Shadows on Abbey Road

[mysteryboy]

Paul's head is missing, as well as any shadow from the white coloured vehicle sitting on his head. Going by the shadows produced by the trees, as well as the other Beatles, Paul should be producing a different shadow. As he is almost exactly the same angle and distance from the film plane as Ringo, the shadows should be the same. Paul's shadow is the only one not showing a head.
The car was added in as well.
As properly observed in another thread, his head is too small as well.

[mommybird]

All very true, mysterboy. Thank you for posting these observations. ;D

[jarvitronics]

mysteryboy said:

Paul's head is missing, as well as any shadow from the white coloured vehicle sitting on his head. Going by the shadows produced by the trees, as well as the other Beatles, Paul should be producing a different shadow. As he is almost exactly the same angle and distance from the film plane as Ringo, the shadows should be the same. Paul's shadow is the only one not showing a head.
The car was added in as well.
As properly observed in another thread, his head is too small as well.

Sorry I don't see it. Paul's head shadow is obscured by his leg.

The sun is behind the camera, nearly full-high in the sky. The blue car on Paul's head has a shadow beneath it, where it should be.

All shadows should be pointing in the same direction, away from The Beatles, toward the horizon in the picture, and they are.

-j

[mysteryboy]

Perhaps you are right.
In any event, Paul is singled out, as usual.
Though I am now convinced he is both alive and was never replaced.

[jarvitronics]

mysteryboy said:

Explain the shadow of his ciggy. That should be obscured as well. And their should be no shadows from the trees falling to the right of them.
In any event, Paul is singled out, as usual.

The trees have branches hanging over the street that cause those shadows.

I am not suggesting the Abbey Road cover is unaltered, only that the shadows appear to be in order.

-j

[mysteryboy]

jarvitronics said:

mysteryboy said:

Explain the shadow of his ciggy. That should be obscured as well. And their should be no shadows from the trees falling to the right of them.
In any event, Paul is singled out, as usual.

The trees have branches hanging over the street that cause those shadows.

I am not suggesting the Abbey Road cover is unaltered, only that the shadows appear to be in order.

-j

Yes, I believe you may be correct. Thanks!

[beatlies]

mysteryboy said:

Perhaps you are right.
In any event, Paul is singled out, as usual.
Though I am now convinced he is both alive and was never replaced.

So you now think that there is no Faul and that "Paul" is all JPM from 1966 to the present time?

[jarvitronics]

mysteryboy said:

Perhaps you are right.
In any event, Paul is singled out, as usual.
Though I am now convinced he is both alive and was never replaced.

I am undecided on PID/PIA. I consider myself an open-minded truth seeker.

There is no doubt that radical things took place circa 1966-1967, and that the message "Paul is dead" is communicated both verbally and visually over and over again from that point forward.

However, The Beatles, being filled with mischief and double meanings, might mean something other than the literal death of Paul McCartney.

Ever notice how it is always "Paul" is dead, or "I buried Paul." You never hear "McCartney" is dead," or "I buried McCartney."

Is it possible that Paul McCartney is a convenient symbol for some other Paul, or something that is Paul-like in some way?

I have speculated before, in connection with Lennon's comment about Jesus being okay, but that Jesus' disciples ruin it, that maybe "Paul is dead" is all about Apostle Paul, and Paulian Christianity being a dead-end path to enlightenment.

Instead, there is another Paul - Apollo, the sun god, the god of music and of shepherds and sheep. The god who slew the serpent of ignorance (Python, #83, Sgt Pepper) with his spear of light and truth.

Clues to Apollo are everywhere on Sgt Pepper. I believe I am going to start a thread on Apollo.

-j

[mysteryboy]

jarvitronics said:

mysteryboy said:

Perhaps you are right.
In any event, Paul is singled out, as usual.
Though I am now convinced he is both alive and was never replaced.

I am undecided on PID/PIA. I consider myself an open-minded truth seeker.

There is no doubt that radical things took place circa 1966-1967, and that the message "Paul is dead" is communicated both verbally and visually over and over again from that point forward.

However, The Beatles, being filled with mischief and double meanings, might mean something other than the literal death of Paul McCartney.

Ever notice how it is always "Paul" is dead, or "I buried Paul." You never hear "McCartney" is dead," or "I buried McCartney."

Is it possible that Paul McCartney is a convenient symbol for some other Paul, or something that is Paul-like in some way?

I have speculated before, in connection with Lennon's comment about Jesus being okay, but that Jesus' disciples ruin it, that maybe "Paul is dead" is all about Apostle Paul, and Paulian Christianity being a dead-end path to enlightenment.

Instead, there is another Paul - Apollo, the sun god, the god of music and of shepherds and sheep. The god who slew the serpent of ignorance (Python, #83, Sgt Pepper) with his spear of light and truth.

Clues to Apollo are everywhere on Sgt Pepper. I believe I am going to start a thread on Apollo.

-j

Well, in younger days I felt that the Paul is Dead clues were (obviously) deliberately planted, but that it signified Paul's initiation into a higher plain of consciousness, in affect, the last one to "turn on". So it was the the other Beatles and Paul symbolically saying goodbye to the old egos and innocence. However, his appearance did bother me...So I am still undecided, though mostly leaning towards PID/PWR.

I think the Apollo symbols are there in the flowers but basically stop there. You get the message and you hang up the phone...However, I admire you and the others for pursuing other symbols of the myth.

I think that the Beatles overall message of Love was essentially a Christian one. I am referring to true Christianity, as in "Love is all you need", peace, don't harm anyone, et al...and not the version that is used to win elections, control peoples, and so forth.

Back to Abbey Road: the shadows got me thinking. There are a lot of them on the wall on the rear of the album. On the front, the Beetle and the car in front of it are light. The people on the same (left) side of the street are dressed in white/light colored clothes, not unlike doctors and nurses hanging out in a hospital hallway. I have never seen three people in public together in white aside from a medical setting. They could be a team.
Across the street, the two most prominent and closest cars to the viewer are of course black, and one is a Police van, the other a hearse. The man seen standing on the sidewalk is dressed in dark clothes. He is alone. Undertakers usually work alone and don't dress usually dress in white. Of course Lennon is in all white. He is quite possible helping Paul RISE above the darkness they are walking toward/past.

Maybe yes. Maybe no.

edit: perhaps the TKIN story was half-right. But maybe the truth is that Paul was left for dead and was saved somehow.
Then again, maybe he wasn't. Although the all-white Lennon does convey a sense of optimism. I think.

[beatlies]

So it was the the other Beatles and Paul symbolically saying goodbye to the old egos and innocence. However, his appearance did bother me...So I am still undecided, though mostly leaning towards PID/PWR.

Yet, the real proof of whether PWR/PWNR is in the physical evidence, the visuals and audio; the clues are extremely important, and important in subjects beyond just the question of whether PWR, but they're essentially just gravy to the main dish of the film footage, photos and sound. And that evidence of pre/post September 1966 definitely shows that an imposter(s) came in, I think nearly all are agreed on that.

[jarvitronics]

beatlies said:

Yet, the real proof of whether PWR/PWNR is in the physical evidence, the visuals and audio; the clues are extremely important, and important in subjects beyond just the question of whether PWR, but they're essentially just gravy to the main dish of the film footage, photos and sound. And that evidence of pre/post September 1966 definitely shows that an imposter(s) came in, I think nearly all are agreed on that.

I think we all agree that *something* significant happened and/or changed circa 1966. I am eyes-open enough to see that not every picture of Paul is Paul. Some photos seem way obvious, others less so. Some look like THE Paul to me - deep in the eyes. Ex post facto doctored? Maybe.

Clues are gravy you say? I had to choose between gravy or a cutie; I went with gravy because it leans to the left.

If you get that, then you're the type that understands a well founded deli critique.

It's Èasy!

\ /
-j

[fourthousandholes]

If you pause this video:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkWWdGfBW5o
at 5:32 there is a large picture of the cover of Abbey Road.
As someone at YouTube has pointed out, there is a "3" in the trees at the 10 o'clock position
relative to George's head that I've never seen before, and it may have to do with where the border
of the picture was cut on the American versions of the album. I'm wondering if this was common
knowledge in England, or elsewhere. Certainly an obvious clue.

[The Deceptionist]

fourthousandholes said:

If you pause this video:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkWWdGfBW5o
at 5:32 there is a large picture of the cover of Abbey Road.
As someone at YouTube has pointed out, there is a "3" in the trees at the 10 o'clock position
relative to George's head that I've never seen before, and it may have to do with where the border
of the picture was cut on the American versions of the album. I'm wondering if this was common
knowledge in England, or elsewhere. Certainly an obvious clue.

I can't say I've ever noticed it before, but I can confirm it's presence on both my UK LP and CD. However, my poster [also printed in England] very nearly misses it, as it crops the width according to the Beatles on the road - its hard to tell if this is just a trick of the light through the branches or whether it is something man-made in the studio - but its there regardless

edit: I just had a gander on ebay and the Capitol release also features the '3'