|
|
Post by Scatterdome on Sept 9, 2003 23:46:03 GMT
Here's a potential scenario not involving Paul actually dying in '66 that may explain the emotional motivations of everybody involved in the cover-up, while being compatible with the timeline put forth by both the forensic findings AND the Beatles' official history, including the notes on their recording sessions:
By 1966, the Beatles have transformed from a group unknowingly serving the Illuminati (as purveyors of boy/girl relationship-pop) into their psychedelic enemies. Knowing that making martyrs out of the Beatles wouldn't be the answer at this point, the Illuminati instead do many other things to throw a wrench in their works, including a constant sabotage of their 1966 tour.
Paul McCartney, long burnt out on Beatlemania, especially after the darker turn it's now taken, looks for the best solution for his bandmates to continue on as the Beatles, and the other Beatles finally consider seriously the replacement plan Paul has been toying with for a while. Knowing that the public would not accept "The Beatles" without Paul, and also knowing that continuing the band as "The Beatles" with a fake Paul could help save the world from the Illuminati/"Blue Meanies" on many levels, they agree on the plan:
(From the Yellow Submarine movie):
Lord Mayor: “You could pass for the originals”
Ringo: “We are the originals”
Lord Mayor: “No, no, Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Heart’s Club Band.”
John: “Well, they couldn’t be much with a name like that.”
Paul: “Sgt. Pepper?”
Lord Mayor: “You could impersonate them and rally the land to rebellion!”
They will record one more album with Paul still doing his own vocals and photos, then announce to the public that they are retiring from touring, privately agreeing to only record more albums if the transition works. Before the album is completed, Paul announces his personal intentions to the public in song: "I want to be a paperback writer."
In addition to offering Paul and Brian an escape route from Beatlemania and providing a bounty of inspiration to the group, the plan is also intended to serve a much higher purpose: to teach the world an important lesson. As part of the lesson (explained later in this thread), they will intentionally give many "Paul Is Dead" clues in their lyrics and artwork, while simultaneously providing the more truthful "5 Beatles" clues in the two most visible spots (the Sgt. Pepper cover and inside sleeve to MMT) confident that when the truth finally comes out, the world will learn the lesson, enhanced greatly by the fact that the Beatles were displaying the truth in symbols the whole time.
Insiders secretly hold auditions for a replacement, searching for these unusual requirements: someone who 1) Can passably imitate Paul's voice, 2) Is willing and able to have enough plastic surgery to fool the public into thinking he's Paul, 3) Can learn to play bass competently, should they ever perform live again, and 4) is willing to trip with the other Beatles, to increase the chance of his quickly bonding with the rest of the band. (In 1966, the Beatles were newly inspired by the Byrds and other bands influenced by hallucinogenic drugs, aware that those bands were the new cutting edge. James Paul probably stalled on LSD only when he was publicly with the band, as he knew he was under too much stress to have a good trip)
A suitable replacement, William Sheppard, is found; he receives his first round of plastic surgery as the Beatles complete the Revolver album. EMI's top brass agree to the switch, their Illuminati bosses believing it an opportunity for character assassination of the Beatles, unaware that the Beatles actually want the truth to come out and have a lesson for the world up their sleeve. Revolver, an album that constantly seems to lyrically refer to Paul's " death" and cover-up (even ending with the line: "Paul played the game existence to the end of the beginning" ) and whose title implies a "revolving door," is released.
Paul drops out of the public eye. Out of love for Paul and the other Beatles, his friends and family agree to go along with the cover-up, including Jane Asher, who makes public appearances with William after Paul's retreat from the public. Paul begins his new life as a "paperback writer," ghostwriting tunes for William to sing in order to complete the illusion, while still playing bass and masterminding arrangements in the studio. He masterminds the "Sgt. Pepper" sessions, and sings both the title track and "She's Leaving Home," as his way of saying "Here's Billy" and "goodbye," respectively. ("She's Leaving Home" ends with John singing "Bye bye..." )
Unfortunately, a few unforseen aspects of the plan go wrong. After his debut album with the Beatles becomes a cultural landmark, "Sgt Sheppard" is taken with first surprise, and then arrogance. This arrogance begins to grate on the other Beatles. He also displays the character flaws of a man who would sell out if the price is right; sometime after the album's release, he is seduced into joining one of the Illuminati's secret societies (probably the Rosicrucian's order within the Freemasons), unbeknownst (initially, at least) to his bandmates. (It is possible that at this point, William begins a secret assignment to keep tabs on the band, and to slowly break them up from the inside.)
Their new bandmate has proven to have an irresolvable spiritual incompatibility with the other Beatles; apparently, in this case, time-concentrated LSD bonding for the new 5-piece unit as superstars turned out to be no match for the bonding the original Beatles forged in the clubs before they hit it big.
However, unable to deny the amazing musical results of their collaboration, they all try to keep the 5-piece Beatles going as a recording unit for several more albums. Only when the animosity between the two "Pauls" and the other Beatles becomes too great for any of them to bear do they finally call it quits.
After the Beatles break up, all involved initially agree to keep the switch secret. However, John feels betrayed by Paul's continued association with William, and expresses his anger at both of them (but mainly at William, with George guesting on lead guitar) in the 1971 song "How Do You Sleep": "Those freaks was right when they said you was dead / The one mistake you made was in your head."
The Illuminati continue to be closely involved with the story. Once the Sgt. Pepper's album was released, they realized that the Beatles had one-upped them again. "Sgt. Pepper's" alerted them that the Beatles were actually going to provide many blatant clues of the switch, in order to prove a point. Point being: "A conspiracy of powerful people CAN fool the whole world for years, even when they're blatantly displaying symbols telling the truth."
The Illuminati are well aware that if the switch is discovered by the public, the fact that the Beatles were trumpeting the truth through numerous symbolic clues would provide a powerful allegory for the Illuminati's trademark tendency to display blatant clues of THEIR existence, thus opening previously closed minds to that general concept, as well as opening people's minds in general to question what they are told is truth by the mainstream, Illuminati-controlled media.
I think that the first five solo McCartney albums were collaborations between the two Pauls, with Ram and Band On The Run being the two albums more dominated by Paul. But subsequent releases after BOTR seem to indicate that a final falling out between the two (which probably was brewing from the getgo) may have occurred. Many fans (including myself) feel that "Band On The Run" was the last consistently good "Paul McCartney" album. It was released on 12/5/73. Since then Faul has consistently included large swaths of bland filler on his albums, with significantly smaller percentages of good songs.
"Faul's" new single "Freedom" (released 10/29/01) sounds like an Orwellian jingle designed to get new recruits for the U.S. Army in the culture of knee-jerk "patriotism" that existed immediately after 9/11. ("I will fight for the right to live in freedom?" Really? You're really going to go out on the battlefield, Faul?) Faul even recently headlined a tribute to the (Illuminati) Queen Of England. Are these actions of which the original Paul, who was spiritually tight with counterculture hero John Lennon since 1957, would have approved of, even if he had himself had a falling out with John in 1970? Keep in mind that in the early '70s John Lennon publicly rejected his previously-awarded knighthood from the Queen, while the other three Beatles held on to them, with only Faul referring to himself with the title "Sir" in later years.
Maybe after 1973, Paul stopped propping up Faul full-time, uninterested and unwilling to dedicate the rest of his life to upholding the illusion, hoping the illusion would not stand the test of time, tired of working directly with Illuminati-tool Faul and his hidden influences. Faul would have been happy to finally take the reins of the career of "Paul McCartney," cranking out album after album of competently-performed stank with zero interference from the Illuminati, who had no problem at all with a musically blander Faul and knew this guy would never squeal.
Anyway, this is just one possible scenario, but I challenge anyone to find any major points in it that don't comply with the recently posted forensic comparisons of Paul & "Faul's" faces, "theories" on the Illuminati (best authors: Jim Marrs & David Icke), the timeline of the Beatles' history (both personal and technical), and the emotional motivations of four individuals who we knew were on our side. (Maybe someone will at least point out some small typo or something...)
One more thing I should mention: this theory partially comes from inside knowledge- but I ain't sayin' exactly from where.
|
|
|
|
Post by PaulBearer on Sept 10, 2003 4:49:52 GMT
Interesting but I fear that "inside knowledge" may have been given to you deliberately to mislead you and thereby mislead us...anything to distract from the truth of 60IF.
Either 60IF is true or it isn't, it was written by George Harrison or it wasn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scatterdome on Sept 10, 2003 8:57:22 GMT
Interesting but I fear that "inside knowledge" may have been given to you deliberately to mislead you and thereby mislead us...anything to distract from the truth of 60IF. Either 60IF is true or it isn't, it was written by George Harrison or it wasn't. A good chunk of my "inside knowledge" is the knowledge that the Illuminati do exist, based on personal research and personal experience... (And no, I'm definitely not WITH them!) I feel that understanding how they fit in to the story is a crucial factor in understanding this issue, and I don't see them mentioned often enough here... I felt I must speak up. Also, I dearly love the Beatles and noticed that much of the speculation I've read here does not fit the EMOTIONAL motivations of men who I know were heroes. If you don't believe that I love them, go to the Scatterdome website ( www.scatterdome.com ) and listen to my music and see what your heart tells you. (This is not a cheap plug, I just want everyone to know where I'm coming from.) With my music I am attempting to continue their spirit, even if it doesn't sound like them. Again, I also challenge anyone to find any major points in my theory that just don't make sense. Maybe the best way to read my theory, if anyone is unfamiliar with the theories on the Illuminati, is to read it assuming they exist and then to read one of the better books about them to see if the theory of their existence holds water. Here is a more extended list of author recommendations: David Icke, Jim Marrs, William Cooper, William Bramley. |
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Sept 10, 2003 9:12:14 GMT
Scatterdome,
there are many points that simply don't match with your theory.
One is: if this was "the plan" then why Billy was not "ready", with all the necessary plastic surgery done, when he went out?
And WHY Brian was replaced too?
More...
..your theory is "The Beatles tomb"
"60IF" is "The Beatles apotheosis"
|
|
|
|
Post by Scatterdome on Sept 10, 2003 9:47:18 GMT
I should also mention what originally inspired my theory.
First, of course, was Uberkinder's new page of forensic evidence. That's what pushed the idea that a different Paul appears after "Revolver" into the realm of fact for me.
Next was my strong opinion that "Revolver's" lyrics are more intensely about his "death" and cover up than any other Beatles album. This cannot be ignored! It is a powerful indication of PRE-KNOWLEDGE. Either he had a terminal illness, or the Beatles were intentionally feeding us "Paul is dead" clues to symbolize that he was about to be replaced-- including Paul's songs "For No One" and "Eleanor Rigby!" I think Paul just wanted to escape the celebrity machine. "Yesterday" (1965) may have been his first expression of that: "Now I need a place to hide away."
While the terminal illness theory is possible, to me the other angle makes more emotional sense. "Revolver" is an album full of good energy, and Paul's powerful vocals sound like those of a healthy man. Also, if he really died of illness afterwards, it's hard to imagine that his friends and family would remain silent all these years. Surely the Beatles' cheerful continuation of the "Paul Is Dead" clues for the rest of their career, and the idea of "Faul" pretending to be Paul, would have offended many of those close to Paul. In contrast, if his friends and family knew he just wanted to get away it's easy to see why they would cover for him.
It would also explain a possible source for some of Faul's excellent material, at least through 1973. If it was Faul alone, then the Beatles actually found a replacement who could write at a Lennon/McCartney level, a feat that would been at least 1,000 times more difficult than simply finding a solid performer. Faul may have written some of his own stuff through 1973, but his sharp decline in consistency (and soulfulness) after that indicates to me that that is when Faul truly went "solo."
|
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Sept 10, 2003 10:01:43 GMT
I should also mention what originally inspired my theory. First, of course, was Uberkinder's new page of forensic evidence. That's what pushed the idea that a different Paul appears after "Revolver" into the realm of fact for me. Next was my strong opinion (fact! fact!) that "Revolver's" lyrics are more intensely about his "death" and cover up than any other Beatles album. This cannot be ignored! It is a powerful indication of PRE-KNOWLEDGE. Either he had a terminal illness, or the Beatles were intentionally feeding us "Paul is dead" clues to symbolize that he was about to be replaced-- including Paul's songs "For No One" and "Eleanor Rigby!" I think Paul just wanted to escape the celebrity machine. "Yesterday" (1965) may have been his first expression of that: "Now I need a place to hide away." Good observations!!! Please read this forum FAQWhy he sung no more songs in Beatles albums? He could. "Paul had left a lot of material that was yet to be published. " From 60IF document |
|
|
|
Post by Scatterdome on Sept 10, 2003 10:06:06 GMT
Scatterdome, there are many points that simply don't match with your theory. One is: if this was "the plan" then why Billy was not "ready", with all the necessary plastic surgery done, when he went out? And WHY Brian was replaced too? More... ..your theory is "The Beatles tomb" "60IF" is "The Beatles apotheosis" It seems to me that "Billy" WAS physically ready to fool everyone... he did fool almost everyone, didn't he? As far as I know, the world still officially thinks that that is Paul in the Sgt. Pepper's photos. Also, the amount of plastic surgery required to get where he's at today without destroying his face may have only been physically possible in steps over the years. Paul probably didn't want to wait that long to leave the group. They probably decided in '67: "Close enough! Go get 'em, Billy!" If Brian was "replaced," it was probably the Illuminati, who had their own reasons to keep the switch secret, at least after Sgt. Pepper's was released and they realized the Beatles were going to give away blatant clues (just like they do with their own conspiracy.) The Beatles were NOT murderers, but the Illuminati have been for thousands of years. Maybe THEY saw Brian's drugged-out and confused state of mind as a red flag that he would blab... Personally, though, I think Brian just couldn't handle the new situation and really did die from damage caused by the bad drugs he was constantly taking. I would like to read the "Beatles Tomb" theory you mentioned... where can I find it? (When I wrote the above paragraph about Brian, for some reason I mistook Sun King's mention of him being replaced as a mention of the real Brian dying in 1967 under my theory. I am now more informed about the concept of Brian/Frian, though I don't think it conflicts with this theory; see my post on page 5. --10/18/03) |
|
|
|
Post by Scatterdome on Sept 10, 2003 10:25:49 GMT
Good observations!!! Please read this forum FAQWhy he sung no more songs in Beatles albums? He could. "Paul had left a lot of material that was yet to be published. " From 60IF document Only 27 Beatles songs featuring Paul as the only songwriter and lead vocalist were released between 1962 and 1966. In contrast, 40 "McCartney" songs were released by the Beatles between 1967 and 1970, followed by 5 McCartney albums through 1973. Most of these songs have a more contemporary and psychedelic feel than any of the Beatles songs released up to "Revolver." As a songwriter I can tell you it is highly unlikely those songs mostly emerged from a backstock that ends in '66. As for the vocals, maybe he did come in and sing some of the stuff in the studio; that would be an easy secret to keep. But Faul would've had to sing at least some of it to stay in practice-- his vocal performance up to this day indicates that he definitely pulls off a killer Paul impersonation. |
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Sept 10, 2003 10:27:58 GMT
Scatterdome:
have the patience to read all the posts in this forum.
Answers ALREADY posted.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scatterdome on Sept 10, 2003 12:45:49 GMT
Interesting but I fear that "inside knowledge" may have been given to you deliberately to mislead you and thereby mislead us...anything to distract from the truth of 60IF. Either 60IF is true or it isn't, it was written by George Harrison or it wasn't. My theory is based on the hard forensic evidence that is on Uberkinder and Sun King's webpages combined with the hard evidence of KNOWN facts about the Beatles. I don't consider documents of unknown origin hard evidence-- in fact, they are often Illuminati tools to throw people off the real trail. My view is: now that we have Uberkinder's webpage explicitly proving that the face of Paul changes dramatically after Autumn '66, shouldn't that be enough to figure the real story out when combined with the millions of known facts about the Beatles? Shady documents are sometimes true and can sometimes provide major clues, but it seems to me the KNOWN facts should be at the heart of the search for truth now that we have the forensic proof. On that note, I must admit that including the existence of the Illuminati in my analysis as fact must sound self-contradicting to the above statement. I guess my theory is designed for those who already realize they exist. Those who don't need to do more research. That is why I can only otherwise use known facts about the Beatles in my analysis. (Otherwise I would have 2 "x-factors:" 60IF and the theories on the Illuminati.) |
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Sept 10, 2003 13:23:08 GMT
My theory is based on the hard forensic evidence of Uberkinder's webpage combined with the hard evidence of KNOWN facts about the Beatles. I don't consider documents of unknown origin hard evidence-- in fact, they are often Illuminati tools to throw people off the real trail. My view is: now that we have Uberkinder's webpage explicitly proving that the face of Paul changes dramatically after Autumn '66, shouldn't that be enough to figure the real story out when combined with the millions of known facts about the Beatles? Shady documents are sometimes true and can sometimes provide major clues, but it seems to me the KNOWN facts should be at the heart of the search for truth now that we have Uberkinder's proof. On that note, I must admit that including the existence of the Illuminati in my analysis as fact must sound self-contradicting to the above statement. I guess my theory is designed for those who already realize they exist. Those who don't need to do more research. That is why I can only otherwise use known facts about the Beatles in my analysis. Hey guy! You don't know a "small" detail! "Uberkinder" site IS DERIVED from "60IF" site not vice-versa...  Quite ALL the animations were made by Sun King. You see...you made a "small" mistake.... |
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Sept 10, 2003 17:35:57 GMT
Scatterdome, I thought it was un-necessarily flippant and defiant to "dare" us to find parts of your lengthy hypothesis which don't make sense or are unlogical. I have found two in the few minutes since reading your post. Sorry!  Firstly, it is illogical that Paul would want to 'drop out' from all the pressure of superstardom; the real Paul lived, breathed, and shat energy from his audience and fans. He loved performing and equally got off on the reaction of the fans worldwide to the band's music. Secondly, the logic stumbles as you would have us think a dropped-out, communing-with-nature Paul-in-solitude would consistently bop back around to contribute material to beatles records, and later, to solo Faul records. Just doesn't jist with what we know of James Paul's human nature. Of course, I am not trying to 'down' you in anyway; simply relating my response to your posting. |
|
|
|
Post by Imgonnaopenmymind on Sept 10, 2003 19:19:35 GMT
I find some parts of Scatterdome's theory plausible.
By 1966, ANYBODY who had the Beatles' schedule today would have either been in the hospital or the graveyard. Nobody and I mean NOBODY can do such silly things as play to people who won't listen for that long. Paul may have tried to carry on, but facts is facts: he was just as fed up as everyone else.
By what "Faul" says in interviews, Paul was "seen to stall" around LSD time, so maybe he didn't exactly want to go on playing with the boys, regardless of the chemistry he had with them.
Plus, at least five years ago, I lived in Scotland and knew a writer who looked a lot like an older version of Paul. He was a kind man and his name was Philip MacGregor. He ghost-wrote for other local authors who needed help during times of writer's block.
Also, I can find the Illuminati (which has Eastern connections, hence the possible origin of the 60IF document) a lot more plausible than the KKK.
|
|
|
|
Post by Delta on Sept 11, 2003 0:05:50 GMT
Hi to all!
After having visited this forum almost every day since about two months or so, I’ve got quite used to the fact that the Paul McCartney of today is very possibly not the same person as the one in the early 60’s and before. The first time I noted 60IF, was after seeing it the link to Sun King's website in one of the national newspapers of the country I live in. Now, don’t get too excited, it wasn’t frontpage. It was nothing more than a brief mentioning of the link in the “Interesting & Odd links”-section on the “PC&Internet”-page.
During these last weeks, I also took the 60IF-story as something that could be a very possible explanation of all the visual and other clues. I read the FAQ, saw all of Sun King’s and Uberkinder’s webpages and checked the forum frequently.
However, when I read Scatterdome’s hypothesis, the major picture of this seemed to me to be equally, if not more, imaginable compared to 60IF. For several reasons, among others (some of which Scatterdome already mentioned):
- the lyrical clues on Revolver that Scatterdome points at, are just as clear as the ones on the post ’66-albums (I don’t think the word “clues” is right in this respect, they’re just autobiographical expressions, just like many other songwriters are inspired by their own personal experiences, in this case a dramatic career-change);
- try to listen to “got to get you into my life” with the idea that Paul wrote this to express the feeling that he is just about to regain his personal and/or artistic freedom, for whatever reason; also listen to the power of his vocal performance: it’s ecstatic, just like someone who was about to be released from whatever restrained him (I think we all, at one time or another, have been in certain situations to be able to relate to this kind of feeling);
- replacing Paul with Faul could be kept a secret more easily when the people that had to keep it a secret, did it as a personal favour (family, friends, people Paul worked with); a secret, however, that is being kept under strong negative pressure, is less likely to hold; this could explain why everybody involved, especially family and friends, were so dedicated at first to “play the game” until, that is, Faul started to irritate the people he worked with, with his arrogance and "mental incompatibility" with the other Beatles; that could have been the moment when the pressure was added by third parties that had much to lose by the truth being uncovered;
- the clues that tell "Paul is dead" could very well be meant as protection; who would go looking for him if he's not there anymore?
- it could explain the continuation of a continuing AND developing “Paul”-factor in songwriting in the post ’66-era, which is one of the larger discussions elsewhere on this forum.
Scatterdome’s hypothesis can IMHO explain the switch equally as well as 60IF. However, to fully accept that this hypothesis is a viable possibility, one also needs to accept that 60IF may not be the absolute truth. Even if it indeed was written/dictated by George Harrison. He could have had his reasons: for instance, revealing the replacement-operation out of resentment towards the powerstructure without compromising Paul's real situation (being still alive).
By the way: the details are less important here, it’s about the major picture of the subject of this thread: that it’s possible that Paul could have lived on after being replaced.
In addition to Scatterdome’s posts: when listening to “For no one” (assuming “Revolver” is Paul’s farewell-record), this song could give an even more dramatic insight into why Paul wanted to leave The Beatles: he could have felt that he was, as an active member, no longer useful to the group and all the things related to it, given his personal situation: his health, not into LSD, too many other people that had started to have a growing influence (and were minimizing his artistic freedom) and/or maybe other things.
O, and one last thing: why was this thread moved? I think its subject is important and relevant enough to be discussed within the PID/60IF-realm and not something to be sidetracked.
|
|
|
|
Post by Forum Manager on Sept 11, 2003 1:20:18 GMT
it was moved because the author had wished it to be
|
|
|
|
Post by beldabeast on Sept 11, 2003 17:03:27 GMT
I posted this theory on the 8th, and it's gone today.... must've been accidentally erased. Well, here it is again: Here's a potential scenario not involving Paul actually dying in '66 (but explaining John and George's assasins) that may explain the emotional motivations of everybody involved in the cover-up, while being totally compatible with the timeline put forth by both Uberkinder's forensic findings AND the Beatles' official notes on their recording sessions: In 1966, Paul McCartney, tired of the unprecedented superstar life of a Beatle and unwilling to follow the other Beatles into the world of LSD that they have discovered, looks for the best solution for his bandmates to continue on as the Beatles. Knowing the public would not accept "The Beatles" without Paul, they agree on a plan: They will announce to the public that they are retiring from touring, and then record one final album with the real Paul, agreeing to only record more albums if they can find a suitable replacement in time. Paul releases a single before the album is completed, announcing his true intentions in song: "I want to be a paperback writer." As work begins on the Revolver album, insiders begin to secretly hold auditions for his replacement, searching for these unusual requirements: someone who 1)Can passably imitate Paul's voice, 2)Is willing to have enough plastic surgery to fool the public into thinking he's Paul, 3)Can play a mean bass, and 4)is willing to trip with the other Beatles so that they can authentically create psychedelic music as a band in the studio (an important factor for John, George and Ringo by the later part of 1966, who were aware that LSD-influenced bands such as The Byrds were the new cutting edge.) A suitable replacement, William Campbell, is found; he receives his first round of plastic surgery as the Beatles complete the Revolver album. Revolver, an album that constantly seems to lyrically refer to Paul's "death" and cover-up (even ending with the line: "Paul played the game existence to the end of the beginning"), and whose title implies a "revolving door," is released. Paul relocates to a remote location, possibly even having some plastic surgery of his own to ensure anonymity in his new life. Out of love for Paul, his friends and family agree to go along with the cover-up, including Jane Asher, who makes public appearances with William Campbell after Paul's retreat from the public. Paul begins his new life as a "paperback writer," writing novels and periodically ghostwriting tunes for William Campbell to perform in order to complete the illusion. Unfortunately, a few unforseen aspects of the plan go wrong. After his debut album with the Beatles becomes a cultural landmark, "Sgt Pepper" is taken with first surprise, and then arrogance. He believes that he is the one most responsible for taking the Beatles' music to a new level, which creates a rift between him and the other Beatles that, in John and George's case, never completely heals. Their new bandmate has proven to have an irresolvable spiritual incompatibility with the other Beatles; apparently, in this case, time-concentrated LSD bonding for the new foursome as superstars turned out to be no match for the bonding the original Beatles forged in the clubs before they hit it big. George quits LSD altogether, having had too many bad trips with William around. However, unable to deny the amazing musical results of their collaboration, they all try to keep the Beatles going as a recording unit for several more albums. Only when the animosity between William and the other Beatles becomes too great for any of them to bear do they finally call it quits. After the Beatles break up, all involved initially agree to keep the switch secret. However, John feels betrayed by Paul's continued association (by contribution of new songs) with William, and expresses his anger at both of them (with George guesting on lead guitar) in the 1972 song "How Do You Sleep": "Those freaks was right when they said you was dead / The one mistake you made was in your head." This is where the Illuminati's agenda enters the story. The Illuminati, at some point, realize that if too many people catch on to the scam they allowed the Beatles to pull off, it would send a message to the world that could potentially set off a chain reaction that would destroy THEIR conspiracy: "A conspiracy of powerful people CAN fool the whole world, even when they're blatantly displaying symbols telling the truth." As time passes, the Illuminati become increasingly watchful of John Lennon; his nakedly rebellious, political, pro-masses, anti-authority, anti-mainstream stance earns him an FBI file, as Nixon frets over the influence he has over the public. "How Do You Sleep" alerts the Illuminati that John Lennon might spill the beans about Paul after all, but their watchful eye relaxes a bit as John retreats into retirement in 1975 to start his new family. However, when he breaks his isolation by announcing to the public in 1980 that he is finally going to release a new album of originals, they decide it's time to send one of their classic "lone gunmen" to do the job they had considered since at least 1972. In 2000, shortly after George announces to the public that he is recording his first new studio album in 13 years, a similar assassin is sent around the 20th anniversary of Lennon's death (Illuminati symbolism) to his house, somehow breaching his security and stabbing him in his own house. Although George doesn't die from the wounds, after his subsequent death from cancer, friends are quoted as saying that he probably could've fought off the cancer if he wasn't also recovering from multiple stab wounds (This was the gist of Keith Richards' quote in Rolling Stone Magazine's Harrison tribute issue). Although the real Paul may have originally helped "Faul" behind the scenes of his first solo albums, maybe even he eventually had a falling out with "Faul." Everyone knows that "Band On The Run" was his last consistently good album-- parts of it almost sound like an expansion of ideas found in the White Album and Abbey Road. It was released on 12/5/73. Since then "Faul" has consistently included huge swaths of filler lacking in good taste on his albums, with much smaller percentages of really good songs. Maybe what happened is that Paul was assassinated in 1974 by whoever "Faul" was aligned with (the Illuminati?), although probably not with any pre-knowledge on Faul's part, making "Band On The Run" the last album in which he was directly, but secretly, involved. Ever since, "Faul" probably used one or two of Paul's leftover songs on each of his subsequent albums to provide hit singles, filling in remaining songs with more of his own songwriting and/or songs from commercially-minded songwriters-for-hire. This may be the REAL reason for John's separation from Yoko during his "lost weekend." (I'll post more on that later) "Faul's" new single "Freedom" (released 10/29/01) sounds like an Orwellian jingle designed to get new recruits for the U.S. Army in the culture of knee-jerk "patriotism" that existed immediately after 9/11. ("I will fight for the right to live in freedom?" Really? You're really going to go out on the battlefield, Faul?) Faul even recently headlined a tribute to the (Illuminati) Queen Of England. Are these actions of which the original Paul, who was spiritually tight with counterculture hero John Lennon since 1957, would have approved of, even if he had himself had a falling out with John in 1970? Keep in mind that in the early '70s John Lennon publicly rejected his previously-awarded knighthood from the Queen, while the other three Beatles held on to them, with only Faul referring to himself with the title "Sir" in later years. Maybe in 1974, the Illuminati finally killed Paul; even if it saddened Faul, he might have been happy to finally take the reins of his own career, cranking out album after album of stank with zero interference from the Illuminati, who knew this guy would never squeal. Anyway, this is just one possible scenario, but I challenge anyone to find any major points in it that don't comply exactly with Uberkinder's forensic findings, "theories" on the Illuminati (best authors: Jim Marrs & David Icke), the exact timeline of the Beatles' history (both personal and technical), and the emotional motivations of four individuals who we knew were on our side. Maybe someone will at least point out some small typo or something... One more thing I should point out.... this theory partially comes from inside knowledge- but I ain't sayin' exactly from where. I am assuming my initial posting of this theory (visible from early morning 9/8 through early morning 9/9) was erased due to some technical error, but in case it wasn't, you may want to copy this and paste it on to your computer. If it disappears again, ask the moderators what happened. Well, ok . I think your theory is some pretty good brainstorming on you'r part if nothing else. I wonder about the body on the lonely road theory at times. We don't have enough established facts as yet . I have 2 versions . One he left the studio in a huff , and the other he was returning from a holiday. I read somewhere the Paul was removed and redeposited at the scene after he died . I don't buy that at all . No one is going to return to the scene with the evidence in tow. That just does'nt make any sense. There are several possible scenarios , including yours , that would explain all this . My take is that we need to establish , legal PROOF that there are 2 Pauls . We need not prove HOW or WHY, or even that he was killed. |
|
|
|
Post by Scatterdome on Sept 11, 2003 19:59:42 GMT
I was reluctant to post this next section, as it is based on information of which I’m less sure. But it may provide further insight to my main theory, and if correct, may indicate that the real Paul McCartney met his end during or around the recording sessions for “Band On The Run.” But if I’m totally wrong about the theory in this section, don’t let it take away from the credibility of what I’ve already written. The stuff I’ve already posted represents what I think are my strongest points—this is just further theorizing in a sub-category. Here goes: After masterminding the McCartney and Ram albums and giving Faul more than a "little help from his friend" with the recording, Paul feels he has established Faul as a believable “solo” McCartney, completing the illusion necessary for the continued protection of his new anonymity. He feels Faul may be ready to start weaning himself from his influence, and assembles Faul’s new band Wings in late ’71 to help him strike out on his own, while still agreeing to contribute a few songs each for any subsequent albums. However, when the Wild Life and Red Rose Speedway albums fail to continue the streak of consistent quality established by the first two “McCartney” albums, he realizes that he should help out Faul with one more strong album as a protection of both his legacy and his anonymity. At the same time, by now Paul has realized that Faul has joined one of the Illuminati's branch secret societies (after seeing the Red Rose Speedway cover?), and doesn't want to work with him closely anymore after the album is completed. Paul and Faul agree that the next album should consist entirely of Paul’s songs and arrangements, and so the track list for Band On The Run is established. The song “Picasso’s Last Words” is written and titled as such to reflect that this is the last time he will mastermind a whole album for Faul. However, during the week before the band is scheduled to fly out to Lagos, Nigeria to record, lead guitarist Henry McCullough and drummer Denny Seiwell quit the band. (Strange timing...  ) Although the original plan was for Paul to only write all the songs to be performed by Wings on Band On The Run, he realizes it is now necessary for him to join the recording sessions one more time as Faul is not as strong at drums and lead guitar as Paul. He flies down to Nigeria too, meeting up with Faul, Linda and Denny Laine at the studio. Before they are done recording, however, Paul meets his end in Lagos. Notes on the recording sessions for “Band On The Run” reveal that 1973 Lagos was full of dangers ranging from disease and poisonous bugs to trigger-happy Nigerian soldiers. There is even a mugging incident which Faul and Linda later claim they experienced and survived. A detailed description of their stay in Lagos can be found at: www.mcbeatle.de/macca/a/botr2.htmlI am more sure that Band On The Run was the last album in which Paul was the dominant creative force than I am of the idea that he actually died during its recording. He may have simply felt that after that album, any decline in subsequent albums' quality would not necessarily compromise his anonymity. However, just case I'm right about Paul dying towards the end of the Band On The Run sessions in Lagos, my next posting will illustrate how Paul’s possible death at that particular point in time could relate to an alternate explanation for John Lennon’s “Lost Weekend.” |
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Sept 11, 2003 20:18:54 GMT
So.. James Paul fraudulent more than Faul?
Then why the Beatles broke up?
I told you Bill was NOT full ready about plastic surgery at December 20th 1966 when he went out officially.
He "reshaped" his mouth shortening his nose in the mid 1967.
Why?
|
|
|
|
Post by Scatterdome on Sept 11, 2003 20:45:34 GMT
So.. James Paul fraudulent more than Faul? Then why the Beatles broke up? I told you Bill was NOT full ready about plastic surgery at December 20th 1966 when he went out officially. He "reshaped" his mouth shortening his nose in the mid 1967. Why?Personally, I don't think any less of Paul if my theory is correct; I just think he found a clever way to share his music with the world while living in peaceful anonymity. My basic idea of why the Beatles broke up, as stated in my first posting, is the same as their official version, only substituting Faul for Paul: Starting with the Sgt. Pepper album, John, George and (to some degree) Ringo, began to feel a deeper incompatibility with Faul, and they broke up because after a couple years it became intolerable. I agree with you that Faul was not physically ready to fool everyone as Paul in December '66. That photo I saw on the Uberkinder website, taken outside of Abbey Road studios in December '66, really doesn't convincingly look like Paul to me either. But that is a much less seen photo than the ones that appeared the following year; it was the Sgt. Pepper's photos that fooled the world. |
|
|
|
Post by Scatterdome on Sept 12, 2003 6:19:36 GMT
Well, the “lost weekend” angle I thought I was going to uncover ended up falling through as the dates did not match up. However, in the process, I found a potential angle involving religion and martyrdom that may explain why the Illuminati would have picked the real Paul’s stay in Lagos in 1973 as the best time to kill him, as well as why they would have considered December 1980 the best time to kill John Lennon, and December 1999 the best time to send someone to kill George Harrison: Paul’s last-minute decision to join Faul in recording the Band On The Run sessions in Lagos, Nigeria offers the Illuminati the perfect opportunity to do him in. Even if his death were reported and the truth of the switch were eventually revealed, Paul’s death in a violent, disease-infested third world city would drastically reduce suspicions of Illuminati involvement in his death, should it ever be discovered. Unlike the other Beatles, the real Paul would never become a martyr as his death would go unreported, with the world believing that Faul is Paul; thus, in Paul’s case they only have to wait until an opportunity that would minimize the likelihood Paul’s murder would be discovered and traced back to them. Depending on the situation, the Illuminati generally don't want to make martyrs out of some of their strongest enemies unless they think there's a possibility that they can eventually create or infiltrate a religion based on the person. In Faul’s case, they know they have a more shallow fellow who will eventually do things like releasing the Orwellian, troop-rallying single “Freedom” right after September 11 and headlining a concert honoring the hard-core-Illuminati Queen of England without even necessarily realizing the evil he is perpetuating by doing these things. Faul is definitely more useful to the Illuminati alive. As for the other Beatles, the Illuminati were probably biding their time, waiting for the possibility that John or George would soil their own reputations (or that their reputations would naturally diminish over time), thus losing the martyr status that would be stronger if they were killed when the world still considered them all saints. (No offense intended Ringo, but I don’t think the Illuminati are too worried about you.) On the other end of things, if John and/or George upheld or even improved their individual reputations enough to gain an untarnishable reputation with a big enough hard core of fans, making a martyr out of that Beatle would offer the Illuminati an opportunity to create an actual religion based around him as the ancient mainstream religions also created (or quickly seized) by the Illuminati thousands of years ago gradually lost their grip on the minds of the modern world. Do you remember that TV special showing the ceremony that Kevin Spacey hosted a couple of years ago? “Come Together: A Night for John Lennon’s Words and Music” was first aired on the TNT network on October 2, 2001, when the people of the United States were at their most vulnerable, their faith in “God” having just been tested with the World Trade Center disaster. Watching the special, I almost felt like I was attending a Catholic mass, only that the huge photo of John looming in the background was far more imposing than the statues of Jesus scattered throughout my old childhood church. In fact, a John Lennon religion has already surfaced, as reported in an article from just over a year after the special aired; see the quote at the bottom of the article, which is reachable at this link: archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2002/12/17/story81116.asp At this rate, it’s only a matter of time before the George Harrison religion, an offshoot of the Hare Krishna religion, appears, just like Christianity emerged from Judaism. Maybe they waited until December 1999 to send a guy with a knife over to George’s house because only then did they finally feel he was ready to be made into a religious figure. Also, he had just announced to the public that he was recording his first album in 13 years, just as John had just announced his new recording after his longest gap (5 years) when his assassin was sent. (Illuminati consistency, Illuminati symbolism?) Look for the Bob Marley religion, an offshoot of Rastafarianism, soon. (“Imagine there’s no countries / It isn’t hard to do / Nothing to kill or die for / and no religion too” – “Imagine”, 1971) (“Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV / and you think you’re so clever and classless and free / But you’re still f*cking peasants as far as I can see” – “Working Class Hero,” 1970) Remember, to many Biblical interpreters, even the story of Jesus portrays him as someone who never wanted to be worshipped himself, so Lennon’s lines in “Imagine” and “Working Class Hero” would be no problem at all to enough people in the world to keep the religion going. Anyway, here’s the plotline, continued: By early 1975, John and Yoko are fully aware that the Illuminati exist and would love to see John dead, but are now ready to prioritize raising a child and enjoying the home life. They know that the Illuminati will consider them a reduced threat if they are retired and factoring the protection of a new child into their lives; the Illuminati know that John & Yoko are less likely to do the type of things that go against the Illuminati’s agenda (subversive views expressed in interviews, enlightening music) in their new, publicly-announced parental situation. However, John & Yoko choose New York as their home as maximum assurance that the true story would get out if John is killed. (Think about it—would we even know who John’s killer was if he was shot in an isolated home in the country?) After five years of inactivity, John becomes too restless to maintain this state of inactivity, feeling that keeping his new music from the world would just be wrong. After he announces his impending album to the public, the Illuminati are once again worried about the things he might say in his next year of interviews, John having had five years to become even more “Christ-like.” And at this point, John’s reputation and worshipful fan base are so solid that the Illuminati are certain that they could create (or infiltrate) a religion out of him if he is martyred. With Jesus’ popularity dropping fast, they know that this is a prime opportunity to kill John, and so on December 8, 1980 (revealingly, the 20th anniversary of Stu Sutcliffe leaving the Beatles) they send Mark David Chapman, one of their classic mind-programmed “lone gunmen,” to do the job. |
|
|
|
Post by Delta on Sept 14, 2003 10:42:23 GMT
This funny link turned up, after doing a websearch for "Philip McGregor" (see post by Imgonnaopenmymind on page 1 of this thread): fanfic.o-f.com/penthouse.htmlCoincidence? |
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Sept 14, 2003 11:40:14 GMT
Quiz: What heads the hats are on? |
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Sept 14, 2003 11:48:27 GMT
BTW: what over their heads is "the famous "burial site"...
|
|
|
|
Post by Forum Manager on Sept 14, 2003 17:58:03 GMT
the hats are on john, and some other guy. the burial site looks like it very well could be strawberry field.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scatterdome on Sept 15, 2003 18:51:05 GMT
Quiz: What heads the hats are on? Hmm… I wonder if there’s significance to the identity of the man that that statue bust portrays? John may have been making another satirical statement highlighting the idea that he might be made into a religious figure someday. (“Christ you know it ain’t easy / You know how hard it can be / The way things are going / they’re going to crucify me” – The Ballad Of John & Yoko, 1969) Maybe the fact that it’s a historical figure was enough for him to convey that general idea in that photo (especially if putting the hat on the statue was a spontaneous decision), but it would be interesting if someone could find out who the statue bust is. If he knew this particular photo was going to be another one of their “Paul is ‘dead’” clues (if it’s a rumored “burial” site for Paul, and especially if the Beatles themselves secretly started that rumour), he may have spontaneously included that “historical figure” reference with his placement of the two hats to continue his “martyr” theme (and thus, give us another clue to eventually figure out their real story) if he already knew this particular photo was going to be analyzed by “Paul Is Dead” clueseekers in the future. Or, maybe the hats symbolize “Lennon and McCartney,” with “McCartney” represented by a statue in a graveyard to symbolize that a “dead man” is wearing the other hat. This photo could very well be a 2-in-1 “Paul Is Dead” clue that they gave us. (And, to reiterate my opinion, they created all of the “Paul Is Dead” clues so that most people would not go looking for the real Paul if the switch was discovered, knowing that the best “detectives” worthy of uncovering the whole story would see past that first smokescreen of believing that all of their clues mean that he actually died.) The bigger the mystery in life, I have found, the more layers must be uncovered to get to the truth. Of course, he might have just put the hat on the statue for no reason apparent to himself; other than to make the photo more “artsy,” with the prankish intention of causing clueseekers to overanalyze it. More likely to me, though, is that there probably IS some deeper symbolism intended with the hats. |
|
) Although the original plan was for Paul to only write all the songs to be performed by Wings on Band On The Run, he realizes it is now necessary for him to join the recording sessions one more time as Faul is not as strong at drums and lead guitar as Paul. He flies down to Nigeria too, meeting up with Faul, Linda and Denny Laine at the studio.