|
|
Post by Eggman on Sept 13, 2003 11:33:27 GMT
Ok friends, after all this time talking about replacement in the music industry, I have this small and maybe stupid thought. At this time we all know that James Paul was replaced by Bill Sheppard (Faul) to avoid problems with the teens and for keep the great money make machine that was The Beatles and for a few things more. Ok here is my doubt: Why they didn't do the same with Elvis Presley? Or maybe he's still alive and they faked his death to make more money and let Elvis live a life in peace? If you can help me with this with your opinions and thoughts I will appreciate it  Faul and Elvis. Two different faces of the same coin?  |
|
|
|
Post by beldabeast on Sept 13, 2003 12:26:17 GMT
Ok friends, after all this time talking about replacement in the music industry, I have this small and maybe stupid thought. At this time we all know that James Paul was replaced by Bill Sheppard (Faul) to avoid problems with the teens and for keep the great money make machine that was The Beatles and for a few things more. Ok here is my doubt: Why they didn't do the same with Elvis Presley? Or maybe he's still alive and they faked his death to make more money and let Elvis live a life in peace? If you can help me with this with your opinions and thoughts I will appreciate it Faul and Elvis. Two different faces of the same coin? I think elvis is really dead . Who would have it put around that one died on the toilet ? He had millions of hardcore fans , and the Elvis lives rumors are probally wishfull thinking . On the other hand , it is said no claims have been paid on his life insurance policies. I |
|
|
|
Post by LordChinfist on Sept 13, 2003 12:26:27 GMT
I don't know all that much about Elvis, only as much as the average person, but maybe he wasn't selling that many records towards the end of his life (I don't know this for fact), so there was no reason to replace him, as he was no longer a money machine. Also, as you may have alluded to, if it was believed his death would generate more record sales, there would be no reason to replace him. For the theory that the Beatles were used as a tool to make popular certain ideas and drugs (i.e. LSD) into American or British (or for that matter world) culture, it would make more sense to replace Paul since he had an influence, whereas I doubt Elvis had much of an influence in the 1970's.
|
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Sept 13, 2003 13:27:42 GMT
Ok friends, after all this time talking about replacement in the music industry, I have this small and maybe stupid thought. At this time we all know that James Paul was replaced by Bill Sheppard (Faul) to avoid problems with the teens and for keep the great money make machine that was The Beatles and for a few things more. Ok here is my doubt: Why they didn't do the same with Elvis Presley? Or maybe he's still alive and they faked his death to make more money and let Elvis live a life in peace? If you can help me with this with your opinions and thoughts I will appreciate it Faul and Elvis. Two different faces of the same coin? Just TWO different political situations....that's all! |
|
|
|
Post by Eggman on Sept 13, 2003 17:24:33 GMT
Thanks for your opinions friends!!! ;D SK: Do I bother you if I beg you to explain me a little more?  |
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Sept 13, 2003 19:59:22 GMT
Eggy,
Good question on the Paul/Elvis thing.
The main difference is that The Beatles overall organization was quite a bit more sophisticated and powerful and more well-seeded in 1966 than Elvis' was in 1977.
Not to sound redundant, but in 1966 the Beatles were the most famous persons on the planet bar none, the likes of we shall never experience again.
So, yes, for whatever of the many reasons for impersonation of Paul, it had to be. Elvis, on the other hand, was at a career low and was a parody of himself by the late 70's.
BUT...lets not forget that there are indeed some compelling factors in the controversy surrounding Elvis' death trip.
--The million-dollar LLoyds of London life insurance policy has never been collected..to this day. (If he were alive, that would be insurance fraud.)
--His name was intentionally misspelled on his gravestone, another legal technicality to avoid fraud charges.
--His fan club executives were asked NOT to come to his funeral services; they feel because the corpse in the coffin was either an imposter or a wax figure; and there were eye-witness accounts of a strange coffin used with what seemed like an air-conditioning unit built into the bottom!
(aside:) I have seen rare photos of Elvis lying in his casket, and it is bizarre in the sense that three days previously he was a fat, middle-aged guy with longish hair, etc. and in the casket he looks exactly like circa 1958 Elvis...Blue Hawaii, anyone? lol.
There was ONE piece of photographic evidence which I can personally vouch for; in the 1980's Playboy purchased and ran a very interesting photo taken by a fan visiting Graceland. The fan was snapping the obligatory shot of the graves in the 'meditation' garden,
and to the left of the focus of the picture, is a glass enclosed pool house (like for lounging, or changing your suit, etc.) The glass is slightly tinted yet one can READILY make out the distinct figure of ELVIS sitting on a wicker chair in there!!!!!!!
This was a very clear photo, and was quite something. It obviously was from after he was suppose to be dead, as the graves of him and his mother were partially in the photo.
Also, there have been some wayward phone calls recorded by some people, and have had them spectrum-analyzed as Elvis' voice.
SO...there are some tantilizing points to ponder in the Elvis saga, granted, but his organization was never in the same gene pool as The Beatles one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Forum Manager on Sept 14, 2003 6:19:31 GMT
could u post the pics please?
|
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Sept 14, 2003 6:32:55 GMT
could u post the pics please? I've seen that photo --- and Graceland had a solid door put up on the poolhouse after the photo came out. |
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Sept 14, 2003 20:43:12 GMT
Thanks, 626,
I'm glad there is someone out there who knew what I was referring to! It was quite a cool photo. Made me think about what's gong on!
I do not have the pics, or copies of the pics, I just remember seeing them in Playboy which did an article on the Elvis death or faked death.
|
|
|
|
Post by Forum Manager on Sept 14, 2003 22:05:39 GMT
well since this is about the elvis being alive thing, ill move it to the conspiracies board
|
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Sept 15, 2003 0:13:22 GMT
Thanks, 626, I'm glad there is someone out there who knew what I was referring to! It was quite a cool photo. Made me think about what's gong on! I do not have the pics, or copies of the pics, I just remember seeing them in Playboy which did an article on the Elvis death or faked death. I did a google search last night trying to find the pic but couldn't turn it up. It was also included in a paperback book, and possibly in the TV special hosted by Bill Bixby?! |
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Sept 15, 2003 1:18:08 GMT
THANK YOU REY ANTHONY!!!! ;D ;D ;D
BTW, I had only seen it in black and white!
|
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Sept 15, 2003 4:48:55 GMT
Well, regading why did n't they just replace Elvis, well, I don't know.
I do think he has certainly passed away by now, if he didn't in 1977.
Logistically, it seems easier to carry on with a band, because you have, really, all but one element preserved ,two, if you count Paul's tune writing. But if they had a few tunes under the bread warmer to spring out later, that takes care of one problem. Going 4 months with no, alledgedly, photos of Paul for public consumption must have been a constant difficulty. I mean, there had hardly been a day, or perhaps a week, that there wasn't some group Beatle's photos in the press since perhaps 1962-3 I guess, esp. in Europe and Britain.
"Where's Paul" must have been tricky to cover, but possible with three other guys around to supply credibility. I'm sure no stone was left unturned creating credibility. It must have been a fragile holding pattern till they could launch the replacement.
Elvis was just one person, though. How long can you cover that?
The curve of skepticism soon hits the terminal slope without viable distractions.
Maybe he was alive and ready to stop. Maybe he passed, but at 40+ years old, hundreds of recordings in the inventory, and thousands of hours of fan footage to pour over, he had accomplished much and provided mountains to his labels etc. for continuous distribution. The Beatles were new on the American block at least, and they were in full swing, world wide. I think the other writer is right; we won't soon see that passionate a phoenomenon again.........
|
|
|
|
Post by Forum Manager on Sept 15, 2003 8:36:10 GMT
how do we know that was taken after he died? |
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Sept 15, 2003 11:01:29 GMT
how do we know that was taken after he died? the full shot (as I originally saw it) showed the graves in the meditation garden. Rey Anthony's seems to be a "zoomed in" version. |
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Sept 15, 2003 13:15:13 GMT
Sorry, but this photo here isn't anything like the one I remember initially.
The original one was of a mostly dark-tinted glass medium sized poolhouse, to the left and back a bit of the main Presley grave area. One could clearly see Elvis sitting on like a wicker chair inside the poolhouse, looking towards the camera..while his and his mother's graves loomed in the foreground!
I also think -but am not sure- the original was black & white shot. It struck me as compelling visual evidence.
-Ian
|
|
|
|
Post by MrMustard on Sept 23, 2003 13:22:55 GMT
BUT...lets not forget that there are indeed some compelling factors in the controversy surrounding Elvis' death trip. --The million-dollar LLoyds of London life insurance policy has never been collected..to this day. (If he were alive, that would be insurance fraud.) --His name was intentionally misspelled on his gravestone, another legal technicality to avoid fraud charges. --His fan club executives were asked NOT to come to his funeral services; they feel because the corpse in the coffin was either an imposter or a wax figure; and there were eye-witness accounts of a strange coffin used with what seemed like an air-conditioning unit built into the bottom! (aside:) I have seen rare photos of Elvis lying in his casket, and it is bizarre in the sense that three days previously he was a fat, middle-aged guy with longish hair, etc. and in the casket he looks exactly like circa 1958 Elvis...Blue Hawaii, anyone? lol. There was ONE piece of photographic evidence which I can personally vouch for; in the 1980's Playboy purchased and ran a very interesting photo taken by a fan visiting Graceland. The fan was snapping the obligatory shot of the graves in the 'meditation' garden, and to the left of the focus of the picture, is a glass enclosed pool house (like for lounging, or changing your suit, etc.) The glass is slightly tinted yet one can READILY make out the distinct figure of ELVIS sitting on a wicker chair in there!!!!!!! This was a very clear photo, and was quite something. It obviously was from after he was suppose to be dead, as the graves of him and his mother were partially in the photo. Also, there have been some wayward phone calls recorded by some people, and have had them spectrum-analyzed as Elvis' voice. Does this mean that Elvis didn't die in '77 after all? |
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Sept 23, 2003 22:45:30 GMT
Missy: This means...we don't know! I do ammend my previous statement about that photo shown in this thread...it could very well be the same one I saw, only the printed version was better quality and you could clearly see 'Elvis' sitting in the pool house, and the graves within the corner of the same shot!
|
|
|
|
Post by MrMustard on Sept 24, 2003 7:19:36 GMT
This is all very suspicious indeed.....perhaps he didn;t die in 77, but I'm sure he would be dead by now...  |
|
|
|
Post by beldabeast on Sept 24, 2003 13:09:54 GMT
This is all very suspicious indeed.....perhaps he didn;t die in 77, but I'm sure he would be dead by now... Wouldnt be too sure about that . I think he was born in the mid -30's , which would put him in his early 70's . |
|
|
|
Post by TheWatusi on Sept 24, 2003 21:07:41 GMT
does anyone know how old faul is?
|
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Sept 24, 2003 23:35:17 GMT
Wouldnt be too sure about that . I think he was born in the mid -30's , which would put him in his early 70's . January 8, 1935 ;D |
|
|
|
Post by MrMustard on Sept 25, 2003 0:31:29 GMT
Wouldnt be too sure about that . I think he was born in the mid -30's , which would put him in his early 70's . Yeah but he was pretty unhealthy and fat.... |
|
|
|
Post by PaulBearer on Apr 11, 2005 9:02:41 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Jilli on Apr 17, 2005 4:37:29 GMT
|
|
