Just looked at Macca's funhouse - they like to distort the

[ticket2ride]

Paul was replaced arguments by condensing them into Paul is dead only, they mock in puerile fashion the notion that the Beatles' rise was unusual, they dismiss the multiple 'coincidences' that occur not only in the artwork and songs but also in the events in Beatle history re something strange happening to Paul McCartney, and they refuse to see the wider picture of how the Beatles were used in certain ways for certain interests just as other artists were also used and were also distinguished by multiple 'coincidences'.

There is a fair bit of ridiculing of this board which is interesting to me. If those posters who do that at Macca Funhouse are so sure of their unassailable position of 'truth' they really don't need to use extreme cynicism or puerile humour, or distort what those who believe Paul Mac was replaced (whether they believe he retired or died) actually write as opposed to what they say people write here and elsewhere.

I was surprised to see how many of the posters at Macca's Funhouse seem to congratulate themselves on their intelligence and wit yet fail to place the Beatles in the context of broader issues and actual facts - something that most people in the Paul was replaced camp are certainly interested in and often knowledgeable about.

I agree with those over at Macca's Funhouse who deride Imaphoney for distorting facts and altering audio but it's interesting to note at the same time that those same posters there don't seem to grasp that it is unusual that Imaphoney has so much access to private Beatles video, photos and information. It's this same lack of curiosity that informs their simplistic 'Paul isn't dead because we've seen him play live and the hoax was just that - nothing to see here, move along.'

[whammo]

Jul 12, 2014 3:18:46 GMT -5 ticket2ride said:

Paul was replaced arguments by condensing them into Paul is dead only, they mock in puerile fashion the notion that the Beatles' rise was unusual, they dismiss the multiple 'coincidences' that occur not only in the artwork and songs but also in the events in Beatle history re something strange happening to Paul McCartney, and they refuse to see the wider picture of how the Beatles were used in certain ways for certain interests just as other artists were also used and were also distinguished by multiple 'coincidences'.

There is a fair bit of ridiculing of this board which is interesting to me. If those posters who do that at Macca Funhouse are so sure of their unassailable position of 'truth' they really don't need to use extreme cynicism or puerile humour, or distort what those who believe Paul Mac was replaced (whether they believe he retired or died) actually write as opposed to what they say people write here and elsewhere.

I was surprised to see how many of the posters at Macca's Funhouse seem to congratulate themselves on their intelligence and wit yet fail to place the Beatles in the context of broader issues and actual facts - something that most people in the Paul was replaced camp are certainly interested in and often knowledgeable about.

I agree with those over at Macca's Funhouse who deride Imaphoney for distorting facts and altering audio but it's interesting to note at the same time that those same posters there don't seem to grasp that it is unusual that Imaphoney has so much access to private Beatles video, photos and information. It's this same lack of curiosity that informs their simplistic 'Paul isn't dead because we've seen him play live and the hoax was just that - nothing to see here, move along.'

Just to agree with your general sentiment I am no longer a believer in 'coincidences'. They are a lot rarer than we previously thought. Take "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds". Did Julian come up with that? Perhaps, but I'm reasonably certain John immediately recognized the acronym and saw the line as a perfect fit for what he was working on. Another example "I Want to Hold your Hand". The story goes Dylan thought he was singing "I get high" which actually makes a lot more sense than "I can't hide". I came upon a 5.1 mix of that song and was able to isolate the vocal. Clear as day to me John sings "I get high" you can hear the hard, gutteral 'g' plain as day. We've been had.

[Paul Bearer]

So what if it was "I get high". Doesn't mean he's singing about drugs. He gets high from the love of the girl he wants to hold hands with. Haven't you ever got high from just being around the presence of a beautiful girl? I know I have. Actually though, it sounds like "I can high" which still makes sense, he can high from being with the girl.

[whammo]

Jul 16, 2014 6:53:42 GMT -5 Paul Bearer said:

So what if it was "I get high". Doesn't mean he's singing about drugs. He gets high from the love of the girl he wants to hold hands with. Haven't you ever got high from just being around the presence of a beautiful girl? I know I have. Actually though, it sounds like "I can high" which still makes sense, he can high from being with the girl.

But you're missing the point of the Beatles which was to indoctrinate the world's youth into the Illuminati agenda through song. Same with Tim Leary but with psychedelics. It's a badly kept secret that Leary was CIA. Hollingshead was CIA as well, he's the one who turned Leary on. "Why did the CIA want to turn on America's youth?" Once you start asking the right questions the answers aren't far behind.