Post by Serviceable Villain on Dec 23, 2009 15:11:20 GMT -5
I suppose I'll start from the beginning...
I am 26 years old. I grew up on my parents music (circa late 1960s through the 1970s). I remember an age, about 4 yrs old or so, when I couldn't distinguish one band from another. The summer prior to starting kindergarten my best friend (to this day) moved into a house down the street.
Within a year or two his mother had us as Beatle-crazed as she once was and around this time I began to realize that the Beatles were on a higher pedestal than any other group due to their continued popularity some 20 years later. I was still too young to fully grasp how amazing and innovative they were, I just knew they were good and I liked their music.
Once while I was over at their house my friend's mom saw me looking at a cloth banner hanging on the wall that depicted a port with the word "Liverpool" written across it. She told me that not only was that the place where her family was from, but it is also where the Beatles are from. At that age, I never would have guessed they were British. As it turns out, she had lived most of her life here in the states. Her father, however, is (to this day) 100% Liverpudlian, the accent, his wit, his charm. This is a man who in his 60s routinely charmed his way into the beds of women half his age. But I'm getting off track here.
Still, I never owned any Beatles albums growing up, they were still all over the radio and I had heard nearly every song without having to spend a penny. I was 12 in 1995 when the Beatles Anthology was broadcast and that only strengthened my love for their music and story.
Oddly, I had never heard anything of the Paul is Dead rumors until the Chris Farley sketch on SNL. Even then I thought nothing of it.
About a year and half, 2 years ago, I started Google searching "Paul is dead" out of sheer boredom. I just figured it to be a pop culture phenomenon and nothing more. Days turned into weeks, weeks into months of me scouring the clues.
I was still skeptical but why did I have this nagging suspicion that something strange was going on?
I began to stop concerning myself with the theories of death by car crash when I realized that those all seem to be a misinterpretation/over-interpretation of lyrics. I'm not opposed to formulating theories, but without empirical evidence they are just that: THEORIES.
I'd rather focus on the replacement of Paul, whatever the reason may be. I don't know why he was replaced but it certainly appears that way. But is it really possible to replace a person without the public realizing it? It doesn't seem rational.
Then I recalled a news story a few years back stating that while the U.S. was searching Iraq for Saddam Hussein, it wouldn't be that easy because he employed decoy doubles of himself.
Of course I've seen the entire Rotten Apple series. My hat goes off to IAAP but forgive me for having the feeling that IAAP seems to have some sort of ulterior motive of his own which only allows me to trust those videos as far as I can throw them (if you know what I mean).
Speaking of ulterior motives, many searches on the PID/PWR phenomenon leads me to the TKIN/60IF forum. Nothing against any of the members and I'm sure they've broken a lot of ground on all of this. It just seems, from what little I've browsed around there, that some of the administrators dispute anything that veers from their theories and they treat the 60IF document as if its the gospel. Personally, the 60IF theory seems very amateur, for lack of a better term.
I suppose I could go on and on but I'll try and wrap it up. Somehow, through all of my internet searches I only just recently came across Admiral Albert's videos. He referred me to this forum and a little bit of browsing (as well as the title of the forum) leads me to believe that you all are more like me: While I would love to know why James Paul McCartney was replaced, it is more important to me to figure out how he was replaced and who the replacement(s) is/are.
I also implore you to read R. Gary Patterson's "My Review of the New Paul is Dead Evidence" if you have not already done so. I will post the link in my signature. He wrote "The Walrus was Paul," and although I haven't read that book and I don't know much about the guy, he points out importance of critical thinking and employing empirical evidence when proving a theory. Otherwise you come across as a fool with zero credibility... and that gets us nowhere.
I am 26 years old. I grew up on my parents music (circa late 1960s through the 1970s). I remember an age, about 4 yrs old or so, when I couldn't distinguish one band from another. The summer prior to starting kindergarten my best friend (to this day) moved into a house down the street.
Within a year or two his mother had us as Beatle-crazed as she once was and around this time I began to realize that the Beatles were on a higher pedestal than any other group due to their continued popularity some 20 years later. I was still too young to fully grasp how amazing and innovative they were, I just knew they were good and I liked their music.
Once while I was over at their house my friend's mom saw me looking at a cloth banner hanging on the wall that depicted a port with the word "Liverpool" written across it. She told me that not only was that the place where her family was from, but it is also where the Beatles are from. At that age, I never would have guessed they were British. As it turns out, she had lived most of her life here in the states. Her father, however, is (to this day) 100% Liverpudlian, the accent, his wit, his charm. This is a man who in his 60s routinely charmed his way into the beds of women half his age. But I'm getting off track here.
Still, I never owned any Beatles albums growing up, they were still all over the radio and I had heard nearly every song without having to spend a penny. I was 12 in 1995 when the Beatles Anthology was broadcast and that only strengthened my love for their music and story.
Oddly, I had never heard anything of the Paul is Dead rumors until the Chris Farley sketch on SNL. Even then I thought nothing of it.
About a year and half, 2 years ago, I started Google searching "Paul is dead" out of sheer boredom. I just figured it to be a pop culture phenomenon and nothing more. Days turned into weeks, weeks into months of me scouring the clues.
I was still skeptical but why did I have this nagging suspicion that something strange was going on?
I began to stop concerning myself with the theories of death by car crash when I realized that those all seem to be a misinterpretation/over-interpretation of lyrics. I'm not opposed to formulating theories, but without empirical evidence they are just that: THEORIES.
I'd rather focus on the replacement of Paul, whatever the reason may be. I don't know why he was replaced but it certainly appears that way. But is it really possible to replace a person without the public realizing it? It doesn't seem rational.
Then I recalled a news story a few years back stating that while the U.S. was searching Iraq for Saddam Hussein, it wouldn't be that easy because he employed decoy doubles of himself.
Of course I've seen the entire Rotten Apple series. My hat goes off to IAAP but forgive me for having the feeling that IAAP seems to have some sort of ulterior motive of his own which only allows me to trust those videos as far as I can throw them (if you know what I mean).
Speaking of ulterior motives, many searches on the PID/PWR phenomenon leads me to the TKIN/60IF forum. Nothing against any of the members and I'm sure they've broken a lot of ground on all of this. It just seems, from what little I've browsed around there, that some of the administrators dispute anything that veers from their theories and they treat the 60IF document as if its the gospel. Personally, the 60IF theory seems very amateur, for lack of a better term.
I suppose I could go on and on but I'll try and wrap it up. Somehow, through all of my internet searches I only just recently came across Admiral Albert's videos. He referred me to this forum and a little bit of browsing (as well as the title of the forum) leads me to believe that you all are more like me: While I would love to know why James Paul McCartney was replaced, it is more important to me to figure out how he was replaced and who the replacement(s) is/are.
I also implore you to read R. Gary Patterson's "My Review of the New Paul is Dead Evidence" if you have not already done so. I will post the link in my signature. He wrote "The Walrus was Paul," and although I haven't read that book and I don't know much about the guy, he points out importance of critical thinking and employing empirical evidence when proving a theory. Otherwise you come across as a fool with zero credibility... and that gets us nowhere.
