|
Post by swvlhed on Nov 29, 2003 2:33:26 GMT
You are doing some great work here, but you don't have the whole story.
You are closer than you realize, yet still far away. Remember, a dying declaration isn't just a person's last chance to tell the truth.
Remember Stu and apply the logic of his leaving.
James Paul McCartney is no more. That much is true.
But it is the tip of the iceberg, my friends.
|
|
|
Post by Darkhorse on Nov 29, 2003 3:40:32 GMT
You are doing some great work here, but you don't have the whole story. You are closer than you realize, yet still far away. Remember, a dying declaration isn't just a person's last chance to tell the truth. Remember Stu and apply the logic of his leaving. James Paul McCartney is no more. That much is true. But it is the tip of the iceberg, my friends. Stu left because he wanted to pursue a career in art. He also wasn't that great of a bassist.
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Nov 29, 2003 5:11:34 GMT
You are doing some great work here, but you don't have the whole story. You are closer than you realize, yet still far away. Remember, a dying declaration isn't just a person's last chance to tell the truth. Remember Stu and apply the logic of his leaving. James Paul McCartney is no more. That much is true. But it is the tip of the iceberg, my friends. All very interesting, but cryptic and too topical. If you indeed have pertinent information, or theories, by all means table them. We are open to just about anything....although your post strikes me as melodramatic and intentionally ambiguous. "go to the window....go...to the window. go...to...the..window,,," -Leo McKern, from 'Help!'
|
|
|
Post by PaulBearer on Nov 29, 2003 8:03:01 GMT
Remember, a dying declaration isn't just a person's last chance to tell the truth. Are you implying that George may have been deliberately trying to cover up something?
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Nov 29, 2003 15:56:48 GMT
Cryptic statements and insinuation....can be taken a thousand ways. Swvlhed should clarify.
|
|
|
Post by swvlhed on Nov 30, 2003 0:58:49 GMT
I don't mean to be cryptic, but it's my nature, and the nature of the work I do. I was hoping that someone would put two and two together and I wouldn't need to spell it out. This is because the truth as I heard it, from a VERY reputable source, is quite disturbing.
Let me say this:
There are those who think that William Sheppard is actually more talented than Paul McCartney ever was. There were rumors that Sheppard was known long before Paul and Brian's fateful car trip.
Many people think that it was John who was the indulgent one, the experimental one, the one immersed in avant-garde and drugs, but think about it. John had a wife and young child, and as such was home far more than Paul ever was. This led to depression and yes, jealousy.
Long before the death of Paul McCartney, the thought of replacing him surfaced in Lennon's mind. He didn't feel the necessity though, until Paul started to become a liability.
Paul's carousing and drug use, while well-covered-up, far outweighed anything John did. Indeed, Paul was becoming a liability. It was affecting his playing, his composing--everything.
George and Ringo did not appreciate the change in Paul, but they had no idea the lengths to which John Lennon, wracked with depression, drug use and paranoia, might go.
They became party to something they never would have wanted.
I don't want to piss on the memory of John Lennon or Paul McCartney, but sometimes, especially in the world of the Beatles, things were not what they seemed.
I have no documentation for this, indeed there is none.
Ask yourselves this question:
If The Beatles were necessary for a cultural shift and introduction of drugs, why did the subterfuge continue after this mission was accomplished? Why, long after the Beatles broke up, did the lie continue? Why did John take a five year leave, only to come back and be promptly murdered?
This goes all the way back to Stu Sutcliffe, another of John's mates that died an unnatural death. He had been, not replaced per se, but covered for, with McCartney playing the bass in shows. Why?
There's a lot more to unearth yet. 60IF is just the start, and an incomplete summartization of events, at best.
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Nov 30, 2003 3:48:11 GMT
Perry Mason, where are you when we need you?
So, swvlhed, are you implying that John had Paul axed because he was on drugs and falling apart, or did it himself in a crazy rage? Like Stu was first? Like Lennon was a monster? Are you saying there's been a long line of bass players for the Beatles?
I will say that some early picture of Paul (before 63) don't seem to match the mddle period. The photo on that early first record looks very foreign to the man in Help!
Are you saying that something even stranger and more pervasive was happening to this group?
|
|
|
Post by PaulBearer on Nov 30, 2003 10:02:26 GMT
Swvlhead, My instincts tell me your very "reputable" source appears to be more misinformation, whether deliberate or not. Paul had a form of IBS, which may or may not have been ultimately fatal to him, but which was risky enough to his health that he couldn't take LSD even if he wanted to. John and George were administered LSD unknown to them by a dentist in 1965 - that is well known. This same dentist also deliberately instrduced LSD to other bands around the same time - it was a mind-control experiment by the CIA to try to get control of those groups that had the most influence over teenagers. John, in an interview, openly thanked the CIA for LSD to free his mind. Faul, in an interview, admitted to delaying taking LSD for quite a while - that is to say, Paul didn't take LSD, but Billy did. When he admitted to it in mid '67, he had taken it four times as opposed to how many times by the others by that stage? If you are implying that one or more of the other Beatles deliberately did away with Paul, then you are saying they are cold-blooded murderers who will do anything for fame and fortune but it would not explain their Paul-is-dead clues (why would they want to tell the truth at all?), and their grief over their lost friend which came out in so much of their work even if there was no official public grieving. But, you know, Svwlhead, I think you may just be winding us up, seeing if we are gullible and will believe anyone who comes along with "I know something" type story. You are testing us to see whether we will swallow the bait and believe in a possible three Pauls theory.
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Dec 1, 2003 0:02:59 GMT
Swvlhed, your post was entertaining. I did enjoy it, as I do 99% of all threads I read here. But, in all my unvarnished honesty, I do not agree with and accept all posts and hypothesis I enounter here. Myself personally, I totally reject the notion that Lennon had Paul killed. Lennon's "jealousy" towards Paul was strictly limited to Paul's "swinging" nightlife in London. That much has been public knowledge for years, and is inconsequential. Lennon simply hadn't the TIME for creeping suburban paranoia circa 1966. Recording, the world tour, filming 'How I Won the War' filled up his calender quite nicely. Tellingly, John had his first thoughts of leaving the band and getting "free" of the crushing Beatle mantle for the first time in Spain, filming. A high profile world famous rock star would not simultaniously desire to "get off the merry-go-round" and have murder committed upon his partner and manager, let alone risk the grave consequences if he got caught. I would be more inclined to believe that Paul died of unlucky misadventure and was replaced due to necessity than even seriously entertain your thesis. Furthermore, Stu died before the band had even left England for Germany! John cried openly upon arrival and hearing the news. There is no logical basis to support the insinuation that Stu was murdered for cloak-and-dagger reasons. Besides, Paul moved to bass when Stu remained in Germany and the band returned to Britian. Stu was a cherished friend, not a threat. We are all entitled to our theory, and certainly each should be heard and discussed and commented on. Each member must decipher the disinformation from sincere, historically fact-based possibilities. Perhaps Peter Asher killed Paul, for he was jealous of the fame, wealth, and status of rock royalty which was flaunted under the Asher roof. Claiming his sweet, innocent sister Jane as a sexual prize while remaining free into the dark London night to sample any number of willing young women drove Peter to the edge. Peter, crazed by jealousy, poisoned Paul carefully with drugs obtained by his father, a respected doctor. EMI immediately clamped a lid on the tragedy, and at an emergency midnight meeting, Sir Joe told the band that it was a matter of "national security" and that M15 was already importing the likely candidate to replace Paul. The band, in shock and bewildered, were taken advantage of in the heat of the moment and advised that "what's past is past; you cannot change it so just do your best to continue. paul would have wanted it that way!" *This is just a FICTIONAL SCENARIO off the top of my head...but, to prove a point, carries the same lack of proof and credibility that SWVLHED's allegation that Lennon had McCartney murdered does.
|
|
|
Post by Quarryman on Dec 1, 2003 1:54:25 GMT
I'll be up front and say that I view the 60IF document with a great deal of skepticism. I have followed the Beatles since I was 13 and they first came to America. The whole conspiracy seems quite dodgy to me, but I must say that Swvlhed's theory makes even less sense!
I guess it's possible that John wished Paul would go away, and maybe related that to someone who took it too literally, but still I have a hard time believing Lennon capable of murder, or covering up one that he would have felt personally responsible for.
As for some of the things on 60IF, I followed the Beatles all my life. My dad even took me to see them at the Hollywood Bowl (although I have never heard my own screaming on the album of the same name. I couldn't hear anything that night!)
I have never seen ANYTHING, nor heard any mention whatsoever anywhere else except on 60IF, that would lead me to believe that Paul McCartney suffered from Irritable Bowel Syndrome.
Is there any more evidence besides the word of some supposed doctor (with grammar and spelling problems) and some pictures where Paul looks uncomfortable?
Which is it? Was he poisoned and that gave him IBS or he had IBS and then got poisoned?
While the photo evidence can be compelling, that bit about IBS seems out of place and completely wrong.
P.S. The early photos on these websites don't always match perfectly with the originals that I have in my collection. I've little doubt that the website originators are sincere in their investigation and beliefs, but some of the "before" photos do not look right to me.
What I do believe is that either the Beatles decided to have some fun with their fans and dreamed up this Paul is Dead thing, or it is all a big coincidence.
I do believe that Paul has had plastic surgery though. That much seems obvious.
Sorry if I disagree with you all. I think something happened, but I don't quite buy the story (especially Swvlheds!)
The evidence, to me, is not strong enough.
Just my opinion...
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Dec 1, 2003 2:36:02 GMT
Yes, Ian, it seems as if we have begun to play the board game of "Clue." There was a broadway musical out a number of years ago starring Betty Buckley (famous voice of the original, popularized hit song from "Cats', called "Memory", by Andrew Lloyd-Webber). i refer now to "The Mystery of Edwin Druid." This was billed as a "mystery musical' with a number of options for endings. If I'm not mistaken, the audience had some opportunity to choose the outcome from a list of choices. There were a few, 5 or 6 but I forgot. The cast knew them all from rehearsals. It affected only the very last few minutes of the play, when the solving of the mystery gets told at last. What fun! Wha clever writing. Musical score by Rupert Holmes!!(elementary, my dear Watson!). Holmes is best known for "The PiƱa Colada Song." There is no comparison for his score; it's really very nice.
Of course, any pro playwrite could do the same with 60IF, and make each scenario more intriguing than the last. Any number of endings could be constructed for "60IF:The Musical". One for all eight shows of the Broadway Week. The only trouble is, you'd never know WHICH one was really the true one.
Monday Night Well, that is the dark night for this show.
Tuesday 8:00pm John gets pissy with Paul and puts the whammy on him. When Brian shrieks in horror, its his turn to go. John encores with a chorus of "I am the Walrus" from the stupid bloody Tuedsay reference.
Wednesday 8:00pm Islamic fundamentalists lock all four Beatles up in a small hut on a remote Phillipine location. They must ALL be replaced. Now in 2003, they are still waiting for diplomatic release.
Thursday 8:00pm It is shown that Paul has a genetic quirk. he is a born shape shifter and nobody seems to know how to help him stop it. It seems trans-continental flights make it "act up."
Friday 8:00pm Mysteries enemies of the West try to get all the Beatles, but only succed in getting Paul and Brian. The crown and intelligence agencies move in to restore.
Saturday Matinee 2:00pm. One for the kiddies. Paul starts eating and eating and eating, and winds up weighing 246 pounds. Brian, shocked and horrified, confronts him by exclaiming, "Girl, we GOT to replace you. Shelley Winters was never this big!"
Saturday Eve 8:00pm Too grisley to recount here..............
Sunday Matinee 2:00pm Paul, whose mentally taken leave, resigns suddenly from the Beatles and goes to work for Sid and Marty Kroft. It seems he would rather be a "Banana Split", for those who remember that exciting and fresh Saturday morning TV entry.
Wednesday Morning at 5:00am For the really, really die hard fans of the Beatles and PID. This Red-Eye early show features pre-taped vocals (who can sing at this hour) and a very subdued presentation (mercy on the hung-over). In this version, there is a special 12 minute rendition of "She's Leaving Home" in which Paul, convinced he is a woman trapped in a man's body, undergoes a radical sex-change operation and becomes Paula Poundstone. And you've always wondered where she came from........ "she's having fun.....something was denied all those years.....Bye-Bye."
|
|
|
Post by gharryson on Dec 1, 2003 3:34:20 GMT
echos of apollo c vermouth?
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Dec 1, 2003 4:25:31 GMT
Yes, that sounded dry and British and sardonic.
I tend to get into that mood sometimes. My fault.
But, I am really not Apollo C. Vermouth.
We're in a fuddle here, though. My point is, we have tons of alternate theories. Well, that's the way it appears to me on this thread and a couple of other ones. We're not exactly closing in.
|
|
|
Post by PaulBearer on Dec 1, 2003 4:28:36 GMT
I think perhaps gharryson meant that swvlhed's posts echoed Apollo.
|
|
|
Post by gracemer on Dec 1, 2003 4:43:17 GMT
Perplexed, you need Help! lol ;D Shoulda been a paperback writer.
|
|
|
Post by LUCY on Dec 1, 2003 5:35:55 GMT
I think perhaps gharryson meant that swvlhed's posts echoed Apollo. my first thought too.......perplexed, thanks for a real laugh
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Dec 1, 2003 7:56:28 GMT
oh mercy------sensitive in the real world (what's that?) and sensitive on the darned internet too. So: personality can come across typewriter keys....................ooooh-WEEEEEEEEE-oooooooh.....
A laugh was the goal..................sometimes I get so serious I have to turn it all around.
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Dec 1, 2003 10:53:28 GMT
I'll be up front and say that I view the 60IF document with a great deal of skepticism. I have followed the Beatles since I was 13 and they first came to America. The whole conspiracy seems quite dodgy to me, but I must say that Swvlhed's theory makes even less sense! I guess it's possible that John wished Paul would go away, and maybe related that to someone who took it too literally, but still I have a hard time believing Lennon capable of murder, or covering up one that he would have felt personally responsible for. As for some of the things on 60IF, I followed the Beatles all my life. My dad even took me to see them at the Hollywood Bowl (although I have never heard my own screaming on the album of the same name. I couldn't hear anything that night!) I have never seen ANYTHING, nor heard any mention whatsoever anywhere else except on 60IF, that would lead me to believe that Paul McCartney suffered from Irritable Bowel Syndrome. Is there any more evidence besides the word of some supposed doctor (with grammar and spelling problems) and some pictures where Paul looks uncomfortable? Which is it? Was he poisoned and that gave him IBS or he had IBS and then got poisoned? While the photo evidence can be compelling, that bit about IBS seems out of place and completely wrong. P.S. The early photos on these websites don't always match perfectly with the originals that I have in my collection. I've little doubt that the website originators are sincere in their investigation and beliefs, but some of the "before" photos do not look right to me. What I do believe is that either the Beatles decided to have some fun with their fans and dreamed up this Paul is Dead thing, or it is all a big coincidence. I do believe that Paul has had plastic surgery though. That much seems obvious. Sorry if I disagree with you all. I think something happened, but I don't quite buy the story (especially Swvlheds!) The evidence, to me, is not strong enough. Just my opinion... Your statements have merit....
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Dec 1, 2003 11:04:41 GMT
oh mercy------sensitive in the real world (what's that?) and sensitive on the darned internet too. So: personality can come across typewriter keys....................ooooh-WEEEEEEEEE-oooooooh..... A laugh was the goal..................sometimes I get so serious I have to turn it all around. I thought your post merely mimicked mine...
|
|
|
Post by Scatterdome on Dec 1, 2003 23:25:30 GMT
We're in a fuddle here, though. My point is, we have tons of alternate theories. Well, that's the way it appears to me on this thread and a couple of other ones. We're not exactly closing in. I appreciate the humor, Perplexed, but I must object! My alternate theory has been getting stronger by the week, with new evidence to support it piling up steadily, and no convincing evidence against the overall theory having been presented by anyone in the 2 2/3 months since I first posted the basics. Also, I recently experienced a few major breakthroughs involving what may be hard evidence, and just added two new posts to my theory's thread. Please read my new posts with an open mind-- the potential new "discoveries" may turn out to be nothing, but they may turn out to be a sign that we are indeed closing in! That is, as long as "closing in" doesn't require accepting the 60IF document's two completely different explanations for Paul's death, simultaneously presented as the "truth" as gospel! Here's the link to page 5 of my theory, where my new posts appear: 60if.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=paul&thread=1063219993&action=display&start=60
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Dec 2, 2003 5:45:50 GMT
Sorry, Ian. When I said, Ian, it seems like we are beginning to play the game of Clue here, I meant "we" literally, like, "us." Inclusively---but not blanket and not personal. Not the old fashioned royal "we" meaning you, no no no sir. Actually, I had been spinning webs about all this and reached a place where I've spent too much time inventing--I was ribbing me mostly. I ought to leash my imagination. Or rent it out. I don't know which........(might bring me 10 bob a week!)
PS I can be too sensitive, that is what I meant..........
So I wrote a snack-break post, we all have a donut and a soft drink and then go back to work.
|
|
|
Post by gharryson on Dec 3, 2003 5:41:55 GMT
he said "remember stu and apply the logic to his leaving" if i recall correctly stu left to pursue his art...and then paul took over the bass playing.....what would be the logic about stu leaving? to place paul in a more visible position...to be closer to john...any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Dec 3, 2003 20:57:56 GMT
I don't mean to be cryptic, but it's my nature, and the nature of the work I do.
Grrrrreat. A professional bullshit artist.
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Dec 4, 2003 4:26:06 GMT
I don't mean to be cryptic, but it's my nature, and the nature of the work I do. Grrrrreat. A professional bullsh*t artist. lol. It sounds like Donald Rumsfeld.......
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Dec 6, 2003 13:20:29 GMT
I don't believe for a moment that John had anything to do with the death of Paul. Goes double for me.
|
|