|
|
Post by ramone on May 15, 2008 23:34:46 GMT -5
The frost interview was telecast may 18 1964,
Actual april 15, '64.
''DAVID FROST: "Have you got any ambitions in other spheres completely? I mean, do you want to be Prime Minister one day?"
PAUL: (shakes head and laughs) "No! No, nothing like that. I'd like to... retire."
(laughter)
DAVID FROST: "And when do you think you'll achieve that ambition?"
PAUL: (jokingly) "The way things are going, about a couple of years or so."
Later:
''DAVID FROST: "Of course, I imagine, everybody says to you that the Pop world is very short-lived... and 'What will you do when the phase passes.' Or 'Do you think the phase will pass?' Does it worry you?"
PAUL: "No. I couldn't care less, really, if we flopped tomorrow. It'd be sad, you know... but it wouldn't really worry me."
DAVID FROST: "Could you go back to doing something else?"
PAUL: "I'd miss doing this. But I think I'd think of something else to do."
DAVID FROST: "What would you like to do?"
PAUL: "Write songs for other people."
DAVID FROST: "Completely different?"
PAUL: "Completely different. Or... retire, you know."
A clue in plain 'sight'?
(it seems a temp. retirement was 'arranged' at least)
Apollo did say Paul went on holiday.
so, maybe he got his wish.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2008 0:14:44 GMT -5
wow ramone!  just amazing. but it still gets me...there are so many death clues that people have pointed out, so when something about paul not dying in a tragic car crash is brought up i have trouble making sense of it and connecting the dots, so to speak. but maybe it's just meself  |
|
|
|
Post by ramone on May 16, 2008 23:28:39 GMT -5
Well, we're all trying to connect the dots.
Paul's reasons for wanting out is anyone's guess.
But, how to do this and not upset the um applecart.
Leave, but don't leave.
And if temporary, then slide back to where he once belonged.
But drop some markers for the masses.
Would people notice the clues? Not really. Not right away. You think they would've.
Maybe if we drop a few more. Nope. (even later- Bill: did ya see those flowers-in the dirt?)
They were evidently just revealing-
This isn't the Beatles. They're dead. They're gone. Anyone pick up on that? Nope.
As part of the experience, who would get it? Would the masses tune right in?
There's a new kid in town.
Anyone notice?
No one did.
|
|
|
|
Post by ramone on May 17, 2008 9:39:49 GMT -5
Thinking about Derek's admission (see jojo's stuff),
the sgt pepper cover was a grave.
That was a central point being conveyed.
Who's dead? The beatles. Why?
Paul is 'gone'.
|
|
|
|
Post by B on Oct 17, 2010 9:06:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Oct 18, 2010 0:57:28 GMT -5
This is one of the very films taken originally that survived the switch. We are seeing David Frost and the original Paul McCartney here; the film is old and in poor condition. Perhaps EMI or the lawyers saw fit to blur it even further but it does show how similar Paul and Bill are. Clearly this is James Paul the first guy:  Anyway, the testimony is there that makes a strong case for Macca simply deciding to retire in 1966. The reports of the dissenters in Japan during the Budokan concert; the horrible events in the Philippines when they were leaving; the scary gunshot, or firecracker or whatever it was in Memphis; the whole rot about John's saying they were more popular with youth than Jesus; it all adds up. Paul wanted out, period. The others opted to stay and try but it was a difficult course. The bad events of 1966 were too much to go on performing; it was over. Recording was all they had left. I suspect McCartney continued to write but was most likely burnt out and left Bill to carry on in the main. Frankly, the whole Imelda Marcos BS would have been enough for me to roll up my stakes and move on. |
|
|
|
Post by il ras on Oct 18, 2010 5:54:00 GMT -5
Doc, I agree with you..
I'm PWR and this interview fits perfectly.
I've just one doubt (a big one, eh): the clues say "Paul is dead" not "Paul decided to retire" or "Paul is at Bora Bora".
The only explanation I can give (if we want to keep a PWR scenario) is that those were messages for someone that had to think that Paul was really dead.
|
|
|
|
Post by iameye on Oct 18, 2010 7:23:02 GMT -5
The only explanation I can give (if we want to keep a PWR scenario) is that those were messages for someone that had to think that Paul was really dead. had to think that Paul was really dead. That would make quite a bit of sense, for the big picture.  |
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Oct 18, 2010 22:32:19 GMT -5
The only explanation I can give (if we want to keep a PWR scenario) is that those were messages for someone that had to think that Paul was really dead. had to think that Paul was really dead. That would make quite a bit of sense, for the big picture. Yes, I see. And that "someone" might either be parties we do know of, or more likely, parties we know nothing about. That "party" may be the reason for Paul to have entered a sort of "witness protection program". If this is the case, then legally, and ethically, we have no legitimate grounds for finding out what happened. His safety, and maybe the safety of others, would, somewhat sadly for us, supersede any concerns we might have about the situation. But such a limitation would be completely understandable. |
|
|
|
Post by il ras on Oct 19, 2010 5:52:57 GMT -5
Doc, first of all we don't know what happened so we can't stop just because there is this hypothesis among the others.
Then, even if this is what really happened, we can still try to understand who is the substitute and what really happened, avoiding to discover (and I don't really think it's so easy ;D ) where the real Paul is now.
|
|
|
|
Post by iameye on Oct 19, 2010 8:05:11 GMT -5
someone had to think that Paul was really dead. That would make quite a bit of sense, for the big picture. Yes, I see. And that "someone" might either be parties we do know of, or more likely, parties we know nothing about. That "party" may be the reason for Paul to have entered a sort of "witness protection program". If this is the case, then legally, and ethically, we have no legitimate grounds for finding out what happened. His safety, and maybe the safety of others, would, somewhat sadly for us, supersede any concerns we might have about the situation. But such a limitation would be completely understandable. Don't worry, Doc. It's only a scratch. The "witness protection program" is fail-safe. The parties involved took good care of that. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Oct 21, 2010 4:31:04 GMT -5
Yes, I see. And that "someone" might either be parties we do know of, or more likely, parties we know nothing about. That "party" may be the reason for Paul to have entered a sort of "witness protection program". If this is the case, then legally, and ethically, we have no legitimate grounds for finding out what happened. His safety, and maybe the safety of others, would, somewhat sadly for us, supersede any concerns we might have about the situation. But such a limitation would be completely understandable. Don't worry, Doc. It's only a scratch. The "witness protection program" is fail-safe. The parties involved took good care of that. ;D She knows. But she's good at her job.  |
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Oct 21, 2010 4:43:59 GMT -5
Doc, first of all we don't know what happened so we can't stop just because there is this hypothesis among the others. Then, even if this is what really happened, we can still try to understand who is the substitute and what really happened, avoiding to discover (and I don't really think it's so easy ;D ) where the real Paul is now. Agreed. We can study what is shown; we can learn about the substitute and all he has done to be what he needed to be. As far as Paul goes; the world is too big to guess where he might live, but Proboards is where many of us wind up sooner or later, don't you imagine? Thanks Il Ras. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Oct 21, 2010 4:47:43 GMT -5
Thinking about Derek's admission (see jojo's stuff), the sgt pepper cover was a grave. That was a central point being conveyed. Who's dead? The beatles. Why? Paul is 'gone'. Gone and, metaphorically (at least), "buried". |
|
|
|
Post by iameye on Oct 21, 2010 5:12:44 GMT -5
Don't worry, Doc. It's only a scratch. The "witness protection program" is fail-safe. The parties involved took good care of that. ;D She knows. But she's good at her job. lol, Doc.  you're getting closer...... keeping ahead of the rain on the Road |
|
|
|
Post by iameye on Oct 21, 2010 6:16:47 GMT -5
Thinking about Derek's admission (see jojo's stuff), the sgt pepper cover was a grave. That was a central point being conveyed. Who's dead? The beatles. Why? Paul is 'gone'. Gone and, metaphorically (at least), "buried". Let's exhume the body and see who's really buried in Grant's tomb.....David Frost, perhaps?  |
|
just amazing. but it still gets me...there are so many death clues that people have pointed out, so when something about paul not dying in a tragic car crash is brought up i have trouble making sense of it and connecting the dots, so to speak.
