|
Post by applepie on Dec 13, 2016 11:19:52 GMT -5
All I know is that there is a Starman waiting in the sky (not who you think it might be...), and he'd like to come and meet us— but he thinks he'd blow our minds. This very same Starman has told me not to blow it— because this mystery is worthwhile. He told me: "Let the children use it, let the children lose it, let all the children boogie!"
|
|
|
Post by applepie on Dec 12, 2016 21:31:25 GMT -5
Looks like iamaphoney is a real crowd pleaser *Does Mannequin Challenge* Man! Looks like these guys were good at the Mannequin Challen...... oh— nevermind!
|
|
|
Post by applepie on Dec 11, 2016 17:46:42 GMT -5
greetings. we close the season of paul mccartney's disappearance in '66 with an offer to enter a contest to name the man indicated in the photo below. to win please submit the entity's certificate of birth, of schooling, parents' names, siblings if any, and history of employment. you may win a '59 cadillac convertible with a '61 les paul in the trunk, then again you may not. how does an '86 dodge caravan with a rusty harmonica in the ash tray grab you. if you decide to join us and think you can deliver the winning answers, remember in sincere pursuit of the truth, we may also learn a thing or two about ourselves. oh, and if this photo ain't the biggest clue to ever hit pid, we don't know what is. happy grimbus: View Attachment'Small Paul', musician who traveled with Beatles, His name was revealed somewhere on this board. Alrightey— if I read the following correctly; this alleged-doppelgänger's name was disclosed on this chat-forum? I can't fathom such information... Surely, this would've stirred-up quite the debate..
|
|
|
Post by applepie on Dec 7, 2016 17:37:41 GMT -5
Looks like iamaphoney is a real crowd pleaser *Does Mannequin Challenge*
|
|
|
Post by applepie on Dec 4, 2016 22:10:57 GMT -5
Then WTF is this site about? To quote the 44th President in the United States.. "It's classified... maybe.. I'm not at liberty to say" This rings truer than you'd initially think..
|
|
|
Post by applepie on Dec 4, 2016 22:09:18 GMT -5
By all accounts, John Lennon brought in a song that was almost like one of Ringo's efforts, sounding immediately like a cover version of another song. Spotting this and with Lennon asking for help finishing it, McCartney took charge and got rid of the Chuck Berry sound, slowing it down and 'swamping it up' with his funky bass and piano lines. Lennon, meanwhile, improvised the lyrics but, again, kept plagiarising his source, Chuck Berry's 'You Can't Catch Me' whose lyrics read pretty much the same. So much so that they DID catch him and he was eventually forced to settle the lawsuit by recording a cover of the Berry song and several others from the publisher on his 'Rock 'N' Roll' covers album. Although people will try to read significance into anything, a comparison of the two songs lyrics may lead you to the conclusion that he just added stream of consciousness improv to Berry's lyrics, not completing the process to the point where he's differentiated the song from its inspiration: "New Jersey Turnpike in the wee wee hours I was rollin' slowly 'cause of drizzlin' showers Here come a flat-top, he was movin' up with me Then come wavin' goodbye in a little' old souped-up jitney I put my foot on my tank and I began to roll Moanin' siren, 'twas the state patrol So I let out my wings and then I blew my horn Bye bye New Jersey, I've become airborne
Now you can't catch me Baby you can't catch me 'Cause if you get too close, you know I'm gone like a cool breeze"Read more: Chuck Berry - You Can't Catch Me Lyrics | MetroLyrics This just goes to show that even Lennon's weakest musical-efforts prove to be classics— with a little help from McCartney, of course!
|
|
|
Post by applepie on Dec 4, 2016 22:04:35 GMT -5
And, I've also screwed up all of 'yer mindz! ('Turn off your mind, relax and float downstream....) *seagull noises intensify* (this is a pointless attempt at correlating all my vague posts to the lyrics of 'Tomorrow Never Knows.')
|
|
|
Post by applepie on Dec 4, 2016 22:02:27 GMT -5
Nope. I think my Purple Owsley is potent now.
|
|
|
Post by applepie on Dec 4, 2016 22:01:44 GMT -5
Turn off your mind, relax and float downstream it is Not dyingBy 'it'; we must refer to- For it is an 'eye' (I) And (I) is 'eye.' Therefore, 'I' is the 'eye.' iameye... or so the Macca Eye And Macca, as far as I could tell, isn't dead ('it' is not dying).
|
|
|
Post by applepie on Dec 4, 2016 22:01:08 GMT -5
Don't think I've taken enough acid to understand what's going on here! Turn off your mind, relax and float downstream it is Not dyingBy 'it'; we must refer to- For it is an 'eye' (I) And (I) is 'eye.' Therefore, 'I' is the 'eye.' iameye... or so the Macca Eye
|
|
|
Post by applepie on Dec 4, 2016 15:25:57 GMT -5
Don't think I've taken enough acid to understand what's going on here!
|
|
|
Post by applepie on Nov 22, 2016 18:52:18 GMT -5
I will honestly admit that I believe he looks closer to Paul McCartney than any other person I've ever seen. But a question still remains, who exactly is this person? Why would there be a person who shares an uncanny resemblance to Paul McCartney in The Beatles' entourage? And, if not, the most important question I have from learning all of this is; why then? This photograph was taken a few days before The Beatles' first appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show, which was televised publicly on February 9th, 1964. In fact, I am assuming, just by looking at this photograph, that it was taken on the day The Beatles first arrived in America, at JFK airport, but there is still a possibility that I could be wrong. It's definitely not from 1965, because all The Beatles were sporting longer hairdos by then. So, under the assumption that this photograph was taken in early-1964, why would a Paul McCartney doppelgänger (god only knows whatever you folks might want to call him this time, "Faul", "BillyHasAGoatee" or whatever) be hanging out with the group, two-and-a-half years before the alleged "replacement" of Paul McCartney occurred. Can you call me flabbergasted or what?
|
|
|
Post by applepie on Nov 20, 2016 18:12:54 GMT -5
there's evidence for my solution in the new "i buried faul" topic, which we started. if you have any challenges to what we've posted and they're derived in good faith and you have evidence for any of the claims you make on their behalf, then that would be the thread to post what you got. see ya there Thanks a lot!!!
|
|
|
Post by applepie on Nov 20, 2016 16:33:59 GMT -5
Alrightey, but can we definitively prove that a Paul McCartney was killed in 1966? That has to be the biggest setback to this argument. Perhaps McCartney wanted a break from The Beatles, but that in no implies a physical death, and I have yet to find concrete evidence to suggest that he might have ever died in 1966. we have the eulogistic songs and front album cover with a grave scene and paul spelled out in mums on 'pepper'. we have the great mental and physical deterioration of lennon, common among people who've experienced great personal loss and unbridled grief. we have the beatles monthly feb 7, 1967 #43 issue attempting to quell rumors of paul's death in a car crash, and we have the personal recollections of people, including members here, of an interruption in the 9-12-66 monkees show to announce the death of a beatle in a car crash. and, finally, we have the late paul mccartney, himself, who has not shown up in any beatles media output since late '66. no, we don't have his body, but what we have is very strong circumstantial and testimonial evidence that paul was killed. and, we think it was murder so what do you have to prove he wasn't killed besides previously proven incorrect opinion I haven't denied the usage of doppelgängers/doubles, because there is indeed substantial evidence that suggests McCartney, or perhaps the other Beatles, used doubles throughout the span of their careers. I'm not in denial of that. But if Paul McCartney died circa late-1966, perhaps to be blamed on murder, then The Beatles, their management and all the record companies they're affiliated with (EMI/Capitol Records, Apple Records, etc.), possibly a government/organization of higher power (MI5, or the FIBI?) along with law enforcement, and all their working colleagues would all be required to be involved in the most intricate, and grandly proportional cover-up or conspiracy to ever be known in the 20th-century, that which is still going on for nearly 50 years. In the three/four months during which McCartney supposedly died(August-November 1966), The Beatles would've been in the artistic dilemma of finding a left-handed, equally impressionable and creatively-faceted songwriter, a band member that could 'gel' socially with the group similarly to how a genuine McCartney would, a multi-instrumentalist that would need to be capable of contributing to The Beatles' projected discography, while retaining the same likeness and genuineness that only Paul McCartney could possess. That is, more musically-speaking rather, because when I do observe McCartney's behaviour after this 'four-month-hiatus' that was a creatively-potent time-frame for all four of The Beatles, he does seem rather odd. Physically, he's drastically and forensically different, but I won't get into the details, because this subject has been discussed in tandem on this online-forum. Again, if I must repeat this once more, I don't deny the alleged involvement of 'doubles' in The Beatles' respective careers, but McCartney being deceased is something I'm quite unsure of as of now. I just can't seem to wrap my head around it. BUT, (this will sound like mere bragging right now, but rest assured because it isn't, believe me), I am open and will be mindful of concrete evidence that could in any way prove me wrong!
|
|
|
Post by applepie on Nov 20, 2016 13:47:45 GMT -5
Alrightey, but can we definitively prove that a Paul McCartney was killed in 1966? That has to be the biggest setback to this argument. Perhaps McCartney wanted a break from The Beatles, but that in no implies a physical death, and I have yet to find concrete evidence to suggest that he might have ever died in 1966. Apple Pie.... Or Ringo standing on the Flaming Pie God, I see what you did there!
|
|
|
Post by applepie on Nov 20, 2016 13:42:33 GMT -5
Talk about a receding hairline! yes, talk about receding hairlines View AttachmentAlrightey, but can we definitively prove that a Paul McCartney was indeed deceased by 1966? That has to be the biggest setback to this entire argument. Perhaps McCartney wanted a break from The Beatles, and was replaced temporarily, but that in no way implies some sort of a physical death, and I have yet to find concrete evidence that suggests he died in 1966.
|
|
|
Post by applepie on Nov 20, 2016 12:36:23 GMT -5
Well, to prove that McCartney wasn't replaced, we must prove that this alleged "faux-McCartney" is fictional. the imposter is hardly a fiction. here he is before face reapportionment, make-up, silly dress, substandard self-penned songs, and crude public remarks became his trademark: View AttachmentTalk about a receding hairline!
|
|
|
Post by applepie on Nov 20, 2016 12:21:59 GMT -5
It was 50 years ago today, when an idea took seed in Sir Paul McCartney and Mal Evans' imaginations; a concept for The Beatles' next projected studio LP. The concept was to have The Beatles portray themselves as a fictional rock-group, the fictional group in question being named "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band." Four days later, the "Sgt. Pepper" sessions kickstarted, and the rest, as they say, is history!
|
|
|
Post by applepie on Nov 20, 2016 10:33:04 GMT -5
5 Beatles? Is this JPM dressed up as Yoko? These clues are intertwined. Read the lyrics
|
|
|
Post by applepie on Nov 20, 2016 10:24:37 GMT -5
Well, to prove that McCartney wasn't replaced, we must prove that this alleged "faux-McCartney" is fictional.
|
|
|
Post by applepie on Nov 19, 2016 22:51:00 GMT -5
I must leave you all with these photographs.
|
|
|
Post by applepie on Nov 19, 2016 22:36:01 GMT -5
Here's what I CAN say. The Beatles were most definitely "ahead of their times." To elaborate further on such a seemingly vague comment, allow your mind to process this entire 'Paul is Dead' folklore/myth as being more of a 'message' that was meant to be discovered and interpreted by future generations, than what was actually occurring in that time-frame.
|
|
|
Post by applepie on Nov 19, 2016 0:02:58 GMT -5
Double post. Whoopsies
|
|
|
Post by applepie on Nov 18, 2016 23:59:49 GMT -5
Why would somebody - in a higher position of power - wish to alter Macca's original date of birth? I couldn't possibly see this benefitting anyone, but just being a mere waste of time, but who knows? Maybe there is a reason behind this alleged fabrication of McCartney's date of birth, but I just can't see it as of know. Perhaps I need to look through the looking glass! There's twists and turns as we lurk deeper into this perceived 'rabbit-hole.' Don't take a clue for granted.
|
|
|
Post by applepie on Sept 18, 2016 8:49:19 GMT -5
I am looking definitely looking forward to seeing the film. I don't suppose how they could "hide" clues in pre-existing archival footage, considering the footage took place prior to the rumour.
|
|