|
|
Post by Elidor on Sept 18, 2003 22:43:16 GMT
Hello everyone. I'm new here, but I've read every entry on the forum over the last couple of days, having visited the 60IF and Uberkinder sites. Now, I'm taking the forum's FAQ at it's word and I would like to (politely)challenge some of what I've read, and I'd like to start with the 60IF site. A number of things struck me when viewing it, and I'd be interested in comments re the following: 1.) If George is the author or narrator of the story, why does he refer to himself by name halfway through, yet talk about "we" some of the time. 2.) In Britain, we don't have junctions with "semaphore stops". 3.) In Britain, the police notify next of kin for identification purposes (a legal requirement) when a body is found, TEXT friends and colleagues. 4.) Why would the police summon the other Beatles (John from Spain, George from India) and leve a decomposing body at the foot of a hill until they arrived? Not very likely, surely? 5.) Have you considered the number of people who would have to comply with the cover-up; eg Paul's friends, brother and father, extended family (who he remains close to) as well as the Beatles' circle (Cynthias etc) and all their families who knew Paul from when he was a lad? Not to mention all the showbiz types they fraternised with and knew them (Cilla Black, The Stones etc). All would have to have been got at and gone along with the thing for the next 35 or so years. Bear in mind that John constantly shot his mouth off and was a stranger to the concept of diplomacy and tact, particularly after 3 or 4 brandy alexanders. 4.) Why would John start saying "I am the Walrus, not him"? I would be very interested to enter the debate and hear all your replies. I am open minded when it comes to conspiracy theories, and have no problem accepting that NASA at least faked the photos and film of the moon landings, and that world events are driven by a hidden agenda, illuminati etc.  |
|
|
|
Post by Forum Manager on Sept 18, 2003 22:59:07 GMT
1) If 60IF was written by George, then why does it refer to him?
Those who translated 60IF spoke of him in the third person to clarify what was happening
|
|
|
|
Post by Eggman on Sept 19, 2003 12:11:26 GMT
Elidor wrote: 3.) In Britain, the police notify next of kin for identification purposes (a legal requirement) when a body is found, TEXT friends and colleagues. Elidor think, it was PAUL MCCARTNEY BODY, not any body!!!! Maybe the most famous "body" at that time  Sorry!!! Welcome to the forum!!!! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by mike on Sept 19, 2003 19:37:45 GMT
Read the story, physical evidence, and FAQ. That should answer all your questions.
|
|
|
|
Post by inmylife on Sept 20, 2003 0:02:35 GMT
I thought he couldn't be identified on the scene?
|
|
|
|
Post by Elidor on Sept 20, 2003 19:54:35 GMT
If I could just reply to the comments below or above - I don't know where this will appear):
I have actually read all the info at length several times, and remain wholly unconvinced. Indeed it was the same documents that gave rise to the questions I asked to be addressed above. However, I am still prepared to be persuaded.
Regardless of who's body it was, there is no reason that the police (for the document claims it was them that were there, not CID, Special Branch or MI5) would contact friends of McCartney (especially rock stars known to indulge in drugs) rather than follow the law and contact Paul's brother and dad.
There is also no precedent nor logic for leaving a body exposed to the elements at the scene for however long it took to get hold of George in India, get him to the airport, the flight home, and then transport him to meet John on his way back from Spain. And then they both go to wherever the hillside is.
To my mind (and I deal with the British police and legal establishment on a daily basis occupationally) it's a ludicrous proposition, and the whole document falls down on this point. Unless, of course, we're picking and choosing what we want to believe from it.
There are a couple of minor points re the text that lack a "ring of truth". Phrases such as "Those wretches" sound completely unbelievable and non-Harrison like. Quoting Lennon as saying "I..I am the walrus" sound like someone striving to engender credibility, but acheiving the opposite. Come on!
I have a 1968 copy of the Beatles Biography by Hunter Davies, who had access to the Beatles from 1966 through to '68. He interviews all of them at length, and was present for meetings between Lennon and McCartney during the writing of Peppe. At that point, which Lennon acknowledged as a creative peak for both of them thogh conceding it was Macca driven, they met at John's home in Weybridge and there are accounts of the the two playing scraps of songs from Pepper and what was to become MMT.
They are doodling compositions, telling each other, "that's good", "that needs changing", "try it like this", "what about this word" and so on.
Even friends dropping by suggest words eg Lennon has the skeleton of one song while Terry Doran is there and is looking fora one syllable word. Macca loses interest and begins playing the piano, and offers someone a peice of "amazing Basingstoke cake". Doran suggests the word "just" which Lennon tells him is a crappy filler that should generally be avoided where possible. The book is entirely credible (Davies remains a friend of McCartney today) and I suggest anyone interested in this subject reads it.
It's still widely available. The prints of Macca are from that period,and as I have a '68 no revision of the record can have been done. I could go on, and make other points too, but I don't want to get banned or bore you!!
;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Sept 20, 2003 22:55:06 GMT
Unless, of course, we're picking and choosing what we want to believe
Interesting post, Elidor.
Of course the 'believers' here are picking and choosing their evidence. There is little other option when trying to prove something that is patently untrue.
I'd hope that you would continue to voice your views here. If you are banned from the board for doing that, it says more about the moderators and this 'theory' than it does about you.
|
|
|
|
Post by PaulBearer on Sept 21, 2003 15:02:43 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Elidor on Sept 21, 2003 15:22:38 GMT
Yeah, but no-one outside the transport industry calls them that. We call them "level crossings" or "railway crossings." I've never even heard rail engineers call them semaphore stops.
|
|
|
|
Post by PaulBearer on Sept 21, 2003 15:33:37 GMT
It was translated from an eastern language so really it's just quibbling over words.  |
|
|
|
Post by TheWatusi on Sept 21, 2003 19:28:04 GMT
to answer the posts original question, i believe so, but he was at the very least replaced. elidor, i dont know how you can dispute the physical/photographic evidence, how do you? do understand that i dont mean that in the least offensively, but im just looking for how that can be rationally explained, in your eyes.
ether way, pb points out a good point.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheWatusi on Sept 21, 2003 19:31:33 GMT
elidor, i do admire your skepticism.
|
|
|
|
Post by DevilsAdvocate on Sept 22, 2003 14:58:55 GMT
Working in the printing industry, I still contest that the only way we can legitimately compare these images is to do so via the original negatives. Any other comparisons are of images that could have been manipulated, no matter when, where, or by whom they were developed.
|
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Sept 22, 2003 15:03:37 GMT
Hey xpt626! That guy are saying you are a liar!  And that I am a liar too.... -Advertising- Please purchase Beatles original LPs. Reviews, magazines , books printed BEFORE 1967 too. Thank You! |
|
|
|
Post by DevilsAdvocate on Sept 22, 2003 15:21:59 GMT
I hope you're not talking about me, there, SK, because you know I keep an open mind about it, and I do compare images from pre-'66 -- and as I've stated in the past, I've seen considerable discrepencies from both the pre- and the post-'66 material. I've never called you a liar -- quite the contrary, I know you are completely convinced of the material and have always spoken the truth as you understand it.
But I also know (through a first-hand report from one of his former assistants) that George was a practical joker who held fanatics (not the fans, the fanatics, of whom he was said to consider the PID believers) in contempt, I know how the printing world works, and I know how many inconsistencies there are to all the stories.
Do I believe in the 60IF document? No. Do I believe in the image comparisons? Yes, to a point. Do I believe Paul died and was replaced by Faul? I'm still undecided -- there's too much information and evidence either way for me to be convinced one way or the other -- yet.
But do I think you are a liar? Not in the slightest. I know you speak the truth -- as you understand it.
I'm still searching.
|
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Sept 22, 2003 15:34:28 GMT
D-A, just a question. Have you seen this forum FAQ? ...then "The Guardian" magazine is a liar? ...then "www.rarebeatles.com" is a liar? Never mind you do not believe in "60IF"... |
|
|
|
Post by DevilsAdvocate on Sept 22, 2003 15:41:50 GMT
You know I have, and no, I'm not calling anyone a liar. I'm just aware that images can be manipulated even in when they're being developed, as I've stated repeatedly. I also don't take anything at face value (pun intended).
|
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Sept 22, 2003 15:47:10 GMT
I'm just aware that images can be manipulated even in when they're being developed... I COMPLETELY agree!!!  A "living" example that confirm what you say is INCREDIBLY real is the "Anthology" collection and "Mark Lewinsohn's" chronology book. (Don't)Check it out! |
|
|
|
Post by Elidor on Sept 22, 2003 21:28:39 GMT
to answer the posts original question, i believe so, but he was at the very least replaced. elidor, i dont know how you can dispute the physical/photographic evidence, how do you? do understand that i dont mean that in the least offensively, but im just looking for how that can be rationally explained, in your eyes. ether way, pb points out a good point. Hi Watusi. I'm no photographic expert, and I must admit that initially I felt slightly queezy on viewing the uberkinder site, but I rolled up my sleeves and looked at the whole thing with my skeptics hat on. I realised that the comparison is actually made using a very limited number of images. So, from what there was to work with I looked at the fade from the Butcher cover to Pepper and held my mouse pointer at the chin area, and I discovered that McCartney's face appears to grow because of shadow on the older picture not present on Pepper. If you do this, you find that if you look at the shadow on one image it does fit his chin on Pepper quite accurately. The chin is there on the older picture, but hidden in shadow on Butcher and WTB. Any slight distortion caused by lighting, different angle could through up queries. I definitely want to see many more comparisons. |
|
|
|
Post by inmylife on Sept 23, 2003 5:15:08 GMT
I don't know if this is old news or someone elses site who also is a member here, but its funny enough for a mention, please don't be offended www.geocities.com/shadow-sphere/ |
|
|
|
Post by MrMustard on Sept 23, 2003 5:23:02 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by JamesPaul & Brian on Sept 23, 2003 10:33:01 GMT
...animation loading...please wait Elidor: "any animation you like" at: Enjoy! |
|
|
|
Post by MrMustard on Sept 23, 2003 10:47:26 GMT
Welcome JamesPaul! ;D ;D
|
|
