Is Paul McCartney dead?

[forrestcupp]

Last night I watched the documentary that came out last year called Paul McCartney Really Is Dead: The Last Testament of George Harrison. It's supposedly narrated by tapes that George Harrison recorded before he died. He tells the story about Paul dying in a car accident in 1966 and immediately being replaced by a look-a-like who underwent a lot of plastic surgery. He also tells all of the clues the band put in their songs and album cover art. There was no real proof in the whole movie, just the story and the clues.

I pretty much thought the whole thing was ridiculous. Then I saw this web site (http://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/fc1.html) with detailed explanations and animated facial comparisons of the pre and post 1966 Paul McCartneys. I have to say, that web site is pretty convincing. That's a lot better proof than just a story and clues. The documentary seemed pretty flakey, but this web site almost has me convinced.

[dh04000]

Oh wow. This is special.....

[lisati]

Was the art of plastic surgery up to the task back then? :D

[wilee-nilee]

Society has made the Beatles and Paul McCartney Icon's they never have wanted to be, Paul states this openly.

What about all the other art and music at that time, let me list a few , John Coltrane, Miles Davis, Louis Armstrong, who knocked the Beatles of the #1 with Hello Dolly. Jackson Polluck...etc

What the Beatles did was nothing new or really all that special, it was the pop culture wave you have been bamboozled by.

I like the Beatles, but as a trained musician, and well aware of pop culture, stereotyping, marginalisation, and all the social problems, and disconnect caused by this mythical world view through pop culture, I put it where it should be.

When I see interviews with Paul McCartney, he just laughs at all this junk attached, and I think we do him a great disservice, by not noticing this.

rant over.;)

[Throne777]

Last night I watched the documentary that came out last year called Paul McCartney Really Is Dead: The Last Testament of George Harrison. It's supposedly narrated by tapes that George Harrison recorded before he died. He tells the story about Paul dying in a car accident in 1966 and immediately being replaced by a look-a-like who underwent a lot of plastic surgery. He also tells all of the clues the band put in their songs and album cover art. There was no real proof in the whole movie, just the story and the clues.

I pretty much thought the whole thing was ridiculous. Then I saw this web site (http://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/fc1.html) with detailed explanations and animated facial comparisons of the pre and post 1966 Paul McCartneys. I have to say, that web site is pretty convincing. That's a lot better proof than just a story and clues. The documentary seemed pretty flakey, but this web site almost has me convinced.

And presumably this 'faker' also got special 'Paul McCartney voice' surgery too?

He's probably hanging out with Elvis & Tu Pac, the cheeky rascals.

Why would they put clues? There's literally no point to it. It's like finding 'the Bible code'. If you look for it, you'll find it.

[SuperFreak]

Post 66' music by McCartney certainly improved....

...but so did most music post 66'

[forrestcupp]

What about all the other art and music at that time, let me list a few , John Coltrane, Miles Davis, Louis Armstrong, who knocked the Beatles of the #1 with Hello Dolly. Jackson Polluck...etc

What the Beatles did was nothing new or really all that special, it was the pop culture wave you have been bamboozled by.Maybe, but this thread isn't about whether people like the Beatles or not.



Why would they put clues? There's literally no point to it. It's like finding 'the Bible code'. If you look for it, you'll find it.Right, the clues are ridiculous. The movie was a farce. But the facial comparisons are pretty convincing. Did you look at them?

[wilee-nilee]

Maybe, but this thread isn't about whether people like the Beatles or not.

Right, the clues are ridiculous. The movie was a farce. But the facial comparisons are pretty convincing. Did you look at them?

It is the mythical pop culture icon status that makes it relevant. If this was not in place; this thread would not exist.

Carry on though I love a good conspiracy theory.;)

[wolfen69]

This has me baffled though.
http://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/uk_images/peppertobutcher3.gif

[Rasa1111]

Paul's dead.

[doas777]

I'm sure you guys heard about the russian UVB-76 radio beacon going wonky last year, signifying that our governments soon will engage in mutual nuclear war, just to move is to a one world government, at the behest of the UN, right?

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1172163/pg5#18960836

[3Miro]

Last night I watched the documentary that came out last year called Paul McCartney Really Is Dead: The Last Testament of George Harrison. It's supposedly narrated by tapes that George Harrison recorded before he died. He tells the story about Paul dying in a car accident in 1966 and immediately being replaced by a look-a-like who underwent a lot of plastic surgery. He also tells all of the clues the band put in their songs and album cover art. There was no real proof in the whole movie, just the story and the clues.

I pretty much thought the whole thing was ridiculous. Then I saw this web site (http://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/fc1.html) with detailed explanations and animated facial comparisons of the pre and post 1966 Paul McCartneys. I have to say, that web site is pretty convincing. That's a lot better proof than just a story and clues. The documentary seemed pretty flakey, but this web site almost has me convinced.

This is awesome! On page 3, you can actually see Elvis!!!!

Come on people, this is just a bunch of blinking pictures. At the level of photography that they had at the time, it was amazing that one could distinguish a man from a frog.

[jacqueshappy]

This has me baffled though.
http://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/uk_images/peppertobutcher3.gif

****, that's amazing!!!
How can he possibly look different from a picture in 1964 and one in 1967?!
And a moustache?! It must be a different person!!!

[CraigPaleo]

****, that's amazing!!!
How can he possibly look different from a picture in 1964 and one in 1967?!
And a moustache?! It must be a different person!!!

But the fake Paul hasn't changed in 35 years. They're also different heights and have different eye color.

[speedwell68]

http://lolpics.se/pics/482.jpg

[Rasa1111]

some cannot accept anything that is outside their perception of "reality" or "possibilities" within said "reality" .

If it sounds "whacky" , many will not even give it 2nd thought. lol

ahh comfortable little boxes..
what would the masses do without them! :lol:

[doas777]

some cannot accept anything that is outside their perception of "reality" or "possibilities" within said "reality" .

If it sounds "whacky" , many will not even give it 2nd thought. lol

ahh comfortable little boxes..
what would the masses do without them! :lol:
true, but you have to ask yourself whether a paradigm shift is in order for things that so completely don't matter. when I was reading the threads about UMB-76 last spring, I didn't believe a word of it, but it was personally interesting enough for me to keep reading the "facts" as they unfolded (largely because the Russians have admitted that the USSR had several Doomsday machines). If ForrestCup is having fun, then I'm all for it. at the same time, I don't particularly care about person from any band. unless they are dead and on stage at the same time. thats what we need; "Zombie Thrash"!

http://www.wired.com/politics/security/magazine/17-10/mf_deadhand?currentPage=all

[forrestcupp]

****, that's amazing!!!
How can he possibly look different from a picture in 1964 and one in 1967?!
And a moustache?! It must be a different person!!!

Those pictures are 9 months apart and the structure of the skull is completely different. If you read the web site, they show that people's skull structures don't change their entire adult lives. The real Paul's skull and facial structure didn't change the entire time, but within 9 months, his skull completely changed. It hasn't changed from that time until now, 45 years later. He also grew about 3 inches within 9 months, and he was past the adult age where it's normal to have that kind of growth spurt.

All I can say is that last night, I was laughing at my dad for believing it while we watched the movie. Then today when I saw this web site, I started to change my mind.

[hhh]

@forrestcupp, I'm quite surprised at you, you're normally a voice of reason on these forums. Which is more likely...
1) Paul died, the death was covered up but The Beatles successfully found a look alike WHO SANG JUST LIKE PAUL McCARTNEY to replace him with nobody knowing about it... and then they decided to put clues on their albums so people would find out about it, but The Beatles would keep denying it.

2) Some fanatics noticed that Paul was the only one in profile on the cover of Revolver, released in August '66, and by early '67 a rumour had developed that Paul had died (a friend wrecked his car in Jan '76, adding fuel to the fire). The Beatles, being clever lads, started placing clues in their songs and album art to fuel the rumour, adding to their press coverage and also just for fun and to be cool.

http://ompldr.org/vOG1vcg

Their are 2 reasons for conspiracy theories. This is the first kind, it's just fun to look for clues on trippy covers like Sgt. Pepper's and the inside sleeve of The White Album and spin records backwards listening for "Turn me on dead man!" and "Vuvvvuvvvuvuvuvvah!!! Vuhvuhvuvhvuvhvvvuhh!!!!".

The other reason is cognitive dissonance, which in conspiricy theories is the size of the event and the cause of the event are so far apart in scale that the brain tries to fill in the gap. The WTC and Pentagon had jets flown into them by whom? 19 skinny guys with box cutter's?!!??! J.F.K., the handsome, smart, progressive President of the U.S. was killed by whom? A lone nut firing a single bolt rifle from a third floor window?!!??!

-edit- OK, 3 reasons. Sometimes it's because there's a conspiracy.

[hhh]

re: the skull differences, McCartney is a wealthy man who is more than able to afford plastic surgery. He did have a scar on his lip that he recieved in '65 in a moped accident. He has gained weight and lost weight and he is much older now. Finally, most of those web site photos of Paul have shadows on part or parts of the face, but not consistently from shot to shot.

[hhh]

ahh comfortable little boxes..
what would the masses do without them! :lol:
Awfully smug of you. lol :) lol :) <3 <3 lol!

[TeoBigusGeekus]

Ok guys, stop arguing...
I've wanted to tell you for a long time, but never had the chance actually...
I am Paul McCartney.

[hhh]

I am Paul McCartney.
I heard you were dead!

[forrestcupp]

@forrestcupp, I'm quite surprised at you, you're normally a voice of reason on these forums. Which is more likely...Trust me; I know. Last night, I was the voice of reason. I still think 99% of the "clues" are rubbish. When you record the words "number nine" and play it backwards, it sounds similar to "turn me on, dead man." It was just a very imaginative similarity.

But I just can't ignore the sudden, drastic facial structure differences.


re: the skull differences, McCartney is a wealthy man who is more than able to afford plastic surgery. He did have a scar on his lip that he recieved in '65 in a moped accident. He has gained weight and lost weight and he is much older now. Finally, most of those web site photos of Paul have shadows on part or parts of the face, but not consistently from shot to shot.His pre November 1966 face was much more symmetrical than the "fake" Paul's face, especially the chin. No one would have plastic surgery to make their face asymmetrical.

Also, in the 9 month period, he didn't apparently gain any weight. If anything, he lost weight. His skull structure, not his face, was much narrower and longer. That's impossible, even with plastic surgery. Plus, from December of 1966 until now, he has gained a lot of weight and aged a lot, yet his skull and facial structure is exactly what it was.

These are the same techniques the government uses for facial recognition. It's a scientific process. I have a hard time completely dismissing the possibility that "Paul McCartney" is a different person.

[TeoBigusGeekus]

I heard you were dead!

No man; I got sick of it all, music industry and such...
I found a look alike and left the band - they were friggin hippies anyway.
...And that John, God bless his soul, his breath could kill from miles away...
I tried to play some grindcore during the 90's, but I just couldn't find the enthusiasm again.
Linux is my main interest these days.

[hhh]

@forrest, which photos are you comparing?

[forrestcupp]

@forrest, which photos are you comparing?

This page on the web site (http://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/fc22.html) compares the Sgt. Pepper's photo of the fake Paul with the photo of William Campbell, who is supposedly the look-a-like that took Paul's place. They were an exact skull and facial structure match.

Then they compare the photo of William Campbell to a photo of Paul McCartney in 2001. The structure was still a perfect match other than the obvious aging.

[CraigPaleo]

I think it's more reasonable to believe they're different people than to believe that the same person just morphed over a very short period of time.

[wilee-nilee]

I think it's more reasonable to believe they're different people than to believe that the same person just morphed over a very short period of time.

Hmm, yes I see what you all mean, ignorance may just be bliss.;)

[forrestcupp]

Hmm, yes I see what you all mean, ignorance may just be bliss.;)

That's true. :)

I want the Paul McCartney running around today to be the real Paul McCartney. Unfortunately, I now have doubts. That's just weird if he is a different guy.

[wilee-nilee]

That's true. :)

I want the Paul McCartney running around today to be the real Paul McCartney. Unfortunately, I now have doubts. That's just weird if he is a different guy.

I hope we get to the bottom of this.

The only thing I'm noticing here is the lack of any real proof that would fall within any standardised research methods, and the bending of that data available even farther with our own wants.

The slip and slide of conjecture I guess, that's what makes it so fun though, like the real water game.;)

If we do not have the real Paul McCartney this is interesting to me as we have worshipped whoever it is, and they have played the part, isn't this really the Beatles we have seen since 1966, you see what I mean?

[Dry Lips]

This picture clearly shows that Paul in 1964 is the same person as Paul today.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/wiki/File:Beatles_Paul_McCartney_.png


edit:
Can't believe I'm using time on this...

[wojox]

What are some other good Urban Legends. :^o

[forrestcupp]

This picture clearly shows that Paul in 1964 is the same person as Paul today.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/wiki/File:Beatles_Paul_McCartney_.png

Darn it! I was hoping you had some actual evidence to prove this wrong.

[dhave-dhave]

˙pɐǝp sı lnɐd

[hhh]

This page on the web site (http://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/fc22.html) compares the Sgt. Pepper's photo of the fake Paul with the photo of William Campbell, who is supposedly the look-a-like that took Paul's place. They were an exact skull and facial structure match.

Then they compare the photo of William Campbell to a photo of Paul McCartney in 2001. The structure was still a perfect match other than the obvious aging.
Fine, but I just don't see any real evidence that that person is not just an older version of Paul taken with different haircuts, in different lighting, at a different angle and with a different lens, and maybe the negative was flipped, as is often done with publicity photos. The height question is a bit more absurd. Were they wearing the same shoes? Same hair style? Standing on level ground? Was perspective skewed by the lens?

In the first morph of Paul on page 1, where it's still supposed to be Paul, I don't think the skull structure looks alike at all due to the shadows, weight difference and haircut. Plus, I don't like this guys extensive use of qualifiers...
...although there are some minor cosmetic differences which will be explained further on...
Although the angles are a little different...
The rumors go that this is a photo of Paul's supposed double(BTW, isn't that one a later shot of Paul as a businessman from one of their movies or from the Magical Mystery Tour TV show?

Using the Sgt. Pepper photos as evidence is ridiculous. Those photo's are so heavily altered in post production that you can look at them sober and you would swear the LSD was kicking in. Look at an LP cover of it if you have a friend into vinyl and you'll see what I mean.

This is my favorite...
Could this man really be the same height as John Lennon and George Harrison? That photo is from Magical Mystery Tour, where Paul, as more "proof" that he "was the walrus", is the only one not wearing shoes (you can see them sitting next to the bass drum in the photo)...

http://ompldr.org/vOG1xbA

But look! Here is is still with no shoes and he's grown a foot taller! Conspiracy! They ressurected Paul for that last shot!

http://ompldr.org/vOG1xcg

[wilee-nilee]

What are some other good Urban Legends. :^o

Snookie has actually changed to a functional human being.;)

I have a bunch more but I would be skirting the coc, just think stereotypes.;)

Oh urban, bigfoot, now where is that yetiman to claim the throne with TeoBigusGeekus.

[hhh]

What are some other good Urban Legends. :^o
You should start a new thread for that.

[mips]

What's up with Americans and conspiracy theories?

[Rasa1111]

Awfully smug of you. lol :) lol :) <3 <3 lol!

It's not being smug.
it's the truth. lol
and truths often hurt. :KS

[hhh]

@mips http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=10793172&postcount=19 3rd paragraph.

@Rasa, considering most of "the masses" are very uncomfortable (http://www.poverty.com/) and don't even have the luxury of contemplating this kind of stuff, I'd say it's not true. And smug.

June, '63. Asymmetrical face, wonky chin, Paul is the tallest even though he's farthest from the camera (-edit- though they are almost definitely not wearing the same style shoes -/edit-)...

http://ompldr.org/vOG1yMA

Image source....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/apr/25/uk-public-spending-1963

[Rasa1111]

@Rasa, considering most of "the masses" are very uncomfortable (http://www.poverty.com/) and don't even have the luxury of contemplating this kind of stuff, I'd say it's not true. And smug.

Ok, No problem.
We all have opinions and we all see things in different ways.. ;)

[hhh]

@Rasa, cool man, well said!

[neu5eeCh]

This reminds me of the good old days, back when I used to hang out at the Mermaid tavern with Kit and Ben. Christ, but they were crack-ups. But there was always some jade who came in claiming that Will was dead and that some farting coxcomb named Earl (or was it Oxford) had replaced him. Thank God we put that conspiracy behind us.

[Gremlinzzz]

The Beatles had enemies in high places because of there views of war.
They were anti war and spied on.if Paul was dead theses people would have had that knowledge and expose it.The Beatles were peace nicks and there views resonated with young people. All ya need is Love!:D

[Timmer1240]

Ya Right and the real me is dead too Im just a stand in for me My wife doesnt know the difference!

[CraigPaleo]

I just spoke to the current Paul McCartney. He emphatically stated that he in no way replaced the real Paul McCartney.

Seriously though, I voted no way after reading the post but then had doubts after reading the link.

If this conspiracy was by the British government, it might make sense that a later pic might be relabeled as an earlier one. Hhh's pic in post #42, is also labeled as being from 1965 here (http://franny032.wordpress.com/tag/the-beatles-cds/).

This one is also allegedly from 1965 but looks to be the original Paul.

http://franny032.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/fab42.jpg

Faces can look alike but unless you overlay the dimensions of the underlying structures i.e. the eyes, length and width of the face, and all else, you can't tell anything. Single pictures mean nothing by themselves, which is probably why the impostor passed for so long.. if there was an impostor. I'm still wavering a bit.

[Brandel Valico]

Ahh silly people. You have missed the real secret. The "Original Paul was the impostor. The real Paul was recording his parts and then the rest of the band would lay down their tracks over his. The change Was when the impostor/original was removed and the actual Paul who did the singing was able to return. Which is why the music gets better then.

:guitar:

The real question is where was the Real Paul at the start and why the need to have the impostor cover for him at the start of his career.

[CraigPaleo]

Ahh silly people. You have missed the real secret. The "Original Paul was the impostor. The real Paul was recording his parts and then the rest of the band would lay down their tracks over his. The change Was when the impostor/original was removed and the actual Paul who did the singing was able to return. Which is why the music gets better then.

:guitar:

The real question is where was the Real Paul at the start and why the need to have the impostor cover for him at the start of his career.

Good theory but it's not like Milli Vanilli, where the first Paul would have been incredibly attractive while the second would have been the awesome singer.

If the second Paul had been the real singer all along, why would he have been needed to cover for the first Paul?

[Brandel Valico]

I'll be honest. It's not a real theory held by me. Was mainly tossing it out there for the fun of it.

The Real or second Paul was a member of SIS or MI6. He had started the band. Then was called up for active assignment. To hide this fact the "Original" Paul was brought in. He remained until the Second Paul was cleared to return. This is why the Sgt. Pepper Cover and Artwork seem to allude to a possible Military Service.

As the Second Paul was the actual singer of all the songs. He was simply returning and reclaiming his place. Thats why the first Paul had to leave. The Black Carnation Paul wears in the hint photo is to signify this change but not the First Paul's Death. This is also why the leader image of the other band mentioned looks like Second Paul. It was a way to acknowledge his leadership even during the time he was gone.


Now again I'll admit this is simply me being a smart **** and not a real belief of mine. Just having fun with the idea.

[Quackers]

Lol, I played golf with him yesterday :-)

[wilee-nilee]

The Real or second Paul was a member of SIS or MI6. He had started the band. Then was called up for active assignment. To hide this fact the "Original" Paul was brought in. He remained until the Second Paul was cleared to return. This is why the Sgt. Pepper Cover and Artwork seem to allude to a possible Military Service.

As the Second Paul was the actual singer of all the songs. He was simply returning and reclaiming his place. Thats why the first Paul had to leave. The Black Carnation Paul wears in the hint photo is to signify this change but not the First Paul's Death. This is also why the leader image of the other band mentioned looks like Second Paul. It was a way to acknowledge his leadership even during the time he was gone.

I like this one the intrigue, the excitement, danger, romance, and the roar of the wind as both man serve mankind together but separate, this is the hero's journey.;)

And time to play golf to, wow.

[Rasa1111]

nah, the truth is he went to SERPO on a spaceship.
you were close Brandel, but he was with MJ12, not MI6. lol
:P

[smellyman]

That website convinced me Paul is actually Paul. But some of the comparisons to Lennon made me think it isn't Lennon...:)

[forrestcupp]

Fine, but I just don't see any real evidence that that person is not just an older version of Paul taken with different haircuts, in different lighting, at a different angle and with a different lens, and maybe the negative was flipped, as is often done with publicity photos.I could go through and rebut everything you said, but honestly, I don't care if you don't believe it. I'm not here to convert anyone. Thanks for actually looking and not just dismissing it first.

But how about this picture from a different web site (http://plasticmacca.blogspot.com/2009/09/paul-mccartney-is-dead.html#comment-form) that shows that they obviously have different types of ear lobes?

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/ears.jpg



Seriously though, I voted no way after reading the post but then had doubts after reading the link.That's exactly how I was. Thanks for actually looking at the link without just blowing it off.


Which is why the music gets better then.I'm not knocking the talent of the fake Paul. I like their music better after he joined the band. ;)

[Johnsie]

Stretched images, but entertaining.

[Throne777]

some cannot accept anything that is outside their perception of "reality" or "possibilities" within said "reality" .

If it sounds "whacky" , many will not even give it 2nd thought. lol

ahh comfortable little boxes..
what would the masses do without them! :lol:

OR, most people won't accept flimsy theories based on wildly speculative interpretations that require you to beg the question in the first place.

There's also an irony in conspiracy theorists as they are always totally blind to any contradicting evidence (which is the large body of evidence that supports the mainstream view), concocting greater ad hoc explanations in order to fritter away the huge amount of evidence and reasoning that doesn't support their view. It's cherry picking data at its very finest. In other words, they can't think outside their own box, blind to anything that isn't their own 'acceptable' view; the very type of thinking they accuse 'the mainstream' of having.

What laughable nonsense.

[speedwell68]

OR, most people won't accept flimsy theories based on wildly speculative interpretations that require you to beg the question in the first place.

There's also an irony in conspiracy theorists as they are always totally blind to any contradicting evidence (which is the large body of evidence that supports the mainstream view), concocting greater ad hoc explanations in order to fritter away the huge amount of evidence and reasoning that doesn't support their view. It's cherry picking data at its very finest. In other words, they can't think outside their own box, blind to anything that isn't their own 'acceptable' view; the very type of thinking they accuse 'the mainstream' of having.

What laughable nonsense.

^^^ This.

[sydbat]

A++ thread. Would play backwards again.

[rg4w]

Consider the paperwork, and the people. For something like this to have happened there must be collusion at many levels, including the coroner's office, the surgeon's, etc. Not only would all of the paperwork need to be hidden/eliminated, but everyone with knowledge of it must also be assured to remain completely silent on the matter for all these decades.

In matters of state secrets this is not a simple task (see The Man Who Never Was). For something as trivial as hiding the identity of a pop star it seems, safe to say, unlikely.

[urukrama]

That website convinced me Paul is actually Paul. But some of the comparisons to Lennon made me think it isn't Lennon...:)

Actually, everyone but Paul is dead: http://udel.edu/~mm/beatles/paulLives/paulLives.html

[Throne777]

Actually, everyone but Paul is dead: http://udel.edu/~mm/beatles/paulLives/paulLives.html

Actually, they're all zombies. If you look at their ear lobes, they're a slight tinge of green.

[Shmantiv_Radio]

He's probably hanging out with Elvis & Tu Pac, the cheeky rascals.


Don't forget Kurt Cobain.

[sydbat]

Actually, they're all zombies. If you look at their ear lobes, they're a slight tinge of green."All you need are Brains...do, do, do, do, do..."

Alternately - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5IRI4oHKNU

[Throne777]

Don't forget Kurt Cobain.

Don't be ridiculous. Kurt Cobain has gone back to his home planet.

[jprobe]

Alot died in 1966.

[ranjank]

First time I heard this name.

[speedwell68]

Alot died in 1966.

Yeah, this lot...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_in_1966#Deaths

[Throne777]

Yeah, this lot...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_in_1966#Deaths

Oh the temptation to edit the list to include Paul McCartney :P

[sydbat]

oh the temptation to edit the list to include paul mccartney :pDo it!!!!

[edm1]

Where is the 'I wasnt 100% sure at first as he could have died this morning and i might not have heard about it yet but, after looking at a website demonstrating that a select hand full of photos proves that he definitely died in 1966 and was replaced seamlessly by a look-a-like, now i am completely convinced that he is alive' poll option. Maybe i'll watch the aforementioned documentary containing interviews with George 'the renowned McCartney hater' Harrison just to be sure.

[prodigy_]

Oh the temptation to edit the list to include Paul McCartney :P
Don't bother. Wikipedia knows about your old urban legends (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_is_dead).

[forrestcupp]

There's also an irony in conspiracy theorists as they are always totally blind to any contradicting evidence (which is the large body of evidence that supports the mainstream view), concocting greater ad hoc explanations in order to fritter away the huge amount of evidence and reasoning that doesn't support their view. It's cherry picking data at its very finest. In other words, they can't think outside their own box, blind to anything that isn't their own 'acceptable' view; the very type of thinking they accuse 'the mainstream' of having.Who is the one unwilling to think outside their own box? Sunday night, I seriously laughed at my dad for believing this. I've known about this urban legend for a long time and never thought anything of it. After looking at this evidence, I've become more "open" to the possibility. Please, oh please, give me your more convincing contradicting evidence. Please give me convincing reasons that his skull shape and facial structure drastically changed in a 9 month period. That's something that plastic surgery doesn't do. I don't want to believe this, and I would love to have a good explanation for these changes, but I haven't been able to find anything convincing anywhere.

People willingly accept these exact same techniques when the government uses facial recognition to confirm people like Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein. How is this any different?


Maybe i'll watch the aforementioned documentary containing interviews with George 'the renowned McCartney hater' Harrison just to be sure.
The documentary is a joke and I think it's most likely not really George Harrison. The documentary didn't do anything at all to change my mind.

[CraigPaleo]

More obvious height change. Both Pauls compared to Paul's dad and Ringo.


http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/Paul_faul_height.jpg

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/paul_faul_ringo.jpg

[sydbat]

People willingly accept these exact same techniques when the government uses facial recognition to confirm people like Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein. How is this any different?Because the website you linked to does NOT use facial recognition software, nor are these the "exact same techniques" used by government agencies.

The website you linked to uses extremely flawed logic and nothing more than photos taken at different angles with different lighting effects, taken at different times and pasting the photos together in a completely biased manner to prove their point.

This, among far too many other reasons, is why conspiracy theories are rarely, if ever, correct.

[Throne777]

Please, oh please, give me your more convincing contradicting evidence. Please give me convincing reasons that his skull shape and facial structure drastically changed in a 9 month period. That's something that plastic surgery doesn't do. I don't want to believe this, and I would love to have a good explanation for these changes, but I haven't been able to find anything convincing anywhere.

Contradicting evidence?
1) The fact that no-one who has ever known Paul McCartney through any stage in his life has never, ever said that he is dead. Do you even realise the scale of the coverup that would be needed to pull off such a thing?

+ For one, why would McCartney's family be totally OK with their son/husband/father being killed and then replaced by a lookalike?

+ How many officials (like, the coroner, attendants at the crime scene, etc) would you need to bribe and suppress information? Not ONE of them has EVER said 'Oh by the way, do you know that multi-million pound, multi-national pop icon? Yeah, he's actually dead. I was there.'. Any one of them could have sold their story for MILLIONS, yet not a single person has EVER done so.

2) The fact that 'hiding clues' in their albums makes no sense whatsoever. Why would the band bother to 'tell, but not really tell' fans of the death of one of their band mates? The Beatles aren't a secret society out of a Dan Brown novel, they're a bunch of musicians who like to make pop rock.

3) The fact that a glimpse at a few photos does NOT count as 'evidence of the structure of his skull changing'. Are they expert opinions? No. Has a medically trained professional examined the pictures? Of course not. It's some people with access to Wikipedia or a home encyclopedia who decided to do a little home research to 'prove' their non-starter of a theory.

+As has already been mentioned, the pictures aren't even direct comparisons. They involve different angles, lighting and camera work. MySpace should be plentiful evidence that a decent camera angle can make some ugly-as-sin people look hot.

4) You can't get surgery to make your voice sound like Paul McCartney (but then again, I don't work for the NHS).

5) You can find clues for anything you want if you already believe they're there. I'm certain I could find 'evidence' that Slipknot faked the death of Paul Gray, and that it was hidden in their albums, artwork and lyrics.

[beew]

Hate his bubble gum music, may as well be dead musically. Never care for PM.

[t0p]

forrestcup: I'm not convinced you're actually being serious, but so what; I'll play.

You say the photo-animations on that site make you seriously believe that McCartney is dead. But what convinces you that the photos on that site are untouched, unaltered, authentic pictures of the people claimed? Anyone proficient in the use of image editing software (gimp/photoshop/yourfavouriteprogram) could create "convincing" animations that reveal that Lennon, McCartney, Harrison and Starr are all one and the same person; and that that person is also known as Osama bin Laden and is definitely not dead. Or any other bizarre contention that the site owner wishes to make.

As you recognize, the other "proofs" that McCartney died (eg the clues that the Beatles supposedly planted in their music and artwork) are just silly. So you are convinced solely by the photo-switching and other "evidence" on the "JamesPaul" site (http://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/)? Please, tell me it ain't so!!!

Incidentally, in the poll I voted for "probably not" as I'm not so arrogant as to claim I know anything of this sort for sure. I'm open to all kinds of minority/conspiracy ideas. But the McCartney story just doesn't add up to me.

[CraigPaleo]

Because the website you linked to does NOT use facial recognition software, nor are these the "exact same techniques" used by government agencies.

The website you linked to uses extremely flawed logic and nothing more than photos taken at different angles with different lighting effects, taken at different times and pasting the photos together in a completely biased manner to prove their point.

This, among far too many other reasons, is why conspiracy theories are rarely, if ever, correct.


a 2009 Wired Italia magazine article by forensic scientist Gabriella Carlesi et al. concluded that selected photographs of McCartney, taken before and after his alleged demise, might not be of the same person (but noted that there was less certainty than with cases that allow a rigorous analysis of a corpse)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_is_dead

[jprobe]

Yeah, this lot... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_in_1966#Deaths)

Thanks for the clarification speedwell68; it's nice to know that deaths are reckoned by fiscal quarters at Wikipedia. In an aside, I hope that I die in Q2 for the market's sake.

[matthewbpt]

As has already been said, there is absolutely no way this could have been covered up the way it has. One of the very telling things about this conspiracy theory is that nobody who knows or has met Paul believes it. Sorry I don't buy it.

[dh04000]

Sorry this is so big.

http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20110509.gif

[CraigPaleo]

The moon is a moon, not a planet. :)

Now I wonder how many people believe the moon landing was a conspiracy.

[forrestcupp]

Because the website you linked to does NOT use facial recognition software, nor are these the "exact same techniques" used by government agencies.But facial recognition software uses the exact same techniques; it's just software doing the calculations instead of a man. How do you think the software works? It works the same way.


The website you linked to uses extremely flawed logic and nothing more than photos taken at different angles with different lighting effects, taken at different times and pasting the photos together in a completely biased manner to prove their point.



+As has already been mentioned, the pictures aren't even direct comparisons. They involve different angles, lighting and camera work. MySpace should be plentiful evidence that a decent camera angle can make some ugly-as-sin people look hot.
Then how do you explain the many other examples of photos of other people from different angles, lighting, and camera work, and they all still match up perfectly. Angles and lighting don't make a skull obviously longer and narrower. They don't change the size of a nose and the placement of facial parts. That's a poor excuse when they took the time to prove the technique with a lot of other good examples.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_is_deadThat's right. This is not just based on a guy with Wikipedia access. There were two Italian forensic scientists who conducted a biometrical analysis.


As has already been said, there is absolutely no way this could have been covered up the way it has. One of the very telling things about this conspiracy theory is that nobody who knows or has met Paul believes it. Sorry I don't buy it.That's been said many times here. But here's the thing. It wasn't covered up that well. That's why we're talking about it right now. And why it's been talked about since 1969.

Nevertheless, whether it's true or not, the guy walking around as Paul McCartney today is Paul McCartney, even if he's not the original. My best explanation in hopes that it's not true is that maybe he really was in a car accident that mangled him up pretty badly, and he spent a lot of money on the best plastic surgeons. Then 9 months later, he came back into the public eye looking different, but acceptable. But I haven't studied into if it's even possible to be mangled up enough to where your skull changes that much and still be alive.

[Jesus_Valdez]

Paul is dead, is very clear when you think about how many years have past since his last hit.

[t0p]

forrestcup, you're having a laugh! There's no way I believe that you believe what you're coming out with. That site, with its "undeniable forensic dissertation", was made by someone who's either taking the joke to extremes or is crazy. "Look, he's the same in these 2 photos, but in these other photos his skull has changed shape!" Puh-leeeze!

I don't know how you can type this with a straight face...

[speedwell68]

Look, in 1966 Paul McCartney was one of the most famous men on the planet. If he had been in a car crash in central London there would have been witnesses. An ambulance would have been called and the ambulance crew would have recognised him. The staff at the hospital would have recognised him. If he had been in a RTA the Police would have been called, they would have recognised him. If he had been declared dead, a doctor would have had to declared him dead, a coroner would have been informed and an autopsy would have been performed. His death would have been registered, the press would have found out about it, as all deaths are recorded in the public domain. The things I describe here are based on factual experience and WOULD have happened.

As already pointed out a conspiracy on this scale would be impossible to contain and cover up for 45 years, someone would have been able to make a large amount of cash out of this story.

The evidence provided to prove that PM is dead is very weak and would not stand up to any real scientific analysis. Also there is no way that on earth that his family would go along with this. As a parent I would not be prepared to cover up the death of my child for no real reason. Also I imagine that his family would not be prepared to allow his vast fortune to be taken by a hired doppelgänger.

But hey lets not let obvious facts get in the way of a good conspiracy.

[wilee-nilee]

The moon is a moon, not a planet. :)

Now I wonder how many people believe the moon landing was a conspiracy.


Alex Jones And Apollo Astronaut Harrison Schmitt Serve As Gatekeepers For Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
The Alex Jones fans do probably, and there are a few of them.
http://www.roguegovernment.com/Alex_Jones_And_Apollo_Astronaut_Harrison_Schmitt_S erve_As_Gatekeepers_For_Apollo_Moon_Landing_Hoax/16746/0/13/13/Y/M.html

lol gatekeepers, for the moon landings being a real series of events, must be a few people who don't believe; Alex is all about the money, and fame.

Seemed real to me .

[Rasa1111]

Those geeks have it wrong..
The moon landing was not a hoax.
We really did go to the moon..
What was hoaxed.. were the pictures you were shown of the trip..
not the actual trip there.
So yes, We did go to the Moon, and yes, we did take photos,
but No, you did not see those real photos. lol :P

Anyway, I'm outta this thread...
Ill get in trouble if I persist...........

Later, lunatics! :P

[3Miro]

But facial recognition software uses the exact same techniques; it's just software doing the calculations instead of a man. How do you think the software works? It works the same way.


Then I would like to see the web-page give some actual math and/or numbers. Lookup optical illusions and you will see that our visual perception is worthless, we cannot even distinguish between white and gray. Machines on the other hand are great for something like this (that is actual software with good mathematics behind it).

[CraigPaleo]

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fmag.wired.it%2Frivista%2Fstorie%2Fc hiedi-chi-era-quel-beatle.html

[urukrama]

http://www.erichufschmid.net/TFC/FromOthers/Paul-McCartney-Italian.html

This quote from the conclusion of the article really clinched it :roll:


This may be one of the tricks the Jews are using to control people in leadership positions. Specifically, the Jews can threaten people: "You will obey us, or we'll kill you and replace you with an imitation, just like we did with Paul McCartney, and nobody will stop us! Not the sheeple, not the police, not the military, and not even your own family members!"

How many more times will we allow the Jews to perpetrate these type of crimes?

[Rasa1111]

This quote from the conclusion of the article really clinched it :roll:

Yeah definitely.

even if they were onto something...
I can't accept things from people who still have this "it's the Jews" mentality.

Even if there was some credence to it all.
I throw it out the window when I read ignorant crap like that. :mad:

[Warpnow]

--Deleted--

[3Miro]

This quote from the conclusion of the article really clinched it :roll:

Considering that they do not provide all the details (like they don't specify the software that they used and they don't give you the exact numbers of the results), then you are expected to take at least some of this on faith. If anyone believes in the "Jewish conspiracy", then I cannot trust their judgement of reality.

[Rasa1111]

If anyone believes in the "Jewish conspiracy", then I cannot trust their judgement of reality.no doubt.
and i am into some pretty "whacky" stuff... :lol: lol

[steveneddy]

John had to be murdered because he was about to spill the beans.

George took the secret to his grave.

[CraigPaleo]

Sorry guys I did not see that. It's not in the original. That was not written by the forensic scientists who did the tests. The diagrams are missing from the original so I posted that link without reading the whole thing. I don't think Jews had anything to do with it. If you quoted me with that link, please delete it.
Thank you

Here is the original translated http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fmag.wired.it%2Frivista%2Fstorie%2Fc hiedi-chi-era-quel-beatle.html

[CraigPaleo]

Urukrama and Warpnow, DELETE THOSE RACIST LINKS NOW!!!

[DZ*]

Sorry guys I did not see that. It's not in the original. That was not written by the forensic scientists who did the tests.

They appear to be an IT specialist and a medical legal consultant.

Therefore, they are not scientists, and an article in a magazine is not a publication.

[forrestcupp]

Sorry guys I did not see that. It's not in the original. That was not written by the forensic scientists who did the tests. The diagrams are missing from the original so I posted that link without reading the whole thing. I don't think Jews had anything to do with it. If you quoted me with that link, please delete it.
Thank you

Here is the original translated http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fmag.wired.it%2Frivista%2Fstorie%2Fc hiedi-chi-era-quel-beatle.html

Pretty interesting read. It also gives kind of a resume on some of the other forensic work these two have done. I think it won't do any good, though, because people's minds are already tainted by something stupid someone else said.

I guess there was a time when people stubbornly thought the earth was flat and were quick to dismiss any evidence against that.

[matthewbpt]

look, in 1966 paul mccartney was one of the most famous men on the planet. If he had been in a car crash in central london there would have been witnesses. An ambulance would have been called and the ambulance crew would have recognised him. The staff at the hospital would have recognised him. If he had been in a rta the police would have been called, they would have recognised him. If he had been declared dead, a doctor would have had to declared him dead, a coroner would have been informed and an autopsy would have been performed. His death would have been registered, the press would have found out about it, as all deaths are recorded in the public domain. The things i describe here are based on factual experience and would have happened.

As already pointed out a conspiracy on this scale would be impossible to contain and cover up for 45 years, someone would have been able to make a large amount of cash out of this story.

The evidence provided to prove that pm is dead is very weak and would not stand up to any real scientific analysis. Also there is no way that on earth that his family would go along with this. As a parent i would not be prepared to cover up the death of my child for no real reason. Also i imagine that his family would not be prepared to allow his vast fortune to be taken by a hired doppelgänger.

But hey lets not let obvious facts get in the way of a good conspiracy.

+1

[CraigPaleo]

Pretty interesting read. It also gives kind of a resume on some of the other forensic work these two have done. I think it won't do any good, though, because people's minds are already tainted by something stupid someone else said.

I guess there was a time when people stubbornly thought the earth was flat and were quick to dismiss any evidence against that.

I'm sure you're right about that. I'm very embarrassed and completely regret not reading that entire page. :redface: Other than that, it's all been quite thought-provoking.

[Throne777]

Pretty interesting read. It also gives kind of a resume on some of the other forensic work these two have done. I think it won't do any good, though, because people's minds are already tainted by something stupid someone else said.

I guess there was a time when people stubbornly thought the earth was flat and were quick to dismiss any evidence against that.

Your ENTIRE body of evidence consists of some photographs that were analysed by an IT specialist (whom we all know are professionals in facial recognition) & a medical legal consultant (again, expert in skulls and facial formation, obviously) who concluded that it MIGHT not be the same person.

And that's enough to PROVE Paul McCartney is dead?!

As Sherlock Holmes famously said, 'Once you eliminate the impossible, it's obvious that Paul McCartney is dead and that the Jews govern the world'. Or something like that.

[DZ*]

It also gives kind of a resume on some of the other forensic work these two have done.

All it really says is that "they have assisted in the investigation" of some cases, led by a forensic professor. Doesn't make them "scientists", more like lab technicians (not that there aren't any kooks among scientists).

[hhh]

Hhh's pic in post #42, is also labeled as being from 1965 here (http://franny032.wordpress.com/tag/the-beatles-cds/).
That doesn't matter, the conspiracy was supposed to have occurred after Nov. of '66.


I could go through and rebut everything you said, but honestly, I don't care if you don't believe it. I'm not here to convert anyone. Thanks for actually looking and not just dismissing it first.
No problem, and of course you can choose to believe in a conspiracy if you want to. But nobody will ever convert me, because I am judging by his voice and songwriting. I have a trained ear (B.M., New England Conservatory of Music) and I am telling you that the singers on Eleanor Rigby ('65), She's Leaving Home ( '66 ), Mother Nature's Son ( '68 ) and Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey ('70) are all the same person.

I'm amazed at your horse-with-blinders approach to this. This isn't facial recognition software, this is an El Cheapo Comic Sans-ish website with some grainy, poorly overlayed jpegs. This is saying that Paul's father and brother agreed to a conspiracy which would deny Paul the recognition of his untimely death, that Paul's best friend and co-songwriter John would continue to cheerily sit for interviews with an imposter, that Paul's girlfriend Jane Asher would pretend to sleep with a stranger for a year and a half and then get engaged to him. This is saying that somebody found someone who looked like Paul, spoke with a Liverpool accent like Paul, sang like Paul, played bass like Paul, played piano like Paul, wrote songs in the style of "Michelle" and "Yesterday" like Paul and had the same mannerisms when performing live as Paul. This is Spinal Tap. Cheers, and enjoy these links, they're all worth checking out!

http://www.beatlesbible.com/features/paul-is-dead/
http://homepages.tesco.net/harbfamily/opd/index.html
http://ludix.com/moriarty/media/gibb2.mp3
http://ludix.com/moriarty/media/lear.mp3
http://ludix.com/moriarty/media/tired2.mp3
http://ludix.com/moriarty/media/rev9.mp3
http://ludix.com/moriarty/media/heisdead.mp3
mp3 source- http://ludix.com/moriarty/paul.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kYDdBWESQw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-Q-5BnWhbA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtnXnWpC9GE

http://ompldr.org/vOG44cQ

[LowSky]

So people can't look different over time?

Example Barry Bonds, for those who don't know. He was a Major League Baseball player who [allegedly] used steroids during his career.

http://www.irisemedia.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/BarryBonds.jpg

http://www.irisemedia.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/barry_bonds-teen-202x300.jpghttp://www.irisemedia.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/barry-bonds-steroids-228x300.jpg

[forrestcupp]

But nobody will ever convert me, because I am judging by his voice and songwriting. I have a trained ear (B.M., New England Conservatory of Music) and I am telling you that the singers on Eleanor Rigby ('65), She's Leaving Home ( '66 ), Mother Nature's Son ( '68 ) and Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey ('70) are all the same person.As for the songwriting, John Lennon supposedly said that he had 50 songs that he and Paul had already written that could get them through for a while. Also, you can't deny that after that, the song writing was extremely different. I Wanna Hold Your Hand is nothing like Get Back. But that's not proof for the conspiracy, anyway.

As for the voice, I really wish someone would do a scientific voice comparison between live recordings of both time periods. Album recordings don't tell me anything because you don't know with 100% certainty who made the recording.


I'm amazed at your horse-with-blinders approach to this. This isn't facial recognition software, this is an El Cheapo Comic Sans-ish website with some grainy, poorly overlayed jpegs.But this case is so obvious that you don't even need software to point it out. I'm amazed at your horse-with-blinders approach to not even admit the differences. Maybe there is another explanation, but the differences are obvious. Eye position and skull size is something that doesn't change in adult life. They had the eyes lined up perfectly and the heads were different sizes. Like I said, maybe there is a different reason, but there is an obvious difference.

And I love how when people found out there were forensic scientists involved, it wasn't good enough for them.


This is saying that Paul's father and brother agreed to a conspiracy which would deny Paul the recognition of his untimely death, that Paul's best friend and co-songwriter John would continue to cheerily sit for interviews with an imposter, that Paul's girlfriend Jane Asher would pretend to sleep with a stranger for a year and a half and then get engaged to him. This is saying that somebody found someone who looked like Paul, spoke with a Liverpool accent like Paul, sang like Paul, played bass like Paul, played piano like Paul, wrote songs in the style of "Michelle" and "Yesterday" like Paul and had the same mannerisms when performing live as Paul.The story is that after the accident, Paul was out of the public eye for about 9 months while they worked with William Campbell's accent and performed a lot of plastic surgery. Then the band went to only recording and not touring for a while because William wasn't ready to play live. Supposedly only the band and MI-5 knew about it. MI-5 wanted to cover it up to prevent mass suicides, so they threatened the band to keep it quiet. After being completely out of the public eye for that long, they had William ready to fool everyone, even his family, who supposedly didn't know. I agree that's pretty far fetched, but that's the story.


So people can't look different over time?
Yes, but the point is that these differences suddenly happened over a 9 month period in 1966-67 and his facial structure hasn't changed at all in the 45 years since then.

[Throne777]

And I love how when people found out there were forensic scientists involved, it wasn't good enough for them.

Ignoring the fact that they weren't forensic scientists.



The story is that after the accident, Paul was out of the public eye for about 9 months while they worked with William Campbell's accent and performed a lot of plastic surgery. Then the band went to only recording and not touring for a while because William wasn't ready to play live. Supposedly only the band and MI-5 knew about it. MI-5 wanted to cover it up to prevent mass suicides, so they threatened the band to keep it quiet. After being completely out of the public eye for that long, they had William ready to fool everyone, even his family, who supposedly didn't know. I agree that's pretty far fetched, but that's the story.


You are still avoiding the fatal blow to the theory; no-one who has ever known Paul has ever suggested or said that he's dead. Ever.
You have yet to give ANY reason for why his loved ones would just randomly accept a stranger as their beloved son/husband/friend etc.

And you also have given no explanation for why the band would bother to give clues to the switch if it were true.

You're ignoring at will everything that undermines the theory and focusing on a very small incident. It's like finding a twig from an ash tree and concluding that a hundred acre oak tree forest is actually an ash tree forest; how else could you explain why that twig was there?

[DZ*]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtnXnWpC9GE

"Pop music is the classical music of now". LOL. He is saying that when his countryman Britten is still alive. And Stravinsky, and Shostakovich... It's pretty good but still "fast food" of music.

[hhh]

I'm amazed at your horse-with-blinders approach to not even admit the differences.
I explained it, it's because I don't see any major differences that can't be explained by camera angle, lighting, different lenses with different focal lengths, different hair styles and Photoshop. Like how when they released Sgt. Pepper on CD the first time they used different pics from the photoshoot, changed the processing effects and stretched all the artwork (http://www.tlcgraphic.com/paul2.html). Or how in that ear comparison you posted there's a lock of hair in the later pic that makes it look like Mike Tyson got a hold of Paul.

And because in practically every photo of Paul I've seen he has that lifted right eyebrow and it's always almost exactly the same.

http://ompldr.org/vOG5qZw

Great thread, forrestcupp. Like I posted earlier, this is one of the best conspiracy theories out there because The Beatles got wind of it and decided to play along. Revolution #9 is weird and creepy enough forwards, backwards (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PG0wksBzKSc) it's a living nightmare.

[Throne777]

Revolution #9 is weird and creepy enough forwards, backwards (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PG0wksBzKSc) it's a living nightmare.

I really don't buy much of that. For one, I don't think you can make out all of the 'Satan is great, etc etc' stuff. I certainly didn't hear that; I think it's just a case of people hearing what they want to hear out of ambiguous sounds.
In much the same way that you can rewrite many songs (youtube 'misheard lyrics') simply because many words sound very similar. Easiest one to do it with is Fallout Boy's 'Sugar We're Going Down'.

[forrestcupp]

You are still avoiding the fatal blow to the theory; no-one who has ever known Paul has ever suggested or said that he's dead. Ever.
You have yet to give ANY reason for why his loved ones would just randomly accept a stranger as their beloved son/husband/friend etc.Ok. I'm not ignoring these things, and I'll answer them. Keep in mind that I don't necessarily believe all of these answers; they're just the explanations that the supposed George Harrison gives on the documentary I originally mentioned.

The band members, a woman in a blue dress, and some MI-5 people are the only ones who knew about the death because it was early in the morning and he gave this woman a ride. While in the car, she recognized him, started wildly hugging him, and caused the wreck. MI-5 knew that as popular as Paul McCartney was, there would be mass suicides if they found out Paul died. (Someone mentioned that there actually were suicides when he got married, so that is not far fetched.) So MI-5 wanted to cover it up for the protection of the people. After the band agreed, the MI-5 agent threatened their lives if they revealed the truth. "Paul" was out of the public eye for a while when the Beatles decided to only record and not tour. During this time, they worked with William Campbell, who won a look-a-like contest in the US. They worked on his accent, playing & singing, and especially a lot of plastic surgery. After a little while, he finally appeared again in good enough shape to fool even his family. But not good enough to fool the conspiracy theorists. :)


And you also have given no explanation for why the band would bother to give clues to the switch if it were true.Again, "George Harrison's" answer, not mine. The band's lives were threatened so they couldn't just come out and talk about it or even grieve openly. They were torn up over Paul's death, and John became obsessive about it. So instead of openly talking about it, he put the clues out there just to vent. Supposedly, he pushed the limit a few times and Maxwell, the MI-5 agent made him not use some of the album art. After especially pushing it with the photo of the band with meat and decapitated baby dolls, they decided to have a blank album cover on "The White Album". "George Harrison" talked about how much he loved the real Paul and that's why he was so bitter with the fake Paul.


I really don't buy much of that. For one, I don't think you can make out all of the 'Satan is great, etc etc' stuff. I certainly didn't hear that; I think it's just a case of people hearing what they want to hear out of ambiguous sounds.
I agree. Some of these "clues" are ridiculous, and they are the result of some very big imaginations. I'm not convinced that there aren't any clues at all, though. Like the passport photo of William Campbell in the White Album. His skull shape and facial structure perfectly match the new Paul's. Even if it's the real Paul in disguise, they put it there to pull one over on us.

[RiceMonster]

After a little while, he finally appeared again in good enough shape to fool even his family. But not good enough to fool the conspiracy theorists. :)

Sorry, but I don't buy it that his family wouldn't notice, but a bunch of random people who've never even met him would.

[hhh]

I really don't buy much of that. For one, I don't think you can make out all of the 'Satan is great, etc etc' stuff. I certainly didn't hear that; I think it's just a case of people hearing what they want to hear out of ambiguous sounds.
Oh, I completely agree, I'm just saying that it's fun to play records backwards because it sounds so dang creepy! Or, in the case of "Empty Spaces" by Pink Floyd, it's a complete freakout when you discover there actually is a backmasked message in it (as a joke)...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGBbv9HJjOY

[forrestcupp]

Sorry, but I don't buy it that his family wouldn't notice, but a bunch of random people who've never even met him would.

He did say on the documentary that they had the fake Paul break up with his girlfriend because she would notice and wouldn't be able to keep a secret. I don't know what their explanation is for his family, unless they threatened their lives, too.

[matthewbpt]

He did say on the documentary that they had the fake Paul break up with his girlfriend because she would notice and wouldn't be able to keep a secret. I don't know what their explanation is for his family, unless they threatened their lives, too.
They got engaged later that year ... after the supposed appearance of the fake Paul.

[handy]

God, let him rest in peace before he has to rest in peace!

[speedwell68]

The band members, a woman in a blue dress, and some MI-5 people are the only ones who knew about the death because it was early in the morning and he gave this woman a ride.

This does not stack up. Abbey Road is in the Camden Town area of North West London, this is in a massively populated and busy area, even in the early hours. Look...

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=abbey+road+london&aq=&sll=52.497623,-1.925011&sspn=0.131887,0.360832&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Abbey+Rd,+London+NW8+9AY,+United+Kingdom&ll=51.526261,-0.162048&spn=0.140122,0.360832&t=h&z=12

THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN WITNESSES.

How would they have concealed they body? How would they silence the huge number of people that would be required to dispose of a body legally? i.e Ambulance crew, Police, Doctors, nurses, coroner, mortuary staff, undertakers and so on? He drove a Austin Healey Bug Eye Sprite, a very sought after and distinctive car, even in 1966. How would they dispose of a wrecked car in central London without anyone noticing?

There would be too many people able to gain from this to be able to keep quiet.

[speedwell68]

He did say on the documentary that they had the fake Paul break up with his girlfriend because she would notice and wouldn't be able to keep a secret. I don't know what their explanation is for his family, unless they threatened their lives, too.

His girlfriend at the time was Jane Asher, a very respected actress, food writer and TV presenter. Whilst not as famous as Macca, she is still quite famous in the UK.

[forrestcupp]

Right. As I said, I thought the documentary and the story in it were hogwash. The documentary didn't convince me of anything at all. In fact, I thought it was pretty ridiculous. Especially when "George" said that Maxwell, the MI-5 agent, looked at the decapitated Paul with his molars sticking through his cheeks, and said "he looks like a walrus." Nobody in the world would say that in a situation like that.

It's the facial comparisons that really don't make sense to me. I would like a logical answer other than that they were taken at different angles and different lighting. That doesn't cut it when it's so obvious. They have other examples of other people from different times in their lives, and the facial features and skull shapes match up perfectly. Skulls don't naturally change that much, and the angle differences don't account for that wide of a variance. There are even some pictures where the angles are not that different.

Asking why didn't more people notice the accident doesn't answer the question of why his head changed so drastically in a 9 month period. I'm not saying I'm 100% sure he's dead; I voted "Probably" and not "Yes". I'm just saying that it's obvious that there is a physical difference that happened in a very short period of time, and instead of just stubbornly dismissing it, it would be interesting to know why that happened.

[speedwell68]

Asking why didn't more people notice the accident doesn't answer the question of why his head changed so drastically in a 9 month period.

You are deliberately avoiding directly answering a question by answering that question with another question.

The reason that people didn't witness a horrific car accident causing the death of Paul McCartney is because it didn't happen. His head didn't changed over the course of 9 months. The only evidence that supports that are some rather dodgy photographs that are nearly 50 years old. Concealing the death of Paul McCartney for 45 years would not work. Official secrets in the UK are released into the public domain after 30 years, so this would have been exposed in 1996, if it were real. Anyone involved would be hounded by the worlds media and the real story of those involved would have been sold to the highest bidder. This theory is just so far fetched it is actually laughable.

[forrestcupp]

The only evidence that supports that are some rather dodgy photographs that are nearly 50 years old.

Because 50 years ago, they used crappy, low quality cameras to photograph the biggest band in the world. ;)

Remember, I'm not saying the story is true or even that he is dead. I just want to know why his head changed. Obviously, you're just not going to believe the evidence right in front of you. If it were any other person under different circumstances, people wouldn't be nearly so critical of the photographs.

The photographs used are well known and can be found all over the place. They aren't contrived photos used only for the purpose of proving some conspiracy theory.

Instead of just dismissing it and saying it's ridiculous, how about giving me some good proof that his head didn't change? I'm more than open to that kind of evidence.

[CraigPaleo]

Maybe there were witnesses to the accident but if he had been rendered unrecognizable, no one would have known it was Paul unless they dug through his wallet or rummaged through his glove box.

[speedwell68]

Because 50 years ago, they used crappy, low quality cameras to photograph the biggest band in the world. ;)

No they didn't. But they have subsequently scanned, copied and chopped about.


Remember, I'm not saying the story is true or even that he is dead. I just want to know why his head changed. Obviously, you're just not going to believe the evidence right in front of you. If it were any other person under different circumstances, people wouldn't be nearly so critical of the photographs.

I am not going to believe the evidence right in front of me, because there isn't any, not real evidence. Just some rather one sided accounts on rather low quality websites. None of the images provided are from documented sources and none of the evidence provided is from anyone remotely credible.


Instead of just dismissing it and saying it's ridiculous, how about giving me some good proof that his head didn't change? I'm more than open to that kind of evidence.

Ok,

60s...

http://www.clashmusic.com/files/imagecache/big_node_view/files/paul-mccartney_5.jpg

70s

http://starling.rinet.ru/music/sleeves/zap_paul.gif

80s

http://content.answcdn.com/main/content/img/amg/pop_artists/DRP100/P144/P14443IQ46U.jpg

90s

http://www.live4ever.uk.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/paul-mccartney-coachella.jpg

00s..

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01492/sir_paul_mccartney_1492813c.jpg

These are all quite obviously the same man.

[hhh]

Ok,

60s... 70s 80s 90s 00s

These are all quite obviously the same man.
I agree. In every one of the comparison photos where the PID (Paul Is Dead) crew is saying it's not the same man, I think "Yes it is." It's that damn eyebrow.

[speedwell68]

I agree. In every one of the comparison photos where the PID (Paul Is Dead) crew is saying it's not the same man, I think "Yes it is." It's that damn eyebrow.

^^^ This and the slightly lazy left eye lid.

[forrestcupp]

Ok,

60s...

http://www.clashmusic.com/files/imagecache/big_node_view/files/paul-mccartney_5.jpg

70s

http://starling.rinet.ru/music/sleeves/zap_paul.gif


These are all quite obviously the same man.
I took the face from the 70s, rotated and resized, then superimposed it on the 60s face matching the eyes with some transparency to see how they fit. Even though they are way different angles, they fit pretty much exactly other than the mouth. Since he's smiling in one and not the other, that's not an issue to me.

I don't have any issue at all believing that the picture from the 60s is the same person as the picture from the 70s. I never had an issue with the 70s on. So my question is this. Is the picture from the 60s from before or after November 1966. If you can show me with 100% certainty that it is from before that date, I'll be a little bit closer to being able to drop this.

[forrestcupp]

I agree. In every one of the comparison photos where the PID (Paul Is Dead) crew is saying it's not the same man, I think "Yes it is." It's that damn eyebrow.


^^^ This and the slightly lazy left eye lid.

Eye lids and eyebrows are easy to change with plastic surgery. Skulls, eye separation width, and nose length aren't easy.

[speedwell68]

I took the face from the 70s, rotated and resized, then superimposed in on the 60s face matching the eyes with some transparency to see how they fit. Even though they are way different angles, they fit pretty much exactly other than the mouth. Since he's smiling in one and not the other, that's not an issue to me.

I don't have any issue at all believing that the picture from the 60s is the same person as the picture from the 70s. I never had an issue with the 70s on. So my question is this. Is the picture from the 60s from before or after November 1966. If you can show me with 100% certainty that it is from before that date, I'll be a little bit closer to being able to drop this.

Well knowing the band quite well, I am a bit of a minor fan. I would say that is taken prior to the Sgt Pepper's album, judging by the famous Beatle's haircut and the suit. They dropped the uniform style in their later career.

[speedwell68]

Eye lids and eyebrows are easy to change with plastic surgery. Skulls, eye separation width, and nose length aren't easy.

These days yes, not in the mid 1960s.

[forrestcupp]

Well knowing the band quite well, I am a bit of a minor fan. I would say that is taken prior to the Sgt Pepper's album, judging by the famous Beatle's haircut and the suit. They dropped the uniform style in their later career.

I hear what you're saying, but I'm not going to be convinced until I know it's pre November 1966. They had similar hair styles right around that period, and there are many reasons that he may have worn a suit.

[forrestcupp]

I'm getting closer to giving this up. There is a very long thread on another forum that discusses this, and they use your 1960s photo as the original Paul in a comparison. So according to them, it was pre November 1966.

Also in that same thread (http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=102300&page=2) on this page, 3 posts down, someone called "light man" posts a bunch of comparisons that show that it's the same guy.

So these are actually pretty good counter proofs. I still think that even if Paul is alive and it's the same guy, there are some photos of him that may have been a double, like the guy on the right here:

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/1966_comp.jpg

[sostentado]

Paul is Paul...

[Rasa1111]

and I am the walrus.

[speedwell68]

I hear what you're saying, but I'm not going to be convinced until I know it's pre November 1966. They had similar hair styles right around that period, and there are many reasons that he may have worn a suit.

Ok I'll humour you, I believe that photo was taken during the filming of Hard Days Night, circa 1964. Here is another, you'll notice he is in the same suit, he has the same cocked right eyebrow and the same lazy left eyelid.

http://l.yimg.com/eb/ymv/us/img/hv/photo/movie_pix/headshots/headshots_photos/george_harrison/contrib.jpg

[wilee-nilee]

and I am the walrus.

Kook..kooky..kookier goes the thread.;)

[demilord]

Paul never died, its ********.. and rumours..
and the photos are pretty tricky and not well done.. I could do the same with Bono of U2.. your face changes in years

[demilord]

I could go through and rebut everything you said, but honestly, I don't care if you don't believe it. I'm not here to convert anyone. Thanks for actually looking and not just dismissing it first.

But how about this picture from a different web site (http://plasticmacca.blogspot.com/2009/09/paul-mccartney-is-dead.html#comment-form) that shows that they obviously have different types of ear lobes?

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/ears.jpg

That's exactly how I was. Thanks for actually looking at the link without just blowing it off.

I'm not knocking the talent of the fake Paul. I like their music better after he joined the band. ;)

absolutely photoshopped

[slackthumbz]

mfw I read this thread.
http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0808/double-facepalm-demotivational-poster-1219545212.jpg

[forrestcupp]

Yes! I made it to the OMGcheesecake thread on flaming the Ubuntu Forums.

Ha, ha, ha, ha.

:lol:

[dh04000]

I agree with the double face palm, and raise you a triple face palm.

[speedwell68]

I agree with the double face palm, and raise you a triple face palm.

http://media.animevice.com/uploads/0/6566/181148-triple_facepalm_super.jpg

[CraigPaleo]

Yes! I made it to the OMGcheesecake thread on flaming the Ubuntu Forums.

Ha, ha, ha, ha.

:lol:

Bad boy! :D I couldn't help but notice though..

Could it be? TeoBigusGeekus
http://ubuntuforums.org/customavatars/avatar504094_8.gif

U Mad? (burnt beans) from OMG chescake.
http://omgcheesecake.net/forum/uploads/av-67.jpg

[dh04000]

I hear your triple face palm brother!!! I hear your righteous face slapping, but.... truely..... three face palms still don't describe the insanity of this thread, I present to you brothers, the LEGENDARY QUADRUPLE FACE PALM!

http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk41/zigg4/quadFacepalm.png

[speedwell68]

I hear your triple face palm brother!!! I hear your righteous face slapping, but.... truely..... three face palms still don't describe the insanity of this thread, I present to you brothers, the LEGENDARY QUADRUPLE FACE PALM!

http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk41/zigg4/quadFacepalm.png

I can go higher if needed.:D

[Rasa1111]

this is to counter all your facepalms..
http://files.sharenator.com/eternal_facepalm_eternal_facepalm_facepalm_captain _pickard_demotivational_poster_1242264259_RE_Anony mous_declares_war_on_mastercard_paypal_and_possibl y_others-s640x480-113205.jpg
This facepalm is for everyone who thinks "they're" version of "reality" is the only one....
You get the eternal facepalm. lol
It is eternal, infinite... you can't beat it... :P

[forrestcupp]

Bad boy! :D I couldn't help but notice though..

Could it be? TeoBigusGeekus
http://ubuntuforums.org/customavatars/avatar504094_8.gif

U Mad? (burnt beans) from OMG chescake.
http://omgcheesecake.net/forum/uploads/av-67.jpg

I don't have an account over there. I just happened to find the place and stalk it. I saw them trashing my thread over there. They're pretty vicious. They make it a point to not play by the same rules we have here. :)

[Rasa1111]

They're pretty vicious. They make it a point to not play by the same rules we have here.

yeah, ignorant troll city. :rolleyes:

[kelvin spratt]

I think its forrestcupp that replaced macca while he was of his head on acid writing a conspiracy book with George while John was writing lucy in the sky with diamonds while Ringo was fast asleep

[forrestcupp]

yeah, ignorant troll city. :rolleyes:

Sometimes people over there seem kind of childish. They cuss all the time and trash people just to show off that they're allowed to cuss and trash people. Big deal; you can cuss and trash people! Now what? :)

[RiceMonster]

This facepalm is for everyone who thinks "their" version of "reality" is the only one....

Are you suggesting that two conflicting "realities" can exist at the same time?

[CraigPaleo]

I don't have an account over there. I just happened to find the place and stalk it. I saw them trashing my thread over there. They're pretty vicious. They make it a point to not play by the same rules we have here. :)

I remember wanting to say something over there once but I don't believe I created an account.

They are vicious. Notice how many of them are from here... or from there? Double agents, I tell you! :D

[CraigPaleo]

Are you suggesting that two conflicting "realities" can exist at the same time?

Physics theorizes that realities, planes, dimensions.. etc exist. If they conflict, so be it. They are theories, of course but so was the theory of gravity.

On the other hand, anti-matter was once a theory. It's now been proven and exists in labs.

[RiceMonster]

Physics theorizes that realities, planes, dimensions.. etc exist. If they conflict, so be it. They are theories, of course but so was the theory of gravity.

On the other hand, anti-matter was once a theory. It's now been proven and exists in labs.

Of course, you're going way out of bounds of the point I was trying to make. Over thinking.

[Rasa1111]

Are you suggesting that two conflicting "realities" can exist at the same time?

I'm suggesting that we don't know squat..
and what physics tells us is possible, even probable.
Are you suggesting that they cannot? lol




Of course, you're going way out of bounds of the point I was trying to make. Over thinking.lol, and what point would that be?
:rolleyes:

[RiceMonster]

I'm suggesting that we don't know squat..
and what physics tells us is possible, even probable.
Are you suggesting that they cannot? lol

Again, way out of bounds of what I'm saying.



lol, and what point would that be?
:rolleyes:

He's either dead, or he isn't. I don't like it when people push relativism to its limits.


Try being more condescending next time.

[Rasa1111]

Again, way out of bounds of what I'm saying.




He's either dead, or he isn't. I don't like it when people push relativism to its limits.


Try being more condescending next time.

Yeah, I'll try..
if you try at trolling a little harder.

Look, I don't care if "paul is dead" or not..
To be honest.. I think it's a joke and I put no eggs into that conspiracy basket.

"try to be more condescending"..

lol,
Coming from you? :lol: Priceless.
:rolleyes:

(Now go run to "omgcheesecake" and post a bunch of lame crap about "what a retard this poster is". :lol:
Pathetic.

[wilee-nilee]

Are you suggesting that two conflicting "realities" can exist at the same time?

Can you give a definition of realities? It is a plural to begin with.

[Rasa1111]

Can you give a definition of realities? It is a plural to begin with.

Exactly.

and there's your "point" . :popcorn:

[wilee-nilee]

Exactly.

and there's your "point" . :popcorn:

In actuality it may be that we all live in our own personal realities. but I know you know where I get that from.;)

James Hillman.

[Rasa1111]

In actuality it may be that we all live in our own personal realities. but I know you know where I get that from.;)

James Hillman.


Yes my friend... Indeed.
Exactly what I was talking about when I said "people who think "they're" reality is the "only" reality.
Thanks.
:) <3

[CraigPaleo]

Again, way out of bounds of what I'm saying.

Do you mean "out of your thinking box?"


He's either dead, or he isn't. I don't like it when people push relativism to its limits.

There's no absolute without proof. Paul is alive but is he a replacement? Did the real Paul die? When you say you don't like relativism, do you really mean that you don't like truth?

[wilee-nilee]

Yes my friend... Indeed.
Exactly what I was talking about when I said "people who think "they're" reality is the "only" reality.
Thanks.
:) <3

I think it is a fair argument that there may be a very simple shared reality, a can of coke is a can of coke, what it means to us though is personal.;)

[Rasa1111]

There's no absolute without proof. Paul is alive but is he a replacement? Did the real Paul die? When you say you don't like relativism, do you really mean that you don't like truth?

Generally, that's what they mean.
Anything that makes them "think" "too much" , or anything that challenges their "belief system"..
or anything that resides outside of their box.

"you're thinking too much" lol, what?

god forbid, people actually think! :rolleyes:

I know thinkers are frowned upon in this so called civilized society...
But get over it. Really.

Awareness is good, realization is good, thinking and questioning, is good.

Trolling for "lulz" .. is pathetic. :P

[Rasa1111]

I think it is a fair argument that there may be a very simple shared reality, a can of coke is a can of coke, what it means to us though is personal.;)

Yeah wilee, I agree.
we (Humans) are still nothing but children on a playground.. who think they have the "world" figured out and know all there is to know.
I can accept that i know next to nothing when it comes to.. well... everything... :lol: :P

[forrestcupp]

He's either dead, or he isn't. I don't like it when people push relativism to its limits.

Or he's an undead zombie. You have to include all possibilities. :D

[wizard10000]

I am Paul McCartney.

Man says he's not dead.

http://monty-python-and-the-holy-grail.com/images/scenes/monty_python_holy_grail_script_023_not_dead_yet.jp g

[giddyup306]

I don't want to necromance a thread, but I had to watch the doc myself before I made a post. To be honest, this is well done, and it had me convinced that Paul was really dead! But I can prove without a shadow of a doubt that this is a FRAUD. I've been a huge Beatles fan since High School (second only to Slayer). According to to documentary, the album Rubber Soul was the first album without the real Paul. The namesake is supposed to be "Rubber Paul", since this is the first album that he didn't appear on. If Paul died in 1966, then how did an album about his death was released THE YEAR BEFORE HE DIED! I knew that Rubber Soul didn't come out in '66 or '67 so I looked it up. It was released in December of '65. They never did confirm that the voice on the tape was the late George Harrison.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_soul

I thought maybe Wiki might have been wrong, but here it is again on CDnow. Still says it was released in 1965.

http://www.amazon.com/Rubber-Soul-Remastered-Beatles/dp/B0025KVLT2/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1305635036&sr=1-1

Lets face it, the Beatles messed with the media something fierce, and I always think in the back of my mind that John Lennon was politically assassinated.

This is a must for any Beatles fan. To say the least it is entertaining, and creative. Even if there isn't a kernel of truth (get it - it's a linux joke).

What probably happened is that this was an American doing the joke going off the American release dates, not the original UK dates.

OT I'm wearing an Abbey Road shirt ATM, and I make a post on another forum every December 8th on another forum...

[heartbeatz]

Paul died when the beatles split, it was Lennon with the real talent.

[Rasa1111]

Paul died when the beatles split, it was Lennon with the real talent.

Lennon and Harrison.
never cared much for the other two. lol


and I always think in the back of my mind that John Lennon was politically assassinated.


Likewise. :KS

[forrestcupp]

I don't want to necromance a thread, but I had to watch the doc myself before I made a post. To be honest, this is well done, and it had me convinced that Paul was really dead! But I can prove without a shadow of a doubt that this is a FRAUD.

I actually thought the documentary was pitiful. Some people noticed that "George's" accent wasn't consistent on several words. Also, his voice was pretty dramatic and controlled for a recording supposedly done while he was fearing for his life.

It was the facial comparisons, which were not in the doc, that had me convinced for a while. But since then, I've seen other facial comparisons that show it's obviously the same guy.

Still, there are a lot of unanswered questions. Like how did his teeth and upper pallet get fixed so nicely and quickly without everyone noticing he was wearing braces long enough for that change?

[Rasa1111]

there are far more, better conspiracies...
if one gets curious... this site can keep a lunatic like myself entertained for awhile.. lol
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/
:P

[fatality_uk]

Wow, I have never actually heard of this conspiracy and I have to say, it's probably the craziest one to date.

Haven't laughed so hard for quite a while!! :)

[speedwell68]

Paul died when the beatles split, it was Lennon with the real talent.

One did not work without the other. Neither Lennon or McCartney did anything really awe inspiring after the Beatles split.

[DZ*]

One did not work without the other. Neither Lennon or McCartney did anything really awe inspiring after the Beatles split.

I think it's a common fate for musicians in pop music to peak, then decline. Inspiration has to be fueled by fans, but the next wave of youth choose something new. That is in major contrast with classical composers. Take any 20 century one: Hindemith, Britten, Shostakovich, Boulez, etc. They only got better with age.

[forrestcupp]

One did not work without the other. Neither Lennon or McCartney did anything really awe inspiring after the Beatles split.

You don't think Imagine and Maybe I'm Amazed are awe inspiring?

[hhh]

You don't think Imagine and Maybe I'm Amazed are awe inspiring?
Man that's weird. Those are exactly the two songs I was going to mention.

Hindemith may have been groundbreaking, but he is damn near unlistenable.

[DZ*]

Hindemith may have been groundbreaking, but he is damn near unlistenable.

I disagree. He is one of the best. Hindemith is really my bread & butter of music. Have to have some every now and then. Try Ludus Tonalis for example, if you haven't yet. I discovered it when I was 16 years old. Didn't know who he is. Didn't have to have anyone to tell me.

[hhh]

@DZ, an example of different strokes for different folks. Around the time of Richard Strauss music becomes too intellectually masturbatory for me, with exceptions, of course (I much prefer Mahler to Strauss, though Zarathustra rocks, and in the 20th century Bartok and Stravinsky are the two off the top of my head that have a good interplay of intellectual and visceral qualities).

But this is well off topic now.

-edit- You're right, Ludus Tonalis is beautiful. I take "unlistenable" back. But, crap, that non-diatonic stuff ain't for me. Der Schwanendreher? Aw, hell no!

[forrestcupp]

Hindemith may have been groundbreaking, but he is damn near unlistenable.

I agree completely. That's amazing talent, but it sounds horrible and makes me cringe. :)

[speedwell68]

You don't think Imagine and Maybe I'm Amazed are awe inspiring?

Imagine was the best tune Lennon did after the Beatles and Macca's best work was Band on the Run. But none of it was particularly ground breaking IMHO. The Beatles as a collective inspired a whole generation, what came after was drowned out by the music of that generation. I am not saying that the music of Lennon and McCartney was bad, it was just a bit mediocre when compared to the stuff the penned before the Beatles split.

[forrestcupp]

Imagine was the best tune Lennon did after the Beatles and Macca's best work was Band on the Run. But none of it was particularly ground breaking IMHO. The Beatles as a collective inspired a whole generation, what came after was drowned out by the music of that generation. I am not saying that the music of Lennon and McCartney was bad, it was just a bit mediocre when compared to the stuff the penned before the Beatles split.

I, personally, like Maybe I'm Amazed better than Band on the Run. I think a more accurate view might be that they didn't have anywhere near the number of groundbreaking songs afterward.

There's obviously some truth to that. Just look at what McCartney plays in his concerts now. Beatles songs.

[hhh]

I, personally, like Maybe I'm Amazed better than Band on the Run. I think a more accurate view might be that they didn't have anywhere near the number of groundbreaking songs afterward.Agreed. That 3-songs-strung-together thing is best left to The Who. And why he didn't make that second "If I ever get out of here" section into a whole song, I'll never know.

You have to remember how much George Martin contributed. Who else but "the fifth Beatle" would add harpsichord to a pop song?

-edit- Huh, he arranged Live and Let Die too, no wonder that song is so kickass.

[decoherence]

dead since abbey road. obviously. they said so in reverse. and he didn't have any shoes on. what further evidence do you need??

[speedwell68]

dead since abbey road. obviously. they said so in reverse. and he didn't have any shoes on. what further evidence do you need??

You missed out the reg number on the VW Beetle parked by the crossing.

[stephenj2005]

I'm Paul McCartney ... and so is my wife.

(Apologies to Monty Python.)

[Tibuda]

I have seen him performing at Rio yesterday. He was Paul McCartney. Maybe he is undead or something, but that was Paul McCartney.

[forrestcupp]

I have seen him performing at Rio yesterday. He was Paul McCartney. Maybe he is undead or something, but that was Paul McCartney.

But are you sure it's the same Paul McCartney that it was in 1966? :)

[Tibuda]

maybe

[decoherence]

You missed out the reg number on the VW Beetle parked by the crossing.

Good catch! NOW THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT! The Beatles commissioned a Paulimatronic dummy from Walt Disney. Explains his obsession with protecting adorable baby (but non-endangered) animals. Oh crap, was that a hornet's nest I just stepped in?