|
Post by pacoelguapo on Jun 22, 2010 21:02:20 GMT
Well, I'd like to make this my first post on this forum.
I have always been a Beatles fan, since I was 2 years old. I wanted to be Ringo for quite a while :] As I got older, I began playing guitar, bass, and drums, and now I'm in a little rock band in Utah. Now, there are a few things I'm not understanding here. I may ask questions that some of you may find offensive, but perhaps you can help me sort things out and give me your opinion in a calm, decent manner. I am trying to do the same.
1. If Paul McCartney died in 1966, what was the point of the cover up?
2. How could the Beatles find a replacement so fast who looked so similar to Paul and could sing as good as he could?
3. Although I agree that Paul's bass playing is a little different in style between the two periods, is this really ground to call fraud? I mean, lots of musicians' styles change over time, like Eric Clapton, and George Harrison, both musicians who could adapt.
4. Why, after the Beatles broke up, would "fake" Paul keep playing music and touring?
5. Why did the other Beatles, not to mention their entire entourage, Paul's family, and Paul's girlfriend keep quiet?
6. Why does it matter if "real" Paul died in 1966? The new one is just as good, and in my opinion, better at what he does than the old one is. If the current Paul is "fake", then I welcome him wholeheartedly, because he can play better, sing better, and write better than the "real" Paul could. Plus, his musical versatility is so much more expansive than the originals.
7. Could this all just be some ploy made up by a couple of college kids from the 60's who were upset that the Beatles were going to stop touring?
I'm not here to say you're all a bunch of loonies, because I'm open to new ideas, and this little conspiracy theory has always struck me as fun. However, it does seem you took a little joke from the Beatles out of proportion.
One last thing I will say:
I don't believe Paul McCartney died in 1966. I think it was a small "fad" that began when they stopped touring, and the Beatles, being the fun-lovers that they are, decided to go along with it because they thought it was cute. I think that the druggies and conspiracy theorists turned this funny little prank into a pit of lies to try and convince people that "we" are being controlled by "them". But if you believe them, who's controlling who?
And for those who wish to challenge me with "Why didn't the Beatles ever admit to the 'clues' in their albums?" Two words: Charlie Manson
If I were them, I'd like to wash my hands of that mess, too. Admit to putting a few funny clues in your music, ya admit you put a message to a Psychopath from California to start a race war, conveniently named after a British Roller Coaster.
Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Jun 23, 2010 4:25:23 GMT
If you look at the subject from the point of view of Paul being merely replaced, half of your questions are answered. Spot on with Manson.
|
|
|
Post by Forum Manager on Jun 24, 2010 22:52:32 GMT
We can't say with any certainty that Paul is dead now, or that he died in 1966. It is possible that he simply disappeared from the public eye while someone else took over the identity of "Paul McCartney". It is also possible that the replacement was planned well ahead of time.
There are many differences to be noted between Paul and his replacement, and musical style is just one aspect out of many that may be examined. But what is more important, are the differences in facial structure and body structure that show this cannot be the same person. There was a sudden, significant change in appearance beginning in late 1966. The bone structure and shape of the head are different. There is a similarity, yes, but the replacement is far from being a lookalike.
All the other questions, the hows and the whys are important. But ultimately it comes down to examining the physical evidence that this is a different person.
I would suggest to anyone who is interested in this matter, to simply open your eyes and your mind and see what there is to see. When you are trying to figure it all out, maybe the mind does not open to see all of what is there.
|
|
Lic.Teish
Contributor
There's nothing you can't see that isn't shown
Posts: 161
|
Post by Lic.Teish on Jul 16, 2010 7:39:16 GMT
Its shoure that nobody lives for ever but certainly paul was not dead up to his body died but he died as paul when was replaced by billy, but Paul personaly still lived in himselve as another person( neil). Neil died so paul is dead now?
|
|
|
Post by khamira on Jul 16, 2010 9:02:05 GMT
"Paul personaly still lived in himselve as another person( neil)" LOLZ. Get serious, dude!
|
|
Lic.Teish
Contributor
There's nothing you can't see that isn't shown
Posts: 161
|
Post by Lic.Teish on Sept 26, 2010 12:22:10 GMT
|
|
Lic.Teish
Contributor
There's nothing you can't see that isn't shown
Posts: 161
|
Post by Lic.Teish on Sept 26, 2010 12:23:30 GMT
[img src="[/img] "] Attachments:
|
|
Lic.Teish
Contributor
There's nothing you can't see that isn't shown
Posts: 161
|
Post by Lic.Teish on Sept 26, 2010 12:25:06 GMT
these is a fade please wait till LOAD [/quote] [img src="[/img] "] paul_as_aspinall [/img] Attachments:
|
|
Lic.Teish
Contributor
There's nothing you can't see that isn't shown
Posts: 161
|
Post by Lic.Teish on Sept 26, 2010 12:27:20 GMT
THESE ALSO IS A fade PLEASE WAIT TILL ROCK Attachments:
|
|
Lic.Teish
Contributor
There's nothing you can't see that isn't shown
Posts: 161
|
Post by Lic.Teish on Sept 26, 2010 12:34:06 GMT
[/img] What you see is craneo-metrical concordance 100% (not cause random perfect) match IN THE PRECEDENT 3 FADES( 3 FADES=6 FOTOS-just one person. Paul pre 67 was Paul, and after , he was Neil. Neil pre 67 was Neil,and after,he was Paul. just ROADY crossroads Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by mistermustard on Oct 13, 2010 3:20:58 GMT
You know, there's no reason anyone can really get upset with any theory it seems. Anyone can make up something and as long as it is what didn't actually happen it will be believed. Apparently there's a lot of cognitive dissonance around here.
Even if Paul was replaced--most of the "clues" around here have turned me off of PID--it was only for the sake of public appearances. The fact that there are obviously so many non-musicians commenting on the music means that all of those opinions complaining about a style change in Paul's playing (and then by extension meaning that Paul was replaced) is incredibly stupid. Musicians, like painters, can and do change their style. That's not to say they all do (after all, AC/DC hasn't really changed) but most do. I suppose if I point out that Donovan taught Lennon Travis-style finger picking while they were in India in '68 that will give support to all of those that say Lennon was replaced. After all, where in the hell did the Beatles get the nerve to change and grow as people and artists? It was all of those media-fed drones out there that couldn't accept that the Beatles were not going to be perpetual moptops that drove them into the studio and eventually dissolution.
|
|
Lic.Teish
Contributor
There's nothing you can't see that isn't shown
Posts: 161
|
Post by Lic.Teish on Oct 14, 2010 1:16:25 GMT
The fact of the evidence of the body replaced is not actually comparable with music or stile change. fisic morphological evidence doasent make sounds.
|
|
|
Post by mistermustard on Oct 14, 2010 8:29:43 GMT
The change in skull shape would change the sound of the voice beyond that of a simple stylistic shift. A horse painted to look like a cow is still going to sound like a horse.
BTW Lic.Teish, you should try spell-checking your posts. The one above is horrible.
|
|
Lic.Teish
Contributor
There's nothing you can't see that isn't shown
Posts: 161
|
Post by Lic.Teish on Oct 30, 2010 6:51:56 GMT
What you say is absolutely non logic and it really really not have at a minimoun argument of rasonable thinking ." The change in skull shape would change the sound of the voice beyond that of a simple stylistic shift.
|
|
Lic.Teish
Contributor
There's nothing you can't see that isn't shown
Posts: 161
|
Post by Lic.Teish on Jul 14, 2012 20:29:09 GMT
Paul after 67 was Neil" worewolf" as BEATLEPAUL states correctly(and well spelled ñañaña)
|
|
|
Post by mws51581 on Sept 12, 2012 13:14:22 GMT
BTW Lic.Teish, you should try spell-checking your posts. The one above is horrible. Go easy on Lic.Teish. He might not be from America, and might be using a translation service. That's the vibe I get.
|
|
|
Post by Sun King™ on Sept 29, 2012 23:33:36 GMT
James Paul Mccartney, born on june 18 1942 in Liverpool disappeared from the public eye at the end of 1966. He was around the beatles projects thill 1967 to help the new Paul. He saw his family much more than before. He lived his life not in Liverpool but in France. He married a few times and has kids. Bettina is his real daughter, he never contacted her because of his life with the beatles and his secret. Many people wer involved with this secret, but in the 60`s it was easy to hide something. In the 70`s he road numbers for Wings like band on the run... he gets money for this from Faul, up to this day. Much later Heather Mills discovered this when she was married with Faul. The big thing here is that James Paul has more money than Faul. He was always good friends with John, George and Ringo but specially with John. Yoko en John new of all this and James Paul was a few times in New York when John was retired after 1975. John told it to Yoko around 1973 and she was not happy with this. Also a reason why they sepperated for a time. After John died in 1980 he was depressed and stopped writing for Wings so Wings stopped en Faul stopped touring. In the 80`s he became good friends with Jimmy Nicol and they are still the best friends these days. He didnt see Ringo anymore. James Paul became a grandfather and playing music for his grandchildren this days. He looks nothing like Faul. His look is verry classic, he`s wearing glasses and his hair is gray like his brother Mike, almost bold. On a day his childeren and grandchildren will know he was a Beatle. Paul met Jimmy Nicol in mid 1964. Jimmy Nicol replaced Ringo on 1964 Australian tour
|
|
|
Post by litleneutrino on Oct 11, 2012 22:37:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by litleneutrino on Oct 11, 2012 22:45:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by beatlesfan on Oct 21, 2012 0:30:58 GMT
James Paul Mccartney, born on june 18 1942 in Liverpool disappeared from the public eye at the end of 1966. He was around the beatles projects thill 1967 to help the new Paul. He saw his family much more than before. He lived his life not in Liverpool but in France. do you ever make sense ? could you prove to us he's still alive? if he's still alive ? why he failed his paternity test ? he's rich enough to recognize Bettina why Heather Mills said "I have a box of evidence, if something happens to her, the truth will come out" and what about the Italian forensic, they said "to end the rumor , Faul should submit his DNA test with his brother Mike McGeer" have fun
|
|
Lic.Teish
Contributor
There's nothing you can't see that isn't shown
Posts: 161
|
Post by Lic.Teish on Dec 13, 2012 3:43:22 GMT
he was not killed(taboo cover up) but replaced thats all folks!
|
|