|
|
Post by JoJo on Apr 21, 2004 17:36:26 GMT -5
Got this today from an Ebay auction, you may have seen the cover at this point. There's a LOT of pages, and the process of scanning, resizing and saving as jpeg is a little laborious, and I have to work sometimes too..  Here are 17 scans starting with the cover, I'll finish up over the next few days. Probably two should be enough, but we'll see. It's entertaining and fun, so I hope you enjoy it! Ahem.. also, I should mention that after doing this work, I would prefer that you ask permission if you want to use these elsewhere. Maybe no one will, but that's what i would like. If you know someone that wants to see these, tell them to join the board. Thanks!          |
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Apr 21, 2004 17:39:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jonna on Apr 21, 2004 17:48:10 GMT -5
Thats a great find JoJo
do you know what the date of publication is?
|
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Apr 21, 2004 18:06:25 GMT -5
Hello Jonna, great avatar! ;D ;D It says copyright 1969. |
|
|
|
Post by jerriwillmore on Apr 21, 2004 18:27:40 GMT -5
 [img src="http://galeon.hispavista.com/akostuff/img/Good-Post[1].gif"] 
|
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Apr 21, 2004 21:01:58 GMT -5
Hey cool!
That thing is always on ebay & I've almost bid on it several times... but.....
THANKS (again) JoJo!!
|
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Apr 21, 2004 21:07:07 GMT -5
Based on the cover, I thought it would be some tabloid-type article. But it's susprisingly well written. And a lot of original photos, too. Thanks Jojo!
|
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Apr 21, 2004 21:29:49 GMT -5
So, in a way, nothing we've all thought, said, guessed at, surmised, "deduced", constrewn, etc., is new.Since 1969. We are actually, old hat!!!
"There is nothing new under the sun."
Interesting find, JoJo, thanks for your time and your efforts.
Now I must go look up the word "constrewn." I think I've concoculated a new word. Ism.
|
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Apr 21, 2004 21:39:52 GMT -5
Maybe I'm wrong, and because I'm not a guy who can grow a real thick beard, even at my over 40 age, haha, but isn't having to shave on the neck above the collar where he obviously shaved a little off? It seems to be a place where you wouldn't grow beard unless the skin was pulled back, I dunno.... I think I remember someone talking about this once, and don't ask me why. Bob Eubanks was talking about getting a face lift on some talk show, or maybe it was banter on a game show, but he said that after the operation, he had to shave way back on his neck. Weird...
|
|
|
|
Post by LarryC on Apr 21, 2004 23:08:21 GMT -5
Based on the cover, I thought it would be some tabloid-type article. But it's susprisingly well written. And a lot of original photos, too. Thanks Jojo! The unfortunate thing, Revolver, is that until someone who would be a credible witness comes forth and either can substantiate or lay this story to rest, it will still be based on speculation, conjecture, unconfirmed facts, uncooberated (sp?) evidence, etc. and will still in essence be tabloid news. There is really nothing official to base this story on, but there is a landslide of clues, both perceived and concocted. There is no mistake they are there, but we will all be forced to hash this out among ourselves based on our own experiences, perceptions, and knowledge about the Fab four and JPM until the world comes to an end, or, as I stated before, someone credible comes forth and either proves or disproves it. I agree this magazine is very well laid out, and there are some pics in it that I have never seen before so I'm really happy to see it. The story, as The Doc has pointed out, is the same story that has been hashed and rehashed, cussed and discussed, over and over since it came out 35 years ago. What we've been witnessing is the enthusiasm many younger people have when they, too, discover some of these clues themselves without having read or heard this story in it's entirety before. What is really so interesting to me personally is that many people who are the most staunch about PID, or PIA weren't even a twinkle in their daddy's eye when this story first broke. And I don't say this to put any of them down because everyone has their own perceptions and are free to express them as well. I personally like this pic: The reason I like it so much is because Paulie looks as though he didn't throw many darts when he was at the pub...hehe...looks like he has a paunch going on there from drinking more ale than he would if he was throwing darts between pints ;D Several years ago, and you can take this for what it's worth to you, I heard an interview on the radio with Ringo and this topic was brought up to him. When he was asked if JPM really died and was replaced by a look-alike, his response was "It's really a load of crap, ya know." So if you are someone who believes that Ringo is a very sincere sort, like I am, you can say that at least one person, and perhaps the only remaining living Beatle per se, has already refuted this story back in about 1970/71. I will be looking to see if I can locate something on the internet to substantiate this statement, but I am not too hopeful that I will find it. I had that on a cassette tape at the time, but that was so long ago now that there is no telling if that tape is even around now. If you are one who choses to believe in the Illuminati's influence into this story, then the basic cop-out phrase is, "Ringo said that under duress and was fearful for his life." I don't quite understand that reasoning because John Lennon also refuted it in the Anthology book on page 342. When does anyone think John Lennon would have ever said anything at all under duress? It was his outspokenness that was his hallmark. And yes I am not so naive as to overlook the fact that John wasn't around when the Anthology was put together, but it WAS constructed using archived information, photos, video clips, music vids, interviews, newsprint, etc. About the beard thing, JoJo...be happy you don't have to fool with it. It can be a royal pain in the rear end. I am blessed that I only have to shave down to my adam's apple area, but I know several guys who have to shave even lower. I know a couple of guys of whom, if their beards were allowed to grow, there would be no noticable demarkation between their chest hairs and their beards. In fact, one of them is my Brother-in-law, and his last name...get this...is Wooley. No kidding...HAHAHA. |
|
|
|
Post by southpaw on Apr 22, 2004 2:59:28 GMT -5
I think your missing the boat.(or want other people to) To me this Paul is dead magazine is blatently propaganistic. Its written in a very manipulative manner, comparing unrelated subjects together, The photo's also focus primarily on faul(no James Paul photo's) ,they also show the other band members in odd oblique poses.(showing how different they look) I found it particularly intresting that the magazine mentions the possibility of a drug induced demise, singling out in particular herion.  I wonder how many of these were circulated in 69? |
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Apr 22, 2004 5:00:00 GMT -5
southpaw--just my opinion---page 10 is James Paul.
As far as heroin-----yikes. Well, so many heroin related rock and roll demises-------------that is SO difficult to believe about James Paul. But, and I don't want to take a tangent on that, or follow that idea too far, because it comes with zero evidence and lots of speculation. But, it is not impossible. If this played a role, who pushed that sh*t on him? What low life night life vampire would have gotten any of those four men started on that? We think Ringo and George avoided it. Good for them. John has his song "Cold Turkey", so we know that he had a big battle to get free of it. I guess he did eventually get away from it---anyone know when? I did think he was clean (at least of that stuff) when he was ambushed by Chapman.
But, it could have played a role-------what incredible sadness to have to endure, though.
Charley Parker, Billy Holliday, Lenny Bruce, Janis Joplin. Morrison, right?
For now, I prefer to stick with the, well if it happened at all, it must'a been a stupid car wreck, theory. It is not that I would think less of JP or anyone else if tha had been his problem. Well, I'd be pissed at the pusher what got him started.
But temptations are all over the music business. So, it is understandable.
But for now, I'd rather continue to think he never did heroin.
|
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Apr 22, 2004 18:00:35 GMT -5
JoJo - you proabably outbid me for this. so many heroin related rock and roll demises-------------that is SO difficult to believe about James Paul. [...] But for now, I'd rather continue to think he never did heroin. Others of the Beatles may have and did shoot heroin, but Paul was in no condition to. John and Bill shot heroin, but Paul. . . he shoot coca-cola |
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Apr 22, 2004 21:51:02 GMT -5
.....Several years ago, and you can take this for what it's worth to you, I heard an interview on the radio with Ringo and this topic was brought up to him. When he was asked if JPM really died and was replaced by a look-alike, his response was "It's really a load of crap, ya know." So if you are someone who believes that Ringo is a very sincere sort, like I am, you can say that at least one person, and perhaps the only remaining living Beatle per se, has already refuted this story back in about 1970/71..... my thoughts are that if Paul was replaced, there was no going back. If they decided to go to these lengths, I think the decision was to be final, with no "owning up to it later". I think the public backlash would've been terrible if one of the Beatles had confirmed it (does anyone remember how quickly the fans turned their backs on Jerry Lee Lewis after his scandal? The public is FICKLE.) Also, there are things between close friends and family, that you don't admit, even if you are asked; in order to "protect" that person, their memory, or their reputation. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Apr 23, 2004 0:28:11 GMT -5
Total Info---John sang, "he shoot coca-cola" do you think he was referring to a well known South american narcotic with a similar name?
And, yes, XPT, family will cover one another's, well, posteriors.
Maybe it is all to keep the memory of a man from being degraded.
|
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Apr 23, 2004 0:48:46 GMT -5
No, I think it indicates that Paul stayed off the hard stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Apr 23, 2004 2:17:49 GMT -5
Good. I prefer to agree.
|
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Apr 23, 2004 7:31:44 GMT -5
No, I think it indicates that Paul stayed off the hard stuff. I've always wondered what the line "he shoot coca-cola" meant. That makes perfect sense, thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by jerriwillmore on Apr 23, 2004 16:28:22 GMT -5
Jo Jo, why not print more of this magazine? |
|
|
|
Post by LarryC on Apr 23, 2004 16:55:59 GMT -5
Others of the Beatles may have and did shoot heroin, but Paul was in no condition to... What is THIS supposition based upon? but Paul was in no condition Although I don't like to dwell on the subject of people I am fond of getting caught up doing the hard stuff, it DOES happen, and as far as anyone knows, if they can hold a guitar and dance and jive and sing at the same time...and do it well...they are quite capable of falling prey to serious drug abuse just like anyone else. And it is pretty well documented in various sources that all of the Beatles were delving into a variety of substances, dating all the way back to the days in Hamburg. I DO hope this condition you appear to be referring to isn't going to be another IBS disertation...that one is dead in the water...period. Although I came off a bit offensively, TI, I am honestly curious as to what you mean. Apologies for appearing to come off of a spring board here... |
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Apr 23, 2004 16:58:04 GMT -5
I am actually.. I split them across a few threads to keep the posts from becoming too huge. Also, the remaining posts are locked, so as to keep the discussion (if there is any ) here on this thread. OK? ;D Edit: One other thing, let's consider this an education on the first rumblings of the PID rumor/hoax or whatever you want to call it. Sorta a free history lesson, and no homework! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Apr 23, 2004 17:22:41 GMT -5
Well we have a pretty good idea don't we...
I'm not a big fan of that theory, based on the source, know what I mean?
|
|
|
|
Post by jonna on Apr 23, 2004 18:08:12 GMT -5
Jo Jo, why not print more of this magazine? JoJo i wouldn't post any more of the magazine until we are sure the leach has been eliminated. |
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Apr 23, 2004 21:51:11 GMT -5
Now you see him... Now you don't... ;D ;D Twice and counting... What did I say about using without permission? (and fawning over me doesn't count, haha!) ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by southpaw on Apr 24, 2004 2:23:48 GMT -5
I have to respectfully disagree with assessment of the line "he shoot coaca-cola" as being an indicater of him staying off hard drugs.
I think it implies the opposite.
I just bought a tony sheridan and the beatles dvd its mostly interviews with blokes from that era who were there in Hamburg. There is a very explicet account of early heavy drug use. They were smack dab(no pun intended) in the middle of the red light district playing at strip clubs.
I guess they (The Beatles) would somtimes
play for over 6 hours a night 7 days a week (no wonder they became so good)
Benzadrine is a very powerful narcotic.
I think the "he shoot coca-cola" line could simply be an indicator of Pauls drug Preferance.
Of course during all those revolver photos they are all in dark sunglasses .Was it because of red eye or more likely(considering the production) dilated pupils.
JoJo do you have the second papperback writer video?
Not the one thats outside with the staues, I think i saw a post where you had a tiny clip of it calling it a early promo or somthing? I'll post a link when i find the page.
Anyhow I think it could be a very telling.
|
|
Here are 17 scans starting with the cover, I'll finish up over the next few days. Probably two should be enough, but we'll see. It's entertaining and fun, so I hope you enjoy it! 
