|
Post by B on Jul 18, 2022 12:25:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by B on Aug 7, 2022 10:43:42 GMT -5
Sage of Quay™ - Ofer Zeevy - Analysis: Beatle Albums vs Live Performances (Aug 2022)youtu.be/FjoIaJw_P_QMike Williams' Paul Is Dead Channel Premiered 2 hours ago
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Aug 7, 2022 13:55:35 GMT -5
Sage of Quay™ - Ofer Zeevy - Analysis: Beatle Albums vs Live Performances (Aug 2022)youtu.be/FjoIaJw_P_QMike Williams' Paul Is Dead Channel Premiered 2 hours ago I'm about a minute in and so far it sounds like my analysis in the "Beatles vs Featles audio" thread over on The Beatles board. Paused it there to say I don't mind anyone lifting my analysis verbatim. I take no pride or joy in it and I don't want anything for it. It will be interesting to listen to this analysis to hear if there's any difference. They might come to a different conclusion and say it must be the real Beatles.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Aug 7, 2022 15:24:42 GMT -5
Just listened to it and they do come to a different conclusion, and that conclusion is they were a psyop from the beginning. It's the same guys but they were only in a rock band because they were ordered to from age 16. Riiiiiiight! Here's the complete shattering of their assessment though - if they played over 365 concerts a year in 1962 and 1963 to "be worked in order to be more proficient" Why wasn't that proficiency on display in 1965 and 1966? When The Beatles walk off the stage in Washington and London in the first half of 1964 they have ecstatic audiences in the palms of their hands. That's more than mere proficiency. My analysis takes a couple of minutes to read and it shows you where that proficiency ends - right at the end of that 1964 world tour where the real John Lennon says, "We play the songs that are out in the shops." I did like the gig count that they did there was a bit of info there, and there was a graphic at the 45 minute mark which had a red inset in it with "October 24th Faustian Pact" that's interesting because I think when they went into the studio to record With The Beatles they were on the slippery slope to replacement at that point and the doppels had been recruited and were in training. That could explain the amount of covers. Their own songs would have been held back until after their deaths at the time of the release of A Hard Day's Night. I shall look up this "Faustian pact" and see what they are expecting me to believe.
|
|
|
Post by B on Aug 13, 2022 9:45:54 GMT -5
Sage of Quay™ - Billy on Letterman, The Beatles' BBC Recordings & Channel Commenting (Aug 2022)www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLCdIFTmTYsMike Williams' Paul Is Dead Channel Aug 12, 2022
|
|
peter
Hard Day's Night
https://youtu.be/v1hes0WFcUU
Posts: 16
|
Post by peter on Aug 21, 2022 15:11:42 GMT -5
Note from B: This is Peter's first post, and it wasn't successful. I think it was intended to look like this: quoting Mike Williams: "Sage of Quay™ - Mike Williams - Did The Beatles Write All Their Own Music? (Apr 2020) "Peter responds Did The Beatles Write All Their Own Music? A response to Mike Williams/Sage Of Quayyoutu.be/v1hes0WFcUUPeter Duncan Dec 14, 2021 "This video is a response to Mike Williams presentation 'Did The Beatles Write All Their Own Music?' posted on the 1/4/2020 Here is some evidence that shows Mike's evidence to be false.... " (more at link)
|
|
peter
Hard Day's Night
https://youtu.be/v1hes0WFcUU
Posts: 16
|
Post by peter on Aug 22, 2022 0:00:54 GMT -5
How do you all feel about the idea that Theo Adorno was involved in writing Beatle songs? Mike Williams mentions it in the video. I've never bought into that idea. I know some have said that the McCartney song "Teddy Boy" is a nod Theo, but that's kind of "iffy". I've never seen any evidence to support the TA story, and his personality was such that I doubt that he would EVER be involved in such a thing. Comments or supporting evidence welcome. Mike Williams is a complete fraud most likely an employee of the team behind 'Memoirs' Check out the videos which deconstruct his 4.5 hour (4 +5 =9) presentation youtu.be/v1hes0WFcUU
|
|
peter
Hard Day's Night
https://youtu.be/v1hes0WFcUU
Posts: 16
|
Post by peter on Aug 22, 2022 0:02:30 GMT -5
Note from B: This is Peter's first post, and it wasn't successful. I think it was intended to look like this: quoting Mike Williams: "Sage of Quay™ - Mike Williams - Did The Beatles Write All Their Own Music? (Apr 2020) "Peter responds Did The Beatles Write All Their Own Music? A response to Mike Williams/Sage Of Quayyoutu.be/v1hes0WFcUUPeter Duncan Dec 14, 2021 "This video is a response to Mike Williams presentation 'Did The Beatles Write All Their Own Music?' posted on the 1/4/2020 Here is some evidence that shows Mike's evidence to be false.... " (more at link)Thanks for the helping hand! Much appreciated.
|
|
peter
Hard Day's Night
https://youtu.be/v1hes0WFcUU
Posts: 16
|
Post by peter on Aug 22, 2022 0:11:13 GMT -5
Yo - isn't Williams the dolt who claimed The Beatles didn't compose their own songs because dolt and his band weren't capable of writing Beatle songs. What a joke Yep, jealousy certainly is a motivating factor for 'The Sage' but I have gathered that he is a full time employee of the 'Memoirs' team. Here is a set of videos clearly showing Williams the hypnotist to be a fraud spinning tales - youtu.be/v1hes0WFcUU
|
|
|
Post by kvo on Aug 22, 2022 10:55:15 GMT -5
Yo - isn't Williams the dolt who claimed The Beatles didn't compose their own songs because dolt and his band weren't capable of writing Beatle songs. What a joke Yep, jealousy certainly is a motivating factor for 'The Sage' but I have gathered that he is a full time employee of the 'Memoirs' team. Here is a set of videos clearly showing Williams the hypnotist to be a fraud spinning tales - youtu.be/v1hes0WFcUUWhat I see from a video on your channel is "I'll Follow the Sun", already written and recorded by the Beatles in 1959. Then, re-done in 1964 on Beatles for Sale. I'll Follow the Sun" thought to be a major PID song. "One day you'll look, to see I've gone". "Someday, you'll know, I was the one". Already written and ready to go by 1959, huh? Shocker. This is precisely why some of us see that there is something very manufactured about Beatles music. That they set out to tell a PID story. Right from the start. Looks to me like the Beatles themselves did the best job of all in discrediting PID, by writing about it seven years before it actually (supposedly) happened. And no, I don't believe PIA, either. That is complete nonsense. If there's one thing I hate, it's a feeling of being caught between two controlling narratives.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Aug 22, 2022 14:27:18 GMT -5
It's one fraud to another really isn't it? Why don't you ask me Peter, because Sage has taken my research and used it for his latest analysis? Do you have an answer for why they (and I'm not going to call them The Beatles) never played any songs from Revolver in the concerts after its release?
The Beatles wrote their own songs. They were replaced with four imposters who didn't write their own songs. Davy Jones was replaced with an imposter in 1970 so his testimony is invalid.
|
|
peter
Hard Day's Night
https://youtu.be/v1hes0WFcUU
Posts: 16
|
Post by peter on Aug 23, 2022 1:50:55 GMT -5
It's one fraud to another really isn't it? Why don't you ask me Peter, because Sage has taken my research and used it for his latest analysis? Do you have an answer for why they (and I'm not going to call them The Beatles) never played any songs from Revolver in the concerts after its release? The Beatles wrote their own songs. They were replaced with four imposters who didn't write their own songs. Davy Jones was replaced with an imposter in 1970 so his testimony is invalid. I am only pointing out Mike Williams fabrications. Beatles concerts were 20 minutes in length, 15 if they could get away with it. They did play 'If I needed someone', and 'Nowhere Man' from 'Rubber Soul', 'Day Tripper' from 'Yesterday and Today' and 'PaperBack Writer', all new songs for them at the time. Songs on 'Revolver' were difficult to replicate live at the time, they didn't have the equipment to do those songs justice live such was the technology at the time. Believing that Davy Jones was replaced is just that, a belief and is irrelevant here...wether he was replaced or not Mike Williams still edited the video and that was the point of my video.
|
|
peter
Hard Day's Night
https://youtu.be/v1hes0WFcUU
Posts: 16
|
Post by peter on Aug 23, 2022 2:06:26 GMT -5
Yep, jealousy certainly is a motivating factor for 'The Sage' but I have gathered that he is a full time employee of the 'Memoirs' team. Here is a set of videos clearly showing Williams the hypnotist to be a fraud spinning tales - youtu.be/v1hes0WFcUUWhat I see from a video on your channel is "I'll Follow the Sun", already written and recorded by the Beatles in 1959. Then, re-done in 1964 on Beatles for Sale. I'll Follow the Sun" thought to be a major PID song. "One day you'll look, to see I've gone". "Someday, you'll know, I was the one". Already written and ready to go by 1959, huh? Shocker. This is precisely why some of us see that there is something very manufactured about Beatles music. That they set out to tell a PID story. Right from the start. Looks to me like the Beatles themselves did the best job of all in discrediting PID, by writing about it seven years before it actually (supposedly) happened. And no, I don't believe PIA, either. That is complete nonsense. If there's one thing I hate, it's a feeling of being caught between two controlling narratives. One can interpret any lyrics to suit one's beliefs. 'Here comes the sun' - here comes Billy? 'Nowhere Man' - now here man? 'I'm looking through you' - I see who you REALLY are! P.S. I Love You - Paul Suffered, I love you (!) etc etc Adorno was certainly a clever chap with his word play. It's very simple, Paul McCartney was taken out or died an accidental death, the replacement was to keep a $Billion industry going, it always comes down to money in the end. Any fanciful theories are a distraction and a deliberate one to keep us going around in circles and never finding out the truth and who the perpetrators of the crime, if it was one, and who this 'Billy' guy really is. The point of my videos is that Mike Williams is a fraud.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Aug 23, 2022 6:12:15 GMT -5
It's one fraud to another really isn't it? Why don't you ask me Peter, because Sage has taken my research and used it for his latest analysis? Do you have an answer for why they (and I'm not going to call them The Beatles) never played any songs from Revolver in the concerts after its release? The Beatles wrote their own songs. They were replaced with four imposters who didn't write their own songs. Davy Jones was replaced with an imposter in 1970 so his testimony is invalid. I am only pointing out Mike Williams fabrications. Beatles concerts were 20 minutes in length, 15 if they could get away with it. They did play 'If I needed someone', and 'Nowhere Man' from 'Rubber Soul', 'Day Tripper' from 'Yesterday and Today' and 'PaperBack Writer', all new songs for them at the time. Songs on 'Revolver' were difficult to replicate live at the time, they didn't have the equipment to do those songs justice live such was the technology at the time. Believing that Davy Jones was replaced is just that, a belief and is irrelevant here...wether he was replaced or not Mike Williams still edited the video and that was the point of my video. When I investigated their vinyl releases and their concert setlists and found them to be completely abnormal, it wasn't even the icing on the cake - it was just the sprinkles on top of the icing. I've got John being asked by a journalist in Australia, "How do you choose which songs to play at your concerts?" And him replying, "We play the songs that are out in the shops wherever we play." That's artistic integrity. Explain how the best band ever got worse over the period of a couple years to the point where they couldn't play their own songs? We have them in Washington DC, London and Melbourne playing a full repertoire of their songs, at an astonishing quality to rapturous acclaim. Those guys would not have written songs that they couldn't play. That is only the material point. There is the footage of the concerts that clear as day show two different groups of men. I don't care how smart you think you are, you've got no chance of talking your way out of that atrocity. The Fetals were a joke. A very bad joke in very bad taste. No wonder they switched the recording equipment off for their performance at the 1966 NME Poll Winners Awards show. They were awful live in late 64 & 65. This excerpt from the production notes of Beatles For Sale is an indicator of how little artistic integrity there is with The Fetals: The rot has already set in at Beatles For Sale and they don't get better as a live act even though they only have to play a limited number of songs. You're very lucky that human being are human beings, because they've got barriers to this information - they don't want to know. "Truth's protective layers" - to paraphrase Neil Armstrong, protect them so they can get on with their lives. If they did you would be chased down the street and lynched, as George Bush Snr feared.
|
|
|
Post by kvo on Aug 23, 2022 6:21:19 GMT -5
What I see from a video on your channel is "I'll Follow the Sun", already written and recorded by the Beatles in 1959. Then, re-done in 1964 on Beatles for Sale. I'll Follow the Sun" thought to be a major PID song. "One day you'll look, to see I've gone". "Someday, you'll know, I was the one". Already written and ready to go by 1959, huh? Shocker. This is precisely why some of us see that there is something very manufactured about Beatles music. That they set out to tell a PID story. Right from the start. Looks to me like the Beatles themselves did the best job of all in discrediting PID, by writing about it seven years before it actually (supposedly) happened. And no, I don't believe PIA, either. That is complete nonsense. If there's one thing I hate, it's a feeling of being caught between two controlling narratives. One can interpret any lyrics to suit one's beliefs. 'Here comes the sun' - here comes Billy? 'Nowhere Man' - now here man? 'I'm looking through you' - I see who you REALLY are! P.S. I Love You - Paul Suffered, I love you (!) etc etc Adorno was certainly a clever chap with his word play. It's very simple, Paul McCartney was taken out or died an accidental death, the replacement was to keep a $Billion industry going, it always comes down to money in the end. Any fanciful theories are a distraction and a deliberate one to keep us going around in circles and never finding out the truth and who the perpetrators of the crime, if it was one, and who this 'Billy' guy really is. The point of my videos is that Mike Williams is a fraud. Yes, I watched all videos on your channel and read all of your comments to viewers. I understand that you have developed an entire channel devoted to Mike Williams. But some of us here believe that PID is lore, a distracting story told by the Beatles from the start (as early as 1959, huh, interesting). PID being a deliberate distraction to keep us going around in circles and failing to see that there were multiple Pauls (and Johns) from the start, not just beginning in 1967. And our fanciful theories are based on photographic evidence. Early club playing Pauls with short square chins, then suddenly the Pauls get younger looking and more attractive with longer rounded chins around the time of Beatlemania. We have a specific thread on Enumerating Pauls for that reason. That is what some of us see. PID, traditional 66er narrative which you seem to believe, is still believed by some here as well. I, for one, refuse to be caught between two proffered theories - PID or PIA. Either the shots came from the grassy knoll or it happened just the way the Warren reports tells us - take your pick. "Laugh about it, shout about it, when you've got to choose". Nah, I'm not Mrs. Robinson, I don't think it's "very simple" as you put it, and I don't have to choose between what two factions would have us believe. To me, all this focus on "Billy" is the REAL distraction.
|
|
|
Post by B on Aug 23, 2022 12:06:55 GMT -5
Or is it?
"the one and only Billy Shears"
the artist formerly known as William Shakespeare
who -- as we all know, "got by with a little help from his friends"
(in other words, he was a front man for a bunch of anonymous writers who hid behind his identity)
He'll be writing more in a week or two...
|
|
peter
Hard Day's Night
https://youtu.be/v1hes0WFcUU
Posts: 16
|
Post by peter on Aug 23, 2022 12:38:01 GMT -5
'Early club playing Pauls with short square chins, then suddenly the Pauls get younger looking and more attractive with longer rounded chins around the time of Beatlemania...' Nice having a C h I n w A g with you!
|
|
|
Post by kvo on Aug 23, 2022 14:35:16 GMT -5
'Early club playing Pauls with short square chins, then suddenly the Pauls get younger looking and more attractive with longer rounded chins around the time of Beatlemania...' Nice having a C h I n w A g with you! Standard response. As expected. But feel free to take a look around at Enumerating Pauls. The Fireman thread is a good one too. Unless, of course, you already believe practically every darn Paul and John photo prior to 1967 is shopped. Do you?
|
|
|
Post by kvo on Aug 23, 2022 15:11:39 GMT -5
Or is it? "the one and only Billy Shears" the artist formerly known as William Shakespeare who -- as we all know, "got by with a little help from his friends" (in other words, he was a front man for a bunch of anonymous writers who hid behind his identity) He'll be writing more in a week or two... Fascinating tie in with William Shakespeare, thought to be a nom de plume for another writer, a member of the peerage. Still see multiple Pauls and Johns, all along the way. So many creative stories told, though. They don't call 'em the GOAT band for nuttin'.
|
|
peter
Hard Day's Night
https://youtu.be/v1hes0WFcUU
Posts: 16
|
Post by peter on Aug 24, 2022 1:42:56 GMT -5
Standard response. As expected. But feel free to take a look around at Enumerating Pauls. The Fireman thread is a good one too. Unless, of course, you already believe practically every darn Paul and John photo prior to 1967 is shopped. Do you? No I don't go by photographs. Not all photographs have been doctored but there has been a muddying of the waters. It is near impossible to find James Paul McCartney from the cavern days, they all look like a young Billy. Replacing someone was not and is not an easy job. The early 60's was almost prehistoric compared to today, in the UK at least not everyone had a television, those that did mostly had black and white with interference and grainy, snowy reception being fixed with numerous smacks to the set. The Beatles and especially their interviews were rare to catch on t.v.. In short, the psyop, the switch, was far easier to put into place...however even given that it was easier it is a subject that has refused to die for 60 years. The idea that 'secret services' can just willy nilly bring in a few Pauls and Johns and throw a few Jane Ashers into the mix is for me, and no offence, frankly ludicrous and would have been noticed, talked about or at least mentioned during the 60 years, it hasn't and not even once... this is a new subject. What many people fail to consider is character, this is something unique to each individual and glaringly obvious to perceive. Billy is very obviously Billy, arrogant, clue revealing, symbol gesturing and over acting Paul mannerisms and Paul is Paul, often slightly nervous, keen wit, humorous and always self effacing, the very opposite of his doppelganger. Personality traits are near impossible to replicate. And John is always John...dramatic weight loss, hair length, passing of time and cynical disposition due to the loss of his best friend, brother and muse don't for one instance change the very obvious fact that this is and always has been the same guy. 'revelation of the method' gives us literally 100's of clues to a switch and very specific clues as to who..but not one single clue to 'multiple switches'. I will add that there is also not one single clue as to the Beatles not writing their own music. Multiples and other distractions are being put in place to discredit PID...someone might have an epiphany and catch a glimmer of the truth but will be swayed back to not believing when presented with 5 Paul's, 7 John's, 4 George's and a handful of Ringo's. I mean, what next, clones?, too late, that has already been put out there! How about the most famous guy in the world, an agent and impersonator with a multi billion dollar industry in the palm of his hands burying the guy he replaced underneath a standing stone in his back garden...too late, that is also already out there! It's Occam's Razor, 'they' will do anything to not have us find out who this guy actually is. But then perhaps you already know this (??!!!) If you don't know this then I would suggest watching interviews and forget photographs. I could show you photo's of me barely a year apart and because of lighting and face expression you would swear they were not the same person.
|
|
peter
Hard Day's Night
https://youtu.be/v1hes0WFcUU
Posts: 16
|
Post by peter on Aug 24, 2022 2:14:07 GMT -5
Or is it? "the one and only Billy Shears" the artist formerly known as William Shakespeare who -- as we all know, "got by with a little help from his friends" (in other words, he was a front man for a bunch of anonymous writers who hid behind his identity) He'll be writing more in a week or two... Very well put and I couldn't agree more! Thank you
|
|
|
Post by kvo on Aug 24, 2022 6:46:49 GMT -5
Standard response. As expected. But feel free to take a look around at Enumerating Pauls. The Fireman thread is a good one too. Unless, of course, you already believe practically every darn Paul and John photo prior to 1967 is shopped. Do you? No I don't go by photographs. Not all photographs have been doctored but there has been a muddying of the waters. It is near impossible to find James Paul McCartney from the cavern days, they all look like a young Billy. Replacing someone was not and is not an easy job. The early 60's was almost prehistoric compared to today, in the UK at least not everyone had a television, those that did mostly had black and white with interference and grainy, snowy reception being fixed with numerous smacks to the set. The Beatles and especially their interviews were rare to catch on t.v.. In short, the psyop, the switch, was far easier to put into place...however even given that it was easier it is a subject that has refused to die for 60 years. The idea that 'secret services' can just willy nilly bring in a few Pauls and Johns and throw a few Jane Ashers into the mix is for me, and no offence, frankly ludicrous and would have been noticed, talked about or at least mentioned during the 60 years, it hasn't and not even once... this is a new subject. What many people fail to consider is character, this is something unique to each individual and glaringly obvious to perceive. Billy is very obviously Billy, arrogant, clue revealing, symbol gesturing and over acting Paul mannerisms and Paul is Paul, often slightly nervous, keen wit, humorous and always self effacing, the very opposite of his doppelganger. Personality traits are near impossible to replicate. And John is always John...dramatic weight loss, hair length, passing of time and cynical disposition due to the loss of his best friend, brother and muse don't for one instance change the very obvious fact that this is and always has been the same guy. 'revelation of the method' gives us literally 100's of clues to a switch and very specific clues as to who..but not one single clue to 'multiple switches'. I will add that there is also not one single clue as to the Beatles not writing their own music. Multiples and other distractions are being put in place to discredit PID...someone might have an epiphany and catch a glimmer of the truth but will be swayed back to not believing when presented with 5 Paul's, 7 John's, 4 George's and a handful of Ringo's. I mean, what next, clones?, too late, that has already been put out there! How about the most famous guy in the world, an agent and impersonator with a multi billion dollar industry in the palm of his hands burying the guy he replaced underneath a standing stone in his back garden...too late, that is also already out there! It's Occam's Razor, 'they' will do anything to not have us find out who this guy actually is. But then perhaps you already know this (??!!!) If you don't know this then I would suggest watching interviews and forget photographs. I could show you photo's of me barely a year apart and because of lighting and face expression you would swear they were not the same person. Gonna have to disagree that all early Cavern/Hamburg Pauls look like Billy. They don't. Not at all. If all early Pauls looked like Billy, then I might consider the premise of photo doctoring. Again, have a look at the threads here on this site that I mentioned in an earlier post. And John always being the same guy, even after 1966? Now we completely disagree. Those Yoko Ono Johns look nothing like the Johns who came before. Nothing at all. Photo lighting? What about vastly changing heights? Check out some photos on the Fireman thread. I do believe there's one there, from the cover of an early Beatle book, depicting the Beatles about to roll some sort of agricultural press over George. Check out the extraordinary height of the "tall Paul" in that photo. And I have watched interviews. Plenty of them. Perhaps all of them. And gimme a break with those inferences that people here have doctored photos themselves - "But perhaps you already know this". People simply posted photos here and on other sites from old Beatle books, Mersey Beat photos from the Beatles early days, and sites like the Savage Young Beatles and Meet the Beatles for Real. And what we see is a psy op, from the very start. Those grainy television receptions you mentioned, making it much easier to switch short Pauls for tall Pauls, long necked Pauls with Pauls that had wider thick necks, Pauls with thinner faces with Pauls that had much rounder faces, and so on.....You know that early Pauls did put their hands inside their coats, Masonry style, right? But I suppose we all here doctored those photos as well.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Aug 24, 2022 8:06:12 GMT -5
I was wondering what was going on, whether Peter wasn't using the quote function correctly. I looked in the tools and you can block users on here. I believe Peter's blocked me from reading his posts.
|
|
|
Post by kvo on Aug 24, 2022 8:22:51 GMT -5
I was wondering what was going on, whether Peter wasn't using the quote function correctly. I looked in the tools and you can block users on here. I believe Peter's blocked me from reading his posts. As the Beatles said "No Reply" from Peter to your post. I wondered why. If you got blocked, I suppose I'm next. 😂
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Aug 24, 2022 8:45:02 GMT -5
Gonna have to disagree that all early Cavern/Hamburg Pauls look like Billy. They don't. Not at all. If all early Pauls looked like Billy, then I might consider the premise of photo doctoring. Again, have a look at the threads here on this site that I mentioned in an earlier post. And John always being the same guy, even after 1966? Now we completely disagree. Those Yoko Ono Johns look nothing like the Johns who came before. Nothing at all. Photo lighting? What about vastly changing heights? Check out some photos on the Fireman thread. I do believe there's one there, from the cover of an early Beatle book, depicting the Beatles about to roll some sort of agricultural press over George. Check out the extraordinary height of the "tall Paul" in that photo. And I have watched interviews. Plenty of them. Perhaps all of them. And gimme a break with those inferences that people here have doctored photos themselves - "But perhaps you already know this". People simply posted photos here and on other sites from old Beatle books, Mersey Beat photos from the Beatles early days, and sites like the Savage Young Beatles and Meet the Beatles for Real. And what we see is a psy op, from the very start. Those grainy television receptions you mentioned, making it much easier to switch short Pauls for tall Pauls, long necked Pauls with Pauls that had wider thick necks, Pauls with thinner faces with Pauls that had much rounder faces, and so on.....You know that early Pauls did put their hands inside their coats, Masonry style, right? But I suppose we all here doctored those photos as well. My explanation comes from videos of live performances. Not just the performances but the audience reactions to them. The audience shots at the DC concert in February 64 are a sight to behold - never mind the British invasion, those kids look like they are witnessing aliens landing and they love it. The audience reaction to the imposters on the other hand is noticeably different. You can hear the deflation of excitement in the audience at the 1965 NME Poll Winners show compared to the May 1964 NME show and there's some audience reaction from an American concert where audience members are puzzled and look like they're thinking, "Why do I like this?" This is something much more convincing than, "I saw some photos where he looked different." I've got photos of me where I look different. You need more, but I have to ask what are your needs? Your opinion is easily dismissed because you don't back it up with motive or reason. You keep blaming the Beatles for using multiples. How are they going to get away with that if someone in authority doesn't want that to happen against them?
|
|