Tragically Fascinating Tour

[DevilsAdvocate]

Hullo, all.

I've spent the last month reading this material, reading all the arguments, studying the photo evidence, researching my large volume of Beatle memorabilia, speaking with my friends who either had some connection with the Beatles themselves or with people who were connected to them, and I have to say that the photo evidence alone is compelling enough to warrant attention. If it is true that Paul died in 1966 as people have been saying since '69, and that 'Faul' has been assuming his identity all this time, then yes, it's time for everyone to come clean.

As my signature name indicates, however, I do have a few questions that are not answered by the FAQ and a few pieces of information that invalidate a couple of points of the '60IF' document or some of the arguments that I've seen here. Please realise that I'm not trying to invalidate anything, nor am I trying to ridicule this -- I am genuinely concerned and am attempting to reconcile what I'm seeing, including conflicting evidence. But I am also concerned that people may be jumping to conclusions too quickly, and that, on occasion, it is good to have everything questioned. After all, if we accepted everything everyone told us as fact, then we'd have to blindly accept that Paul has always been alive, right?

First, my questions.

Why, for example, would Faul write an introduction to Pete Best's book published this year? Ostensibly, they didn't know each other. Of all the people to blow the lid off this, wouldn't Pete Best have noticed that Faul wasn't Paul? And don't you think, of anyone, he would've had the best motive to blow their cover? And don't say Pete Best is blackmailing Faul. I've met Pete Best on a number of occasions. I can't believe it would be in his nature to do so.

And why would John have been convinced that the Rolling Stones committed the kidnapping initially? The Beatles and the Stones were friends -- it was well-documented that they were often seen socialising, particularly through the summer of '66.

Why would they have agreed to film 'Let It Be' so intimately, under Faul's supervision, and gotten in such clear arguments with him on camera, if they were still ostensibly too afraid to let people know what had happened? George in particular would not have stood for it, and yet there's the famous 'I'll play what you want or I won't play if you don't want' argument.

And the video of the Beatles playing 'Hey Jude' on the David Frost programme clearly has Paul, not Faul.

And last, for now at any rate, why would Paul have 'left a lot of material that was yet to be published' that was so clearly a gradual progression and evolution of his craft, yet written in so short a period of time? The songs attributed to Paul (as opposed to Faul) released in '69 and '70 so clearly sound nothing like the style of music he was writing in '66. Those of you who are songwriters know that, genius though Paul was, this stretches credibility. And how could Paul, not Faul, have written 'Hey Jude' if the name was a clue to his killers?

Now, the information.

I have a number of copies of the photos used in some of the animated gifs published prior to '67 that also look more like Faul than Paul -- if I have the opportunity, I'll scan them, but I'm also aware that different developing equipment, scanners, and cameras used by prepress individuals can produce different results if they are not calibrated correctly -- I've worked for professional printing houses, and it's quite possible that negatives can get distorted -- even just portions of a negative -- before going to print. To be truly accurate, one would have to compare the original negatives, rather than any photos developed from them. Still, the volume of images involved, as I stated before, warrants attention.

I also have a copy of a book called 'The Beatle Book,' published in 1964 (with photos by the Beatles' favourite photog, Dezo Hoffman), which does state that Paul, like John and George, is 5'11". I also have a number of Beatle Trading Cards that were also released pre-1966 which make this claim as well. In addition, they also state that Paul is right-handed and only plays bass left-handed. I have a book published in 1964 called 'The True Story of the Beatles' that also has this information. Interestingly, the name of the author is Billy Shepherd.

The issue of the 'noticed vocal change' is, I fear, somewhat specious -- people's voices change and deepen as they grow older -- I can prove this with my own recordings (Lord knows I can no longer hit the high notes I used to -- to my ear, my voice at 22 sounds nothing like my voice at 25). There's a noticable difference in every Beatle's voice in the timeframe in question (particularly John's, as he was known to have hated the sound of his voice and was constantly trying to change it).

Finally, a thought. I spent some time with a gentleman who served as George Harrison's personal assistant during the filming of 'Life of Brian.' He mentioned that George was both a practical joker and had a particular contempt for the 'loonies,' those fans who took things too far -- and he referenced the 'Paul is Dead' 'nuts' particularly -- so I suppose that, if the '60IF' document is really from George, it could have been a practical joke he was playing on those for whom he held in contempt. It does not invalidate the photographical evidence, but it does put the motive behind '60IF' and its story into question somewhat.

Still, I remain open-minded and concerned. Please, folks, do not treat this as an attack, but, instead, questions and information to help formulate a clearer objective view. I am interested, as you all are, in uncovering the truth.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Ah, one more question that's been nagging me.

The letter John wrote to Faul in response to the latter's letter to Melody Maker -- why would John call him Macca, the nickname he gave Paul when they were teens -- in a letter that was never intended to be seen by anyone other than Faul and Linda?

[SunKing]

Devil's Advocate,
yours is the kind of post I like to read in this forum.
Some of your answers are quite good others really ingenuous.

One of those:

"And the video of the Beatles playing 'Hey Jude' on the David Frost programme clearly has Paul, not Faul."

That "clearly" evidence:
...image loading...please wait...

If you have the patience of reading ALL the posts of this forum you 'll find ALL the answers to your questions....

[DevilsAdvocate]

Thank you for the .gif, Sun King. That certainly helps clear that up. However, I have had the patience to read everything in these forums, and none of the questions I asked were answered -- that's why I asked them. If you can point to me links to specific posts that I might of missed which specifically address my questions, or, instead of making vague non-answers, actually answer the questions, I'd really appreciate it. Like the rest of us, all I want is the truth.

[SunKing]

Devil's said:

Thank you for the .gif, Sun King. That certainly helps clear that up. However, I have had the patience to read everything in these forums, and none of the questions I asked were answered -- that's why I asked them. If you can point to me links to specific posts that I might of missed which specifically address my questions, or, instead of making vague non-answers, actually answer the questions, I'd really appreciate it. Like the rest of us, all I want is the truth.

Oh yes, I'm glad to help you.
But I need a little bit of time to answer you.
Have you the patience to wait? (you know I'm not of english language...)

[DevilsAdvocate]

I'm a firm believer that patience is a virtue. Meanwhile, I'll keep looking and keep questioning.

[edit] And to that end, I've found another bit that puzzles me. In this interview, Faul sees a picture of Pete Shotton, who was John Lennon's best friend before Paul or Stu Sutcliff. It seems to me that Faul's anecdotes and reminiscence of people from Paul's teen years would indicate information that Faul shouldn't have, and certainly not in an off-the-cuff interview. Why would Faul show genuine affection for Pete Shotton? And why, in Pete Shotton's book about John, 'In My Life,' did he debunk the Paul is Dead story, when he clearly is jealous of Paul's relationship with John through the entire book?

[SunKing]

Devil's said:

Why, for example, would Faul write an introduction to Pete Best's book published this year? Ostensibly, they didn't know each other. Of all the people to blow the lid off this, wouldn't Pete Best have noticed that Faul wasn't Paul? And don't you think, of anyone, he would've had the best motive to blow their cover? And don't say Pete Best is blackmailing Faul. I've met Pete Best on a number of occasions. I can't believe it would be in his nature to do so.

Please remember John Lennon's end reasons....

And why would John have been convinced that the Rolling Stones committed the kidnapping initially? The Beatles and the Stones were friends -- it was well-documented that they were often seen socialising, particularly through the summer of '66.

Only Brian Jones was a true Bealtes' friend and playing in their songs.
BTW He was assassinated....

Why would they have agreed to film 'Let It Be' so intimately, under Faul's supervision, and gotten in such clear arguments with him on camera, if they were still ostensibly too afraid to let people know what had happened? George in particular would not have stood for it, and yet there's the famous 'I'll play what you want or I won't play if you don't want' argument.

"Also the end of Faul's role was supposed to coincide with the end of the Beatles but Faul didn't respect the contract that had been made and, feeling he would be strongly protected by the secret service, published his first solo album which had actually been prepared by other musicians.
So we were tempted in the last album to reveal the truth but corporate managers and lawyers prevented it. "

From 60IF document

And the video of the Beatles playing 'Hey Jude' on the David Frost programme clearly has Paul, not Faul.

Please see above

And last, for now at any rate, why would Paul have 'left a lot of material that was yet to be published' that was so clearly a gradual progression and evolution of his craft, yet written in so short a period of time? The songs attributed to Paul (as opposed to Faul) released in '69 and '70 so clearly sound nothing like the style of music he was writing in '66. Those of you who are songwriters know that, genius though Paul was, this stretches credibility. And how could Paul, not Faul, have written 'Hey Jude' if the name was a clue to his killers?

Have you ever heard about music arrangements and changing in lyrics...?

[DevilsAdvocate]

Sun said:

Please remember John Lennon's end reasons....

That's pretty vague -- please be more specific. John Lennon's end reasons? What does that have to do with Pete Best and why Faul would write something this year that contains information that Pete could easily have debunked if it were true? Faul wrote an introduction about the Beatles' early days in the Casbah club. The only three people who could refute this information would be John, George, and Pete (and possibly Pete Shotton). Obviously, John and George weren't there to coach him. Why would Pete Best? He has the most to gain and all the motive in the world for exposing Faul.

Only Brian Jones was a true Bealtes' friend and playing in their songs.
BTW He was assassinated....

The idea that Brian Jones was the 'only true Beatles friend' is pretty far-fetched, considering John and Faul both sang on 'We Love You' in '67 and considering John, Paul, Mick and Keith were often seen socialising in the London club scene in '66.

"Also the end of Faul's role was supposed to coincide with the end of the Beatles but Faul didn't respect the contract that had been made and, feeling he would be strongly protected by the secret service, published his first solo album which had actually been prepared by other musicians.
So we were tempted in the last album to reveal the truth but corporate managers and lawyers prevented it. "

From 60IF document

What I'm reading here is a quote that does not directly address the question. Please explain more clearly how this is an answer to my question.

Have you ever heard about music arrangements and changing in lyrics...?

Yes, I do it all the time with my own music. It does not explain, however, how one man could go through so many different chord-and-structure-and-stylistic changes that are highly unlikely to have been made by one man in a four-month period. I consult you all to look at Alan Pollack's Notes On articles in which he breaks down the Beatles' development as songwriters purely from a musical standpoint.

Remember, I'm not disagreeing with the idea -- merely trying to wrap my head around the details and what appear to be inconsistencies in all the stories.

[PaulBearer]

And why would John have been convinced that the Rolling Stones committed the kidnapping initially? The Beatles and the Stones were friends -- it was well-documented that they were often seen socialising, particularly through the summer of '66.

Around this time, the first church of satan tried to recruit The Beatles and The Rolling Stones (among other groups). The Beatles said "No", "The Rolling Stones" said "Yes"...

Also, just because you party with someone sometimes, doesn't mean they won't turn against you. They were rival bands and there is alot of jealousy among musicians. When something that tragic happens you may even suspect your "friends", the ones you hang out with. But John turned out to be wrong in any case.

[Forum Manager]

about paul writing all those songs...

he may have jotted down a few lyrics, or wrote out a simple melody for all the songs. the remaining beatles are the ones who recorded the songs. they would "evolve" the songs into what would be appropriate for the time.

as for john calling paul macca, im sure he did it sarcastically.

[TheeCavendeshLane]

I m not sure that anyone can really answer your questions until
there is a full investigation of the phenomenon. I dont think its
enough to ask some one like Pete Best 'Is Paul Dead?' unless you
first show him the evidence for Paul being dead and you cant assume
he knows the evidence just because he knew Paul. But that is one
question that I would want answered from some like Pete Best after
Pete Best saw and heard the evidence.
In regards to your questions about Paul's music, I would say
yes you are right his music becomes different and doesnt just
evolve but drastically changed over the time period of a few years,
but his music has for the most part been the same for the last 30
years. His music evolves through lets say the McCartney album
just to bend over bacwards and then becomes bad but for a few
few Wings songs which are really Denny Laines'. Paul's
attempts at serious music suck. The music of all the Beatles undergoes a change over the years 1966 through 1970 yet that
change goes for the music of each individual Beatle and the stlye
or presentation of the music is more or less the same regardless
what Beatle is now said to have had more of hand in writing what
sound which suggests a collaboration. For the last 30 years Pauls
music has been bad or written by some one else and has been
static for the most part.
In fact Pauls voice changesover those years but the voices of the other Beatles do not change; as much as Lennon may have tried to sound different he for the most part did not sound different. Paul's voice changed and not for the lower, but for higher--Paul starts to shreek and whine. Yes Paul could have had a surgery on his throat that changed his voice, or been in some sort of accident that changed his voice, Dylan was in a bad accident and his voice changed afterwords for example. But no one is officially and explicitly
acknowledging a voice change except on a few occasions where
the press has asked McCartney about apparent changes and
McCartney has stated that he had a cold during such a such
recording session or that he was using a 'voice' such as the Elvis
voice that he used on Lady Madonna which he said he developed during his 'club' days. Yeah Id like to hear the explanation for the
obvious change in his voice. Id like to know why his changed and
Lennon's did not. Id also like to hear the treasure trove of recorded
Beatles songs that have never been heard because they were stolen
and lost for 30 years, recently found. In sum, the change in the
Beatles music is an argument for the fact of some tragedy to Paul.
Evolution in Paul's music before 1970 was in tandem with an
evoloution in overal styles of the band--it isnt as if the Paul music
in Sgt Pepper sounds advanced whereas the John music is still
Johnny Be Good. Lastly the change in Paul's voice appears to be
sudden and not a natural deepening of the voice, but a weakening
of the voice to whining anmd shreeking --this occurs over a time
period where no other member of the band's voice shows a change
and is not explicitly acknowledged by the Beatles except for a
few excuses proffered by Paul. One last point--I listened to Sinatra
and Tony Bennett and Barb Striesand and John Lennon and Geroge
Harrison for decades and within certain ranges at least, these people
could sound like they did sound during their hey day--Paul has
never again sounded like the pre-1967 Paul. Not once. Not in within
any range or on any song. Lastly, Im troubled by the fact that no one has come forward in all these years to explicitly say look its not him
and here is what happened. Harrison knew he was going to die, why
not set the record straight? I think Lennon was under pressure
most of his life. followed in fact by the FBI and CIA and other
investigative agencies, hounded by authorities from a few countries,
and in a struggle which would not have allowed him perhaps to
spill the beans. But Harrison certaily has not faced a similar
struggle for the last decade. I wonder what some one like Pete
Best could say--"Oh his voice seems different and he didnt remember
the day we both got stoned in the ladies room at Harrads "--so what
would be the reaction, In order for Best to make such a claim--that
this isnt the Paul he knew--Pete Best would have to have more evidence than the guy doesnt appear to remember--maybe Pete
Best cant remember. Maybe Pete Best thinks stu Sutcliffe was killed.
Im reminded of the story of Herman Hess who flew to England
in 1941. He was arrested and locked up and remained under lock and
key the rest of his life. through most of his life in Spandau prison
his family was not allowed to see him. Towards the end of his life
they were going to let him go but he died a mysterious death a
few weeks before freedom. His son and sister were allowed to see
him towards the end and were eagerly awaiting his release. They
have always maintained since that time that it was Hess. But it
may not have been Hess and the guy certainly did not act Hess
and did not have scars that Hess was known to have. Why would
this family be convinced it is Hess or say it iwas Hess if in fact
it was not Hess? Maybe they saw how Hess was killed and was
afraid they would be mysteriously killed. who knows.

[TheeCavendeshLane]

I think talking about the development of Paul's music after 1969
is a biut like talking about the development of Linda McCartney's music over the the history of Wings--her singing and her piano
skills--isnt it a bit foolish ? You know at the time the Beatles were
big on what a collaboration everything was--I give more credit
to Geoege Martin than to McCartney.

[Darkhorse]

Dear Devil's Advocate,

I agree with Sun King. Your posts are ones I enjoy reading too.

I'd like to make a suggestion to you about this whole 'Paul is Dead' conspiracy. Allow me to make these suggestions without sounding the least bit condescending because that is not my intention at all for I still don't know all that there is to know.

I would first try to prove to myself that, PHYSICALLY, whether or not these are two separate Paul's that were in the Beatles. Use the incredible forensic proof provided on Andrew's site, the 60IF site and your own research to figure this out for yourself. After my first time viewing the facial comparisons, I was pretty well convinced that there were two Paul's but that wasn't quite enough. I wanted to say to myself that I had done research on my own and come to my own conclusions about Paul being dead. I found some interesting things. My sources were the Beatles movies Help, A Hard Day's Night and Magical Mystery Tour and the Beatles appearances on the Ed Sullivan show and all the Beatles pictures I could get my hands on.

What I came up with is that:

Paul, pre-1967, was about the same height as John and George(see the above videos). Whereas, Paul, post-1967, was about 2-3 inches taller than either one of them.

Paul, pre-1967, was bowlegged. Paul, post-1967, didn't show any signs of bow-leggedness to me(see Magical Mystery Tour, Strawberry Fields video).

Paul, pre-1967, had a round face. Paul, post-1967, has an oval face.

Paul, pre-1967, clearly gestured with his left hand often. Paul, post-1967, gestured with both hands and often with his right, which can be seen in the Anthology.

Paul's voice on songs before Sgt. Pepper had a certain quality to it that I have NEVER heard after Revolver(the last full album done by James Paul). This goes for the Beatles later albums, with a few exception songs that were pre-recorded, and all of the solo material 'Paul' has done. There is a bass-like quality that Andrew talks about that is there in the beginning that never returns. If his voice changed naturally, it surely would have been more gradual.


These are just some of the main things I came up with in my research. It is really hard to deny the proof that I came up with. So again my suggestion is to try to prove it physically because that is where the BEST evidence lies in this case, not the story of the kidnapping, the IBS, The Rolling Stones' possible involvement, etc. etc. etc. Once you proof it to yourself based on the physical evidence(or disprove it...and if you do please share ), then the story may make more sense to you and you may realize, like a lot of us do on this forum, that we only know the GENERAL story and it is subject to changes.

[Darkhorse]

...Oh, btw, good posts ThreeCavendeshLane.

[TotalInformation]

PB - do you have more info about this Satanic recruiting effort? References such as books, websites, etc.?

[PaulBearer]

TI - No, just what I've deduced from the little I've read and know. I know that when the first church of satan was formed in 1966 that Crowley went on a recruitment drive, in particular went after a number of music groups. The answer to who said yes and who said no is in the fruit of the music and albums which followed.

[byrdsmaniac]

Sorry Paul Bearer, Crowley died well before the 60's. You are thinking of Anton LeVey. Song "Hotel California" by the Eagles partly inspired by it, partly about California being inescapable.

[PaulBearer]

Yes, you're right sorry. I'm going by memory.

[inmylife]

Nice posts. My first reaction after viewing the website was WOW, what a great job of laying out the evidence and I thought it made a great case. But I read many member posts of almost instance persuasion and it is clear how also the webmasters feel. And because of that I can't be so easily persuaded. I'd also have to believe absolutely no photos were tainted; cropping, zoomed. Bush played a convicing Christ if you guys saw that photo.

Because there are so many posts and so many references to look at I find it hard to narrow a few things down. Such as anything you tell me about the real Paul as a 'given' is not good enough for me without sources of proof, ie height, weight, eye color, and a whole spectrum of other things I'm forgetting - because I was not around in the 60's to see it myself.

By the way that picture of the man on the white album book and the picture of McCartney on Sgt. Peppers album doesn't look clearly as the same man as to me. The head size also increases on him.

[DevilsAdvocate]

You know, inmylife, I consider myself something of an open-minded skeptic on all this -- there's enough compelling, legitimate evidence in either direction for me to go either way. Just knowing, from first-hand word by people who were close to him, that George was a practical joker makes me question the whole '60IF' document.

However, as DarkHorse stated, there is some rather astonishing physical evidence that brings everything under scrutiny. Working in the printing industry and being something of a photoshop guru, I know that any photo can be manipulated at any stage of production (which is why I contest that the only reliable photographic evidence that can be truly considered legitimate is the original negatives for any and all of these photos).

However, there are photos like this that still keep me wondering:



It's all too much for me to take...

[inmylife]

Funny thing about that particular photo (and some others on that album), is that I noticed McCartney looked a little bit different. I noticed first he looked a little like my Uncle, and younger McCartney doesn't remind me of him (almost not at all to be honest).
Also the Get Back video also reminds me of my uncle throughout, despite the cat on his face.

--Oh but I still am not convinced just by that. But for that and some other reasons in the websites I am still interested in the topic and waiting...