Beatles - Christmas 1966

[65if2007]

If Christmas 1966 was the first Beatles Christmas without JPM -- due to some horrible tragedy -- then you'd expect some sort of indication of it in what was produced at the time -- either in the form of deliberately-placed clues or clues derived from happenstance.

However, I heard nothing in the 1966 Christmas record -- which is a series of nonsensical humorous skits -- which I recognized as a clue of that nature, but then I lack the perceptiveness (or the imagination ) of others.

Maybe others will spot something.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=sv9ZgvlrxI4
www.geocities.com/dsmurashev.geo/songs/Christmas_Record_1966.htm

They seem to be having a good time -- not what you would expect if they were still in mourning over a fatal tragedy -- or is the frivolity forced?

PID or no PID, it must have been a little awkward preparing a Christmas record in light of the recent furor over John's "bigger than Jesus" remark.

This was the first Beatles Christmas record prepared without a cover picture of the group. Is that a "White Album" type of clue?



The series of "pantomimes" that they are doing -- in which they play nonsensical fictitious characters -- differs from the messages that they directly addressed to their fans in the earlier Christmas albums

To add to the confusion, here's a picture from the cover of the 1966 Christmas Extra of the Beatles Book.



It must have been taken some time before Christmas 1966 since the Beatles are all clean-shaven and by Christmas 1966, all of them had grown facial hair.

But when exactly WAS it taken? How far in advance would publicists shoot a photo for a Christmas session?

Is that "Paul" or "Faul" in this picture? Is there any significance to the fact that the three string instrument players are holding their instruments upside down?

Bottom line -- does all of this strengthen or weaken the case for PID/PWR?

[MikeNL]

thank you for showing

[Deleted]

i've always considered it to be the case that the 1966 record was probably recorded early - most likely prior to JPM's death. the 66 record is full of silly typical stuff that you would expect, but the 67 record has several bits which are fully indicative of JPM's death imo.

here's the text of the 66 record
www.geocities.com/dsmurashev.geo/songs/Christmas_Record_1966.htm

and the 67
www.geocities.com/dsmurashev.geo/songs/Christmas_Record_1967.htm

the 67 has the following debatable phrases which i feel are linked to jpm/faul

O-U-T SPELLS OUT!
"WE ARE BEING GRANTED PERMISSION, OH WISE ONE." (reminds me of a occult ritual in which the beatles must enter a place of masons)

-"AND HOW OLD ARE YOU?"
-"THIRTY-TWO."
-"OOOOH!"
-"NEVER..."
-"I AM!"
-"GET AWAY!"
-"I AM!"
-"WELL, WHAT PRICE HAVE YOU GOT YOUR EYES ON?"
-"I HAVE?"
-"OOOOH!"
-"WELL, YOU'VE JUST WON A TRIP TO DENVER AND FIVE OTHERS!"
-"OOOOH!"
-"THANK YOU."
-"AND ALSO, WAIT FOR IT, YOU HAVE ALSO BEEN ELECTED AS INDEPENDENT
CANDIDATE FOR PADDINGTON!"
-"OOOOH!"
-"LOOK AFTER YOURSELF! HA! HA!"
^^this whole dialog seems like somebody won something i.e. faul winning the chance to be a beatle

-"THIS ROUND IS BROUGHT TO YOU TONIGHT FROM THE ARMS OF SOMEONE NEW."
-"HELLO! I'M SPEAKING FROM A CALL BOX!"
-"HELLO! HELLO! OPERATOR! HELLO OPERATOR! I'VE BEEN CUT OFF!
I-I-I'VE BEEN CUT OFF! IT'S EMERGENCY!"
^^seems like what would have been said at the seen of paul's death

and then it goes on to repeat the previous dialog about being 32 for emphasis, almost.

to sum up:
1966 record was probably completed prior to jpm's death.
1967's was completed after, and thus, many occult clues were tossed in

[65if2007]

getbackzack said:

i've always considered it to be the case that the 1966 record was probably recorded early - most likely prior to JPM's death. the 66 record is full of silly typical stuff that you would expect, but the 67 record has several bits which are fully indicative of JPM's death imo.

here's the text of the 66 record
www.geocities.com/dsmurashev.geo/songs/Christmas_Record_1966.htm

and the 67
www.geocities.com/dsmurashev.geo/songs/Christmas_Record_1967.htm

the 67 has the following debatable phrases which i feel are linked to jpm/faul

O-U-T SPELLS OUT!
"WE ARE BEING GRANTED PERMISSION, OH WISE ONE." (reminds me of a occult ritual in which the beatles must enter a place of masons)

-"AND HOW OLD ARE YOU?"
-"THIRTY-TWO."
-"OOOOH!"
-"NEVER..."
-"I AM!"
-"GET AWAY!"
-"I AM!"
-"WELL, WHAT PRICE HAVE YOU GOT YOUR EYES ON?"
-"I HAVE?"
-"OOOOH!"
-"WELL, YOU'VE JUST WON A TRIP TO DENVER AND FIVE OTHERS!"
-"OOOOH!"
-"THANK YOU."
-"AND ALSO, WAIT FOR IT, YOU HAVE ALSO BEEN ELECTED AS INDEPENDENT
CANDIDATE FOR PADDINGTON!"
-"OOOOH!"
-"LOOK AFTER YOURSELF! HA! HA!"
^^this whole dialog seems like somebody won something i.e. faul winning the chance to be a beatles

-"THIS ROUND IS BROUGHT TO YOU TONIGHT FROM THE ARMS OF SOMEONE NEW."
-"HELLO! I'M SPEAKING FROM A CALL BOX!"
-"HELLO! HELLO! OPERATOR! HELLO OPERATOR! I'VE BEEN CUT OFF!
I-I-I'VE BEEN CUT OFF! IT'S EMERGENCY!"
^^seems like what would have been said at the seen of paul's death

and then it goes on to repeat the previous dialog about being 32 for emphasis, almost.

to sum up:
1966 record was probably completed prior to jpm's death.
1967's was completed after, and thus, many occult clues were tossed in

Thank you, gbz.

Then the cover photo for the 1966 Christmas special of the "Beatles Book" -- which shows the four Beatles cleanshaven -- also would likely have been taken before anything had happened to JPM. Probably the contents inside would predate that as well, and the three upside-down guitars are simply three upside-down guitars and not a "clue" to anything.

But the Beatle at the top looks somewhat Faul-ish to me.

And what about this picture postcard that -- I believe -- some subscribers received with or instead of the 1966 record?

bp2.blogger.com/_S1bdNBvOURk/RXxgUVInJeI/AAAAAAAAAO8/IEKSwgMPDU0/s1600-h/beatles_1966.jpg

It also shows four clean-shaven Beatles, once again suggesting that it was taken considerably earlier than just before Christmas, but that also looks like Faul standing to Ringo's left.

And your "sig" from "Man On The Run" (***and the first one said to the second one there, i hope you're having fun***) - if that line is meaningful, doesn't it suggest that Paul consented to being replaced by Faul, while continuing to remain informed -- as opposed to having died?

[Deleted]

oh gosh that postcard looks very much before pepper. and most likely taken before the pic on the beatles monthly book as well - noticed how much longer george's hair is on the cover than the postcard (more puffy and rounded out at the bottom).

as a side note, i don't consider that my sig indicates that paul consented to anything - but rather, if PWR, it's more of a sardonic commentary on jpm's unfortunate situation due to a possible accident or whatever happened - "i hope you're having fun..." as a cutting remark. that's how i've always pictured that line.

[65if2007]

getbackzack said:

oh gosh that postcard looks very much before pepper. and most likely taken before the pic on the beatles monthly book as well - noticed how much longer george's hair is on the cover than the postcard (more puffy and rounded out at the bottom).

as a side note, i don't consider that my sig indicates that paul consented to anything - but rather, if PWR, it's more of a sardonic commentary on jpm's unfortunate situation due to a possible accident or whatever happened - "i hope you're having fun..." as a cutting remark. that's how i've always pictured that line.

But what about Faul?

Isn't that FAUL on both the monthly book AND the postcard?

If that's so and if both those pictures were taken before anything had happened to Paul, doesn't that mean that Faul was ALREADY in the business of impersonating Paul -- at least for the purpose of photo shoots -- before anything had actually happened to Faul?

Seems to me that it either means that or it means that the distinction between Paul and Faul is illusory.

[Deleted]

to be quite honest the man in the pictures looks JPM-ish to me.

in the first place, 1967 faul looked the most odd..



then began to look more and more normal (i.e. with progressive surgery throughout the late 60s and 70s to look more like JPM)

thus, for faul to have looked that similar to paul in 1966 when in 1967 he looked like the above man would be impossible.

second of all, the picture from the beatles book



looks more similar to this

(vintage paul)

than this


so to answer your question, it seems to me that the images of paul on the beatles book and the postcard are both JPM immediately before the fatal car crash

[ramone]

I'm with GBZ on this one, those are JPM

[65if2007]

The guy in the Beatles Book and in the postcard might differ or seem to differ from the guy in the blue Pepper uniform, but it strikes me that he does resemble the guy in these 1967 pictures.

[LOVELYRITA]

Things like these are what causes some discussion as to another Faul than Bill. Because there are subtle differences in some of the pics, which some may say was a doctored photo. Or can it be that it was another Faul tryout?

[JoJo]

Covers 'n audio:

www.jojoplace.org/Shoebox/Christmas_records/

And another thread, with a little dash of mark Hamil:

invanddis.proboards29.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=pidpix&thread=1165360065&page=1

[plastic paul]

That particular image of Pepper Paul, clearly ain't either JPM or Faul though is it!?

In fact, I haven't seen that pic in ages, but the more I study it, the more I find it obvious that PWR.

[GN]

65if2007 said:

If Christmas 1966 was the first Beatles Christmas without JPM -- due to some horrible tragedy -- then you'd expect some sort of indication of it in what was produced at the time -- either in the form of deliberately-placed clues or clues derived from happenstance.

However, I heard nothing in the 1966 Christmas record -- which is a series of nonsensical humorous skits -- which I recognized as a clue of that nature, but then I lack the perceptiveness (or the imagination ) of others.

Maybe others will spot something.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=sv9ZgvlrxI4
www.geocities.com/dsmurashev.geo/songs/Christmas_Record_1966.htm

They seem to be having a good time -- not what you would expect if they were still in mourning over a fatal tragedy -- or is the frivolity forced?

PID or no PID, it must have been a little awkward preparing a Christmas record in light of the recent furor over John's "bigger than Jesus" remark.

This was the first Beatles Christmas record prepared without a cover picture of the group. Is that a "White Album" type of clue?



The series of "pantomimes" that they are doing -- in which they play nonsensical fictitious characters -- differs from the messages that they directly addressed to their fans in the earlier Christmas albums

To add to the confusion, here's a picture from the cover of the 1966 Christmas Extra of the Beatles Book.



It must have been taken some time before Christmas 1966 since the Beatles are all clean-shaven and by Christmas 1966, all of them had grown facial hair.

But when exactly WAS it taken? How far in advance would publicists shoot a photo for a Christmas session?

Is that "Paul" or "Faul" in this picture? Is there any significance to the fact that the three string instrument players are holding their instruments upside down?

Bottom line -- does all of this strengthen or weaken the case for PID/PWR?

A Pure Paul

To see what happened with covers after September 1966 take a look at:
invanddis.proboards29.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=TAR&thread=1189118285&page=1

[LOVELYRITA]

Maybe part of the oddity of the picture is that it was cut out and placed with that blue background.

Their eyes look odd, it could be due to strange stage makeup or the lighting in the studio.

And perhaps it's just me, but the Beatles' heads don't seem quite proportioned with their bodies...or it could be the suits they have on makes them look odd.

I'm not saying there are doubles used in the pic, but it just seems like something odd about the way they look.

If I didn't know better, almost like dummies rather than the real thing.

[ramone]

Yeah rita, those pics are weird looking,

George looks like he has a splash of mick jagger in there,
and John has a splash of andy kaufman.
Speaking of which-mommybirds site had some interesting
stuff on him and his death-very odd. Anyone read that?

[ramone]

and ringo looks like he's in a Starkey family portrait
and there's an aunt right there that's going to smack
the back of his head if he doesn't smile enough.
Paul pretty much looks like Paul.

[LOVELYRITA]

Yeah, Ringo's smile looks so fake...like he's literally saying CHEESE!

Actually, Paul is the only one who looks like himself in that photo....

[ramone]

True LR,
I was thinking there's something about John's smile and eyes in that shot that reminded me of AK.
Andy had this little smile sometimes and eyes that were an amalgam of innocence and mischievousness.
And something about george's hair and the little crease in the jowls-
jagger.

[percythrillington]

yes, without hijacking the thread... John doesn't look like John at all on this pic:

[LOVELYRITA]

percythrillington said:

yes, without hijacking the thread... John doesn't look like John at all on this pic:

Now that you mention it, John doesn't look himself....and George looks rather peculiar...His mouth....

[Doc]

lovelyrita said:

percythrillington said:

yes, without hijacking the thread... John doesn't look like John at all on this pic:

Now that you mention it, John doesn't look himself....and George looks rather peculiar...His mouth....

Yes, seemingly. But--there is little to support a switch of John, especially nothing vocally, and nothing personality wise. etc.

Now, "we all had a hard year, we all had a facelift....."

Remember that one in that rough demo of that tune off of the Let it Be record?

Perhaps some minor cosmetic adjustments were given here and there to make the change of appearance a bit more.........across the board.

So, like, if they ALL look a little bit different, then they are all the SAME..........

just a thought.

[LOVELYRITA]

That was not taken in the best of lighting, because it gives the appearance they all have big noses.

It looks like this picture has caught them making a peculiar face.

[65if2007]

lovelyrita said:

That was not taken in the best of lighting, because it gives the appearance they all have big noses.

It looks like this picture has caught them making a peculiar face.

Man, for George and Ringo, that picture looks as though it were taken during a full moon while they were in the middle of a "change".

This is the sort of picture that one would display if one was of a mind to argue that the Beatles were shape-shifting Satanic creatures.

[LOVELYRITA]

65if2007 said:

lovelyrita said:

That was not taken in the best of lighting, because it gives the appearance they all have big noses.

It looks like this picture has caught them making a peculiar face.

Man, for George and Ringo, that picture looks as though it were taken during a full moon while they were in the middle of a "change".

This is the sort of picture that one would display if one was of a mind to argue that the Beatles were shape-shifting Satanic creatures.

Don't laugh about that, I've read that the royal family are shape shifters...nothing would surprise me about them. If not the Beatles, if there were stand ins for occasional photo ops...perhaps the stand ins were shape shifters...

Let's face it, during the 1960's, anything that said Beatles would have gotten attention...even if they were gravediggers who resembled the Beatles...it would have been a big deal....