|
Post by sall on Jun 21, 2011 17:38:51 GMT -5
Please don't freak out on me or anything, but I've been a Beatles fan for a few years now and to find out that they were all a fake, or have all been replaced is heartbreaking. There is no SOLID Why would they even kill them off? Why Replace Paul? How could the government make a conspiracy this monumental?
I'm just wondering.
|
|
|
Post by lilyknows on Jun 21, 2011 18:08:05 GMT -5
"Nothing is real" ..not even the Paul is dead hoax!
|
|
|
Post by ramona on Jun 21, 2011 18:57:18 GMT -5
Don't lose heart. We don't know that they all were replaced. As this forum centers on - it seems evident Paul was replaced by the end of '66.
What some have gathered is that he just wanted out of the scene. It's not that absurd a notion. If you look at the Beatles as a body, an integral part would be 'detached'. How do you deal with that? Go but 'don't go'. Getting a lookalike solves JPM's perhaps overwhelming need to get out. At the same time, the 'band' keeps going and that means the lads keep going. From a certain perspective it's win-win. Plus Paul could keep his connection with music intact by contributing behind the scenes.
There's no proof he died. Ask someone who thinks he did for proof and they usually side step the issue. Were the lads up to something? Most definitely.
Look at the Sgt. Pepper drum - (mirror) - HE DIE Think that happened by chance?
Just because they did this and other things similar, doesn't mean that's the conclusion. We could look at it this way - The album is a grave scene for THE Beatles. The group is gone - as a group. Did they literally die. No. Did Paul? No, only in a similar sense.
What seems likely too, is that this was in the works for some time. If he literally died, there would really have to be a scramble to keep things 'in place' - 'as is'. Imagine the mental state of those close to him if Paul really died. How long does it take before you can think straight - straight enough to hatch a plan? THEN all would have to agree very quickly - and under those circumstances. THEN you'd have to find a suitable 'Paul' like right away.
It's very possible there was a "Faul or two in the works early on (which adds to the visual confusion) before 'Bill' was chosen.
But this being planned in advance - things wouldn't be in an emergency situation. Things could be mulled over. Is this the only possibility? - no. But, it does seem reasonable.
Seems more likely than- a death and then a relatively 'instant response and solution adopted put into place, and executed.
And even if it all went down in the scenario I mentioned - there could be things still to be discovered , or at least some twists and turns.
It's possible the others had doubles at times - wouldn't be the first time by any means in the theater of prominent people.
|
|
|
Post by sall on Jun 21, 2011 20:08:14 GMT -5
Thanks so much for the explanation. It's just depressing to think that even the solo albums of 'Paul McCartney' that i've adored aren't even by the real Paul.
I can smell lawsuits..
|
|
|
Post by ramona on Jun 21, 2011 23:33:09 GMT -5
I know - felt the same way. I can relate But, it's possible JPM collaborated on Bill's work. Hard to say - but there's some good writing there on different albums and some of that bass work certainly sounds like JPM.
'McCartney' - really good stuff. Is it all JPM, all Bill or is the title meant to reference both as an amalgam as first solo away from the beatles?
Who knows.
Perhaps an undercurrent thought that they may have even considered is - whoever contributed - during beatles or in solo - take the music on it's own merit. It is what it is.
|
|
|
Post by iameye on Jun 21, 2011 23:36:58 GMT -5
I know - felt the same way. I can relate But, it's possible JPM collaborated on Bill's work. Hard to say - but there's some good writing there on different albums and some of that bass work certainly sounds like JPM. 'McCartney' - really good stuff. Is it all JPM, all Bill or is the title meant to reference both as an amalgam as first solo away from the beatles? Who knows. Perhaps an undercurrent thought that they may have even considered is - whoever contributed - during beatles or in solo - take the music on it's own merit. It is what it is.
|
|
|
Post by iameye on Jun 21, 2011 23:43:49 GMT -5
It is what it is.
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Jun 22, 2011 6:41:05 GMT -5
there is no evidence that he died. there is no evidence that he was replaced. paul always stayed the same paul, he always looked the same, spoke the same, sang the same, played bass, guitar and drums, wrote awesome songs, never ever in 40 years was there any person who knew "the original paul" and spoke out (because nothing happend) just relax and enjoy pauls music as long as he is still with us...
|
|
|
Post by ramona on Jun 22, 2011 8:28:23 GMT -5
Well, you're entitled to that opinion. I have a hunch, that more and more people checking out this theory of PWR are not dismissing it too quickly - and when taking some time to make some comparisons (visually, audibly, etc) find things don't seem right.
I do find it interesting how people come on to a sight and will dismiss the subject matter out of hand.
It would be kinda weird if I went to any forum - ex: coffee lovers something, and started posting comments about how stupid it is to drink coffee, or why do you people spend time discussing beans. If someone's of such an opposed opinion, why spend time putting down how people spend time on a particular subject.
A person would have to look at their inner motivation - what drives them to participate in the activity of expressing polar opposite opinions (coffee's dumb) of what the sight interest is all about.
If someone likes fishing why visit the coffee forum and post - just enjoy yourself talking about fly casting at that site.
You weren't disrespectful Paul. but you should read some of the comments that some write.
|
|
|
Post by sall on Jun 22, 2011 10:36:46 GMT -5
How am I being disrespectful?
|
|
thewalruswaspaul
For Sale
My mustache draws all the ladys......and the walrus....
Posts: 124
|
Post by thewalruswaspaul on Jun 22, 2011 10:57:17 GMT -5
you arent sall its that Paul character
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Jun 22, 2011 11:28:26 GMT -5
Well, you're entitled to that opinion. I have a hunch, that more and more people checking out this theory of PWR are not dismissing it too quickly - and when taking some time to make some comparisons (visually, audibly, etc) find things don't seem right. I do find it interesting how people come on to a sight and will dismiss the subject matter out of hand. It would be kinda weird if I went to any forum - ex: coffee lovers something, and started posting comments about how stupid it is to drink coffee, or why do you people spend time discussing beans. If someone's of such an opposed opinion, why spend time putting down how people spend time on a particular subject. A person would have to look at their inner motivation - what drives them to participate in the activity of expressing polar opposite opinions (coffee's dumb) of what the sight interest is all about. If someone likes fishing why visit the coffee forum and post - just enjoy yourself talking about fly casting at that site. You weren't disrespectful Paul. but you should read some of the comments that some write. you are right - but that's not the case. i have been examing the Paul is dead thing for years - i have checked every clue and every photo, everything. my conclusion is that there is absolutely nothing to it. nothing at all points to the fact that paul was replaced. it's just an exaggerated hoax
|
|
|
Post by ramona on Jun 22, 2011 12:27:38 GMT -5
I might say how can he possibly not see a difference in looks, playing style, voice, etc and you might be thinking 'how can he possibly think it's a different guy'.
I think in scientifically technical (lol) terms it's called a difference of opinion.
But I'd rather have a conversation with you than someone that swoops in and says ' I'VE BEEN LOOKING INTO THIS FOR A WHOLE 2 1/2 DAYS AND I THINK YOU PWR PEOPLE ARE NUTS AND WHAT'S MORE.....' They can stay on the fishing forum.
Nice chatting with you.
|
|
|
Post by sall on Jun 23, 2011 11:13:53 GMT -5
thanks for the help guys!
|
|
|
Post by EBee on Jun 25, 2011 19:54:07 GMT -5
Well, you haven't been looking into it much. The guy on Sgt. Pepper & MMT shares zero resemblance to Paul.... none what so ever. There's a difference in body build, height, head shape, facial features, voice, everything. There is not one physical trait shared between the 2 guys at that time. Paul didn't die, there's plenty of pics of Paul post-67.
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Jun 26, 2011 10:23:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by EBee on Jun 26, 2011 12:31:55 GMT -5
On a couple of those, you're simply comparing Paul to Paul. And a couple of those are down right laughable. Whatever. Have fun
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Jun 26, 2011 16:20:17 GMT -5
No. according to your logic all of these comps show Paul vs. "Faul". All the "Faul" photos are from the year 1967.
|
|
|
Post by EBee on Jun 26, 2011 21:36:55 GMT -5
Why would I think all those 67 pics are "Faul" when I just said "Paul didn't die, there's plenty of pics of Paul post-67. " As I already said, a couple of those are Paul vs Paul & a couple of them are; well, a stretch to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by GN on Jun 27, 2011 0:20:16 GMT -5
Why would I think all those 67 pics are "Faul" when I just said "Paul didn't die, there's plenty of pics of Paul post-67. " As I already said, a couple of those are Paul vs Paul & a couple of them are; well, a stretch to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Jun 27, 2011 8:02:42 GMT -5
in that issue ALL the beatles had mustaches drawn on them. And you know that very well GN/Sunking...
|
|
|
Post by sall on Jun 27, 2011 11:33:02 GMT -5
Thanks for all the opinions guys. I'm keeping in mind what everyone says.
|
|
|
Post by simplythevest on Jun 28, 2011 6:29:36 GMT -5
Thanks for all the opinions guys. I'm keeping in mind what everyone says. My opinion is that photos can be useful and show the difference, but they are only of so much use. To really 'get it', you've got to watch footage. Just watch these two videos. Paul McCartney, 1964 David Frost interview. www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNYVxqJ83W8'Paul McCartney', 1967, 'LSD' interview. www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHC0s6G3VbMTwo different guys. Different shaped heads, different eyes, '67 guy with the much longer head also has a longer nose, mouth downturns in the corners at times in a kind of frown. The bottom lip hangs out a little, while the distance of the bottom of the nose to the top of the top lip is noticeably greater than in the '64 interview. The voices noticeably differ, and while the manerisms on '67 guy are similar, they are actaully totally off. In this video you can actually see the guy working on his 'impression'. It's hard work for him at this point and it shows. Look at the forced way he chews his bottom lip, for one example. Totally phoney. Also, if you look at his ear in the '67 interview, it looks fake. It just doesn't sit right, and the tone of it is all wrong. It's just bizarre. Also, look at Pauls smile in the '67 clip and how different he looks when he's smiling. This is something they were never able to replicate in the replacement and in many ways is the detail that proves the case. (apart from the totally different shaped skulls of course.)
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Jun 28, 2011 7:43:13 GMT -5
That is the only video where he looks weird. It was filmed at the height of his drug abuse and he is very thin.. He llooks much better in early 1968, i see no other then the usual Paul here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtnXnWpC9GE
|
|
thewalruswaspaul
For Sale
My mustache draws all the ladys......and the walrus....
Posts: 124
|
Post by thewalruswaspaul on Jun 28, 2011 20:10:16 GMT -5
That is the only video where he looks weird. It was filmed at the height of his drug abuse and he is very thin.. He llooks much better in early 1968, i see no other then the usual Paul here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtnXnWpC9GEI agree paul, but take a look at this interview. He seems like Paul. This is also rather interesting.
|
|