1966 to 1967

[sii23]

Hi 

how does anyone imagine the time between 1966 to 1967 if paul left the beatles? did they imediatly get a sound a like and a bass player to play on the tracks;
then over a period of time find a lookalike? they didnt play live after this, so then faul didnt need to play an instrument.
was denny laine or junior cambell on the album ? 

just wondered 

Sii23

[bazzo49]

From my analysis of the period 1963-1966, there was more than one Paul McCartney and these shared place on stage and in public as well as in promotional photographs. So whoever took over in 1966 was already skilled in performing with the others as a singer and bass player. Also, it is apparent that the other Beatles had doubles who stood in for them on many occasions. I believe The Beatles were a manufactured band from the very beginning when the guys were kids. They were groomed for the job and nothing was left to chance. Everything was planned down to the most minute detail. Did they write the songs? Some perhaps, most of them, unlikely. It was all a sham. A project to use music to manipulate people into spending money as well as introducing the drug culture and to create division between the generations.

[maclen]

Sept 19, 2019 7:23:43 GMT -5 bazzo49 said:

From my analysis of the period 1963-1966, there was more than one Paul McCartney and these shared place on stage and in public as well as in promotional photographs. So whoever took over in 1966 was already skilled in performing with the others as a singer and bass player. Also, it is apparent that the other Beatles had doubles who stood in for them on many occasions. I believe The Beatles were a manufactured band from the very beginning when the guys were kids. They were groomed for the job and nothing was left to chance. Everything was planned down to the most minute detail. Did they write the songs? Some perhaps, most of them, unlikely. It was all a sham. A project to use music to manipulate people into spending money as well as introducing the drug culture and to create division between the generations.

do you have any photo examples of multiple fauls, pauls, and individual beatle doubles that are clear and sampleable. merci avant

[cypher]

Mostly true except for the ending. 

Sept 19, 2019 7:23:43 GMT -5 bazzo49 said:

From my analysis of the period 1963-1966, there was more than one Paul McCartney and these shared place on stage and in public as well as in promotional photographs. So whoever took over in 1966 was already skilled in performing with the others as a singer and bass player. Also, it is apparent that the other Beatles had doubles who stood in for them on many occasions. I believe The Beatles were a manufactured band from the very beginning when the guys were kids. They were groomed for the job and nothing was left to chance. Everything was planned down to the most minute detail. Did they write the songs? Some perhaps, most of them, unlikely. It was all a sham. A project to use music to manipulate people into spending money as well as introducing the drug culture and to create division between the generations.

[sherlok]

Sept 19, 2019 7:23:43 GMT -5 bazzo49 said:

I believe The Beatles were a manufactured band from the very beginning when the guys were kids. They were groomed for the job and nothing was left to chance. Everything was planned down to the most minute detail.

Did they write the songs? Some perhaps, most of them, unlikely. It was all a sham. A project to use music to manipulate people into spending money as well as introducing
the drug culture and to create division between the generations.

I agree with this, essentially. I believe that twins were used for the replacements. Twins produced with the help of fertility drugs and then kept hidden unti needed.
I suspect this is done all the time with celebrities now, at least since the development of these drugs after WWII.

BTW, when I say "twins" I mean multiple identical siblings. There could be 2,3,4 or even more. Not just two. Identical siblings are not 100% identical.
There are variances which explain the differneces we see in the Pauls, etc.

My guess is they had no twin for Pete Best so he was out and Ringo was in because they did have one or more for him. Drumming skill didn't really matter
because they could bring in studio pros if needed as was done in the USA with other bands using "The Wrecking Crew" for their sessions at that time.

I also agree that The Beatles did not write the majority of the songs they are credited with. No way. They were a pretty good little skiffle group and had some vocal pipes but that is all.
The notion that they could write 200 of the world's most endearing modern popular songs is just impossible. The few original songs (3 I think) on their Decca audition tape are terrible
and George Martin said in an interview that their material was "rubbish" when he discovered them. We are supposed to believe they went from near-zero songwriting ability to prolific geniuses
in a few months after signing their record deal. That's just ridiculous. George Martin said he selected them only because they had some vocal ability and appealing "cheeky" personalities.

Also, many of the "Beatle Songs" use very advanced and complex musical elements which are simply too far beyond the skills of the band to be believed.
The songs are on a level of the very best songs written by pro songwriters with serious musical backgrounds and education. There was likely a long list of actual pro songwriters involved
in his project. All very well paid, I'm sure.

I think that all four were probably replaced in or by 1966-67 and they stopped performing because the replacements couldn't match the performance skills of the originals.
The 1969 "rooftop concert" was faked in my opinion. The Featles were lip-syncing and pantomiming in that film. It was all staged including the street scenes.

[B]

The 1969 "rooftop concert" was faked in my opinion. The Featles were lip-syncing and pantomiming in that film. It was all staged including the street scenes.

Well now you're being silly. In my opinion.

[ramone]

I don't think they were lip syncing. It seems live. Just not sure if there would be a need to sync.
They all knew how to sing. It would seem like less effort to just sing it live.
As far as what was staged - who knows.
There were cameras on the ground. That might indicate staged. But also that
might have been all part of the planning to capture the reaction down there.
They had to plank the roof, getting cameras there too, sound equipment tie in - all
sorts of stuff.
The thing we don't want to get distracted from is - that is one Taul Paul finally playing live here.

[kvo]

Sept 19, 2019 7:23:43 GMT -5 bazzo49 said:

From my analysis of the period 1963-1966, there was more than one Paul McCartney and these shared place on stage and in public as well as in promotional photographs. So whoever took over in 1966 was already skilled in performing with the others as a singer and bass player. Also, it is apparent that the other Beatles had doubles who stood in for them on many occasions. I believe The Beatles were a manufactured band from the very beginning when the guys were kids. They were groomed for the job and nothing was left to chance. Everything was planned down to the most minute detail. Did they write the songs? Some perhaps, most of them, unlikely. It was all a sham. A project to use music to manipulate people into spending money as well as introducing the drug culture and to create division between the generations.

I concur with everything you wrote, except perhaps the very last.  The part about the group's purpose being to create divisions between generations.  I am beginning to believe that the primary reason for their creation was to generate vast income for the crown and to use various touring groups of Beatles for espionage.  Not that the boys themselves were spies of sorts, but that spies were traveled with them, masking up to look like them when needed.  And I also am starting to believe that the manufacturing process began when they were kids.  A big point of contention from the PIA side has always been that if Paul had been replaced, in fact if all the Beatles had been replaced, then wouldn't the families have spoken out at some point?  One would certainly think so.  Which has started me wondering whether or not there WERE any families to speak out when various men popped in and out of the roles of John, Paul, George, and Ringo over time.  Certainly, we have been provided with family histories, but I am beginning to question the veracity of the most basic biographic information we've been given.   

Perhaps these boys were orphaned, and a number of them were considered for the role of Paul, others considered for the role of John, and so forth.  There is evidence on the Internet of a music program that was in place at the girl's orphanage, Strawberry Field. I am wondering whether similar music programs existed elsewhere in institutions where boys were kept?  Just trying to consider all possibilities here that would explain the various faces we see presented in these four identities since the very start.