|
|
Post by faulconandsnowjob on Aug 7, 2008 12:52:02 GMT -5
Now that it's been, to my mind, firmly established that Paul was replaced, I would love to hear your theory (& any supporting evidence) about what happened to him.
Who was involved? What happened to him? When did it occur? Where did it happen? Why did it happen? & how did it happen?
Maybe we can start to piece together the evidence & come to some sort of consensus about what happened to him. I'd really like to focus on just Paul b/c it'll get too big if we start talking about Billy & expanding it out too far.
Thanks in advance for sharing your thoughts
(I didn't see a thread on this, so forgive me if it's duplicative)
|
|
|
|
Post by mumrikusstarr on Aug 26, 2008 0:40:56 GMT -5
Paul was a guy who played in this little band called "The Beatles" right? Now when we got that down we can concentrate on what happened to him. I don't think he died, he was tired and wourn out so he asked to be replaced. The other Beatles were not fund of it, but that's what Paul wanted so. He was replaced for "Sgt. Pepper" "MMT" "The White Album" "Abbey Road" and "Let it Be" He was supposed to come back for the album "Get Back" not only to get back to thier old style but get back to the old Paul. But Faul was becoming more and more convinced that he actually was Paul McCartney and this led to several conflicts in the band. Paul had enough and left the band for good. I'm not sure if Paul did return anything for his solo careér and i don't reallt belive my own theory but there you go!
|
|
|
|
Post by faulconandsnowjob on Aug 26, 2008 1:36:15 GMT -5
That's an interesting theory. Thanks for your input.
|
|
|
|
Post by B on Aug 26, 2008 19:29:25 GMT -5
For faulconandsnowjob: I think that the plan all along was that Paul would leave the group. It is my opinion that the entire "Paul is Dead" affair was part of a play, where Paul would appear to die and have been replaced. That's why the song "I'll Follow the Sun" was written (again - imo) to prophecy that Paul would "be gone". Faul coming in to replace him was all part of it. However I think that Paul was in an automobile accident which disfigured him sufficiently that he had to be replaced anyway, or at least, not appear in public. I think that the disfigurement is what Miles Deo is pointing out in his recent video "balloon or dolphin". I think that Iamaphoney opened the Rotten Apple 41 video with a shot of the cover of "The Passover Plot" book for the same reason: to point out that a comparison could be made with the idea in the book: that Jesus had planned only to stage his death, but unwittingly experienced it for real when the Roman soldier speared him - to the situation with Paul, who was supposed to leave the stage for a while, but not be in a real automobile accident. I'm tempted to leave it at that for now, for the sake of simplicity..... but in fact, there is also a possibility that Paul actually knew he would die or be disfigured, and then return, which, of course, makes for a much more interesting story! For reference: paul is dead - the rotten apple 41 Owww.youtube.com/watch?v=OwFxYWmglv4 balloon or dolphinwww.youtube.com/watch?v=GHGjlkLWgpQ |
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Aug 26, 2008 19:56:05 GMT -5
I think Paul was murdered. He was murdered because he, and the Beatles, were not doing what they were intended to do. They were not following the plan. So this was a warning to them to realize who they were dealing with. One of the messages was that anybody could be replaced at any time.
In my opinion, he was run of the road most likely or something similar to that. I think he died in his car or by his car at the bottom of a hill near the west coast of England on September 12th of '66...a day after the accident. His body was discovered on September 20, the Tuesday of the following week.
The date of September 11, 1966 was no accident. He was killed in a ritualistic manner. A sacrifice so to speak. I know, creepy, but that's what happened imo.
|
|
|
|
Post by iameye on Aug 26, 2008 20:08:30 GMT -5
I think Paul was murdered. He was murdered because he, and the Beatles, were not doing what they were intended to do. They were not following the plan. So this was a warning to them to realize who they were dealing with. One of the messages was that anybody could be replaced at any time. In my opinion, he was run of the road most likely or something similar to that. I think he died in his car or by his car at the bottom of a hill near the west coast of England on September 12th of '66...a day after the accident. His body was discovered on September 20, the Tuesday of the following week. The date of September 11, 1966 was no accident. He was killed in a ritualistic manner. A sacrifice so to speak. I know, creepy, but that's what happened imo. I was run of the road, too. Kinda sucked. ritualistic? probably. creepy. back to you, Todd. two are flying, two are not? |
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Aug 26, 2008 20:54:37 GMT -5
I think Paul was murdered. He was murdered because he, and the Beatles, were not doing what they were intended to do. They were not following the plan. So this was a warning to them to realize who they were dealing with. One of the messages was that anybody could be replaced at any time. In my opinion, he was run of the road most likely or something similar to that. I think he died in his car or by his car at the bottom of a hill near the west coast of England on September 12th of '66...a day after the accident. His body was discovered on September 20, the Tuesday of the following week. The date of September 11, 1966 was no accident. He was killed in a ritualistic manner. A sacrifice so to speak. I know, creepy, but that's what happened imo. I was run of the road, too. Kinda sucked. ritualistic? probably. creepy. back to you, Todd. two are flying, two are not? Well, that's a possibility. But I tend to consider that (alternatively) Paul either became very ill, or got into a severe accident of some kind. But he didn't die, though it looked for a while surely as if he were going to. At some point, weak in ICU, he felt he was not going to last much longer, so he told John or Mal or someone else to carry on, and just get another bass player/song writer, that they shouldn't stop and hold their breath any longer. He probably wasn't thinking of a double; just a new hired fourth man to round out the line-up, play bass, look nice, and write songs with John. I suppose when the Powers in Charge heard this, they concocted the idea to go the extra step and commit to contracting a man to become a convincing look-a-like, or stand-in, using Paul's name, so that IF Paul got better, he could come back. If he didn't, all bases were covered, so that the Beatles as an commercial success could continue without worrying if the fans would take to a change in the line-up. Or if Paul preferred to live away from all the crazy attention, he could do so. But it did not work out that Paul came back. Paul's convalescence was extensive, perhaps, and after running with the ball for so long, what could they do but just keep it up? Plus, Paul never wanted to be in the limelight year after year..... A possibility? The murder thing seems less plausible to me, because given the situation, it would have only created problems that might have been too hard to solve, i.e., if as you say it was a "ritual style" killing done by "the hidden powers" for either blood sacrifice or revenge (say Paul was not "obeying") or to set an example, well, no one knows he's dead (or behind the scenes) so no example was set or could be; the same for revenge or sacrifice, they'd have been sacrificing the cash cow; and then how to explain it away? But the smoking gun is the delay and the 3 month of smoke and mirrors. They were not prepared with a person to sling in as Paul's replacement. It looks like they were ad libbing and biding sweet time till they had an answer. So, Paul's 'elimination' could not have been planned, or else it was planned poorly. Paul's illness, death, or whatever must have come as a complete surprise to those in charge. what looks like to me to be shuffling and whistling on the part of the Beatle camp. September seems to be the black out month for the Beatles, though they may have put out a magazine or two, a press release or two, it was conspicuously a time of Beatle absence in the media, aside from a mention, a snippet of old items, etc....... Since Paul was....out of action in September of 1966, any photograph that purports to be him, by logic, CAN NOT be him. Since William had not yet been to Kenya or had (as we theorize) a first "round" or surgeries until probably in Oct- to November, no image of William would have been suitable even with retouching from that month. And I really believe there can be NO pictures of James Paul possible from that month, either from death or from being infirm. Material circulated after the fact may elicit this idea, but it would have to have been prepared as a defense later on, and dated to comply. So in my opinion, what we have here, is that there are Paul and William photos overlapping from the earliest days of the Beatles; then a period of muddle, in 1966, after the Paperback Writer video, where there either isn't a lot, or it's been removed from circulation, but still an overlap. Then we have nothing in the way of new photo PR in September and maybe half of October 66. We then have the Mal Evans video to cover late October and perhaps a moment or two in November, '66, and then we are on full time with a "redesigned" William from December 20 (or so) 1966 to the present day. with a design tweak or two during the first half of 1967, resulting in a very convincing, amazing rework of William's appearance by the Fall of 1967. Certainly by the time we meet the Maharishi. We can't really find out whether or not any new pictures of Paul or the Beatles were shot from scratch in September 0f 1966, unless we time travel. HA! So, unless someone knows H.G. Wells and can ask him rather nicely to put one of us though his time machine back to say, Sept 30, 1966, and search every magazine rack in America for such material, we'll never know. I'd ask Mr. Wells but I doubt if he'd give me the time of Day. hehe Anyway, some images of William likely arrive on the scene by late October, November, with the first official public appearance near Christmas as we all know. But it's hard to make an assessment of the little bit of material there is. It seems limited to the Mal Evans's vacation video in Kenya and Spain. The Mal Evans "Magical Mystery Trip" video is a boondoggle, IMO. That is beyond this thread. I am trying to stay on topic for once. |
|
|
|
Post by faulconandsnowjob on Aug 26, 2008 21:29:40 GMT -5
I think Paul was murdered, too. I think it's tied to the Tavistock Institute, which was pushing a drug agenda. I personally believe that Paul would not "get with the program," would not quit the band, & so he had to be eliminated. I think this murder definitely served as an example to anyone who wouldn't play along. It explains much more why the other Beatles took pains to expose his death in hidden messages, but always denied it openly. It explains the continuing conspiracy to keep it hidden. Had it been a simple accident, the Truth would have come out much sooner. I believe it is dangerous for any insider to spill the beans. September 11, 1966 was likely no accident. 3/11 - Madrid train bombing 7/7* - London tube bombing (corrected) 9/11 - WTC Some info on Tavistock: http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...nd_control.htm www.bibliotecapleyades.net/so...avistock03.htmwww.rense.com/politics6/harrison.htm |
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Aug 27, 2008 8:48:45 GMT -5
Good points faulcon.
We really appreciate your CLEAR mind on this forum.
|
|
|
|
Post by faulconandsnowjob on Aug 27, 2008 10:52:51 GMT -5
DarkHorse, I really appreciate that. I thank everyone who has helped expose the Truth about Paul. Lots of people have worked very hard & I owe them a debt of gratitude.
|
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Aug 27, 2008 11:59:53 GMT -5
Now that it's been, to my mind, firmly established that Paul was replaced, I would love to hear your theory (& any supporting evidence) about what happened to him. Who was involved? What happened to him? When did it occur? Where did it happen? Why did it happen? & how did it happen? Maybe we can start to piece together the evidence & come to some sort of consensus about what happened to him. I'd really like to focus on just Paul b/c it'll get too big if we start talking about Billy & expanding it out too far. Thanks in advance for sharing your thoughts (I didn't see a thread on this, so forgive me if it's duplicative) OK, here's my present theory for what it's worth. I think JPM left voluntarily.... partially because he was burned out & thought he wanted out, but I think he was also a little out of control & was causing problems for everybody else in Beatleworld. So he wanted to go & the others were so tired of his crap that they were eventually convinced that the replacement idea was worth a try. Obviously the replacement worked out better than any of them expected, so the job was Bill's from that point on. I'm not sure if JPM actually contributed to any of the later albums, but I'm convinced that Chaos & Creation is a JPM album. |
|
|
|
Post by paulumbo on Aug 27, 2008 15:13:47 GMT -5
My theory is that the Beatles were out in front and pulling away from the pack and that there was mucho jealousy about the fact. I think there was a concerted effort to bring them down. And now, I'll introduce a theory that has been hinted at in some of the songs we've been discussing, but I don't think has been talked about. I think Paul at some point, probably in 1966, might have been arrested for, euphemistically stated, sexual indiscretions. REVOLUTION #9 hints at it. QUADROPHENIA does, too. Also, I was reading Tony Barrow's book: JOHN, PAUL, GEORGE, RINGO & ME THE REAL BEATLES STORY, and on P. 141 he says: "At this point, the Beatles were perceived to be neither sexual predators, nor political subversives but contemporary heroes--and this was the status quo we did our best to foster for the foreseeable future. . . ." The time period he was talking about was late '64, early '65.
What better way to ruin a group whose fan base was almost exclusively pre-teen and teen girls than to (not euphemistically stated) nail the cute one on sex charges. I think this needs to be discussed and I hope the moderators will see that it is discussed seriously.
|
|
|
|
Post by plastic paul on Aug 27, 2008 16:50:25 GMT -5
London tube Bombing was 7/7 wasn't it?
|
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Aug 27, 2008 17:19:56 GMT -5
I think paulumbo's theory adds and does not take away from mine and faulcon's theory.
|
|
|
|
Post by faulconandsnowjob on Aug 27, 2008 17:34:15 GMT -5
"London tube Bombing was 7/7 wasn't it?"
Yes - my mistake. 7/7 seems significant as well...
|
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Aug 27, 2008 19:34:32 GMT -5
How about starting the Olympics on 8-8-08? And China of all places. Something is going to happen involving China.
Anyway, back on topic....
|
|
|
|
Post by faulconandsnowjob on Aug 27, 2008 19:55:12 GMT -5
Olympics on 8-8-08 at 8:08 PM!
|
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Aug 27, 2008 21:19:42 GMT -5
What better way to ruin a group whose fan base was almost exclusively pre-teen and teen girls than to (not euphemistically stated) nail the cute one on sex charges. I think this needs to be discussed and I hope the moderators will see that it is discussed seriously. Hey paulumbo, have you seen the "Fun With The Fab Four" dvd? There's a section in there that lines right up with your theory. I haven't watched it in a while, but there's a chapter where a Minneapolis police officer is talking about Paul being caught with an underage girl in his room after the city's curfew for minors. The cops threatened to bust down his motel room door if the girl didn't come out voluntarily..... they had words & Paul was upset over their rediculous city curfew & the fact that the bars closed at 1am & said they never be back to Minneapolis...etc. funny interview. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Aug 27, 2008 21:26:57 GMT -5
My theory is that the Beatles were out in front and pulling away from the pack and that there was mucho jealousy about the fact. I think there was a concerted effort to bring them down. And now, I'll introduce a theory that has been hinted at in some of the songs we've been discussing, but I don't think has been talked about. I think Paul at some point, probably in 1966, might have been arrested for, euphemistically stated, sexual indiscretions. REVOLUTION #9 hints at it. QUADROPHENIA does, too. Also, I was reading Tony Barrow's book: JOHN, PAUL, GEORGE, RINGO & ME THE REAL BEATLES STORY, and on P. 141 he says: "At this point, the Beatles were perceived to be neither sexual predators, nor political subversives but contemporary heroes--and this was the status quo we did our best to foster for the foreseeable future. . . ." The time period he was talking about was late '64, early '65. What better way to ruin a group whose fan base was almost exclusively pre-teen and teen girls than to (not euphemistically stated) nail the cute one on sex charges. I think this needs to be discussed and I hope the moderators will see that it is discussed seriously. Superstardom was uncharted territory. The Fab 4 were young men; temptations looming about everywhere, every city. Maybe not what we would like to hear; but a possibility. Young people make mistakes sometimes. Putting a young girl up to tempting an older fellow into a statutory rape charge is as low as it gets. He shouldn't have done it, if that's what it was, but one does the time, and there is life afterwards. They used to hang homosexuals in England for consensual sex between adults. In the old testament laws, the penalty for a man taking a virgin in "rape" although I doubt it referred to violent, non-sensual, sex, was that you had to pay double dowry and marry her immediately. I think Christ said: "All things will be forgiven in this life, and in the life to come, except for blasphemy against the Holy Spirit." Aside from all that, your other idea, that some people sought to bring the Beatles down, is likely true. Sad. And stupid on the part of those who felt that way. The Beatles celebrated in their music; they taught us to rejoice, and be glad, and appreciate the natural attraction between man and woman, and how to not be uptight, and how to be polite and playful. Yes, they could be a bit mocking at times; satirical. Satire helps us see into hypocrisy and the folly of all humanity. They could be self-effacing too, and were not arrogant (well maybe now and then, but what 20 year old man isn't at times?) but decent and well intentioned. So, those who would bring the Beatles crashing down, I stick out my tongue at you, as the polite and well intentioned man that I used to be. I am getting saucy in my middle-middle age. |
|
|
|
Post by iameye on Aug 27, 2008 23:17:24 GMT -5
QUADROPHENIA does, too
totally townsend
great posts, doc!
|
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Aug 28, 2008 2:52:49 GMT -5
Now that it's been, to my mind, firmly established that Paul was replaced, I would love to hear your theory (& any supporting evidence) about what happened to him. Who was involved? What happened to him? When did it occur? Where did it happen? Why did it happen? & how did it happen? Maybe we can start to piece together the evidence & come to some sort of consensus about what happened to him. I'd really like to focus on just Paul b/c it'll get too big if we start talking about Billy & expanding it out too far. Thanks in advance for sharing your thoughts (I didn't see a thread on this, so forgive me if it's duplicative) OK, here's my present theory for what it's worth. I think JPM left voluntarily.... partially because he was burned out & thought he wanted out, but I think he was also a little out of control & was causing problems for everybody else in Beatleworld. So he wanted to go & the others were so tired of his crap that they were eventually convinced that the replacement idea was worth a try. Obviously the replacement worked out better than any of them expected, so the job was Bill's from that point on. I'm not sure if JPM actually contributed to any of the later albums, but I'm convinced that Chaos & Creation is a JPM album. I agree that there is something very very James Paul about Chaos and Creation--it just sounds JPM thru and thru. |
|
|
|
Post by plastic paul on Aug 28, 2008 6:10:36 GMT -5
How about starting the Olympics on 8-8-08? And China of all places. Something is going to happen involving China. Anyway, back on topic.... Yes indeedy, and it just happened to be the very same day that Russia went to war with Georgia... Wow, we really could be on the brink. |
|
|
|
Post by That Latvian Guy on Aug 28, 2008 7:09:31 GMT -5
Wasn't there a similar thread before? I definitely remember posting my version.
|
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Aug 28, 2008 8:40:59 GMT -5
I agree that there is something very very James Paul about Chaos and Creation--it just sounds JPM thru and thru. Do you mean the voice? Or they lyrics/songwriting? |
|
|
|
Post by P(D)enny La(i)ne on Aug 28, 2008 14:30:08 GMT -5
|
|
