|
Post by MotherNaureSon on Aug 19, 2003 11:23:02 GMT
That's the idea, thanks Uberkinder. OK then, where do we start?
|
|
|
Post by Imbackinblack on Aug 19, 2003 15:16:46 GMT
This is one of many instances where I shall actually agree with Uberkinder on something.
And not forgetting Mother Nature's Son, good idea to compile a list.
|
|
|
Post by victor on Aug 20, 2003 0:21:15 GMT
here is a little bit about sir walter raleigh that might shed light on what john was trying to express in I'M SO TIRED:
"The spelling used in those days was rather erratic and thus "Raleigh" is just one of the (over 40) ways in which his surname was written. ..... His name was pronounced "raw lie" and it is said he is never known to have used the modern "Raleigh" spelling." "RAW LIE"?
|
|
|
Post by MotherNaureSon on Aug 20, 2003 6:51:54 GMT
Thanks for the explanation, TotalInformation,
until now I had always read that John wrote that song about one of the guys of the Maharishi's camp in India.
|
|
|
Post by MotherNaureSon on Aug 20, 2003 7:53:20 GMT
I've never heard of it. What happened?
|
|
|
Post by MotherNaureSon on Aug 20, 2003 8:08:32 GMT
Yes, if that happened as you explain it, then I think we should include it here.
|
|
|
Post by Snoopy on Aug 20, 2003 23:00:57 GMT
Conclusive evidence:
1. Paul-brown eyes Faul-green eyes 2. Paul- similar height as John Faul-the tallest Beatle by 2 inches 3. Paul- round smaller head Faul-huge tall head
|
|
|
Post by molly on Aug 21, 2003 1:33:17 GMT
Thank you, Mother Nature's Son, for suggesting this list. TEETH sure seem like solid evidence. According to Eggman's wife (a dentist), Paul's molars were "inclined to his palate" but Faul's aren't. (She says this can't be changed.) And there are plenty of other noticible differences in their teeth.
|
|
|
Post by tinyelvis on Aug 21, 2003 5:20:45 GMT
Conclusive evidence: 1. Paul-brown eyes Faul-green eyes 2. Paul- similar height as John Faul-the tallest Beatle by 2 inches 3. Paul- round smaller head Faul-huge tall head "faul" has brown eyes www.anycities.com/user/uberkinder/fc62.html
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Aug 21, 2003 5:26:42 GMT
They seem to be hazel, actually, and turn more green under harsh lighting such as that in a studio.
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Aug 21, 2003 5:38:46 GMT
XPT - can you find documentation on the Faul fingerprint in Japan story?
I ran some Lexis/Nexis searches, but could find only one (English-language) Japanese press story on the incident from 1980, and did not mention fingerprints.
|
|
|
Post by Forum Manager on Aug 21, 2003 6:02:07 GMT
"raw lie", thats a great one. also, faul, wore colored contacts
|
|
|
Post by MotherNaureSon on Aug 21, 2003 6:52:49 GMT
I'm not absolutely convinced about the height references included in these pages. I've been seeing different pictures from before and after, and in some Paul seems taller than John and in others just don't.
It's obvious. however, that in Sgt. pepper's Paul is much taller than John, but it looks more like he was staying on something. Ths pictures included in Uberkinder's web page of Paul with Jane asher aren't convincing fo me, because we doon't see her feet, and we don't know if she's wearing high heels or not.
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Aug 21, 2003 6:56:38 GMT
The difference seems very dramatic in the Asher pictures -- more on the order of six inches than three. Heels with Paul and flats with Faul would only account for about half of the difference.
|
|
|
Post by MotherNaureSon on Aug 21, 2003 7:24:20 GMT
I think we should stick (At least in this thread) to full-body pictures to avoid possible mistakes. Look at this picture: As you can see, Faul looks taller than John, but George is not much shorter than him, and taller than John too. Has he grown up also? That's why I think we must be very exigent with those photographic evidences.
|
|
|
Post by MotherNaureSon on Aug 21, 2003 8:17:43 GMT
It's not necessary that you post that speech in every single thread. You have stated it quite clearly, now please shut up.
|
|
|
Post by tinyelvis on Aug 21, 2003 9:14:02 GMT
common misception about "freedom of speech"
the first amendment says congress shall make no law abridgeing the freedom of speech. That doesn't mean you can say whatever you want on a public board owned by someone. They can very well tell you to shut up or f**k off or deny you access from posting at all. That has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
just thought i would point that out.
|
|