|
|
Post by jerriwillmore on Mar 27, 2004 20:37:36 GMT -5
One reason I find it hard to totally believe in PID is that Paul had a big family, a large circle of friends, and a girlfriend (Jane.) Even if they were paid to be nice to him I am sure there would have been a difference in the way they treated him and it would have come out.
Comments?
|
|
|
|
Post by Spanky on Mar 27, 2004 20:46:11 GMT -5
didn't you just post this somewhere else?
|
|
|
|
Post by -Wings- on Mar 28, 2004 3:58:54 GMT -5
Well, I might not have the specific answer, but here's some information I posted on one of the other boards about the current Paul and his family.
Perhaps he wasn't the most fitting bearer of sad tidings in this case, but John Lennon, the "bad influence" from Quarry Bank, heard about 73-year-old Jim McCartney's death of bronchial pneumonia in March 1976 before Paul did. From New York, John telephoned to break the news.
In transit between Copenhagen and Berlin with Wings, Paul was absent from the cremation, unlike brother Mike, who lived near his father's Chesire home. While he'd cried his tears, Paul had decided that Jim would have understood that the show must go on. Besides, the tour would serve as occupational therapy, even if, when the music was over for the day, there's be heartache.
One outcome of Paul's emotional convalescence was a gradual estrangement from step-mother Angela and 14-year-old Ruth. They'd continued living in the house that Paul had bought his father, but he made it clear that he didn't intend to maintain them financially anymore. Within a decade Angela had reverted to her previous surname, Williams, and had told her story to a daily newspaper. "We don't exist," she was to mope in another periodical in 1995, "Paul has written us out of his life. I write and send Christmas cards, but never receive a reply."
|
|
|
|
Post by eggy on Mar 28, 2004 22:35:21 GMT -5
One reason I find it hard to totally believe in PID is that Paul had a big family, a large circle of friends, and a girlfriend (Jane.) Even if they were paid to be nice to him I am sure there would have been a difference in the way they treated him and it would have come out. Comments? This is a black point for me in this case, for example i cant believe this pic [img src="http://galeon.hispavista.com/akostuff/img/Dunno2[1].gif"]  |
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Mar 28, 2004 23:19:50 GMT -5
jerriwilmore.....my personal opinion is that Paul died accidentally --- perhaps even in a car crash, as rumor had it. The Beatles were securing the financial future and independence of England, as discussed in this article from Teen Talk, March 1965:   therefore, the group had to continue. People used to have a great sense of duty and loyalty to their country. The family would likely have cooperated because it was being done "for a greater good", and they may have thought (or even been told) that it's "what Paul would have wanted". That would also explain the lack of interest by any of the principals to "expose" Faul. The "clues" are there (in and on albums etc) because John, George, and Ringo had to mourn the loss of their friend in private. Sort of a "coping mechanism", and tribute to their friend. No kidnappers, no mystery illnesses, no illuminati....just a tragic accident, and making the best of a bad situation.  |
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Mar 28, 2004 23:33:33 GMT -5
Or, everyone who knew Paul, incuding Faul, might have been brainwashed somehow by the government.
|
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Mar 29, 2004 8:51:07 GMT -5
Well xpt, that makes a lot more sense than anything else I've read. This mystery about JPM's family is the toughest part of this to figure, but that makes perfect sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Mar 29, 2004 17:53:46 GMT -5
Yes I'll concur with Xpt's scenario, that's something that makes the most sense, yes. Brainwashing by the Men In Black sounds like something that wouldn't "take" or would be too high maintanance for as many years as may have been required. That's not to say the govt types didn't play a role of course.
As for the picture, maybe the father was doing his duty, or continuing to play the role, or they just added it in. He's on the side, so it probably wouldn't be difficult, even pre-photoshop.
|
|
|
|
Post by southpaw on Mar 30, 2004 3:41:39 GMT -5
Another possibility is that Paul died of a drug overdose. Herion overdose or somthing like that might have been very difficult for the family to accept. resulting in family members to do what is in the best interest in god and country. Also how would they break news like that.(overdose)
The beatles would be finished and the social implications in 1966 would have been unpredictable
|
|
|
|
Post by eggy on Mar 30, 2004 7:57:14 GMT -5
And if maybe Pauls family just accepted the deal?
Why not?
|
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Mar 30, 2004 17:16:17 GMT -5
Another possibility is that Paul died of a drug overdose. Herion overdose or somthing like that might have been very difficult for the family to accept. resulting in family members to do what is in the best interest in god and country. Also how would they break news like that.(overdose) The beatles would be finished and the social implications in 1966 would have been unpredictable What about Elvis? |
|
|
|
Post by jerriwillmore on Mar 30, 2004 18:24:37 GMT -5
Spanky, I don't remember posting about it somewhere else.
I may have mentioned Jane briefly in the 60if forum.
|
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Mar 30, 2004 21:02:51 GMT -5
what about him? The world was very different in 1977 than it was in 1966. Also, Elvis never took "street drugs". His medicines were prescribed to him....sadly, this was before such a thing as a "Betty Ford Center", and before people knew prescribed meds could be addictive and dangerous.  |
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Mar 30, 2004 21:15:15 GMT -5
And besides.... Elvis was fat & weird & was headed downward when he died. In 66, the Beatles were bigger than huge, & in the middle of something unprecedented. Elvis was big in the late 50's- early 60's, but still, it wasn't quite on the same scale as The Beatles. |
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Mar 30, 2004 21:17:47 GMT -5
An overdose on street drugs or persribed drugs would probably have the same impact. Please tell me why you think the date makes a difference?
|
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Mar 30, 2004 21:47:58 GMT -5
The more appropriate word might be "era", not "date". 1966 was a time where illegal drug use was still shocking to most people, but in 1977 we had the 60's well behind us, and some states were seriously discussing decriminalization of marijuana for example. As for Elvis himself, be could see his decline with our own eyes, he was not healthy and watching him perform those last few years, you wondered when he was going to finally self destruct.
I agree with Flaming Pie, in that there's not much difference between OD'ing on prescripts vs. illegal drugs, but in the majority of people's minds, there is. Somehow there is less harsh judgement in people's minds when it's a prescripton drug problem, somehow the user magically becomes blameless, as opposed to a "self medicator" who gets the "he deserved it" attitude.
|
|
|
|
Post by southpaw on Apr 1, 2004 3:08:25 GMT -5
Everyone seems to forget to mention that Jane was like 19 or twenty when Paul disappeared. A Drug overdose would certainly make sense in convincing Jane and Family members to play along. Where as the remaining Beatles didn't want all of Paul’s genius to go to waste (which assuredly would have happen if this news came to light) and to continue the group while still making it so obvious with all the psychedelic clues and tribute songs. Also Paul’s personality to me seemed (from what I have researched) was very extroverted and free, his mother died when he was a boy and emotionally it must have been a heavy burden. It would also explain the "Deteriorating voice" theory, like his droning vocals in some of revolver and especially on Peppers "she's leaving home". He sounds tired and I remember a post talking about possible Parkinson disease, and an opiate addiction would explain his vocal condition at that time. I know Sun King would have us on pins and needles waiting for the indefinite Iraq war to finish before he would release 60if. Maybe we all spent to much time looking the wrong way. I'm not trying to say this is the only possibility, I've spent a long time researching and this theory would explain alot of the mystery of people close to Paul giving in to the replacement. [img src="http://galeon.hispavista.com/akostuff/img/Dunno2[1].gif"] One last thing if anyone has info on Pre Pepper Beatle drug use I would be interested in hearing it. I've heard the rumors surrounding Bob Dylan's little smoke fest with them in 65 or 66, also have heard through the grapevine that they were dosed with LSD at some point before SGT Pepper. Speaking of LSD, Jojo do you have footage of the LSD interview  |
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Apr 1, 2004 3:22:11 GMT -5
One last thing if anyone has info on Pre Pepper Beatle drug use I would be interested in hearing it.I've heard the rumors surrounding Bob Dylan's little smoke fest with them in 65 or 66, also have heard through the grapevine that they were dosed with LSD at some point before SGT Pepper. They = John & George |
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Apr 1, 2004 3:27:18 GMT -5
Well, I never wanted to consider that possibility, but to be fair, given the times and situation, it could be one. I have wanted to think that somehow James Paul was just always above the need for a drug crutch, but who knows.
He also had a more , puffy, look in '66. Cortisone therapy will do this (as it did to my cancer victim nephew) in that the weight gain and a puffy appearance especially the face can happen. Of course, we have no reason to think he was on a steroid regimen. But, steroids can have strong side effects. Usually, steroids help a voice, and can improve (from the supression of histamine production and laryngeal symptoms)the pitch and ease of singing. Paul just sounds tired, in my opinion, on Blackbird, Shes Leaving, and For No One. Not bad, not off key, just not fully supporting his voice, and the cords sound a little inflamed.
But people do get colds so this may all be nothing.
Opiates I guess would effect the speech and vocal cords. Paul just seems toxic, tired, bloated, unrested, in certain photos in '66. Again, this is just an impression, and maybe its a off base one.
The focus of Paul in the trunk cover and the butcher cover are soft focus and harder to make out than past covers. Were they trying to hide his tiredness in the photos? The fresh faced cheeky lad of 62-64 is changing, it seems to me..........
|
|
|
|
Post by southpaw on Apr 1, 2004 4:05:17 GMT -5
I know that it is well known that in the Hamburg days they (Paul, John) were using alot of amphetamines ,over the counter in those days, so James Paul's Drug use is fact.
Cannibus Was used heavily by all of them (from what I've heard) during 65 leading into 66.
To me it sounds like the typical escalation into harder drugs.
They were all heaviy influenced by black american Rythim and Blues especially James P ("got to get you into my life"etc..)and the music scene was filled with deferent types of narcotics.
They had a very grueling tour/movie/recording in a short period of time. they had to be ready physically and mentally almost every day during that time and I think the pressure was to great.
To this day people do not want to hear about their "idols" drug use, especially the Beatles.
With this logic apply that to 1966 and how the reaction would be?
No wonder why it was so easy for this replacement to happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Apr 1, 2004 4:11:39 GMT -5
Well, point taken. Speed, acting in part as diuretic (flushing out water) would have kept the face and neck alternately shrinking and puffing up. Blood pressure changes---then opiates with the opposite effects--------egads add that to a grueling schedule and you're right. The four of them might have been very tempted to use quick and easy mood adjusters, and energy givers.
It all looks like glamor to us; it feels like an unhealthy boot camp to them...........
|
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Apr 1, 2004 4:24:59 GMT -5
Paul just sounds tired, in my opinion, on Blackbird, Shes Leaving, and For No One. Not bad, not off key, just not fully supporting his voice, and the cords sound a little inflamed. Blackbird is on the White Album. |
|
|
|
Post by southpaw on Apr 1, 2004 4:54:50 GMT -5
To me the accident theory is really thin,It doesn't make any sense for loved ones to cover up an accidental death. I know its depressing but it would explain the cover-up alot more if it were an overdose or possibly suicide. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Apr 1, 2004 5:08:58 GMT -5
Blackbird is on the White Album. Yes, of course it is. And "Her Majesty" is on the Abbey Road album. To explain, my ear, you see, hears those four songs (including Majesty, Blackbird, Shes Leaving, For NoOne) as the early James Paul voice. This is just the way my ear, unconcerned with PID or 60IF, hears it. But my ear could be wrong again. I mistook "I Got My Mind Set on You" as, of all people, Hall and Oates. (didn't ever pay attenytion to the song when it first came out). So, you know, that's pretty far afield. Course, now, after listening to the single and the flip side, I hear the Harrison voice. So, with that admitted, I'm left with the idea that my opinions may suffer from the old hearing what I wanna hear syndrome. However, almost NOONE at 60IF thought that Getting Better or Lovely Rita or When Im 64 was James Paul. I wanted to agree with the concensus, 5 months ago, but I could not. I believe all three of those are Paul. 'Rita' and '64' have some speed alteration/pitch raising issues, however. So, I slowed them down to listen well---to me, totally has to be James Paul. I do wonder if She's Leaving was ever so slightly slowed down into the mix we hear............. But, you know, enough about all that. Right now, I just wanna hear Britney Spears sing "Toxic." Catchy, crisp, cutting edge pop, infectious as a CDC lab gerble. Young girls everywhere will soon be singing along to it on the bus going to junion high. |
|
|
|
Post by southpaw on Apr 1, 2004 5:23:28 GMT -5
Have you heard the bootleg of an early version of "Her Majesty"?
James Paul is heard singing the extended vocal in falsetto. Its one of my favs. The short one on abbey road sounds like faul to me. Blackbird is a wonderfull song . I tend to lean towards faul on that also.
There are alot of conflicting stories about when it was written and the story behind the song. It written very James P 65-66 style, morose and hopefull.
"Getting better" is definately fully James P in my opinion.
Also "Fixing a hole" and your "mother should know" both sound like they have overdubs of James P and Faul singing together.
|
|
