|
Post by FlamingPie on Oct 9, 2004 14:40:56 GMT -5
What made you choose those pics, RL?
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Oct 9, 2004 15:59:55 GMT -5
Larry did a nice job of Photoshopping out the moustaches on these 2 pics that RL gave us: Looks exactly like Paul.
|
|
|
Post by Morph on Oct 9, 2004 17:28:44 GMT -5
Thanks for the "good postings". It's more like... How did I NOT see this for so long?? Exactly my thoughts. One reason for me is that Faul stands out a lot more...just look at Beatles pics, he sticks out like a sore thumb. Before 67, Paul fit right in. So Faul's "McCartney" is a lot more overt and dominating, masking the real person's image. It's tough to see through, but once you do...
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Oct 9, 2004 17:32:53 GMT -5
Well, what we got here is the old "it's the mustache, stupid!" ;D Nah, the mustache came and went, that's not my issue anyway. Who was Morph? What a question, hehe... Someone who's been a good member here so far, that's all I need to know.. [img src="http://galeon.hispavista.com/akostuff/img/Dunno2[1].gif"]
|
|
|
Post by Morph on Oct 9, 2004 17:40:49 GMT -5
Morph, who are/were you on 60IF? I've never posted there, but I read the threads from time to time. EDIT: Thanks JoJo! Looks just like Faul with razor burn. ;D
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Oct 10, 2004 0:44:31 GMT -5
Surely one these will convince you. No? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D RedLion, you're a hoot
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Oct 11, 2004 9:45:58 GMT -5
[img src="http://galeon.hispavista.com/akostuff/img/Good-Post[1].gif"] Thank you!
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Oct 11, 2004 9:56:01 GMT -5
WHO do you think "owns" the "press" ? Ever read Media Monopoly? EDITED TO REMOVE POLITICAL CONTENT.
this is not the forum for discussing Vietnam, Watergate, JFK, etc. as per the forum rules from day one.
Stop trying to fly things under the radar...
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Oct 11, 2004 10:28:09 GMT -5
Yes and who's going to believe it? People believe what they hear and see on the news and the news is very controlled as to what gets shown, etc. I'm sure it has been leaked from individual to individual many times, but to the masses no. And who is gonna come forward and say they know the McCartney of today is a double? I wouldn't if I still cared about my reputation as a celebrity or a person of high power. I am not talking about today. If they did not like what was happening, as I figure John Lennon would not have been happy with it, why not leak it in 1967 or 68. And not with obscure clues, but with real facts. Why not send out something like the "60If" document such as follows: "A fraud is being perpetrated on you by the governments of the UK and the USA as well as the media. Paul McCartney was killed on 9/11/66 in an auto accident. The record companies did not want to give up the revenue produced by the beatles, so they decided to replace Paul with a look alike and make out that nothing happened. That is why we stopped playing live in public and instead stayed in the studio. Plastic surgery was done to make the replacement look more like Paul. The doctor who did it was Dr. NNNNN and the surgeries took place on mm/dd/yy and mm/dd/yy. The replacements name is William Campbell and he is from Ottawa Canada. He was working at such and such and went to school at such and such. You should be able to check on people who knew him there. Pauls body is buried at such and such cemetery and exuming his body could verify this story. The rest of the group has remained quiet due to threats to them as well as to their families. This is notice so that if family members and close friends of the Beatles start dying at an alarming rate you will know they are being murdered by the powers that be. The songs X and Y on Sgt Pepper were recorded while Paul was alive, but you will notice the rest of the Paul songs have a different voice. Song Z was sung by Neil...." A type-written document such as this, with hard facts and accompanying documentation, could have been sent out to several media outlets, authors, radio stations, universities and underground newpapers. Such an effort with hard facts and documentation that could be investigated and verified would have dwarfed the coverage the story got based on the rediculous clues and rumors. The powers that be would not know who leaked it, and they couldn't kill everyone involved. Killing anyone even to make a point would raise suspicion after the leak and cause more problems. If I were in Lennon's place, that is how I would have leaked it. Not by using backwards passages on records and obscure clues, hoping that someone would piece them together.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Oct 11, 2004 11:15:38 GMT -5
It was "out" in 69. I've got several hours of radio shows on this subject, & there have been other printed articles also. All they had to do was go on hiding the truth in plain view for all to see & deny everything. "How can I be dead when your interviewing me & taking my picture?" The fact that all of the "insiders" denied the existance of every single clue, both audio & visual is absurd. How could every single clue either be an "accident" or a "coincedence"? So do you believe that too? First, it was "out" in 1969. If the media is so contolled, how could there have been hours of radio shows and so many articles? And this was just base on clues that the participants in the PID story later admitted were made up. All the stuff in 1969 was based on funny clues. Why wasn't it leaked in 1966 or 67? And if you leak it, why do it through rediculous clues. Leak it with hard facts and documentation that can be verified and investigated? See post above. As to the clues, yes I believe most are made up or concidences. See the following sites: www.amuseyourself.com/amuse-2000/epitaph/paulisdead/paulisdead.htmlwww.recmusicbeatles.com/public/files/faqs/pid.html
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Oct 11, 2004 20:18:56 GMT -5
One thing I noticed about all those radio programs was that they only talked about the visual & audio clues. Not once did anybody stop & say... "Well here's a picture of Paul taken yesterday, & ya know.... it doesn't look like this picture of Paul from last year, lets compare!"
But now I wonder if even THAT would've done any good. If y'all can study all these pics right along with us & NOT see 2 different people, then I don't know. I really can't argue with that, now can I?
All I can do is scratch my head & be totally baffled as to how that can be.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Oct 11, 2004 21:04:50 GMT -5
One thing I noticed about all those radio programs was that they only talked about the visual & audio clues. Not once did anybody stop & say... "Well here's a picture of Paul taken yesterday, & ya know.... it doesn't look like this picture of Paul from last year, lets compare!" But now I wonder if even THAT would've done any good. If y'all can study all these pics right along with us & NOT see 2 different people, then I don't know. I really can't argue with that, now can I? All I can do is scratch my head & be totally baffled as to how that can be. You used to see the same person, now didn't you?
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Oct 11, 2004 21:21:09 GMT -5
If y'all can study all these pics right along with us & NOT see 2 different people, then I don't know. I really can't argue with that, now can I? All I can do is scratch my head & be totally baffled as to how that can be. I think it boils down to visual recognition skills. Some people have them well developed, others not so. This is not a knock or insult its just the way things are. After 38 years of passing off Billy as JPM, I can comprehend why someone with unrefined visual recognition skills might not "see it." Its kinda like drinking wine. I have some and say "oooh thats good." My wife has some and says " I taste cherries and vanilla with a hint of mint." I cannot taste any of those things, but I sure as heck cant say someone else doesnt.
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Oct 11, 2004 21:54:03 GMT -5
Larry did a nice job of Photoshopping out the moustaches on these 2 pics that RL gave us: Looks exactly like Paul. Yep, post-66 Paul. ;D
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Oct 11, 2004 22:11:56 GMT -5
I think it boils down to visual recognition skills. Some people have them well developed, others not so. This is not a knock or insult its just the way things are. After 38 years of passing off Billy as JPM, I can comprehend why someone with unrefined visual recognition skills might not "see it." Yes, it does take discernment on some of Paul's photos. Right around '68 he was about as close as he ever got to looking like Paul. This is a smaller version of Larry's montage from M4E: I see Paul on the right. The eyes are the tell for me. Not seeing the top of his head helps him look more like Paul, that and the haircut. This is close to how he looked in Yellow Sub. It was like his face and Paul's were two passing ships. Close for a time, but then eventually drifted apart.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Oct 11, 2004 22:25:21 GMT -5
You used to see the same person, now didn't you? Sure, but as I said before, once I started noticing the differences, I couldn't go back to only seeing one guy.
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Oct 11, 2004 22:39:07 GMT -5
Wow, has this thread gone off the original topic.
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Oct 11, 2004 23:15:15 GMT -5
Wow, has this thread gone off the original topic. no kidding....
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Oct 13, 2004 21:57:37 GMT -5
I am not talking about today. If they did not like what was happening, as I figure John Lennon would not have been happy with it, why not leak it in 1967 or 68. And not with obscure clues, but with real facts. I am not necessarily talking about today either. Allow me to get conspiratorial here in saying that I think the threat of "death" was over their heads at the time so they couldn't leak it. So they had to leave clues.....a way of telling the public without really telling them and without anyone actually knowing it. P.S. Believe me, I think Lennon would have loved to send a letter to the press like yours but he couldn't imo. Like I said, there were too many "higher ups" involved and death would be there for anyone daring enough to do so.
|
|
|
Post by ecenzo1 on Oct 14, 2004 10:39:46 GMT -5
As someone who came here very much unsure of one position or the other, I can say one thing without any hesitation: Eyesbleed makes the best point of all (on page two of this post) concerning the PIA/PID/PWR issue. If there was nothing to hide or cover up WHY PUT IN ALL THE ELABORATE CLUES AND THEN DENY THAT THE CLUES WERE NOTHING MORE THAN COINCEDENCE. PLEASE!!! Admitting it was a hoax would go a long way in putting this issue to rest. If it was a hoax then it lasted way too long. The only one who would have wanted to propigate this (in my opinion) was John Lennon and He's been dead for 24 years! If it was John's hoax then isn't it time for Yoko, Sean or Juilan to just come out and say: "It was John's cheeky sense of humor that put this together and kept it up for all those years." But no such admission has ever been given. There are just too many clues and the "insiders" keep denying the very existence of these clues just a bit too strongly...
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Oct 14, 2004 10:43:37 GMT -5
I am not necessarily talking about today either. Allow me to get conspiratorial here in saying that I think the threat of "death" was over their heads at the time so they couldn't leak it. So they had to leave clues.....a way of telling the public without really telling them and without anyone actually knowing it. P.S. Believe me, I think Lennon would have loved to send a letter to the press like yours but he couldn't imo. Like I said, there were too many "higher ups" involved and death would be there for anyone daring enough to do so. I once had a job that involved confidential information about cetain vips. We were warned about not giving out such info to anyone on pain of immediate termination. If I had wanted to, I could have leaked all kinds of information without anyone knowing who did it. I don't mean he should sign the letter and let people know who sent it. He could have leaked the letter along with documentation without anyone knowing who did it. Whoever these "higher-ups" were, could not go ahead and kill everyone involved. I think it would look a little funny if all of the beatles along with their family members and close friends and associates died suddenly. By the way, why would "Faul", who was making all this money pretending to be Paul, take part in leaving clues indicating that he was a phoney? Seems to me he would want to keep it a secret.
|
|
|
Post by ecenzo1 on Oct 14, 2004 11:19:55 GMT -5
P.S.
Darkhorses's comment (right ahead of my last one) reminded me of something I read just a few weeks ago. It came from a supposed "death bed" confession of George. He goes on to say that John was investigating Paul's "murder" and ultimately he was assinated forgetting too close to the conspirators...who knows...
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Oct 14, 2004 11:33:35 GMT -5
Read above posts and the links. Most of the "clues" have been debunked and/or explained. Many were just plain made up by people. MYTH: The story was based on "clues" from record sleeves, songs, etc. that "proved" Paul had been killed in a car crash in November *1966*. Researchers "discovered" that a crash had occurred around that time which involved a young dark haired male who was disfigured beyond recognition. REALITY: Paul did suffer a minor motorcycle accident in Dec. 1965, and chipped a tooth; you cans see the as-yet-uncapped tooth in the "Rain" promo and in a filmed Ed Sullivan appearance in June 1966. This accident may be the source for the story of Paul's "car crash death". MYTH: Then the Beatles, in the winter of 1966, held a "Paul look- alike" contest but no winner was ever announced. BUT - there was a winner....his name was William Campbell, and he was paid a considerable amount of money to play along with the facade - he was to be the NEW Paul. He supposedly looked enough like PM to sit in with the other Beatles for photographs, sometimes even fooling the photographers. Strangely, nothing was ever heard of William Campbell again. His picture is included on the poster that came with the White album in the lower right-hand corner. Looks like Paul with glasses, mustache, and combed back hair. William Campbell has this faint scar on his upper lip, PM doesn't. REALITY: Such a contest was actually held, co-sponsored by an American teen magazine (perhaps "Tiger Beat"?) and Dick Clark of the TV show "American Bandstand". The winner of this 1965 contest was Keith Allison, who had a brief brush with fame on teen shows such as "Where The Action Is" and apparently later joined Paul Revere and the Raiders, circa 1966. The real Paul *does* have a faint scar on his upper lip from the above-mentioned motorcycle accident. No William Campbell ever won a Paul look-alike contest. The William Campbell clue was invented by Fred LaBour. MYTH: Since then, the Beatles supposedly started putting clues on their album sleeves and even in their music so that their poor fans would find them and thus the shock of Paul's untimely death would be assuaged. REALITY: All four Beatles, John included, denied any involvement in the Paul Is Dead hoax. CLUES: Yesterday...and Today Paul looks like he's in a coffin in the cover shot. "Yesterday and Today" was released in mid 1966 (supposedly just prior to Pauls demise) with the famous "Butcher Cover". As we all know, these albums were recalled just after they were released (right after Paul "died") and 'pasted over' with the now familiar 'Trunk Cover'. MYTH: This was allegedly done not because the buying public was outraged at the original "Butcher" cover (as was 'officially' announced by Capitol) but because the cover too closely depicted the carnage that occured in that deadly 'car crash' and the Beatles themselves demanded that Capitol remove it from the market. REALITY: None of the above is true. There was no "death of Paul" and memos exist explaining why the "butcher cover" to "Yesterday and Today" were being withdrawn. BTW, the "butcher cover" shot was actually photographed as a promotion for the "Paperback Writer" single; it was used on "Yesterday and Today" only as an afterthought. More of MYTHS and REALITY at this website: www.recmusicbeatles.com/public/files/faqs/pid.html
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Oct 14, 2004 16:40:51 GMT -5
The William Campbell clue was invented by Fred LaBour. Another reason to not read any further. (other thread). William Cambell is part of the misinformation. As soon as I see that name, I know there's no need to read any further. (my first sign that G.Patterson is a waste of time.)
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Oct 14, 2004 17:18:05 GMT -5
Hey I have a job where I'm privy to sensitive info as well, and yes, any release on my part of any of that info is grounds for immediate termination. Could I release something surreptitiously? Well sure, but would they have "no idea" who it was? No, they could narrow it down real easily to a handful of people. (if they had any brains at all) On the 8 cd set of old radio broadcasts and other miscellanea, what stands out as the big issue is that PID was brought to the public's attention, discussed at length, but the final verdict was always "it's a hoax". That idea was obviously pretty well cemented in everyone's mind after a short time. So, a leak might have worked before, but not once the controlled (IMO controlled) presentation was made. The window of opportunity was gone. Nothing short of a named source such as John himself going on the record or calling a press conference would persuade anyone in the press to investigate further. A leak btw is just that, a carrot on a stick to encourage further investigation, not a basis for writing a story in and of itself. The presumption that the press will write a story but for being in possession of the facts is well.. not quite true. A quick example, and I'll dip my toe a little bit in politics for this.. When the whole big mess with Clinton was going on, the talk shows would trot out an old timer (newsman) from time to time, and the comment was always: "well of course everyone knew what Kennedy was up to back then, but there was an unwritten agreement not to publish anything about it." Silently understood, never questioned..
|
|