|
|
Post by NothingIsReal1985 on Sept 20, 2013 19:44:21 GMT -5
Apologies if it took so long to get back here; I've been ill since... well, Tuesday night. Got my period -- not my usual 3-day one with all the usual -- and been bleeding heavily like a stuck pig [going thru tampons, pads and tissue paper like water] and cramping that's came and went. Had the same problem several years back, but w/o the pain(s). I've been overweight for years [which has knocked things off course, like having very irregular menstrual periods], and that's part of the reason for it. Haven't ate, drank nor slept normally since that time. I've been hopin' & praying for the problem to go away, but I'll just see what happens. Have an appointment this Wednesday to have this problem nipped in the bud, hopefully once and for all. Also a bad time b/c my elder sister (by exactly 11 months, who everyone, even total strangers, says we look and sound a lot alike , speaking of doubles, lol) has given birth to her 6th child including twins via Cesarean earlier today. Was under the weather, so I wasn't up for going, as much as I wanted to, so I'm disappointed. Needless to say it is NOT the best time for my kind of condition. On top of that, I've had a few other stressful things take place [one was solved yesterday, so some of the weight was lifted from my shoulders], but it's a long story. I reckon for the time being I have no other choice but to let it (my female troubles) run its course, b/c there's little to nothing I can do about it. I also plan to post more photos along with any info, whether real or speculated. I also tried posting these same photos in the 'Physical Evidence' thread here (a couple days ago), but an error came up and it didn't pan out, so I had to start all over again. 1.  2.  3.  4.  5.  6.  7.  8.  9.  10.  11.  12.  13.  14.  15.  16. Now, why in the WORLD would someone want to don a prosthetic ear... unless it's for costume purposes in theater, television &/or film/movies? On top of that that second photo is really ugly [not to mention pitiful], anyhow. In the first one Paul's ear also looks fake -- as in a few other photos here -- but more on that later. On top of that be informed that in some of these images Paul's face has been manipulated as to better resemble Faul's, and vice-versa. 17.  18.  19.  20.  21.  22.  23.  24. 
Take note of the teeth in #23 & #24.
25.
|
|
|
|
Post by cherilyn7 on Sept 21, 2013 20:04:21 GMT -5
ticket2ride you need to do your homework. Everything changed with John too after 1966. People don't change looks and personality in such a short time.
|
|
|
|
Post by cherilyn7 on Sept 21, 2013 20:13:17 GMT -5
Sorry you've been ill NothingisReal1985; great research with those pics. Can you compare any circa 1962 as that was a time when there appears to be 2 people as Paul. Though this thread is old, it seems to have only found photographs that confirm that Paul was A) one height during a set time period, and B) another height during another time period. It fits within the 1942 - 1966 / 1966 - present myth format. It hasn't gone and found the pictures that entirely conflict with the photographs that showed you a Paul that went up and down in height quite suddenly, and ... well ... impossibly. View Attachment |
|
|
|
Post by cherilyn7 on Sept 21, 2013 20:27:55 GMT -5
Sorry you've been ill NothingisReal1985; great research with those pics. Can you compare any circa 1962 as that was a time when there appears to be 2 people as Paul. View AttachmentThough this thread is old, it seems to have only found photographs that confirm that Paul was A) one height during a set time period, and B) another height during another time period. It fits within the 1942 - 1966 / 1966 - present myth format. It hasn't gone and found the pictures that entirely conflict with the photographs that showed you a Paul that went up and down in height quite suddenly, and ... well ... impossibly. There appears to have been someone else purporting to be Paul as early as 1962. The stance is different and the face is different; this face appears to be in the early publicity shots. I'm quoting VoodooGuru here: It's April 1963. The Beatles have donned their trademark suits and shoes. These are of course, iconic now. But as seen , we have a Paul McCartney that is quite taller than George Harrison and John Lennon. And when we look at the heels of their shoes (provided beneath the April 1963 photo) we see that both John and George are wearing a higher heel than both Ringo and Paul. It suggests Paul would be quite taller than them, even if they weren't in heels. |
|
|
|
Post by cherilyn7 on Sept 21, 2013 20:34:23 GMT -5
[ Attachment DeletedThis was posted at my blog some time ago, but really this should mess up ANYTHING you think about 1966 and PID. Because this conflicts with that legend massively, and brings other things to light. Below you have 3 images. One is approximately 1962. Another approximately 1970/1971, and the other approximately 1968 (by hair length.) You are going to have massive problems matching Image 1 to Image 2, but even with longer hair, you are going to find Image 1 and Image 3 fit nicely together. They suggest the same person. But in PID lore, this cannot be! Because the "original" Paul should have been dead by 1966, and Image No.3 is most definitely post 1966. If it's not 1968, then I don't know what it is. |
|
|
|
Post by cherilyn7 on Sept 21, 2013 20:47:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by ticket2ride on Sept 22, 2013 5:26:09 GMT -5
ticket2ride you need to do your homework. Everything changed with John too after 1966. People don't change looks and personality in such a short time. You`re welcome to your opinion but I`ve done enough homework on the Beatles and other musical artists to conclude that while the doppelganger/replacement/clone theories are interesting, few of the famous people cited as having been replaced have actually been replaced. Once people go down the track of pursuing this as hard, undeniable truth, then the lists get longer and the assertions get more insistent while in fact there is little in hard proof except for photos in most cases. The internet has a way of running with ideas and promoting them as undeniable truth. I do not believe for one minute that artists such as Christine Aguilera, Britney Spears, Beyonce, Jay Z etc were replaced. The insistence on that idea as fact fails to accept that these people were never anything but manufactured celebrities as in Aguilera, Britney and Beyonce. They didn`t have to be replaced because they were never original artists with ideas that challenged any norms. They were manufactured singers who had their songs ghostwritten and still mostly do, and promoted tired old ideas of so called sexiness and simply rehashed the idea that women have to flash just about everything if they want to make popular music. Jay Z was never a force for good who was supposedly replaced. He has always been a selfish scumbag who has a talent for parasitising others` experiences and resources and using them up to make his way through the music biz. After screwing over those who got him into the music biz, he proceeded to latch onto talent such as Kanye West to make him relevant these days. His prominence now is easy to understand ~ just do some research on how the monopolisation of the music industry has reached its peak over the past 7 yrs or so. New talent only gets accepted if they are prepared to be yes men and women, in some cases in a variation on the old Hollywood casting couch. New talent also gets signed and forced to sit out while jaded and increasingly unoriginal established artists like Beyonce and Jay Z monopolize because they have no true competition. Aguilera, Britney, Miley Cyrus et al do reflect the nastiness of the Disney machine. They were all child stars there and research does indicate there is an ugly programming of celebrities that goes on in the entertainment industry. John Lennon took acid continuously over a period of years and then took heroin with Yoko. There are credible witnesses to the fact that both were hooked on it together. She wasn`t a Svengali keeping a John double hooked while she was clean. |
|
|
|
Post by vOOdOOgurU on Sept 22, 2013 6:04:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by vOOdOOgurU on Sept 22, 2013 6:14:07 GMT -5
Do you get this now???
Sorry if I'm coming over as frustrated, but look at him! You've got two different people existing long after any "1966 fatality". The Paul in Let It Be cannot be the same Paul you see in 1973. He just can't. Unless you take his eyebrow and totally move it up his head! And make it curve. The bearded Paul in 1970 can't be him either. Nor can the Penny Lane Paul. But the OTHER 1967 Paul CAN! As can the Paul from 1966.
Do you get this? It's a total headgame played on you. Us. Everyone. Scammed! How can you say there is a REAL Paul and a FAKE Paul, when you've got numerous amount of evidence saying two are existing at the same time! Maybe even 3! Who knows how many, but there is no REAL / FAKE conclusions because you're basing it on to have someone else exist, someone else has to die. Logic tells you that this has to be so. You can't have two at the same time, because mortal constraints tell you so. He has to have been replaced, and the only way to get rid of the original one is to have him dead. And that's what's being messed with in OUR heads. The rules of mortality. In the previous post you can SEE there is more than one Paul McCartney portraying him, and 1966 HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING. That's to throw you off and play with your mortality rules. It makes you look for that body within the constructs of Life/Death. It is purposefully there and planted to appeal to a condition that Life presents million-fold. And you are going to keep looking for that body and not find it. It's not there! Because the above photos show you, there is no body to speak of. Paul is an Illusion right from the get-go, and playing with that illusion is what it's all about. Paul Is Dead. Think about what it truly means.
|
|
|
|
Post by ticket2ride on Sept 23, 2013 0:16:17 GMT -5
ticket2ride you need to do your homework. Everything changed with John too after 1966. People don't change looks and personality in such a short time. I'd like to emphasise I am not disrespecting your opinion - I think the whole replacement/cloning/doppleganger theories have some merit but I also know that most of the 'evidence' presented on the net (not talking about you or other posters on here) is simply about photos out of context and not actual proof, or differences in behaviour that are well and truly explained by people maturing and changing, or having the after effects of long term ingestion of drugs/alcohol. In John's case I don't agree about somehow his behaviour after 1966 was different from that before. John Lennon's real personality as opposed to the friendly Beatle image he loathed was that of a very complex, troubled, and at times violent person. He replaced the contradictions of his life as a besuited, cuddly Beatle when in fact he was a foul mouthed man who laughed at the disabled, got into physical fights at times and treated his wife very badly, with LSD which taken more than a few times does make changes in people. According to John he and George took it the most as they were the most 'cracked'. I love John Lennon and I love his honesty and other good qualities but he was not the person his Beatle image forced on him and he took dangerous amounts of a psychotropic drug which affects the brain and the personality. I think his nose change was down to some fights and it always was a bit hooky on one side. The basic problem I have accepting all the replacement theories in their plurality with other musicians and with actors is that the 'originals' were not wonderful people seeking to use music and acting to genuinely help the world and its people. There is no need to change such shallow self centred people as Christina Aguilera etc who sold out any depth they had a long time ago, Beyonce has always been noted for not being very intelligent and for basically doing what daddy told her until she fired him and then letting Jay Z do what daddy did in a different way. Justin Beiber is just acting up because of lack of boundaries and wise counsel - very usual in the entertainment industry. I can believe John Lennon was hit by shady forces as he was capable of generating a lot of resistance to bad governments especially those in the US. It was only a matter of time. Or he could have been a sacrifice. I can believe Keith Richards was replaced as he was a bona fide junkie according to credible sources - and of course would the Stones and their record company really reveal his death from an overdose if it happened? I said 'can' - how would we know unless we are part of their inner circle. This is about image and money making. The overwhelming majority of famous people cited as having been replaced really weren't about challenging any norms, why would you need to get rid of them? Only if they died under bad circumstances which would harm the image and money generating ability, for the most. And I just want to add that it is very likely many of the famous people we see are related to other famous people whether they are their actual children who are not acknowledged or relatives. The elites look after their own. |
|
|
|
Post by cherilyn7 on Sept 23, 2013 16:19:25 GMT -5
I don't mean to get nitpicky here, but if someone's going to provide a picture of Paul in 1966, and one from Penny Lane in 1967 and say, see his eyebrows don't match up (and any beautician would tell you, what he achieves with his eyebrows is virtually impossible. I'm not a beautician. But even I can tell, to get that arch that he achieves, no amount of plucking is going to make that happen.) View AttachmentView AttachmentSo how do you resolve these multiple images of Paul with eyebrows that just don't match eachother. Two examples were provided in the aformentioned post. It's shown that the Penny Lane Paul does not match a 1966 Paul. Well how do you resolve that a later picture of Paul in 1967 does not match Penny Lane either!!! This is something I don't think Paul Is Dead researchers want to even acknowledge. Look at him. And look at his eyebrows. To get that arch in his eyebrows he achieves, he'd have to have hair covering most of his forehead! And be able to pick and choose where his eyebrows are on his head! This is impossible, and everyone knows this. But look! 1967. 1969. 1970. 1973. These are different men! Look!!! There is no Paul / Faul. There are only multiples. ![]() View Attachment************************************************************************************************************ If the first Paul died in 1959, then "he was just 17".[/quote from Custodian was Paul thread. *********************************************************************************************************** VoodooGuru, as a woman I can tell you that Paul's eyebrows have always been rather a mystery to me! T.b.h I think that in recent times whoever is sporting those eyebrows; they must be fake, stuck on so the person must have had their own eyebrows removed and then stick these "Paul" eyebrows on. With some photos I've seen there is sometimes a portion of one brow missing (the right one that is VERY arched and filled in with pencil, though the end bit is sometimes missing. This can get rubbed off especially under the lights. It is an exaggerated arch and unusual on a man. There don't appear to be any "stray hairs" so it must be plucked. However, VoodooGuru I am in agreement with your conclusions that there are several different people involved and they seem to "come and go". I think the incumbent at the present time is not played by the same individual at all times. After all, the guy must be about 78 by now so he can't keep all this up without help. The "Faul" on the Diamond Jubilee show looked effeminate. I am wondering: did the original die in 1959 in Hamburg? Compare photos Hamburg, 1962 publicity photos different face and stance, then 1964/5 (Shea Stadium forgot words): pre 1966 probably 3 different faces. Back to the eyebrows: i.m.o you cannot get an arched eyebrow like that just by plucking. You have your basic eyebrow shape and can pluck to make thinner but you always pluck from underneath so the top does not arch up! |
|
|
|
Post by linus on Sept 23, 2013 16:45:02 GMT -5
In this interview, Dusty Springfield asks Paul if he plucks his eyebrows, and he says "no" while nodding yes.
at the 3:00 mark
|
|
|
|
Post by vOOdOOgurU on Sept 23, 2013 17:14:23 GMT -5
Right now I'm going through all images 1967.
You know another thing that bothers me? Guess.
The moustaches!
When did everyone grow theirs and how long did it take.
We see in December 1966, all four Beatles had a moustache.
On November 11th, 1966 the Daily Mirror reports The Beatles at a crossroads. Harrison is the only one sporting a moustache.
In-between this time, Harrison shaved his off, and the one Ringo was growing on holiday was shaved off as well -- so by November the only Beatle with a moustache was ... Paul. There is a picture of George & Ringo entering EMI without moustaches, so in-between India and the December 1966 interview outside of EMI, George re-grew his moustache. As did Ringo.
Paul disappears sometime after the MM awards ceremonies, around 19th September 1966, correct? The next time you hear about him seems to be leaving England on the 6th November for France. The next footage of him surfaces with moustache somewhere in-between the 13th - 18th November, 1966.
So really what you'd want to find is:
Images of him between September 1966 thru to November 1966 while he's growing that moustache. And you know what? I've never seen anything like that in all the photos I've ever seen of things called Beatles. No mid-stage, almost grown McCartney moustache leading up to Pepper. The Beatlemania haircut, into the Pepper haircut --- nope, not that either. No transitional stage documented. There's this nearly two month gap where this guy just drops off the face of the earth. Which is why everyone comes here saying Paul Is Dead! I get that. But how can the most photographed band of its time, just have a member vanish and not be in the public eye? Surely there must be some coverage of him or some archive of his whereabouts? No pictures of him at all? Nothing?
The whole moustache thing, especially with drawing them in on George & Paul in The Beatles Book Monthly, does this not seem odd to you how much this hair growth was being pushed through the media. I understand that's how pop news works, oh look they have earwax now! Wow! I get it. And it must have been quite a shock for Beatlemaniacs, so i can see why it was so newsworthy in that kind of treadmill of BeatleNews things. It's just something that occurred to me really. How long does it take to grow a moustache, well til it's not stubble, and actually resembles something. I'd say a good 3 to 4 weeks. Everyone's different though. I have to find that picture showing George & Ringo in late 1966 both without moustaches.
|
|
|
|
Post by vOOdOOgurU on Sept 23, 2013 17:59:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by beacon on Sept 24, 2013 3:22:24 GMT -5
Paul is interviewed in this months copy of Mojo magazine in which he claims he is 5'10" with hazel eyes and that he is/was as tall as John. |
|
|
|
Post by beacon on Sept 24, 2013 6:42:15 GMT -5
Right now I'm going through all images 1967. You know another thing that bothers me? Guess. The moustaches! When did everyone grow theirs and how long did it take. We see in December 1966, all four Beatles had a moustache. On November 11th, 1966 the Daily Mirror reports The Beatles at a crossroads. Harrison is the only one sporting a moustache. In-between this time, Harrison shaved his off, and the one Ringo was growing on holiday was shaved off as well -- so by November the only Beatle with a moustache was ... Paul. There is a picture of George & Ringo entering EMI without moustaches, so in-between India and the December 1966 interview outside of EMI, George re-grew his moustache. As did Ringo. Paul disappears sometime after the MM awards ceremonies, around 19th September 1966, correct? The next time you hear about him seems to be leaving England on the 6th November for France. The next footage of him surfaces with moustache somewhere in-between the 13th - 18th November, 1966. So really what you'd want to find is: Images of him between September 1966 thru to November 1966 while he's growing that moustache. And you know what? I've never seen anything like that in all the photos I've ever seen of things called Beatles. No mid-stage, almost grown McCartney moustache leading up to Pepper. The Beatlemania haircut, into the Pepper haircut --- nope, not that either. No transitional stage documented. There's this nearly two month gap where this guy just drops off the face of the earth. Which is why everyone comes here saying Paul Is Dead! I get that. But how can the most photographed band of its time, just have a member vanish and not be in the public eye? Surely there must be some coverage of him or some archive of his whereabouts? No pictures of him at all? Nothing? The whole moustache thing, especially with drawing them in on George & Paul in The Beatles Book Monthly, does this not seem odd to you how much this hair growth was being pushed through the media. I understand that's how pop news works, oh look they have earwax now! Wow! I get it. And it must have been quite a shock for Beatlemaniacs, so i can see why it was so newsworthy in that kind of treadmill of BeatleNews things. It's just something that occurred to me really. How long does it take to grow a moustache, well til it's not stubble, and actually resembles something. I'd say a good 3 to 4 weeks. Everyone's different though. I have to find that picture showing George & Ringo in late 1966 both without moustaches. Yeah, those damn moustaches! I cannot find any growth stage photos either; however, this is interesting.  Good old Beatles Monthly again! November 66 edition I think. The segment that has been boxed off talks about John and Neil meeting Paul in Paris in September 66. He was accompanied apparently by Maggie McGivern with whom he was having an affair and about which she says.... In order for the young couple to stay together and let their relationship evolve it was essential that it remained a secret, and even a short break with friends took a great deal of forward thinking. In the first year of their relationship the couple took a trip to Paris with John Lennon and Brian Epstein, all four of them flying seperately, their seperately timed arrivals at least allowing them to stay in the same hotel together where Paul and Maggie shared a very luxurious suite.
"It was a marvellous holiday... just walking around the streets of paris. My abiding memory is of me, John and Paul lying under the Eiffel Tower, gazing up at it. We couldn't go up because we would have been recognised, and we were masters of the art of avoiding people... We spent more time with John than we did with George and Ringo - we hardly saw them at all." More details can be found here. I believe the Melody Maker awards were the 13th September. This affair does present some intriguing possibilities as to why McCartney may have gone off radar and possibly why he really grew the moustache. Interestingly she was employed by John Dunbar to look after his and Marianne Faithfull's baby, how incredibly convenient! Dunbar can now take responsibility for this relationship and John and Yoko's before gifting his partner to Mick Jagger. However, given that Paul is in a relationship with two women at that time it seems even less likely that he could have died, surely one of them would have noticed? Also of interest is the last segment that talks of how they expected filming to end by November 7, and possibly a week before that. Yet again raising the question of why Paul thought he would be meeting John in Spain in November - he knew for sure that John wouldn't be there! |
|
|
|
Post by beacon on Sept 24, 2013 9:01:41 GMT -5
Here's Paul and Maggie at a party at Indica; summer 66 I would guess?  Here's Ringo with John on October 21, 1966 in Almeira, sans tache as previously stated. Interestingly it was this photo that was used in the crossroads newspaper article so it is likely that the 4 images were very recent.   |
|
|
|
Post by beacon on Sept 24, 2013 9:52:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by vOOdOOgurU on Sept 24, 2013 10:46:40 GMT -5
Going to try and encapsulate the three posts. Okay, the meeting between John/Neil/Brian/Paul I did know about, and I came across that going into the mythology of Osiris's death, which was on the seventeenth day of Athyr, in his 28th year of reign. Athyr (sometimes spelled as Hathor) is either September or November. And believe me I did try nailing it down what equivalent month Athyr is to modern calendars. I'll attempt again at some point, but found it very frustrating getting something definitive. All I know is Athyr is either September/November, the very months that keep coming up Paul Is Dead. So I knew he met them in Paris, because it seems right after that .... he drops off the face of the earth. Until resurfacing in November, leaving the same day as John's arrival BACK in the UK. Which I found convenient. Or "just the luck". Because it makes that whole "our purpose in going to Spain is to meet Lennon. Well Neil knew they'd be back. Mal should know they'd be back, but lies about it in the Beatles Monthly Book. They finished up shooting early, Lennon was back in the country by the 6th November. Mal says they weren't even back by the 8th. McCartney now says he doesn't meet Mal until the 12th, making a 6 day trip around Spain, to Rome, to Africa IMPOSSIBLE. John Dunbar. Celebrity matchmaker. Denies Harvey Matusow had any involvement in getting Yoko Ono over to England, yet he's Yoko's babysitter apparently while she lived in New York. Peter Brown says she's been in England since around October. The International Times (Dunbar/Asher/Miles) insist she's been around since the summer. But since no one knows when McCartney leaves, and Lennon returns, it's no surprise they can't figure out when Yoko Ono arrived in England. An aside. Maggie was hot. I see the need to be clandestine. Hotter than Jane and Linda. You go Paul. Paul to the rescue. He's wearing that damn Anchor shirt  If the music was being gotten ready for the 2nd December, and the article is from the 19th November, how did Paul McCartney work at this session? He's been out of the country since the 6th November. He's just returned from a flight from Africa, leaving on the 18th to land on the 19th. And now he's also produced a session for The Escorts. WHEN??? It has to be before the 6th November, because there's no way he did it while on holiday. And Paul McCartney can go work for Columbia Records?  Really? I mean it can happen, but he's virtually employed by EMI isn't he. Columbia is a rival record company. They don't come up with pseudonyms for nothing on record sleeves when someone who is under contract with someone else makes an appearance that could land them in legal hotwater, and possibly breaking contract. They're advertising openly he's just done session work for a rival record company. It may not be that big a deal, at the same time, it should be noted this work was done for a company outside of his contract. It may present problems when credit for the work followed. He may have to go in as Apollo C Vermouth. |
|
|
|
Post by beacon on Sept 24, 2013 12:08:10 GMT -5
Not only that but he found the time to compose two themes for the film 'the family way'. I will post a newspaper article from the time when I find it, however, the essence was that George Martin suddenly realised he needed a love theme and landed up going to Pauls house and sitting there until he had composed it. The guy was certainly busy!
Interestingly though this work had to be rushed through because Decca, who had bought the film music rights, were going to release an orchestral version of McCartneys work under the name the tudor minstrels.
|
|
|
|
Post by linus on Sept 24, 2013 13:22:41 GMT -5
Interesting that The Family Way stars Hayley Mills, who is most well-known for her role in Disney's Parent Trap, about identical twins. Also interesting that her last name is Mills.  Last summer somebody was on here mentioning that there is evidence that Heather Mills' father was associated with cloning research near Brecon Beacons. |
|
|
|
Post by vOOdOOgurU on Sept 24, 2013 14:14:58 GMT -5
Not only that but he found the time to compose two themes for the film 'the family way'. I will post a newspaper article from the time when I find it, however, the essence was that George Martin suddenly realised he needed a love theme and landed up going to Pauls house and sitting there until he had composed it. The guy was certainly busy! Interestingly though this work had to be rushed through because Decca, who had bought the film music rights, were going to release an orchestral version of McCartneys work under the name the tudor minstrels. Released the 6th January, 1967 The Family Way soundtrack was composed with the benefit of moustache.  He's got a moustache in Nairobi, so we have to assume he has a moustache when he lands back in London - this gives him between 20th November, 1966 and 31st December 1966 to get this score composed! Unless George Martin truly was the one to get this film score done, which I think would be the case. I mean McCartney's got The Escorts to produce, and him and Mal have to kick his resident housekeeper out without 2 weeks notice. So much to do! What else does he have to do between the 20th November, 1966 and the 31st December, 1966. Brian Epstein holds a party for The Four Tops in London
6.00pm, Sunday 20 November 1966 (46 years ago)The Four Tops had performed at the Savile Theatre in London on 13 November 1966. The venue was owned by The Beatles' manager Brian Epstein, and the backdrop for the performance was said to have been designed by Paul McCartney. Seven days later Epstein held a party for The Four Tops at his home at 24 Chapel Street, London. It was attended by John Lennon and George Harrison.==================== Well McCartney had to have designed it before the 6th November, unless he posted the design to Epstein from his car (I believe the DB5) Recording: Strawberry Fields Forever
7.00pm, Thursday 24 November 1966 (46 years ago)Studio Two, EMI Studios, Abbey Road
Producer: George Martin
Engineer: Geoff Emerick
With touring behind them, The Beatles retreated from public view to begin work on their eighth album. They were keen to use the studio to its full potential, experimenting with different sounds with the intention of producing their best work to date. The first song of the late-1966 sessions was John Lennon's Strawberry Fields Forever, which was issued as a standalone single along with Penny Lane in February 1967. Following considerable discussion and rehearsal, just one take of Strawberry Fields Forever was recorded on this first day. The Beatles performed the song in the key of C, as had Lennon on his most recent home demos of it. It began with a Mellotron introduction performed by Paul McCartney, and featured Lennon and George Harrison on electric guitars, and Ringo Starr on drums. Onto track two Lennon recorded his first lead vocal, with the tape running fast so it was slower and at a lower pitch upon playback, and Harrison simultaneously added a slide guitar part.
Track three was filled with double-tracked vocals by Lennon during the first chorus and the third verse, and the fourth track featured harmony vocals by Lennon, McCartney and Harrison. These latter two parts were omitted when the song was remixed for Anthology 2 in 1996.========================================= Hmmm if it was predetermined when they'd all meet, why was there so much confusion with knowing when Lennon was back, where McCartney was and when, different stories from two guys who'd know, Neil Aspinall and Mal Evans, and be made very aware of those predetermined dates of meeting and work. This whole story is just that. A story. So there's the 21st thru 23rd unaccounted for so far. We know MM said McCartney worked with The Escorts and this was reported on the 19th November, 1966. So when the hell he did it is a mystery because he's been out of England for 13 days. Probably when he found time to design a backdrop for a concert! Recording: Pantomime: Everywhere It's Christmas
12.00pm, Friday 25 November 1966 (46 years ago)
Dick James House, 71-75 New Oxford Street, London
Producer: George Martin
The Beatles' fourth Christmas record, Pantomime: Everywhere It's Christmas, was recorded on this day at the first floor demo studio owned by their publisher, Dick James. Each member of The Beatles sang on the recording, with Paul McCartney also playing piano. A number of songs and skits were recorded, which were edited into a 10-part, six-minute piece on 2 December. The songs included Everywhere It's Christmas, Orowainya, and Please Don't Bring Your Banjo Back, and the sketches included Podgy The Bear And Jasper, and Felpin Mansions. The Beatles' Fourth Christmas Record – Pantomime: Everywhere It's Christmas was edited by The Beatles' press officer at Abbey Road on 2 December 1966, and was sent to members of The Beatles' UK fan club on 16 December.========================================================================= 2nd December, same day as The Escorts single on Columbia was due out. Wow, McCartney sure starts working fast when he has to. The title, the two songs, a backdrop for a concert, producer for an album, an upcoming soundtrack, he's barely been back in the country 5 days and he's going crazy workaholic. Has he seen Jane at all? Is there time? How about Maggie (I'd see Maggie personally.) John Lennon films a sequence for Not Only... But Also
8.00am, Sunday 27 November 1966 (46 years ago)John Lennon filmed a second appearance on the comedy television show Not Only... But Also on this day. Lennon played the role of Dan, a doorman at the fictional nightclub Ad Lav. The name was a spoof on the Ad Lib Club, a venue often frequented by The Beatles and other leading showbusiness personalities of the mid-1960s. Dan the doorman.================================================================= That's two days unaccounted for on McCartney, the 26th - 27th. The 28th November finds them working on Strawberry Fields Forever again, beginning at 7pm that evening. And then again on the 29th. The 30th thru 2nd are unaccounted for, but mixing and release of the Christmas Record was finished by the 2nd. The 6th finds them recording When I'm Sixty Four and their radio Christmas messages. The 8th December finds them working again on Strawberry Fields Forever and When I'm Sixty Four. McCartney did two sessions that day, one on his own for Sixty Four, and then returning with the other three for Fields. 9th December finds the release of A Collection of Beatles Oldies. And work again on Strawberry ... Six day hiatus, the Beatles return to the studio again for work on Strawberry on the 15th December. Martin has to score the string & brass arrangements and get the musicians. Busy man. He's also designing The Beatles' Fourth Christmas Record – Pantomime: Everywhere It's Christmas. Which is released on the 16th December. Shame that the death of Tara Browne would be on the horizon within the next day and a half. Count your blessings. Browne dies on the 18th, December 1966 in a car accident. Paul McCartney and Jane Asher attend the première of The Family Way
6.00pm, Sunday 18 December 1966 (46 years ago)
Paul McCartney and Jane Asher attended the première of the film The Family Way at London's Warner Cinema.
The cinema was located at 1 Cranbourn Street in central London. Asher appeared in the film, and the soundtrack had been written by McCartney and scored by George Martin. =================================================================================== Excuse my language but when the F>>K did you find time to do this? The film already premieres by the 18th, December. You've been back in London since the 19th November, and so far in online diary of events, I'm not sure when you and George Martin found time to get together to do such things. When? When did you take a look at the film? When was it ready for viewing for you to know what the film score should be? It must have been ready quite soon because it was already out in theatres before Christmas, and we all know what the rush to Christmas is like around the world, forget the entertainment industry, think how hard it is to book places and get tickets and all sorts of things in the final weeks leading up to that festive event. The 20th December, 1966 finds The Beatles, all with moustaches being interviewed in front of EMI studios. I don't know about you, but Tara Browne's been dead for 2 days, and these people don't seem to show any trace of sadness or not being up for interviews. Maybe they're ultra-professional. Let's say they are. But they don't seem down or anything. I would be if my friend had just crashed into a lorry, and had a wife and two children left behind, regardless whether he was on the outs with them or not, it's almost Christmas. I mean, yes they don't have to show any emotion to reporters, but they don't seem all that sad either. His death was less than 48 hours previous. And then it's back to work on When I'm Sixty Four. Let's see. In a month of being back, The Beatles have only worked on two major songs, a Christmas project, apparently a film soundtrack, appeared in a television skit, a friend dies, and ... what. The 21st finds them again working on Strawberry, which is by now a labour of love. The 29th December finds them working on Penny Lane, Strawberry and When I'm Sixty Four. When you look at it day by day, it seems like they're doing a lot. When you bunch it all up in a block, they don't seem to be doing anything. They're NOT writing more than they actually are writing. They seem to be taking more time off and away from the studio than actually spending in it, and spending a lot of time on one particular song in general. But you can say that's the art of it. I'd agree. They're trying to expand what they do in the studio, so this can take time. I don't have any argument with that whatsoever. At the same time when the hell did Mccartney work on The Family way soundtrack, in time for it to be edited in to the movie? It had to have been done long before the 18th December rolled around. So when did he and Martin begin this work? |
|
|
|
Post by vOOdOOgurU on Sept 24, 2013 14:18:50 GMT -5
Interesting that The Family Way stars Hayley Mills, who is most well-known for her role in Disney's Parent Trap, about identical cousins. Also interesting that her last name is Mills. Last summer somebody was on here mentioning that there is evidence that Heather Mills' father was associated with cloning research near Brecon Beacons. You should see Crispian Mills's (Hayley's son) "A Fantastic Fear of Everything" a tale of abandoned children in LILY'S laundrette, where one grows up to be a serial killer through this abandonment. It stars Simon Pegg. It also mentions Dr. Hawley Harvey Crippen (September 11, 1862 – November 23, 1910), usually known as Dr. Crippen. When his name came up it just reminds me of that International Times advertisement looking by a Black Magic director whatever, who lived around that same area as Crippen did. VERY interesting film. When I saw the LILY and the subject matter I thought .... HMMMMMMM. |
|
|
|
Post by vOOdOOgurU on Sept 24, 2013 14:20:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by vOOdOOgurU on Sept 24, 2013 14:40:32 GMT -5
If my friend had just died tragically, and I had to record a song called When I'm Sixty Four, honestly. I'd cancel that evening's recording. Maybe I'd want to take my mind off of it, but singing about getting older and far off days when your friend has just kacked it at a very young age, and knowing his children are never going to see him reach that age of 64, well hats off to McCartney. He's made of stronger stuff than me - I'd wait a couple weeks and work on something else, or at least attend the funeral.
|
|
Why is Bill hiding 
]
Faul/Bill and the boys
Bill 1969
