Paul hired a replacement in '66

[Sdxo lv Ghdg]

Scatterdome,

Please forgive me for not referenceing the appropriate parts of the previous post in my respose.

You're welcome.

Thank you.

I'd say, 'Some amount' of the Beatles entitlements were do to them being anointed to fill the media void that normalcy vacated during the Viet Nam war. They were used, and the events surrounding their lives were distorted globally. Much like the events of the present. Then "penalty of greatness" attracts many to find their fame by "pecking on the breadcrumb sins" of the great.
Let's face it, we are coming out of the dark ages, ritual infant sacrifices aren't very far in the past. A future society, powered by free energy, may not be far away. Until we come "All together now", if an organization like a country is not growing stronger, it’s growing weaker. Nasty things are going to happen in the course of warfare. Be from aggressive force or subversive actions, and war never ends. Only aggression pauses.

Yes, but the knowledge that was being withheld had to do with unconstitutional war and draft, the French connection and heroin trade, previous associations with Ho Chi Min. Not just fake Paul.

I agree.

Ok, someone might just go through all that trouble to be famous.

Ok, I now believe George Washington was replace.

Another songwriter(s) could have been Faul's inspiration. Or, it was Paul. I have no overwhelming feelings regarding who it was.

I have read many of your other ideas, I've been reading here for quite a while. I just thought I was responding to the particular post at the head, or armpit, of this branch.

Billy Preston aside, I don't see 3 Beatles and 5 Beatle as being self-contradicting beyond on paper in the form of an equation.

Thank you, I hadn't yet seen the complete collection of folded bills. Sweet Jesus!

btw - great Mayan post

[LUCY]

Scatterdome said:

The other piece of obscure information I’m posting today involves the Mayan calendar— if you are unfamiliar with the Mayan calendar, don’t read this next part unless you have an open mind and are willing to follow the links provided to confirm the Mayan calendar’s validity for yourself.

For those who are unfamiliar, the Mayan calendar uses a 260-day cycle based on the phases of the moon, in contrast with the traditional Gregorian calendar (which adds an an extra day to February to compensate for the inaccuracy created by the fact that the Earth completes its rotation around the sun every 365.25 days, roughly) Each of the 260 days in the cycle has its own astrological sign, and the signs can be charted out visually on the grid known as the Tzolkin. (Here is an image of a Tzolkin which you will want to download and print out as a full-page image if you are unfamiliar with Mayan astrology and truly want to try to understand what I’m writing in this post: )


Mayan astrology is complex, and my own understanding is admittedly rudimentary; however, I think that beginners can easily get an initial feel for how it works (and also get a potent initial demonstration of the “eerie” accuracy of Mayan astrology) the same way I did—by charting out various Mayan birthdates and seeing how they relate to each other on the Tzolkin geometrically.

Go ahead, try it yourself—go to the following website, which contains tutorial information on the Mayan calendar, as well as a convenient Mayan birthdate calculator directly linked here:
www.tortuga.com/findkin/findkin.cfm
Use the calculator on the website to identify the Mayan birthdates of your friends, your family, your favorite authors and musicians, and various historical and political figures, and chart out the birthdates with a pen on your Tzolkin printout. The more of these birthdates that you write onto your Tzolkin chart, the more outrageous “coincidences” you will discover. For example, George Bush Sr.(b. 6/12/24) and Saddam Hussein (b. 4/28/37) are “next-door neighbors” on the chart. Another odd coincidence: Ian McKellan (b. 5/25/39, the actor who plays Gandalf in Lord Of The Rings) and Ian McCullough (b. 5/5/59, leader of Echo & The Bunnymen) are both “Lunar Humans,” which is a 1-in-260 chance (like any two people who share a Mayan birthday) and puts them on the same square on the chart. Chart out enough Mayan birthdates on your Tzolkin and you may just get some rare insight into the “hidden” patterns of life that really do occur on Earth, including patterns that relate significantly to your own personal life. (There’s nothing you can see that isn’t shown…)

In fact, I think this knowledge is a significant part of the knowledge that makes the Illuminati the “Illuminati” (or, “illuminated ones.”) If knowledge is power and the Mayan calendar is powerful knowledge that the Earth’s “royal” bloodlines have long been using for their own negative purposes (to help maintain an intellectual upper hand over the masses they wish to control) , then no wonder it remains obscure while far less accurate forms of astrology (Gregorian, Chinese) are widely distributed and promoted to the world’s masses. I think that this ancient knowledge is so powerful that some of the Illuminati’s major symbols were possibly even derived from the Mayan Tzolkin. Turn a Tzolkin chart on its side and you’ll see what I mean:
www.scatterdome.com/images/tzolkin side small.JPG

[/img]

Shortly after I began posting my theory here, I made a bizarre discovery about myself via Mayan astrology. I was born on 11/20/75; it turns out that my Mayan sign derived from this date, “Solar Monkey,” occupies the square sandwiched in between David Icke (b. 4/29/52, Lunar Monkey) and James Paul McCartney (b. 6/18/42, Electric Monkey.) My interpretation: This would explain why I have spent the last 3 years fuzing “Ickean” references into the lyrics of my Beatles-influenced songwriting; it would also explain why I ended up on this forum, feeling compelled to write and post an alternate theory on Faul that uses an “Ickean” worldview.

I had been combining Icke and Beatles influences heavily in my music for a few years before I discovered my Mayan calendar identity in September; thus, with my “identity” as one of the 1-out-of-every-260 people who are the “middle ground” between Icke and McCartney already confirmed by my activities from before I had heard of Mayan astrology, I felt I would be a fool not to try to “complete the circle” taking my Icke-influenced McCartney theory as far as it would go. With less members on this forum (the only forum discussing forensic evidence of Faul at the time) than there are Mayan astrological signs, I figured odds were I was probably the only “Solar Monkey” posting here; I would say it was a “sense of duty” that compelled me to give it a shot and put so much time and energy into contributing to this forum.

”Only time will tell if I am right or I am wrong.” If much of my theory turns out to be correct, then my hope is that in addition to helping the “collective mind” solve the Faul mystery, I have also demonstrated the following:

- The theories explored by the above-mentioned authors, especially Icke, are a shortcut to solving any global “mystery” as they represent an accurate worldview.
- The Beatles are excellent role-models in the fight against the Illuminati, NOT a group who sold out to them out of fear.

And now that I’ve chosen to spill the beans on the Mayan calendar due to Winston’s question, I hope another thing will be confirmed: The Mayan calendar is some powerful information.

I realize that I’m opening myself up to ridicule by admitting that I take any form of astrology seriously, but anyone getting ready to heckle me for that would be well advised to follow the links I provided to do their own research on the Mayan calendar first.

I suppose it’s a matter of opinion whether personal confirmation of the reality of an “Ickean world” via strange experiences and obscure acquired knowledge, combined with said knowledge, counts as “inside information.” But I think it does. (Sorry to disappoint those who thought I was claiming I knew a Beatle or something.) The bulk of this information I sought out myself and was able to find because my understanding of the world has been made more accurate by my favorite “conspiracy authors;”-- the use of the term “inside information” does not have to imply that someone has handed someone insider tips on a platter. In some cases such as this, it’s available for anyone who truly seeks it.

However, since the Beatles gave us (and continue to give us) so many clues, I think there are only two requirements to solving the Faul mystery: 1) The music, words and artwork of the Beatles, and 2) an accurate worldview. But if an accurate worldview is an “Ickean” worldview, then hopefully that’s what I’ve demonstrated if my Faul theory turns out to be mostly correct.[/quote]

the great brain strikes again, everybody say oooommmmmmmm.
( that's ah- ooooooooooooooo- mmmmmmm)

[LUCY]

Scatterdome said:

Thank you!


Good quotes.


Not for me; the Powers That Be are the Illuminati, and the Beatles did so much permanent damage to the Illuminati agenda (after they went psychedelic) that the idea that they continued without Paul because the Illuminati forced them to, that the albums that instigated the bulk of that damage were forced into existence by the Illuminati, is inherently contradictory. Both my heart and mind tell me that “All You Need Is Love” was not forced into existence and broadcast worldwide on the orders of war-mongers.


I’m obligated to suspect that, because I know that keeping the masses ignorant has always been the Illuminati’s primary method of maintaining control. Control of public perception is their #1 priority…

When the Beatles started out, they unknowingly served the Illuminati agenda as a “relationship-pop” band (keeping people’s thoughts on reproduction and away from spiritual/intellectual matters, like commercial radio still does), and thus experienced no interference in rocketing to the top of the world, to say the least. But when they went psychedelic and thoughtful in ’65-’66 the Illuminati had an unprecedented problem on their hands, considering how many young people looked up to the Beatles. Martyring a Beatle shortly after Revolver’s release would’ve only worsened the problem; attempts at character assassination, however, would’ve been a good way to try to reduce the influence of the disastrous (to the Illuminati) event of the world’s #1 band suddenly providing a positive example of psychedelic evolution at the height of their fame. One example from 1966: the Illuminati media’s global-scale distortion of John’s “bigger than Jesus” comment and the subsequent Beatle-record burnings in the Bible Belt. Other 1966 Illuminati attempts to discourage, deflate and derail the Beatles are evidenced in events that happened during their 1966 tours, such as the “Marcos snub” incident or the seemingly orchestrated chaos (described by Harrison, as I posted earlier in this thread) of their tour stops in the U.S. in that year.


Yet at the same time, most people are not even open to the possibility of impostors outside of fiction. But if the truth of 2 Pauls became well-known, that would certainly change…


Most of the time. Although sometimes we find out who the double is… check out my post about George Washington and Adam Weishaupt at this link: 60if.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=document&action=display&thread=1067848992


Faul is a talented performer, but songwriters as talented as James Paul McCartney are not born every day, to say the least. There are many talented performers out there who couldn’t write their way out of a paper bag—just imagine how many of them would jump at the chance to become the voice and public face of one of the 20th century’s greatest composers, even if it did involve some plastic surgery, a loss of their original identity, and some serious acting/lying skills.


Consider the following quote from Norman Smith, who was the Beatles’ engineer in the studio from their first album through Rubber Soul:

“There is no doubt at all that Paul was the main musical force… also in terms of production as well. A lot of the time George Martin didn’t really have to do the things he did because Paul McCartney was around and could have done them equally well. The only thing he couldn’t do was to put symbols to chords; he couldn’t write music. But he could most certainly tell an arranger how to do it, just by singing a part—however, he didn’t know, of course, whether the strings or brass could play what he wanted. But most of the ideas came from Paul.”

As a songwriter, it’s much, much easier for me to think that Paul lived, based on both the nature of the continuing evolution of the Beatles’ music after Revolver, and the undeniably good vibes contained within the music. As a person with working eyes, however, I can see that there’s 2 Pauls. Simply put, these two ideas, which would initially seem like they conflict with themselves, are reconciled for me with the idea that James Paul lived on behind the scenes while his hired impostor performed most of his vocals and “performed” most of his public appearances. (I’m still not sure who’s behind that beard in the Let It Be sessions.)


On the contrary-- I have not sidestepped the “3 Beatles”/”PID” clues at all. (Search on my username for my earlier posts where I go into detail; I figure you probably missed it since you wrote that.) On the other hand, I could easily say that most “PID” advocates are generally sidestepping/ignoring the “5 Beatles” clues.


That’s not an assumption, it’s a conclusion; if it is acknowledged that there are both “3 Beatles/PID” clues and “5 living Beatles” clues, then it is acknowledged that at least one of the two clue groupings has to be a false trail. While many clues fit either scenario, I think many of the other clues illustrate that the Beatles intentionally painted two different scenarios to explain the 2 Pauls in their clues, with only one of the scenarios being correct, to make the mystery deep and rich enough both to attract deeper interest in the matter, and to reflect Illuminati behavior accurately in order to give the masses the language to decode the Illuminati’s own displays, which often depict one scenario when interpreted on one level, while depicting an entirely different, more accurate scenario when examined on a deeper level. See my post on the folded bills to see what I mean; it’s at the link at the bottom of this post.

Also, keep in mind that I’m far from the first person to notice “5 Beatles” clues everywhere; ever heard the term “fifth Beatle” before?


If there’s no Illuminati, then I guess it’s possible the Beatles might have thought such a group existed anyway, from their unique vantage point inside Beatlemania. Alas, if only the “theory” on the Illuminati was just a theory. Follow this link if you haven’t yet seen the complete set of folded bills:
60if.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=60ifclues&thread=1064668996&action=display&start=45

I was going to edit this quote, but NOOOOOOOO.


"The only thing he couldn’t do was to put symbols to chords; he couldn’t write music. But he could most certainly tell an arranger how to do it, just by singing a part—however, he didn’t know, of course, whether the strings or brass could play what he wanted. But most of the ideas came from Paul.”[/i]

heard in an interview a way while back ( by Bill? ) about this , this lack of note reading issue,,,,how (Come Back Willy) even went to school for it, STILL CAN'T. Really....what are the odds of TWO musicians.......... ÷÷÷?

[LUCY]

"Go ahead, try it yourself—go to the following website, which contains tutorial information on the Mayan calendar, as well as a convenient Mayan birthdate calculator directly linked here:
www.tortuga.com/findkin/findkin.cfm"


I'm the Yellow Magnetic Star. Beatifies. Elegance........hey! that's me!

[LUCY]

I've had a nagging thought in the back of my mind that a lot of clues point towards astronomy and mathamatics, and Scatt's research only solidifies some suspicions (for me).

Einstein & Karl Stockhausen on SGT P. Why?

The magicians in MMT, the movie, were very busy with stars and charts , not potions and spells. Why?

there's nothing you can see that isn't shown.............like the moon, and the stars, and the sun...........

[LUCY]

Scatterdome said:

.

why exactly are these tools for? astronomy perhaps?

[SunKing]

Geometry....astronomy too....
It symbolized rationality against religion....

[Scatterdome]

Sdxo said:

Scatterdome,

Please forgive me for not referencing the appropriate parts of the previous post in my response.

That’s OK—there’s a lot to read through in this forum, so I can’t blame you if you had missed some of my earlier posts.

Sdxo said:

Let's face it, we are coming out of the dark ages, ritual infant sacrifices aren't very far in the past.

If only ritual infant sacrifices were a thing of the past… see David Icke’s Tales From The Time Loop.

Sdxo said:

Billy Preston aside, I don't see 3 Beatles and 5 Beatle as being self-contradicting beyond on paper in the form of an equation.

You’re right… I was a little over-zealous when I posted the following:

Scatterdome said:

...if it is acknowledged that there are both “3 Beatles/PID” clues and “5 living Beatles” clues, then it is acknowledged that at least one of the two clue groupings has to be a false trail.

Since we’re talking about clues created by master artists, not math problems, I shouldn’t have made it sound so cut-and-dry; clue interpretation, at the end of the day, is based on opinion. So, none of the clues should really be “finalized” in our minds as having a definite meaning. While I’m (obviously) biased towards “5 Beatles” meaning “5 living Beatles: Paul, Faul, John, George and Ringo,” those clues and “3 Beatles” clues could fit into either scenario. Meaning, if Paul really did die in ’66, “5 Beatles” could be interpreted, for example, as “This album contains the work of 5 Beatles: John, George, Ringo, Faul, and leftover recordings and ideas from the deceased James Paul.” Likewise, if Paul lived and there really were 5 Beatles after ‘67, “3 Beatles” clues aren’t necessarily an intentional false trail, as they could still mean “The group you’re looking at in this photo/video contains three original Beatles + an impostor.”

However, the prominence of the “5 Beatles” clues leads me to think they’re not merely a tribute to George Martin, Mal Evans, Brian Epstein or Billy Preston, considering that the reality of Faul was the theme of this huge, lovingly crafted web of clues coloring the Beatles’ work. (Unless Mal really did take over bass and songwriting duties, which I personally doubt.) For me, the simplest interpretation of these clues turns out to be the one that feels right. When I look at the front cover of Sgt. Pepper’s or the back cover of the vinyl Abbey Road, I see “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band by 5 Beatles” and “Abbey Road by 5 Beatles,” with the meaning being just what it looks like: “5 living Beatles created this album.” When all is said and done, only 5 people were ever presented as actual Beatles after they hit it big: John, George, Ringo, Paul, and Faul. (If the “fifth Beatle” is someone other than one of these 5 people, where are the clues pointing to who it is?)

And then there’s the “5 Beatles” clues that do specifically imply “5 living Beatles” : “Away in the sky, beyond the clouds, live 4 or 5 magicians.” (from MMT, both the movie and the inside booklet.) This is discussed at length throughout the thread “More evidence of the switch and the clues.” Link to page 1: 60if.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=paul&action=display&thread=1063892646
It’s also discussed (with less of my input) on a new thread, “Number 5”: 60if.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=60ifclues&action=display&thread=1076969737
Also strongly implying “5 living Beatles,” in my opinion, is John’s “5 little dickie birds sitting on your head” clue from MMT… Follow this link to page 2 of the thread titled “MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR” to read my interpretation of this clue: 60if.proboards21.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=60ifclues&thread=1069334552&start=15

Of course, once again, these interpretations, even if they’re correct, are still just the results of my inevitably biased (towards my theory) opinions.

Sdxo said:

Thank you, I hadn't yet seen the complete collection of folded bills. Sweet Jesus!

Yeah, it’s a harsh dose of reality for the folks on the internet who find this forum…but a necessary one. Many people don’t take what we write about here seriously because they’ve been conditioned to find the “conspiracy theory” concept of the Illuminati, which is appropriately mentioned so often on this forum, ridiculous. Maybe now that I’ve posted actual images of the complete set, that will change.

Sdxo said:

btw - great Mayan post

Thanks!

Once again, today’s post will be split into two to fit into the size limits…

[Scatterdome]

LUCY said:

I was going to edit this quote, but NOOOOOOOO.

"The only thing he couldn’t do was to put symbols to chords; he couldn’t write music. But he could most certainly tell an arranger how to do it, just by singing a part—however, he didn’t know, of course, whether the strings or brass could play what he wanted. But most of the ideas came from Paul.”

This quote from Norman Smith, the Beatles’ recording engineer through Rubber Soul, embodies why, as a musician and longtime Beatles fan, it’s very hard for me to think it’s plausible that the Beatles lost their main musical/sonic mastermind just before they created Sgt. Pepper’s. That album, to me, sounds much more like the result of their main sonic mastermind, James Paul, finally having enough free time out of the limelight to properly compete with Brian Wilson and create a “concept album” (like Wilson had pioneered the previous year with Pet Sounds) featuring an unprecedented sonic world.

LUCY said:

I heard in an interview a way while back ( by Bill? ) about this , this lack of note reading issue,,,,how (Come Back Willy) even went to school for it, STILL CAN'T. Really....what are the odds of TWO musicians.......... ÷÷÷?

Something tells me that Faul can probably read music. If he still claims he can’t, it’s just to make us believe he’s James Paul. I can see why John, George or James Paul, as songwriters, would’ve been reluctant to learn to read sheet music after already revolutionizing music without it— they may have felt that learning to read sheet music, among other certain elements of learning “official” music theory, would potentially carry the high risk of musical conformity that could potentially reduce the originality of their work. (If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!) Faul, on the other hand, would’ve wanted and needed every edge he could get to be a musically solid performer and pull off his role, which I don’t think included songwriting, at least while he was with the Beatles. I think it would’ve been in Faul’s interest to learn how to read sheet music, but also in his interest to lie about it up to the present day.

LUCY said:

"Go ahead, try it yourself—go to the following website, which contains tutorial information on the Mayan calendar, as well as a convenient Mayan birthdate calculator directly linked here:
www.tortuga.com/findkin/findkin.cfm

I'm the Yellow Magnetic Star. Beatifies. Elegance........hey! that's me!

The Star is the Analog Kin (most like-minded sign) to the Monkey. (If you were a Solar Star, you’d be my Perfect Analog Kin!) No wonder some of my seemingly "out there" speculations make sense to you!

LUCY said:

I've had a nagging thought in the back of my mind that a lot of clues point towards astronomy and mathamatics, and Scatt's research only solidifies some suspicions (for me).

The magicians in MMT, the movie, were very busy with stars and charts , not potions and spells. Why?

If the magicians in the movie symbolize the Illuminati on one level, as you’ve suggested before, then this would certainly fit that angle… the Illuminati are already well-known for their obsession with dates; methinks they also base many decisions on Mayan astrology.

Personally, I think the magicians (as characters in the movie, anyway) could also (simultaneously) symbolize the mysterious positive spiritual forces that guide our path without us knowing, since nothing really negative happens to the tourists. But the magicians’ obsession with stars and charts would give them something in common with the Illuminati, for sure.

LUCY said:

why exactly are these tools for? astronomy perhaps?

Sun said:

Geometry....astronomy too....
It symbolized rationality against religion....

yes…among other things the square-and-compass symbolizes, depending on what degree of Masonry (if any) is held by the person being given the explanation for what it means. I have also heard that it somehow symbolizes the male dominating the female (which may or may not be true), and there must be several other explanations out there of the symbolic meaning of the square-and-compass, some of them intentionally incorrect interpretations by Masons designed for the public’s consumption, intended simultaneously by the symbol.

The Illuminati, of which the highest-level Freemasons are the largest and most blatant branch, are the original purveyors of multi-layered symbolism. Another example: from what I’ve heard and read, lower-level Masons are told that the “G” that usually appears in the center of their symbol means “God,” while higher-level Masons are told that it actually stands for “Genetics.” Highest-level Masons (above the official 33rd degree, in other words Illuminati) are fully aware that it means both, as their “royal” bloodlines, ever obsessed with maintaining their ‘divine’ genetic code, have tricked the world into unknowingly worshipping them as “God” and thus obeying their mind-imprisoning rules, since the beginning of civilization.

(If one of the things the square-and-compass symbolizes is male dominating female ("missionary style..." compass=male arms and square = female legs?), how appropriate that the "G" in the center partially symbolizes genetics. On that note, if the Mason's square-and-compass symbol was partially derived from the Mayan Tzolkin, interesting that the dark pattern on the Tzolkin resembles a segment of a DNA strand.)

This is why the Beatles’ clue network, if intended to mirror Illuminati symbolism as an educational analogy, would require the implying of multiple scenarios to explain why Faul is there, whether the real scenario is closer to 60IF (PID) or closer to my theory’s main premise (5 living Beatles).

[Scatterdome]

I stumbled across a VERY interesting discovery at work today.

I looked up the 25th anniversary edition of Klaatu’s debut, 3:47 E.S.T., on my computer (used only by the employees of Barnes & Noble) to see if there was a review provided for the album. On the review page, I noticed something strange in the album credits provided. There are five people listed at the end of the album credits, credited only with “research” as their only involvement with the album, whatever that means. One of these five names stood out more than a little:

Mike McCartney.

To make sure that it was THE Mike McCartney, I clicked on his name to see where else it appears in the B&N database. Only two other items popped up: a Donovan compilation (Donovan was friends with the Beatles and went to India with them in 1968) and the Magical Mystery Tour album. (Mike McCartney was one of the many chorus members on “All You Need Is Love.”)

The “research” credits for 3:47 E.S.T. do not appear on Barnes & Noble’s public website-- they only appear on the database used at the stores by the employees. However, once I got home to check it out on my own free time, I quickly found another website, “Artist Direct,” that contains the same credit. Here’s the link to that page:
store.artistdirect.com/music/artist/card/0,,540570,00.html

It appears someone has put a major clue into circulation somehow… what is a “research” credit for an album anyway? Has this clue been put into circulation to say: “Mike McCartney, 3:47 E.S.T. Do the research, make the connection?” I rather think it has.

=====================================

In other news, I thought it was time I posted stills from the Rocky Raccoon clip mentioned earlier in this thread, to make the visual comparison easier. To recap what I’m talking about-- in the clip, found on the 8th videotape of the Anthology during the White Album segment, we see & hear a “Paul” singing the tail end of “Rocky Raccoon” behind a vocal mic, followed by a shot of “Paul” in the control booth, saying “I wanna hear that, boy, I wanna hear that,” over what sounds like an unbroken sound clip throughout the two brief video shots. Once again, my take on what this means: Faul is singing behind the mic, and James Paul is running the session in the control booth—a direct illustration of the essence of my theory, if my take on this clip is correct.

I’d like some input from some unbiased eyes as to who is featured in that second shot, saying “I wanna hear that, boy, I wanna hear that.” (BTW, If I’m wrong about this particular clip, I don’t think it weakens my theory; however, if I’m right, my theory is strengthened, and we now know that this a major intentional clue, slipped into the Anthology for our benefit.)

Now, who is this in this series of 3 stills, from the clip in the Anthology: Paul or Faul? (Bust out your ruler and measure the images for ratios before you reply, if you intend to.)

www.scatterdome.com/images/rockyraccoon1 40.JPG[/img]www.scatterdome.com/images/rockyraccoon2 40.JPG[/img]www.scatterdome.com/images/rockyraccoon3 40.JPG[/img]
www.scatterdome.com/images/profile f flipped.JPG[/img]www.scatterdome.com/images/profile jp flipped.JPG[/img]
To identify the two photos on the bottom: on the left is Faul’s side profile, on the right is James Paul’s. These are the same two profile references used by Sun King on the thread “BEATLES HEADS EXACT DIMENSION“, only flipped to make the comparison to these video stills easier. Link to that thread page 11: 60if.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=document&thread=1076508407&action=display&start=150
Please note first that the Anthology stills feature a profile at an angle that is much closer to the angle of the image on the left… but then, look at the general shape of the nose and eyes, and measure the distance between the nose and upper lip, and then the distances between the lower lip and chin. (By the way, I still stand behind many of Sun King’s image comparisons, including these two profile references, despite the fact that our views on what probably happened to Paul in late ’66 are largely different.)

So I ask anyone with an opinion (and a ruler in use) to chip in: with the angle differences factored in, who does the “Paul” in the three sequential stills from the Anthology resemble more: the guy in the photo on the left (Faul) or the guy in the photo on the right (James Paul)?

Yes, I know it could technically be doctored to throw us off the trail, but before we speculate on that—who does it look like?

[MMCDHoward]

Scatterdome said:

ITo identify the two photos on the bottom: on the left is Faul’s side profile, on the right is James Paul’s. These are the same two profile references used by Sun King on the thread “BEATLES HEADS EXACT DIMENSION“, only flipped to make the comparison to these video stills easier.

I don't need a ruler, you flipped the still, its useless for any comparison, sorry

[SunKing]

Scatterdome said:

Now, who is this in this series of 3 stills, from the clip in the Anthology: Paul or Faul? (Bust out your ruler and measure the images for ratios before you reply, if you intend to.)

www.scatterdome.com/images/rockyraccoon1 40.JPG

[/img]www.scatterdome.com/images/rockyraccoon2 40.JPG[/img]www.scatterdome.com/images/rockyraccoon3 40.JPG[/img]
www.scatterdome.com/images/profile f flipped.JPG[/img]www.scatterdome.com/images/profile jp flipped.JPG[/img]
To identify the two photos on the bottom: on the left is Faul’s side profile, on the right is James Paul’s. These are the same two profile references used by Sun King on the thread “BEATLES HEADS EXACT DIMENSION“, only flipped to make the comparison to these video stills easier. Link to that thread page 11: 60if.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=document&thread=1076508407&action=display&start=150
Please note first that the Anthology stills feature a profile at an angle that is much closer to the angle of the image on the left… but then, look at the general shape of the nose and eyes, and measure the distance between the nose and upper lip, and then the distances between the lower lip and chin. (By the way, I still stand behind many of Sun King’s image comparisons, including these two profile references, despite the fact that our views on what probably happened to Paul in late ’66 are largely different.)

So I ask anyone with an opinion (and a ruler in use) to chip in: with the angle differences factored in, who does the “Paul” in the three sequential stills from the Anthology resemble more: the guy in the photo on the left (Faul) or the guy in the photo on the right (James Paul)?

Yes, I know it could technically be doctored to throw us off the trail, but before we speculate on that—who does it look like?[/quote]
1- Pictures taken from the "Anthology" are NOT reliable (fully proven).
2- Those frames perfectly match with Faul's image.
- eyebrow shape (narrrow)
- eye position
- jawbone shape (very narrow)

[innspector]

It is so hard to accept that Mc.Cartney is dead, isn´t it?

I´d buy Scatterdome´s theories of he being alive behind the scenes, but the psychollogical lines each one of the three, specially John, took after 1967, and the fact that JP´s voice is heard no more, and how everything did flow from then on, doesn´t allow me to.

[SunKing]

Mal Evans: "The first song I ever wrote that got published was 'Sgt. Pepper'. At the time, I was staying with Paul (character "Paul" = Faul) as his housekeeper. His previous housekeepers (the Kellys) had left for some reason."

Mal Evans: "I stayed with him (Faul) for four months and he had a music room at the top of his house with his multi-coloured piano and we were up there a lot of the time. We wrote 'Sgt Pepper' and also another song on the album, 'Fixing A Hole'. When the album came out, I remember it very clealry, we were driving somewhere late at night. There was Paul, Neil Aspinall and myself and the driver in the car, and Paul turned round to me and said, 'Look Mal, do you mind if we don't put your name on the songs? You'll get your royalties and all that, because Lennon and McCartney are the biggest things in our lives. We are really a hot item and we don't wnat to make it Lennon-McCartney-Evans. So, would you mind? I didn't mind, because I was so in love with the group that it didn't matter to me. I knew myself what had happened."


from: "The Beatles: Off the Record" by Keith Badman
© -Wings-

Four or Five Magicians..... it depended if the song published as "Lennon/McCartney" was actually written by John Winston Lennon / James Paul McCartney or by John Lennon / Mal Evans.

[LUCY]

SK, can you get any stills of the blackboard?

[BillyJones]

Great idea!

[Scatterdome]

I’ve been taking it easy on the amount of time I spend on this forum lately, as most of my free time reserved for internet activity has been spent on developing and distributing my essay on the crop circles which appeared in my home state of Michigan last year. (Read it at: www.scatterdome.com/howell.htm ; read the thread in the “Other Conspiracies” section of this forum about the essay at 60if.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=conspiracies&action=display&thread=1085097824 )

Now that I’ve uncovered and distributed most of the mystery behind the Howell crop circles (hopefully) I’m ready to share a few of the new discoveries relating to my Faul theory that have surfaced in the last few months. But first, I must reply to a few of those posts from March.

Scatterdome said:

To identify the two photos on the bottom: on the left is Faul’s side profile, on the right is James Paul’s. These are the same two profile references used by Sun King on the thread “BEATLES HEADS EXACT DIMENSION“, only flipped to make the comparison to these video stills easier.

MMCDHoward said:

I don't need a ruler, you flipped the still, its useless for any comparison, sorry

While it is a comparison between a left profile and a couple of flipped right profiles, it doesn’t mean it’s completely useless, it only means it’s not totally a “scientifically sound” test. (On that note, there is also variation between the photos in the angles of the faces anyway, further decreasing the value of any “scientifically airtight” test of the photos.)

Nonetheless, an “instinctual” test of these photos, meaning the use of our own instinctual, mysterious human powers of facial recognition, is still very much possible and very much recommended, even if we can’t line them up with a computer and get a technically proper comparison. The test for those of us familiar with the idea of 2 Pauls is: The man on the left is Faul, the man on the right is James Paul. Who does the man in video still look like?

Those of us on this forum already familiar with the concept of 2 Pauls, except for those who don’t know yet that the middle photo is from 1968, will be biased on the answer, depending on which theory we’re supporting.

However, so far, every single person I’ve given this test who didn’t know that the middle photo was from 1968 (and some who didn’t even know that the photos are supposed to be of Paul McCartney) invariably, and without hesitation, replied that the video still resembled the man in the right photo more than the man in the left photo.

Go ahead everyone, give this photo test to anyone you know who doesn’t yet know that the middle photo (the Anthology still) is from 1968.

Scatterdome said:

Now, who is this in this series of 3 stills, from the clip in the Anthology: Paul or Faul? (Bust out your ruler and measure the images for ratios before you reply, if you intend to.)

Sun said:

1- Pictures taken from the "Anthology" are NOT reliable (fully proven).

Yes, but that doesn’t necessarily mean this video clip has been doctored. There are only a few frames of the clip where his face isn’t partially blocked by his arm.

And if it is doctored to look like JP (although you say you think it looks like Faul anyway, SK), then a whole new set of questions would need to be asked, with the top of the list being: Why would they take a clip of Faul speaking in the control booth, edit it frame-by-frame to look like James Paul, attach it to another separate clip of Faul behind the vocal mic at the end of a take of the Rocky Raccoon vocal, and then edit the two sound clips from the two bits of footage together to make it sound like the two video clips are an unbroken sequence in real time, thus giving the “illusion” of two Pauls being in the studio at the same time?

And for those who think that both clips look like Faul, why would they patch together two separate clips of Faul (which would have to have been filmed on different occasions since one shot is of him behind a vocal mic and the other of him in a control booth) with what sounds like an unbroken sound clip, giving the bizarre illusion that “Paul” was in two places at the same time?

To me, both of those scenarios sound like much more of a stretch, with much fuzzier motives for everyone involved, than the simplest explanation: The two clips did occur in real time, as Faul was behind the vocal mic and James Paul was overseeing the proceedings in the control booth—a scenario that pretty much visually displays my theory, and that would count as the people behind the Anthology giving us yet another major clue to add to the list.

Sun said:

2- Those frames perfectly match with Faul's image.
- eyebrow shape (narrrow)
- eye position
- jawbone shape (very narrow)

Well, as I described above, an unbiased opinion from you on this comparison is no more possible than one from me, SK, as you are the top supporter of the “PID” theory. Too bad a GIF animation won’t be a viable test on this one, either. (Or would it?)

innspector said:

It is so hard to accept that Mc.Cartney is dead, isn´t it?

I´d buy Scatterdome´s theories of he being alive behind the scenes, but the psychollogical lines each one of the three, specially John, took after 1967, and the fact that JP´s voice is heard no more, and how everything did flow from then on, doesn´t allow me to.

Funny… to me, all of those factors you mention, except for what you say is a “fact that James Paul’s voice is heard no more,” are factors that point me toward my theory.

I think that if Paul really died and the Beatles were somehow forced to continue by the Illuminati, the resulting music would be darker, more “commercial,” nowhere near as amazing, uplifting and enlightening as it is. The last thing the Illuminati want the world to realize is that “All You Need Is Love.”

I think that the bulk of the sadness in the Beatles’ demeanor after 1966 was from the knowledge of what the Illuminati are doing to the world and the overwhelming stress and perceived responsibility towards trying to “save the world” they may have felt, as the world’s #1 band, after arriving at said knowledge.—NOT the sadness of being controlled by the Illuminati, because I don’t think that ever happened. (At least not to John, George, Ringo, or James Paul.)

I think that the Illuminati did what they could to reduce the Beatles’ influence on the public after 1966, but that in the end, the Beatles could not be directly controlled by the Illuminati, and time has shown that they were the victors in the battle to bring enlightenment to the public and speed up the evolution of human thought, whether or not the Beatles were even fully aware at the time that they were indeed “generals” in that continuing battle.

Sun said:

Mal Evans: "The first song I ever wrote that got published was 'Sgt. Pepper'. At the time, I was staying with Paul (character "Paul" = Faul) as his housekeeper. His previous housekeepers (the Kellys) had left for some reason."

Mal Evans: "I stayed with him (Faul) for four months and he had a music room at the top of his house with his multi-coloured piano and we were up there a lot of the time. We wrote 'Sgt Pepper' and also another song on the album, 'Fixing A Hole'. When the album came out, I remember it very clealry, we were driving somewhere late at night. There was Paul, Neil Aspinall and myself and the driver in the car, and Paul turned round to me and said, 'Look Mal, do you mind if we don't put your name on the songs? You'll get your royalties and all that, because Lennon and McCartney are the biggest things in our lives. We are really a hot item and we don't wnat to make it Lennon-McCartney-Evans. So, would you mind? I didn't mind, because I was so in love with the group that it didn't matter to me. I knew myself what had happened."


from: "The Beatles: Off the Record" by Keith Badman
© -Wings-

Four or Five Magicians..... it depended if the song published as "Lennon/McCartney" was actually written by John Winston Lennon / James Paul McCartney or by John Lennon / Mal Evans.

I think that in this quote, Mal is using “Paul” to refer to both Faul and Paul. I think he was staying with Faul, but it was with James Paul that he wrote “Fixing A Hole” and “Sgt. Pepper,” and that it was James Paul talking to him about songwriting credits in the car.

If Paul was really dead in 1967 and this is just 100% Faul that Mal’s talking about, then all of the sudden Faul, the new guy who was hired for his acting and singing skills, is now a brilliant songwriter with an actual say in who gets songwriting credits on the album??

No-- I think that Beatles insiders use “Paul” when referring to either Faul or Paul, even when both separate entities are involved in the subject of a quote from the insider. What else would they do? It’s not like they’re going to talk about two Pauls to the press.

Because of this, this quote from Mal actually strengthens my theory rather than weakening it.

I must now split today’s post into two due to size limits…..

[Scatterdome]

As for Mal's appearance in MMT in the scenes with the "magicians"-- I think that since Mal is not wearing a magician's hat, he is probably not the "fifth magician..." he's just their lackey/helper/apprentice! I think that putting Mal in the room with the magicians was a joking side-distraction from the main trail, just as are the "Paul Is Dead" clues.

======================================

Since I last posted here, I’ve discovered some more clues that point strongly toward my theory.

First and foremost is the fact that Ringo Starr played the lead role in a made-for-TV remake of Mark Twain's classic story The Prince & The Pauper, called alternately Ognir Rrats or Ringo! and aired in 1978.

For those of you not familiar, here is a link to a summary of The Prince & The Pauper:
www.pinkmonkey.com/booknotes/monkeynotes/pmPrincePauper05.asp

And here is a one-line summary of the plot of Ognir Rrats taken from the following link:
www.imdb.com/title/tt0077071/

Plot Outline: Ringo, stressed out by fame, trades places with a schmuck who looks exactly like him. Then the problems start!

Notably, in the film, George Harrison appears as himself, and Angie Dickinson appears as someone named “Sgt. Suzanne 'Pepper' Anderson!”

Now sit back and take a deep breath, and think about the following without bias:

In both plotlines, the “prince” and the “pauper” who looks like him end up switching places; the prince, significantly, remains very much alive after the switch!

In the original Prince and the Pauper, the switch arises from an accidental occurrence.

However, in Ognir Rrats, the plot of the Prince & The Pauper has been altered so that the famous protagonist , in this case Ringo’s depiction of a "show-bizzy version” of himself, hires an impostor because he is stressed out by fame!

‘Nuff said about that clue. (Geez, must Ringo paint us a picture?)

I also recently was pointed to a couple of revealing Faul song titles:

“The Other Me” (1983)
Link to the lyrics here:
www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/paul_mccartney/the_other_me.html
On the surface it could be about a relationship with a woman… but it could also be interpreted as “one Paul to another.”

Excerpt from “Secret Friend” (1980)
Here we are / Where are we
Cast adrift on some uncharted sea
I know we'll find our way
I know we'll reach the end
If you will say you'll be my secret friend
I need ya
I need ya
I need ya

Must Faul paint us a picture as well? Oh wait, he has… or is it James Paul? Check out this thread:
60if.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=60ifclues&action=display&thread=1073933396

Anyway, pretty soon I might have to start a new thread starting with the most recent version of my theory, since this one has evolved much since my early posts. The most major thing that has changed for me in the last several months is that I now think that Faul and James Paul worked together on all of “Faul’s” albums, and got along better than I originally thought. Not that they still didn’t have problems—I just don’t think their differences were as bad as I thought before.

The more of them I hear on repeat listens, the moreI think that most of the “solo McCartney” albums are actually pretty decent; they’re no better or worse than George or John’s solo albums overall. I think that the filler that mars some of them is due to James Paul getting older and stretching himself too thin (being too prolific.) It’s the same reasons that we see declines in the quality of many a rocker who consistently churned out works of genius during their youth, only to lose some of their edge as they aged and continued to release albums at the usual rate.

Maybe James Paul and Faul still did have a falling out on one or more occasions, and maybe some of the things I’ve previously pointed out regarding that issue are still accurate—but if they did have a falling out, I don’t think the falling out was permanent., nor did it prevent James Paul from helping with-- and writing the bulk of the songs on-- each and every “solo Paul” album. I could be wrong about this new slant, but is a theme of speculation where my instinct has been taking me lately…

So how do I reconcile this with the existence of the musically bland, Orwellian, army-recruiting jingle “Freedom?” Well, that’s still the toughest part for me. But here’s what I’ve got so far: For those mainstream folks who hear the song on the most basic level, it’s the “reassuring sound” of a Beatle “supporting the troops” right after 9/11. (Shudder.) On the second level, which I’d been perceiving up till now, it’s the ugly sound of an ex-Beatle using his influence to support Big Brother’s agenda: “Terrorists did it! Surrender your civil rights and join the army!”

But on the third level, I think the positive contribution to human evolution that Faul and James Paul have accomplished over the years outweighs any questionable acts that might seem like a compromise, such as releasing a single like “Freedom” that he/they must’ve known full well was going to subconsciously inspire many people into joining the military. I think that on the deepest level, Faul might really mean it when he sings, “I will fight for the right to live in Freedom.” (I don’t know how involved James Paul could have been with that mediocre song, but either way I think that both Faul and James Paul are overall on our side.)

===================================

Anyway, I’m still waiting for someone to try to offer an explanation (alternate to mine) as to why Mike McCartney is credited with “research” in the new liner notes of the debut Klaatu album. Anyone got any thoughts on that?

[abbey]

Scatterdome, by your theory, what then happened to Paul after 1973. Did they kill him then or did he just disappear to lead the life of a normal person? Your next door neighbor?

I am always open to new evidence and theories.

[BillyJones]

It's always important to have an open-mind!!!

Chris

[Scatterdome]

ABBEY said:

Scatterdome, by your theory, what then happened to Paul after 1973. Did they kill him then or did he just disappear to lead the life of a normal person? Your next door neighbor?

I am always open to new evidence and theories.

These days, I think that James Paul is probably still alive, working with Faul on the next “Paul McCartney” album. (Personally, I think Driving Rain is a quality batch of music, even if it’s admittedly no Sgt. Pepper’s.)

On that note, I think that in some ways, this thread might be a little confusing, since I have left my earliest posts on the thread largely intact despite the fact that my theory has evolved and changed over the course of a year. I left them mostly intact because I think it’s important to demonstrate how a good theory evolves in light of new information… the full sweep of its evolution is only apparent if one reads the thread from beginning to end.

Due to the potential confusion from this, I will have a new essay posted on my website sometime in the next couple of months, so people can read exactly where I’m currently at in my Faul theory in one sitting. However, it might take a little while to get it up and running, since I’m currently spending most of my free time publicizing my essay on the Howell, MI crop circles on various crop circle-related messageboards.

Bill said:

It's always important to have an open-mind!!!

Chris

Absolutely—thank you, Chris.

While you and I may have different opinions as to what happened to James Paul McCartney in 1966, I’m glad you’re still open to alternate ideas. For my part, I’ve kept my mind open to the possibility that he really did die in 1966, although I’m sure it’s obvious to all that I think my theory holds the far more likely explanation…

Anyway, I’d like to take this opportunity to advertise my new crop circle-themed messageboard, which I created earlier today, and invite anyone who has read my posts here to join up and post something. My main motivation for creating this new messageboard was to acquire detailed feedback, whether positive or negative, on my crop circle theory, although it is set up so that other related things can be discussed as well, such as UFOs and theories on the Illuminati.

For those of you who are hearing about my crop circle theory for the first time, here is the link to my essay:
www.scatterdome.com/howell.htm

My brand-new crop circle messageboard is at this link:
www.xsorbit3.com/users/cropcirclesthemessage/index.cgi

But please, don’t anyone post any comments about my crop circle theory on this thread, as it will clutter it up; if you want to discuss my crop circle theory on THIS forum, I have a thread on it in the “Other Conspiracies” section:
60if.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=conspiracies&action=display&thread=1085097824

Once I get my Faul theory written into a tidy essay on my website, I will create a separate Beatles messageboard where anyone can comment on my Faul theory without worrying about the “social repercussions.” I will post the link on this thread, when it’s ready.

[LUCY]

Sun said:

another slanted floor scenerio. Could Ringo be boosting himself up w/ his heels on the doorway threshold? He seems flush against the wall...and the hat? could it be the very one JPM was wearing in other photos? ( the "cowboy"one that Billy Jay way likes to oft post)

[BillyJones]

James - you have ALOT of class & you're correct. I am of the opinion that Paul was taken from us back in 1966. However, I think it's a brilliant idea for you to have your own message board. Your theory will further expose people to the fact that Faul is NOT the original JPM !!!
The more the merrier, I always say ;D

[glow=red,2,300] ;D ;D ;D BRAVO !!! ;D ;D ;D [/glow]

[glow=red,2,300] GO FOR IT !!! [/glow]

Chris

[BillyJones]

LUCY - yep, it's slanted alright. In the very least, the photographer attempted to slant the photo. As far as Ringo is concerned, if he IS doing that it didn't help much. He still looks ALOT shorter than Faul. Much shorter than he ever looked when standing next to JPM !!!
Onto the hat. Here are some photos of JPM wearing his cowboy hat:












Another photo of "the boys" from the Tittenhurst photo shoot:



It looks to me like John is wearing HIS cowboy hat. You can see him wearing it in the third photo above. I THINK it's the same hat. If I find any other photos of John wearing it from their Dude Ranch trip, I will post them here...

On further examining the Tittenhurst photo above, I think that the hat on the woman's bust might very well be JPM's hat !!! Think about it. It's obvious that Faul has a larger head than Paul did. The head on that bust looks kind of small. That hat WOULD NOT FIT FAUL'S HEAD !!! Another clue for us all WOW !!!

I have been very careful to sign all of my posts, since I came clean about having to use Bill's username. I even changed it, so that people know that we're sharing the same account. PLEASE address me for who I am. I began posting again as myself, because I was just sick & tired of hiding !!! WMWY did me the greatest favor by outing me here !!!
Everytime I post a photo I have to look through 32 pages of photographs to find the ones I want. I haven't figured out how to sort the photos in the photolocker that I'm currently using.
It takes alot of time & effort. I would like to get credit for my hard work. If it is indeed Bill posting something, he WILL sign his name to it...

Thank you all...

Chris

[LUCY]

thanks B&C
hmmmmmmmm looks like I was wrong about the slant thing.....mea culpa
IDUNNO
Ringo is significantly shorter in the color Pix. Faul is really displacing his true height in the b&w photo.......