Correct me please if I am wrong - I didn't realize that cocaine/heroin use cold cause a growth spurt of several inches, cause your foot size to change, change the length of your face, not to mention the dramatic change in the singing voice.... among many other things. Just saying....
I'm intending this as offering 'reasonable' explanation against PWR theory as a means of testing the latter as I find it is all too often rebutted by theories weirder than itself!
In brief, the evidence for PID/PWR seems to congeal around Paul's public 'disappearance' in Oct 1966 with all of the clues not initially taking account of this being reinforced by it.
So what exactly is involved?
Well...in THIS version, The Beatles have just stopped touring so it's a bit like retirement (as Paul "accurately predicted" a couple of years earlier in an interview with David Frost), the details of which involve George with Indian adventures when he's not in the stockbroker belt painting his house and dropping acid with John and Ringo nearby in 'wedded bliss'.
In contrast, Paul has just aborted 'family life' with the Ashers (not necessarily because he was fearing Tavistock programming but who knows?) for independent London life in his own new cavendish gaff, which rapidly becomes 'open house' to the counter-culture. He's sneakily doing coke (not telling the other Beatles) and by all accounts is out every night all night when Jane's not around, meeting everybody from Bertrand Russell to Antonioni, Joe Orton, Andy Warhol and funding varied activisms centred on burgeoning alternative culture. This is a busy boy, burning calories to a degree that soon leave his 'puppy fat' more than well behind to the degree that people are saying he looks ill. His activities, meanwhile, consorting with addicts, homosexuals and longhair activists (whom he is disposed to defend if not promote), if publicised indiscriminately, would undoubtedly have lead him to be the FIRST busted Beatle. So it's lucky he's smarter than that.
Alongside all of this 'about town', he's got an Aston Martin in which he's fond of collecting speeding tickets when his charm isn't sufficient to dissuade them and he's reported as fond of getting back up to Liverpool to hang out with his dad, his brother and varied other friends he's not quite lost contact with during the moptop years (in fact he's the Beatle who's never left Liverpool for long). Besides that, he's also known for getting up to Scotland and until the later 70's this is only rarely by plane.
If this weren't a varied enough set of new pursuits, he's also been developing a penchant for disguises via which he can be 'back as he was' before Beatledom; one of these is his specs and moustache 'trainspotter' look which readily adapts to 'photographer' and 'writer' when he fancies some action abroad in France or Spain or Africa.
There's a certain exhaustion too...and it centres on the 'comedown' from Moptop. The distractions and new pursuits leave the question unanswered 'What shall we do now?' and Paul, fearing that John and George might just as well go for 'Split up' at this point, is staying off that question, thereby encouraging him to cut his customary regular generous allotment of his time to roving reporters for he fears that all they want to do is 'prove' the Beatles are finished.
Now.....given the transforming power of new routine, new pursuits and interests and a general period of wide experimentation that is Macca's 1966 life (anticipating the 'formal' experimentation in the next albums), not to mention the transforming power of all-nighters, coke, weed, LSD and even a spot of heroin according to McCartney's most recent drug confessions (now perhaps a decade old), thr question then is:
WHAT PART OF THE ABOVE DOES NOT EXPLAIN "THE NEW PAUL" THAT EVERYONE IS NOW SAYING THEY NOTICED BACK THEN?
You seem to have forgotten "Occams razor, "the simplest explanation is usually the right one". Your explanation is not simple and is therefore beside the point. The SIMPLE explanation is "Paul was replaced". It is just like the Christians that have written BILLIONS of words trying to explain why Satan and God are fighting yet still can't explain it. When the SIMPLE explanation is made "God is woman and the Devil is a man" and they are fighting about sex money and kids they KNOW that is correct but can't admit it is just like people who can't admit "Paul was replaced" even both facts are simple and OBVIOUS!
Hmm...of course! Why hadn't I thought of that? I'm just in denial of the counterculture being the establishment's latest wheeze in 1966/7 and Faul being its prime proponent.
As I note elsewhere, 'Faul is Dead' should have been, by the fundamentals of PID/PWR 'theory', the result of 'Give Ireland Back to the Irish', as this was not and remains not a subject Her Majesty's Service are prepared to entertain or be entertained by. Unless of course, offering Faul a knighthood 16 years later was 'hush money'
The idea of 'Paul was replaced' as an Occam's Razor argument is hilarious no matter what which way. It certainly describes the utter twuntopolis of UNbaked theory one would have to wade through with the scythe of Occam to get to 'PWR' as the simplest explanation!
Of course, 'It was half-time in The Beatles' (a reduction of my above) doesn't...erm...'cut it' in the bloated "corpse in the Hudson" that is PID. The corpse remains a dummy, continually pumped full of every steroid the 'faithful' can come up with without bothering to appreciate that Paul Was Replaced only in the sense that this corpse has been substituted for the undead who walks the Earth.
Yes I agree "Paul was replaced" IS hilarious, because the truth is funny! If a corpse is "substituted" for the "undead" isn't it still a replacement? Your explanations are already getting complicated and you still haven't explained anything.
That's because there's nothing to explain! A beatle became the subject of a rumour which has caught the imagination of the unwashed for decades. Did I leave anything out? Didn't think so.
"Seek and you will find" is an age-old adage but what has been found so far? Coincidences, associations and meanings. It's all interesting but shouldn't necessitate the kind of dark libel that goes with it. The 60If people like Wan King (sic) are simply the level of this that allows the other levels to see the ridiculousness.
I like what Linus and filmic buffs like Julie Kearns are doing in drawing correspondences and resonances but those who engage in speculative libel (with frothing at the mouth optional) need A DAMN GOOD WHACKING
YOU started this thread "I am intending this as offering 'reasonable' explanation against PWR..." NOW you say "there's nothing to explain"! Which is it?
What I'm saying, hotman, is that there's never been any need to delineate how Paul was replaced as an explanation of why he wasn't in the press during October 1966.
While my explanation of factors governing why he wasn't in the press might have been long, it wasn't complicated and can be summed up by 'Time off'.
Of course, this makes all of the fannying around by PWR 'true believers' with the likes of false ears and 'everybody was replaced' look silly. Which is is exactly what it is. AT BEST.
As I've said, I'm entertaining everything and find it all entertaining but when I see 'soap box stars' here and elsewhere eulogising a pre-66 Paul with 'God bless his gracious heart' and other cack, I'm reminded of the 'Saint John' eulogists who don't seem to have heard that John had a nasty streak and are outraged by 'accusations' of his (self-admitted) women-beating etc etc.
AT WORST, these people and those busy condemning post-66 Paul as a satanist (and more importantly, currently attempting via nothing more than elevated wordplay and association games, to connect Paul and The Beatles to the child-abuse rings run by the likes of Jimmy Savile), strike me as the same Bible-belting twunts who were queuing up to burn Beatle records and who continue to fight for and vote for a 'Back to the Fifities' agenda of unquestioning obedience to patriotism, armed forces and religious or racist fascism. The soft end of this seems to be 'Post-66 Paul is a bit effeminate' which I frankly see as translatable to 'He was gay or associated with gays but JPM was a proper hetero man' and see as a thinly-disguised fuel for a bigotry underbelly of the past decade's PID/PWR enterprise as a whole.
This is not to say that all enthusiasts of PWR are engaged in this but it does need to be called out and monitored as these f8ckers are the very enemies of all Beatledom.
I think I might go lie down now
The whole PID or PWR reminds me of the old joke where a guy gets a Rorschach Test. The first picture the guy says "sex" and the next picture the guy says "sex" and so on and so on. The doctor says "you seem to be obsessed with sex". The guy says "you are the one with all the dirty pictures!" It is EXACTLY the same with PID! The talent of MacFake is not that he is a JPM or a "Satanist" or a woman or "Faul" it is that he looks exactly like what we want him to look like! PID is a giant psychology test! We may NEVER find out who MacFake is but we may find out who WE ARE!