|
Post by SavoyTruffle on Dec 18, 2007 20:00:36 GMT -5
Is there a specific date of Paul's death? I've seen November 9, October 11, September 11, December 12...
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Dec 19, 2007 1:29:38 GMT -5
That would depend on whether or not he died.
|
|
|
Post by MikeNL on Jan 1, 2008 13:54:40 GMT -5
it depends on what you believe
|
|
|
Post by pataphysical on Jan 1, 2008 14:10:56 GMT -5
Depends is a brand of adult diaper.
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Jan 1, 2008 15:15:47 GMT -5
it depends on what you believe In respect to JPM's specific date of 'death', belief is a moot point. The reason being, we have no proof of an actual death.
|
|
|
Post by pataphysical on Jan 1, 2008 15:44:09 GMT -5
Maybe if SavoyTruffle phrased it "what was the supposed date of JPM's death" or "what day was JPM replaced", would you be inclined to answer? Is the Sgt. Pepper drumskin/mirror clue worthless? I'm a little puzzled by the reluctance to answer here to what seemed a straightforward question. Or have y'all resolved to become PIA'ers for 2008? I thought Sept. 11, 1966 was the most reasonable date given the clues and the timeline of observable/known events. Edit: spelling
|
|
|
Post by plastic paul on Jan 1, 2008 19:41:29 GMT -5
Yes IMO it is September 11 1966. That is of course based on the last known appearance of JPM, the first appearance of Faul, and the date on the drumskin, bearing in mind they were English.
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Jan 1, 2008 20:35:54 GMT -5
"what was the supposed date of JPM's death" How about "is he dead?" Is the Sgt. Pepper drumskin/mirror clue worthless? Have you gleaned anything valuable from this or any other PID clue?
|
|
|
Post by B on Jan 1, 2008 21:06:07 GMT -5
Ignore this (from Neil Young) if you must. Sounds like a faked death to me. Well, I used to be asleep you know With blankets on my bed. I stayed there for a while 'Til they discovered I was dead. The coroner was friendly And I liked him quite a lot. If I hadn't 've been a woman I guess I'd never have been caught. They gave me back my house and car And nothing more was said. IAAP video showing 'last known video' of JPM Aug 31, '66 www.youtube.com/watch?v=zg6MTRWioMk
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Jan 1, 2008 23:07:36 GMT -5
it depends on what you believe In respect to JPM's specific date of 'death', belief is a moot point. The reason being, we have no proof of an actual death. The argument is technically true, but I'm not a big fan of that argument. I'm still on the fence about whether JPM was even replaced - though I'm pretty certain that SOMETHING happened about which the public was never told -- something bigger than either a hoax for marketing purposes or a "death trip" for four bored drug-addled musicians with a wicked sense of humor. But if JPM was permanently replaced in 1966, the most likely reason is that he died. Dead men tell no tales, but if a living JPM was still out there, it just seems that much more likely that his presence would have been discovered over this time and just that much LESS likely that the substitution could have remained undiscovered. It's already remarkable enough that any substitution has remained undiscovered to this point. But again, I'm not a big fan of the argument "we have no proof of an actual death". Criminal defendants have been convicted (that is to say, juries have found them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt) of murder even in instances where the prosecutor was unable to produce proof of the existence of corpse. Scott Peterson is on death row for such an instance -- this is the most recent of any prominent case like this that I am familiar with. There are times when the existence of a corpse can be inferred.
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Jan 1, 2008 23:21:24 GMT -5
Yes IMO it is September 11 1966. That is of course based on the last known appearance of JPM, the first appearance of Faul, and the date on the drumskin, bearing in mind they were English. I'd held out before for November 9, 1966 simply because it was a Wednesday (Wednesday morning at five o'clock). But the more that I think about it, the more I think that an earlier date makes more sense. And then there's the Eleanor Rigby tombstone containing the shadowy figure of a left-handed bass player imprinted onto it and a September TWELFTH date of death. Maybe September 11, 1966 as the date of a particular incident that led to an actual death which was pronounced on September 12. Or maybe there was some sort of ambiguity which made it difficult to determine whether death took place on the 11th or 12th. Or maybe the Pepper Drum is one day off, just like the license plate on "Abbey Road" is one year off. Maybe it wasn't possible to get these things EXACT and somebody decided to settle for "close enough". But September 11 and 12 were, respectively, a Sunday and Monday. Then what about "stupid bloody Tuesday" and "Wednesday morning at five o'clock"? Presumably, red herrings.
|
|
|
Post by rbbrsoul on Jan 2, 2008 0:07:22 GMT -5
Hey everyone, I've been reading this board for awhile and finally decided to post here... If this is JPM, then it appears he was alive when he and Ringo attended the 1966 Melody Maker awards. The date on the award is September 13th, 1966.
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Jan 2, 2008 0:29:06 GMT -5
But if JPM was permanently replaced in 1966, the most likely reason is that he died. Musicians die all the time why would JPM be so special as to have his death 'covered' and need a replacement? What tale would JPM need to tell? if a living JPM was still out there, it just seems that much more likely that his presence would have been discovered over this time Really? Wouldnt he have had the means at that point in his life to disappear? It's already remarkable enough that any substitution has remained undiscovered to this point. It seems the substitution(s) were discovered some time ago. But again, I'm not a big fan of the argument "we have no proof of an actual death". Criminal defendants have been convicted (that is to say, juries have found them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt) of murder even in instances where the prosecutor was unable to produce proof of the existence of corpse. Scott Peterson is on death row for such an instance -- this is the most recent of any prominent case like this that I am familiar with. There are times when the existence of a corpse can be inferred. Where is the crime with the topic at hand?
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Jan 2, 2008 0:43:14 GMT -5
But if JPM was permanently replaced in 1966, the most likely reason is that he died. Musicians die all the time why would JPM be so special as to have his death 'covered' and need a replacement?
You would have to ask those who made that decision. What tale would JPM need to tell? "Here I am". Really? Wouldnt he have had the means at that point in his life to disappear? But it's unlikely that he would have the motive to disappear permanently. It seems the substitution(s) were discovered some time ago. Obviously, there has been no "smoking gun" that the world recognizes as such.
But again, I'm not a big fan of the argument "we have no proof of an actual death". Criminal defendants have been convicted (that is to say, juries have found them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt) of murder even in instances where the prosecutor was unable to produce proof of the existence of corpse. Scott Peterson is on death row for such an instance -- this is the most recent of any prominent case like this that I am familiar with. There are times when the existence of a corpse can be inferred.
Where is the crime with the topic at hand? I'm simply making the point that death can be inferred, even in the absence of a corpse.
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Jan 2, 2008 0:59:16 GMT -5
Hey everyone, I've been reading this board for awhile and finally decided to post here... If this is JPM, then it appears he was alive when he and Ringo attended the 1966 Melody Maker awards. The date on the award is September 13th, 1966. That's quite a find, rbbr soul. You've spurred further research on my part. That's JPM all right. If there was any doubt about it, here's a brief YouTube video of that award ceremony. www.youtube.com/watch?v=zApBPR1QHK4That's JPM attending that ceremony beyond all doubt. Here's a Beatles Timeline that sets the date of that award as September 19. home.att.net/~chuckayoub/1966_year.htmThat timeline isn't necessarily golden, but we can scratch out mid-September or any earlier date. So much for the date on the Eleanor Rigby tombstone.
|
|
|
Post by That Latvian Guy on Jan 2, 2008 3:42:36 GMT -5
My theory was that he died after the awards ceremony, when he was driving home. I had read in this forum that the ceremony took place circa September 11, so I assumed he died that or next day and the Eleanor Rigby tombstone thing was, in fact, a real clue. But now I guess I have to move the assumed date to September 19 or 20
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Jan 2, 2008 14:08:32 GMT -5
But it's unlikely that he would have the motive to disappear permanently.
You were aware of his motives? You are sure he disappeared permanently?
Obviously, there has been no "smoking gun" that the world recognizes as such.
The lack of world recognition does not negate the discovery that has been made. Most don't have the mind to grasp it, and the rest won't care.
|
|
|
Post by The Deceptionist on Jan 2, 2008 14:39:47 GMT -5
The lack of world recognition does not negate the discovery that has been made. Most don't have the mind to grasp it, and the rest won't care. I think thats possibly the best summary that could be given to PWR/PID at this point in time. Spot on in fact.
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Jan 2, 2008 15:45:13 GMT -5
My theory was that he died after the awards ceremony, when he was driving home. I had read in this forum that the ceremony took place circa September 11, so I assumed he died that or next day and the Eleanor Rigby tombstone thing was, in fact, a real clue. But now I guess I have to move the assumed date to September 19 or 20 Maybe not so far out. home.att.net/~outasite/beatles.htmlAbove is another website which identifies September 13, 1966 as the day of the award ceremony, which does appear to be the date on the plaque that Paul is holding. The 13th -- which was a Tuesday -- is probably the correct date of the award ceremony. The website that referred to the 19th is probably wrong. This issue has apparently come up before on TKIN, and I think that someone on TKIN ingeniously suggested that the award ceremony is what is represented by the phrase "corporation T-shirt". Running with that as a working hypothesis, I doubt that Paul could have gotten into a fatal traffic accident on the way back from the award ceremony, without people finding out about it. But what if after the award ceremony, he disappeared into the night and away from the public view with Ringo and others and maybe celebrated a little too freely before driving off in his car ("stupid bloody Tuesday")? A fatal car crash ensues after midnight on the 14th -- maybe on Wednesday morning at five o'clock. Or maybe that's when he is discovered. And the date on the Eleanor Rigby tombstone -- for whatever reason -- would therefore be a day or two off -- again, just as the number on the license plate on Abbey Road is a year off.
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Jan 2, 2008 16:07:17 GMT -5
But it's unlikely that he would have the motive to disappear permanently. You were aware of his motives? No, but my ability to speculate is as good as yours. He had worked hard to achieve a goal that thousands -- perhaps millions of others -- could only dream of. He had achieved it far beyond what he could have hoped or expected. We can understand him growing tired of his fame and the demands that this placed upon him and wishing a respite, but it doesn't seem likely that he would completely give up on a permanent basis what he had long aspired to. You are sure he disappeared permanently?
Where is he? Have you seen him since 1966? Obviously, there has been no "smoking gun" that the world recognizes as such.The lack of world recognition does not negate the discovery that has been made. Most don't have the mind to grasp it, and the rest won't care. If indeed, there is a "discovery" that has been made -- which I think is still open to question -- then I have a vague understanding (although it is not written down anyplace that I have seen) that the people responsible for having made the "discovery" ultimately want the world to know about it and accept it -- if only to right music history and obtain a proper understanding of JPM's role in it as well as the role of the individual or individuals who replaced him. It's true that most of those who "care" do not have the mind to grasp things such as eye colors, earlobes, and clues from albums and song lyrics. But even the average schmoe would be unlikely to disregard "hard" forensic characteristics such as fingerprints or DNA -- or even a admission from Sir Paul himself. In the absence of something like that, there really hasn't been any "discovery" as I regard the term.
|
|
|
Post by That Latvian Guy on Jan 2, 2008 16:12:44 GMT -5
My theory was that he picked up a woman who didn't wear a seat-belt, but he did do it. He crashed somewhere outside the city, not too far from London but the car was "hidden" very good. The woman died instantly, but the bleeding Paul tried to get to Abbey Road Studios or whatever studio were they recording back then. As the bleeding wasn't very fast, he succeeded, but collapsed shortly after he came there an told what happened. He died before anyone could call the ambulance, so they decided (for unknown reasons which I am not going to discuss or guess) to cover up the thing. They found a sound-alike who also resembled Paul, but still needed a plastic surgery. He wasn't perfect, but convincing enough. The band members and the personnel were aware of the switch. Sound-alike (his previous identity) disappeared and was never found, so that he could start his life as Paul McCartney. They told him many things he had to remember if he is going to pretend to be Paul. Also, what to respond when the police will investigate the crash of his car. It was his first big test and he succeded. Everything else is pretty much known.
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Jan 2, 2008 16:46:18 GMT -5
If indeed, there is a "discovery" that has been made -- which I think is still open to question -- then I have a vague understanding (although it is not written down anyplace that I have seen) that the people responsible for having made the "discovery" ultimately want the world to know about it and accept it -- if only to right music history and obtain a proper understanding of JPM's role in it as well as the role of the individual or individuals who replaced him.
It's true that most of those who "care" do not have the mind to grasp things such as eye colors, earlobes, and clues from albums and song lyrics. But even the average schmoe would be unlikely to disregard "hard" forensic characteristics such as fingerprints or DNA -- or even a admission from Sir Paul himself.
In the absence of something like that, there really hasn't been any "discovery" as I regard the term.
In the absence of "hard" evidence(although the earlobes are absolutely damning), it is challenging to assist when one cannot "see" the obvious. This forum is not for debating whether or not there was a replacement. The days of endeavoring to convince others are ancient here.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Jan 2, 2008 17:19:14 GMT -5
That's quite a find, rbbr soul. You've spurred further research on my part. That's JPM all right. If there was any doubt about it, here's a brief YouTube video of that award ceremony. www.youtube.com/watch?v=zApBPR1QHK4That's JPM attending that ceremony beyond all doubt. Here's a Beatles Timeline that sets the date of that award as September 19. home.att.net/~chuckayoub/1966_year.htmThat timeline isn't necessarily golden, but we can scratch out mid-September or any earlier date. So much for the date on the Eleanor Rigby tombstone. Don't get discouraged so fast 65if2007! This has been discussed before on an older thread. Many of the "veteran" members know that Paul was at the Melody Maker Awards in '66. We've all seen the picture that was supposely taken September 13, 1966. But think of it this way, if the people behind this can lie about something this big and cover it up, then they can surely doctor a few dates in 1966. From what I remember in the discussion, some of us, including myself, thought that the actual date that Paul was at the awards show was Friday the 9th or Saturday the 10th. Aren't award shows usually on the weekends? Perhaps I stand corrected. Anyway, the 13th was on a Tuesday.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Jan 2, 2008 18:01:30 GMT -5
About the Melody Maker award, an early member noted in this thread: Reply #13I've had a friend check out the music papers archive in Manchester Library for me. The date on the Sept 13 picture is the date that Melody Maker was published, not the date of the awards ceremony. The magazine simply alluded to "last weekend's awards", meaning it could have been on Fri 9th, Sat 10th, Sunday 11th. Hope that clears that one up.
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Jan 3, 2008 1:03:09 GMT -5
If indeed, there is a "discovery" that has been made -- which I think is still open to question -- then I have a vague understanding (although it is not written down anyplace that I have seen) that the people responsible for having made the "discovery" ultimately want the world to know about it and accept it -- if only to right music history and obtain a proper understanding of JPM's role in it as well as the role of the individual or individuals who replaced him.
It's true that most of those who "care" do not have the mind to grasp things such as eye colors, earlobes, and clues from albums and song lyrics. But even the average schmoe would be unlikely to disregard "hard" forensic characteristics such as fingerprints or DNA -- or even a admission from Sir Paul himself.
In the absence of something like that, there really hasn't been any "discovery" as I regard the term.In the absence of "hard" evidence(although the earlobes are absolutely damning), it is challenging to assist when one cannot "see" the obvious. I do not hold myself out as one who who cannot see what you are referring to or who seeks to be convinced. I know exactly what the arguments are in favor of the supposition that Paul was replaced. Many of them are very convincing. There are also problems with that supposition -- which seem insurmountable, at first blush. I won't repeat them here because I certainly do not seek to convince you of something (i.e., that Paul was NOT replaced) that I am not convinced of myself. To my mind, it's a standoff as to whether or not this is a different Paul. The only thing that I feel sure of is that SOMETHING HAPPENED once upon a time. But as to whether or not PWR, I am not seeking to be convinced rhetorically by anyone or to rhetorically convince anyone of either point of view -- that he was or was not replaced. I am looking for a "smoking gun" that would resolve the issue one way or the other. I don't have the power to subject him to a fingerprint test or a DNA test, and it's just my fancy, I'm sure, that I imagine that the answer resides somewhere on the world-wide web. This forum is not for debating whether or not there was a replacement. The days of endeavoring to convince others are ancient here. Interesting. The heading on the home page reads, "The purpose of this forum is to discuss the idea that Paul McCartney was replaced some time in late 1966." It IS referred to as an "idea" as opposed to an indisputable fact. I saw no limitation such as the one that you describe. But again, it's academic. I am not challenging anyone to "convince" me of anything. As I said, I'm looking for the smoking gun, one way or the other. I'm also interested in your declaring that while the fact of the replacement is indisputable and not subject to further discussion (due to things such as earlobes), the REASON for the replacement is up in the air. Surely the numerous explicit references to death and to car crashes, and so on should have a persuasive effect, just as the earlobes do.
|
|