|
|
Post by Nick910 on Oct 21, 2003 10:36:27 GMT
I don't know how accurate this information is but According to pre-press plans for "The White Album", The Beatles was to be anything but white. Paul had wanted to include an elaborate booklet, which became the lyric poster and photos idea. Also, the album was recorded partly under the working title "A Doll's House". A proposed idea cover, shown here, is similar to the final result. This is the front of a gatefold cover, the back of which was an illustration of the Beatles' faces in a mountainside overlooking a sea. I got this from the same site as I mentioned in the clues section. Veiw the album cover here: www.smackbomb.com/beatles/misc_altcovers.htmlI mean, its not clonclusive but it kinda dampens the white album rumours. What-d-ya think? |
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Oct 21, 2003 10:58:25 GMT
A Doll's House.
Self-explanatory.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nick910 on Oct 21, 2003 11:17:11 GMT
Please explain?
|
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Oct 21, 2003 11:58:50 GMT
Doll, puppet, dummy, Faul,......  |
|
|
|
Post by Nick910 on Oct 21, 2003 15:19:40 GMT
oh C'mon thats a bit weak isnt it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Curious on Oct 21, 2003 15:22:25 GMT
Nick, what brought you to the conclusion that because he made a decision, Paul had to be alive? I find that no stronger a statement that Sun King's doll theory.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eggman on Oct 21, 2003 15:32:56 GMT
oh C'mon thats a bit weak isnt it? What about this Nick?: A false illusion What do you think? |
|
|
|
Post by Nick910 on Oct 21, 2003 16:38:03 GMT
Nick, what brought you to the conclusion that because he made a decision, Paul had to be alive? . Okay, maybe a decision like that isnt a great clue. However, the announcement that the beatles were to split was made by Paul on April 9, 1970 when he gave his press release about his first solo album. And, although he didn't actually say that the beatles had split he implied that the end was soon and that he couldn't see him and John ever working together again. A statement I consider much to big for a mere "puppet" to make. Also, this conference riled John because he had already said that he was leaving the Beatles but was convinced to remain stum by Paul and Allen Klein. Although, it is rumoured that Paul announced the breakup on October 24, 1969, but the public was too stupefied by the "Paul is Dead" hoax to notice. Surly, in his vexed state, John would have been tempted to leak information on the Fake Paul. Even if he knew the danger it could cause him I'm sure he would have found a way to get it out. Maybe a friend in a high place of authority or in the press or something. I mean, George Harrison supposedly managed it! |
|
|
|
Post by Eggman on Oct 21, 2003 17:43:05 GMT
Nick, Faul is just a puppet in this game, he didn't decide anything, "others" done it for him |
|
|
|
Post by beldabeast on Oct 21, 2003 17:53:51 GMT
I don't know how accurate this information is but According to pre-press plans for "The White Album", The Beatles was to be anything but white. Paul had wanted to include an elaborate booklet, which became the lyric poster and photos idea. Also, the album was recorded partly under the working title "A Doll's House". A proposed idea cover, shown here, is similar to the final result. This is the front of a gatefold cover, the back of which was an illustration of the Beatles' faces in a mountainside overlooking a sea. I got this from the same site as I mentioned in the clues section. Veiw the album cover here: www.smackbomb.com/beatles/misc_altcovers.htmlI mean, its not clonclusive but it kinda dampens the white album rumours. What-d-ya think? My thought is the perpetrators got wise to the clues and warned against any more so the Beatles used no cover art at all. |
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Oct 21, 2003 19:53:43 GMT
Okay, maybe a decision like that isnt a great clue. However, the announcement that the beatles were to split was made by Paul on April 9, 1970 when he gave his press release about his first solo album. And, although he didn't actually say that the beatles had split he implied that the end was soon and that he couldn't see him and John ever working together again. A statement I consider much to big for a mere "puppet" to make. JOHN Lennon announced to the other Beatles he "wanted a divorce." John said he started the group; and he ended the group. He kept his word to not make a big public announcement partly to spare the millions of world-wide fans' feelings, and largely due to a contractual obligation which binded the band together legally until 1977 or 1979. FAUL jumped the gun like mother superior and made a big break-up announcement to cement his role as "Paul" with the public. Then promply released a 'solo' album. Faul didn't want to slink away into the sunset. He wanted to continue his ROLE indefinately...and has to this day. That was not in the long-term plan. So in reply to part of your post, it was JOHN who ended the group; not FAUL. |
|
|
|
Post by Darkhorse on Oct 21, 2003 19:57:29 GMT
I agree with Ian.  |
|
|
|
Post by Imgonnaopenmymind on Oct 21, 2003 20:00:52 GMT
Actually, in the end, with all the litigation, it WAS Faul.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darkhorse on Oct 21, 2003 20:18:29 GMT
John initiated the split. Don't fool yourself into thinking it was otherwise. Faul went into an enormous depression after the Beatles broke up. He didn't want the Beatles to break up. Ian is EXACTLY correct in what he said about Faul: "FAUL jumped the gun like mother superior and made a big break-up announcement to cement his role as "Paul" with the public..."
John once said he wanted to leave the Beatles since as early back as 1966. Hmmm. Before 60IF that statement had no meaning and now it most certainly does.
|
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Oct 21, 2003 20:43:01 GMT
Actually, in the end, with all the litigation, it WAS Faul. CAREFUL- The litigation was to preserve the Beatles vast fortune from being depleted by that pig allen kline. The trial was not to dissolve the band. When all three Beatles traveled to NYC in 1977 to LEGALLY AND OFFICIALLY sign the dissolution of the Beatles as a corporate entity, JOHN LENNON would NOT come out of the Dakota and thereby would NOT attend to sign off! This is long after the very public court trial in London. The others got quite pissed at him, as one can imagine. I feel John secretly in his heart did NOT WANT to dissolve the group...and remember when Ringo, George, and Paul played at George & Olivia's wedding reception, JOHN was pissed...saying "If I would have been invited, I would have been there!" As John got older and settled down a bit, I think he secretly held the trump card that they could someday COME TOGETHER once again... |
|
|
|
Post by Imgonnaopenmymind on Oct 21, 2003 21:15:34 GMT
Uno: It wasn't George and Olivia's, it was George's ex-wife and Eric Clapton's. George and Olivia got married a full year before them.
Dos: If we want to go by the truth, then GEORGE initiated it by saying "Well, that's it, I'm not a Beatle anymore" on the plane home from Candlestick Park. But, to also go by the truth, the only way Faul could get out from under Klein was to dissolve the band and Apple, both of which Klein semi-owned at that point. The proceedings started on December 31, 1970 and ended in 1979 when John actually signed the document he "didn't" sign two days after he was supposed to have done so. He couldn't have held that trump card because he signed and thereby dissolved the band. There would be no trump card to hold because there was no longer an existent band.
Openmind
|
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Oct 21, 2003 21:15:54 GMT
...when Ringo, George, and Paul ....what?
ERRATA CORRIGE
...when Ringo, George, and Faul...
Except this that post is another
Ian's [glow=red,2,300]MASTERPIECE![/glow]
|
|
|
|
Post by Nick910 on Oct 21, 2003 21:42:38 GMT
So in reply to part of your post, it was JOHN who ended the group; not FAUL. Ian, did you read my post? I said that John ended the band, and that Paul made it public and that really pissed John off. Anyway, please read all of this as not a bit can be missed! Lets say, just for a minute Faul is real. Whoever is behind this replacement gets pissed off with all the obvious clues John is putting in records and such and decides that's enough. He/she orders the Beatles to end and gets an album ready for Faul to cover suspicion. He/she also silences John and gets Faul to anounce the brake up to dampen any Paul is dead hysteria. How do you think this is gonna make John feel? He's gonna be pissed! The band he started and grew to the phenomenal size it is, has just been took away from him completely. Now it says in the 60IF that one of the reasons John went along with it is cos he didn't want to be beaten. Apply that to this and you will see that if John wanted something covered to win then he might want something uncovered to win!!! So in his day to day life corresponding with the cover up people, he gets to know a few agents and makes a few friends. I am positive that if there are people out there with the ability to cover up information. Theres people out there just as skill full (probably trained and taught by the same people) to uncover information. Always to super forces in every film good and Evil. John would of known someone with the talents and connections to make the information known. Leaked some how in code and made wide spread. Now, I know what your thinking. The illumaiti would of stopped it! And how? By killing him. But there is no way they would of waited 10 years. No way in hell. The hurt and un settlement caused by the brake up meant the illuminiti would of only had on choice. To kill him straight away. But they didn't. Know why? Cos they didn't care because Paul McCartney never died. He just went his way and made his album and left John fuming. Just think about it. If theres people with the power to make dead people live then theres gonna be the other. Good and evil all the time. Maybe an ex-agent or just someone with a lot of know how. But someone who could expose. |
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Oct 21, 2003 21:49:16 GMT
The Band was ended BECAUSE the musical material left by James Paul McCartney was all published -Her Majesty -
THAT'S ALL FOLKS!
|
|
|
|
Post by Darkhorse on Oct 21, 2003 21:52:25 GMT
Sorry but the real Paul McCartney is DEAD and has been for many years.  |
|
|
|
Post by Darkhorse on Oct 21, 2003 22:01:41 GMT
Thank you Sun King!  BTW, George Harrison said in an interview that "...99% of what was written about the Beatles is FALSE." Please keep that in mind when discussing the events of the Beatles in the last 30+ years. |
|
|
|
Post by Karma76 on Oct 22, 2003 18:32:42 GMT
Dark horse really where did he says this??? do we have that article?
|
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Oct 22, 2003 19:56:25 GMT
Uno: It wasn't George and Olivia's, it was George's ex-wife and Eric Clapton's. George and Olivia got married a full year before them. Dos: If we want to go by the truth, then GEORGE initiated it by saying "Well, that's it, I'm not a Beatle anymore" on the plane home from Candlestick Park Openmind Sorry, I can't agree. George meant, in my opinion, he wasn't 'Beatle George' doing the concerts and wearing the suits, hence the statement after the last live concert. They all felt that way. 'Beatles' was often spoken of by the band in the third person, as if 'Beatles' were a seperate entity. Examples of this abound. George remained very much within the band, as evidenced by his presence on every song on every album, until the end. So this is really an interpretive, semantic disagreement.  |
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Oct 22, 2003 20:04:58 GMT
...when Ringo, George, and Paul ....what? ERRATA CORRIGE ...when Ringo, George, and Faul... Except this that post is another Ian's [glow=red,2,300]MASTERPIECE![/glow] Thanks mucho for the kind words, SUNNY, as always. My gaffe calling Faul 'Paul' was due to working a 16 hour shift and then checking postings here! I wasn't as sharp as usual. TO NICK, I accept your apology. But I am not gonna get involved with any more rhetorical speculation or "back-and-forth" activities; I'm burnt of it and as Darkhorse (I think) said quite well, this is an investigative mode to solve the case, one way or another, not "let me argue you into agreeing with me." It's a game; and I'm tired of that. Too superficial and we've covered so much of it scads of times already. So participate in investigative work, as the many fine regulars and veterans do here. |
|
|
|
Post by Darkhorse on Oct 22, 2003 21:22:52 GMT
Thanks mucho for the kind words, SUNNY, as always. My gaffe calling Faul 'Paul' was due to working a 16 hour shift and then checking postings here! I wasn't as sharp as usual. TO NICK, I accept your apology. But I am not gonna get involved with any more rhetorical speculation or "back-and-forth" activities; I'm burnt of it and as Darkhorse (I think) said quite well, this is an investigative mode to solve the case, one way or another, not "let me argue you into agreeing with me." It's a game; and I'm tired of that. Too superficial and we've covered so much of it scads of times already. So participate in investigative work, as the many fine regulars and veterans do here. Yes that was me Ian and I agree 100% with what you say. It can get quite tiring arguing with 'incurables'. P.S. I don't mean IGOMM is an incurable though. |
|
