danny
Contributor
Posts: 24
|
Post by danny on Oct 22, 2003 21:30:37 GMT
that beatle site of dates lists september 19,1966....paul and ringo attend awards ceremony for melody maker..........................how is this possible.......
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Oct 22, 2003 22:53:05 GMT
that beatle site of dates lists september 19,1966....paul and ringo attend awards ceremony for melody maker..........................how is this possible....... At last THE FIRST INTELLIGENT statement against "60IF". ...but.... I have a picture of Ringo and James Paul taken from a magazine that states "September 13th 1966 Ringo and Paul attend awards ceremony for melody maker" Or it was on September 9th? - September 9th was Friday - September 13th was Tuesday - September 19th was Monday Which date is the best for an "All Stars" show?
|
|
danny
Contributor
Posts: 24
|
Post by danny on Oct 22, 2003 23:07:17 GMT
ok but that still doesnt debunk the sept 19 or 13th date........its just your opinion of when an all star gala should have or could have been........ur article is from the 13th and that other site states the 19th...both are after the 11th ...... maybe the one big thing wrong with 60if is the actual date.........maybe it is nov 9.......just a sidebar here, but nov 9 is also supposedly the day john met yoko......maybe the clues r a dig at paul saying ur dead to me now .....its john and yoko now and not john and paul....just a thought
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Oct 22, 2003 23:13:51 GMT
In "that site" I have found another mistake. September 18th 1967 John Lennon and Neil Aspinall in Paris. We have a direct evidence that it WAS on September 18th 1966 (see the other post about)
|
|
danny
Contributor
Posts: 24
|
Post by danny on Oct 22, 2003 23:18:43 GMT
so ur saying because one thing is wrong with that site other things may be wrong ....i agree.......but now u must throw out all of 60if because u have already admitted that one fact is wrong so now none of that document can be trusted.......same argument....u cant have it both ways
|
|
|
Post by innspector on Oct 22, 2003 23:18:55 GMT
I've said in another thread that in the Sgt.Peppers cover is displayed the actual date of Paul's death, because it says HE DIE.
More investigation is needed in order to verify in what day did Paul and Ringo attend the ceremony... if it's confirmed that was sept 13 of 19, then and only then IONE IX HE DIE may be November 9...
Why an american date format? Well, the drum it's in front of Faul, isn't it?, and he's from Canada right? I'm not sure if Canada uses the American date format, but if it does that can be an explanation of the american date format.
Again, it's important to clarify the 19 september thing.
Maybe someone can post the picture of Paul and Ringo attending the event, just to see what they looked like.
|
|
danny
Contributor
Posts: 24
|
Post by danny on Oct 22, 2003 23:28:59 GMT
sept 11 cant be the day "he die".........60if says he was found dead the following tuesday which would be sept 18.......if he did die from ibs it wouldnt have been that day the 11th because it was late at night according to the document........so the sept 11 date of death is wrong
|
|
|
Post by SgtPepper on Oct 22, 2003 23:36:48 GMT
My opinion regarding this is that if 60IF is true we don't really know which day Paul died. It simply says he was kidnapped the 11th & found the 18th. I wonder what the heck a body would be doing not far from a road for almost a week without being noticed. Or am I misinterpreting the white album poster and the position of the body near the white VW?
Regarding the gala, if there is a conspiracy, they could change just about any information about it except when it actually did occur. They could say Paul was there, but there were probably plenty of doubles who could stand in - unless he had to sing, receive an award and make a speech, or some such thing.
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Oct 22, 2003 23:38:24 GMT
Taken from that site at: aristoteles.ciencias.uchile.cl/~vmunoz/dates/dates.htmlDoubtful Dates
We all know one of the main problems on studying the Beatles is the frequent inconsistency of the stories told about them, and when you set to investigate such a specific subject as precise dates, things turn very hard sometimes. I have spent many hours trying to minimize these mistakes in my collection. However, many points remain a mystery to me. Whenever I'm not sure about a given information, I manifest my doubt in square brackets. I would be very glad if you could answer my questions scattered throughout these files.
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Oct 22, 2003 23:44:18 GMT
Regarding the gala, if there is a conspiracy, they could change just about any information about it except when it actually did occur. They could say Paul was there, but there were probably plenty of doubles who could stand in - unless he had to sing, receive an award and make a speech, or some such thing. No, that photo is genuine. Probably only the date is faked. James Paul and Ringo filmed with Tom Jones and....a woman now I don't remeber her name. I suppose: that show was recorded on September 9th then on air on September 13th.
|
|
danny
Contributor
Posts: 24
|
Post by danny on Oct 22, 2003 23:45:38 GMT
the beatles chronicle by mark lewisohn states on page231 sept 15 thursday john and neil leave germany for paris by train for a weekend rendezvous with PAUL AND BRIAN . On sunday the 18th....supposedly the day they discovered the body....john and neil moved on to the main film location of how i won the war in SPAIN. John WAS IN SPAIN on the 18th...how could he be confronting the policeman about the walrus stuff etc.....also wed morning papers didnt come......why....the 11th was on a sunday so the papers wouldnt come on monday many holes in the story here
|
|
danny
Contributor
Posts: 24
|
Post by danny on Oct 22, 2003 23:50:05 GMT
I suppose: that show was recorded on September 9th then trasmitted on September 13th.....by sun king........
don't suppose......suppose does not build a case and neither does opinion
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Oct 22, 2003 23:52:25 GMT
I suppose: that show was recorded on September 9th then trasmitted on September 13th.....by sun king........ don't suppose......suppose does not build a case and neither does opinion Yes, because "60IF" isn't mine....
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Oct 22, 2003 23:54:43 GMT
the beatles chronicle by mark lewisohn states on page231 sept 15 thursday john and neil leave germany for paris by train for a weekend rendezvous with PAUL AND BRIAN . On sunday the 18th....supposedly the day they discovered the body....john and neil moved on to the main film location of how i won the war in SPAIN. John WAS IN SPAIN on the 18th...how could he be confronting the policeman about the walrus stuff etc.....also wed morning papers didnt come......why....the 11th was on a sunday so the papers wouldnt come on monday many holes in the story here Please never mind "Mark Lewinsohn Chronology"! Why was it done so lately? Trying to search an original chronolgy dated 1967-1968.....
|
|
danny
Contributor
Posts: 24
|
Post by danny on Oct 23, 2003 0:04:54 GMT
i didnt say 60if was urs i said u supposed the 9th was the date of the all star thing for melody maker and the 13th was the date u supposed it was aired........ur supposes and opinions are better then a researched chronology? ...ur gonna have to do better then that when i give some evidence against the dates........and also u want a chronology of my dates from the 67 or 68, well then produce a document from 67 or 68 about pauls disappearance.....again u cant have it both ways
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Oct 23, 2003 0:14:09 GMT
and also u want a chronology of my dates from the 67 or 68, well then produce a document from 67 or 68 about pauls disappearance.....again u cant have it both ways Mark Lewinsohn never produced any document about....
|
|
danny
Contributor
Posts: 24
|
Post by danny on Oct 23, 2003 0:24:26 GMT
about what? you seem to not recognize anything that messes up ur dates.....1992 lewisohn published his book after years of research....im not saying he couldnt be wrong....................why cant u admit maybe the dates r wrong
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Oct 23, 2003 0:27:44 GMT
about what? you seem to not recognize anything that messes up ur dates.....1992 lewisohn published his book after years of research....im not saying he couldnt be wrong....................why cant u admit maybe the dates r wrong Do you know FOR SURE that dates are wrong? Me not. P.S. Does Mark Lewinsohn report about Melody Maker date? Do you know?
|
|
danny
Contributor
Posts: 24
|
Post by danny on Oct 23, 2003 0:30:50 GMT
it doesnt mention the melody maker ........his book in the intro states that this book is about only their stage screen, radio, tv film video works and in the studio
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Oct 23, 2003 0:41:31 GMT
it doesnt mention the melody maker ........his book in the intro states that this book is about only their stage screen, radio, tv film video works and in the studio Strange because it was about a TV appearance.
|
|
|
Post by Scatterdome on Oct 23, 2003 6:31:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Oct 23, 2003 7:36:07 GMT
Perhaps an elaborate shell game has been sustained concerning all 1966 Beatle dates, in order to insure that nothing like an accurate timetable can ever be established. This would prevent a credible scenario from ever publicly emerging.This way, accounts that arise will never tally properly with one another, holding the entire affair in perpetual "check", but not really "checkmate."
Like a rubicks cube, one may try to manipulate dates and events in frustration and tears until the formula for resolution is tried. How this comes to one's comprehension is a mystery.
Let's face it; via organs of the print media et al; the water is very, very muddy.
Perhaps starting with a smaller set of sure parameters will remove some of the conflicts. There are so many dates and events in this year from all you are saying----I could never resolve it. Maybe the sources closer to the Beales, and the ones with easiest access to Beatle-minutia is the least reliable. Not because they are lying, but just because some might be eager to disinform them. Perhaps some American sources in odd places, with little motivation to promate the Beatles either way might be good places to look. Like a newspaper in Podunk (any small cow town). Their honest reflections on things might lead to more things. Or, foreign European papers not sympathetic to English record companies................ If all the events with the dates won't cram into cohesioin, somewhere, some of them must be wrong. I say a mouthful--and I am helpless to answer this question....but how could one establish which "facts" are faulty? This might be a step in cleaning up the "muddy " water.
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Oct 23, 2003 7:42:59 GMT
Perhaps an elaborate shell game has been sustained concerning all 1966 Beatle dates, in order to insure that nothing like an accurate timetable can ever be established. This would prevent a credible scenario from ever publicly emerging.This way, accounts that arise will never tally properly with one another, holding the entire affair in perpetual "check", but not really "checkmate." Like a rubicks cube, one may try to manipulate dates and events in frustration and tears until the formula for resolution is tried. How this comes to one's comprehension is a mystery. Let's face it; via organs of the print media et al; the water is very, very muddy. Perhaps starting with a smaller set of sure parameters will remove some of the conflicts. There are so many dates and events in this year from all you are saying----I could never resolve it. Maybe the sources closer to the Beales, and the ones with easiest access to Beatle-minutia is the least reliable. Not because they are lying, but just because some might be eager to disinform them. Perhaps some American sources in odd places, with little motivation to promate the Beatles either way might be good places to look. Like a newspaper in Podunk (any small cow town). Their honest reflections on things might lead to more things. Or, foreign European papers not sympathetic to English record companies................ If all the events with the dates won't cram into cohesioin, somewhere, some of them must be wrong. I say a mouthful--and I am helpless to answer this question....but how could one establish which "facts" are faulty? This might be a step in cleaning up the "muddy " water. Perplexed-perfect as always-
|
|
|
Post by beldabeast on Oct 23, 2003 12:27:48 GMT
Perhaps an elaborate shell game has been sustained concerning all 1966 Beatle dates, in order to insure that nothing like an accurate timetable can ever be established. This would prevent a credible scenario from ever publicly emerging.This way, accounts that arise will never tally properly with one another, holding the entire affair in perpetual "check", but not really "checkmate." Like a rubicks cube, one may try to manipulate dates and events in frustration and tears until the formula for resolution is tried. How this comes to one's comprehension is a mystery. Let's face it; via organs of the print media et al; the water is very, very muddy. Perhaps starting with a smaller set of sure parameters will remove some of the conflicts. There are so many dates and events in this year from all you are saying----I could never resolve it. Maybe the sources closer to the Beales, and the ones with easiest access to Beatle-minutia is the least reliable. Not because they are lying, but just because some might be eager to disinform them. Perhaps some American sources in odd places, with little motivation to promate the Beatles either way might be good places to look. Like a newspaper in Podunk (any small cow town). Their honest reflections on things might lead to more things. Or, foreign European papers not sympathetic to English record companies................ If all the events with the dates won't cram into cohesioin, somewhere, some of them must be wrong. I say a mouthful--and I am helpless to answer this question....but how could one establish which "facts" are faulty? This might be a step in cleaning up the "muddy " water. Perplexed , Which is why I have limited the scope of my investigation to determining whether or not there are 2 Pauls . I feel that is the easiest thing to prove . If we can prove THAT , the world will join in to help us establish what and when and how and why Paul disappeared. happened to Paul and exactly how and when .
|
|
|
Post by JamesPaul & Brian on Oct 23, 2003 13:14:15 GMT
Perplexed , Which is why I have limited the scope of my investigation to determining whether or not there are 2 Pauls . I feel that is the easiest thing to prove . If we can prove THAT , the world will join in to help us establish what and when and how and why Paul disappeared. happened to Paul and exactly how and when . Too hopeful?
|
|