|
|
Post by debutante on Jun 1, 2018 18:47:54 GMT -5
It so happens I have occasional bouts of insomnia and when I do I spend the night surfing the net and watching YouTube videos. I came upon a series of videos about the old conspiracy theory that Paul McCartney died in an automobile accident in November of 1966.
Of course, I'd read about it in the paper at the time and dismissed it once it was declared a hoax -- because after all it was put together from various clues off Beatles albums.
EXCEPT.....
That is not what these videos were about -- there is a series of them and they are very interesting. After watching them all -- I have to admit -- whoever the fellow is that is calling himself Sir Paul these days -- I don't think it's the same guy who was originally James Paul McCartney.
There are voice prints. There are eye scans showing different eye color. There are skull measurements. All sorts of mole placements. There is a height difference of 2" after puberty. There are videos showing differences in how the guitar is held and played.
I have to say -- it's pretty convincing (or at least I thought it was).
Anyhow...I bought a book on the subject I'm currently reading. It's a bit disappointing thus far because the author seems to think the cover-up was so devastating to the remaining three that all of their material afterwards somehow relates to the "death" of Paul.
In any event -- if you've a chance -- run a search on YouTube and check out these videos. They are weirdly fascinating. Then let me know if you think that in 2018 it's "Paul" or "Faul".
If nothing else, it's a trip back to the past and you'll hear some good oldies and see the Beatles looking youthful again.
--Debutante
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2018 5:23:56 GMT -5
The one thing all conspiracy theories have in common is that by their own logic, they can't actually be disproven. Once you've accepted the idea that a Paul McCartney double is so convincing that it can fool any form of public scrutiny, for example, there isn't really a whole lot to go on in terms of countering that. One point I think that can at least put conspiracy theories into question are two elements: Plausibility, and secrecy. First, how plausible is it that the Beatles, their manager, and all their hangers on all collude to implement this incredibly complex plan, which requires tons of actual effort on their part, versus one person or a group of person getting into their head that Paul looked a little off in some of his later pictures (almost as if he wasn't happy with the direction the band was going)? Second, how likely is it that in this vast conspiracy that requires dozens if not hundreds of people to either not realize what's going on or to never actually talk about this vast conspiracy they're a part of, how likely is it that not a single person would blab on the news about it? Another factor that plays into this is the human element: The people in this conspiracy are human beings who don't always see eye to eye with one another. Once they start fighting, how plausible would it be that not a single one of them would ever go and blow open their supposed conspiracy, just out of petty spite?
Lennon, in particular, was pretty widely seen as a prick who alienated people left and right (including Paul) so how plausible would it be that nobody would have tried to tear him a new one simply by exposing this vast and horrid conspiracy he'd been engaged in for years?
Most real life actual conspiracies come to light because the people who were part of them blabbed, either by accident, or because they were so proud of them that they couldn't hold back. And not in code, but in real actual words.
And if people didn't blab, they were exposed by the press or some other agent of the "mainstream media". There has never been a conspiracy where everyone was in on it and nobody ever talked about it. Sooner or later, the public at large always finds out. And if it hasn't yet, the question is: Why hasn't it? If the answer leads you to another conspiracy theory, it's probably wrong.  |
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Jun 2, 2018 7:57:43 GMT -5
I with Mcans on this one. It's the old saying, three men can keep a secret as long as two of them are dead.
I just don't see that there was a good reason for a fake Paul. Imagine all the money and effort required to keep it a secret for even a couple of years? How many thousands of family, friends, co-workers and acquaintances would have to be in on it. What would be worth all that effort? Nothing.
I set conspiracies to the same standards as science. It's not enough to make a claim. You have to also define what would make it falsifiable.
For example, mosquitoes carry malaria. How did we know 100 years ago? Some of the US military people exposed to mosquitoes in Cuba came down with malaria while none of those who were kept away from mosquitoes did. We had both sides of the coin - positive and negative proof.
So with McCarthy, what would pass for falsifiable evidence? That is, what evidence would prove that the conspiracy was not true?
|
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Jun 2, 2018 9:47:20 GMT -5
Well -- the reason given in the videos sounds silly but the claim is that they were afraid [they being defined as the British government] that due to the massive popularity of the Beatles "fans" might commit suicide en masse at the news Paul [supposedly the handsomest one] had died.
It goes on to say that once the switch was made, the Beatles never performed in public again and the music changed drastically.
But most of the proof they gave in the videos was very convincing. For example, up to November of 1966 Paul sang in the key of G -- afterwards he sung in D minor.
Up until November of 1966, he played left hand bass guitar without looking at the frets as he played. Afterwards, he constantly checks to see where his fingers are when he plays.
He couldn't play piano. Then all of a sudden, he could.
He was interviewed early in the Beatles popularity and specifically stated that the only money he had ever earned came from various music gigs. In later years, he spoke of "factory jobs" [totally contradicting his previous statements]
The videos are very convincing with physical evidence. People's skulls can't go from being roundish to an elongated oval.
There is so much that is different when you really look. I never really looked closely because it would never occur to me to suspect he wouldn't have been who they said he was.
Assuming you begin a lie like that-- obviously you can't ever stop it.
But if the people who put out these videos are right, it would explain a lot.
Why, for example, Lennon and McCartney who were originally the best of friends suddenly couldn't stand to work together.
I don't think much of the album clues or the stuff that shows up if you play tracks backwards. But comparisons between the early photos of Paul.and the latter ones [and especially videos] really do look like two totally different guys.
That's pretty much why I sat up watching them on YouTube all night. I couldn't believe that these obvious differences went completely over my head.
You guys should check out some of the videos on YouTube. Use the search term "Paul and Faul" . You'll be surprised how you could look right at a famous person and see what you're suppossed to see and not what's really there.
I honestly don't think the current Sir Paul is the original James Paul McCartney after watching those videos. They are that convincing.
--.Deburante
|
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Jun 2, 2018 11:05:37 GMT -5
When someone is killed in a traffic accident, there are police reports, and autopsy reports, and so on. Unless, of course, someone stole and hid both the body and the car IMMEDIATELY after the accident, before anyone noticed a wrecked car containing a dead body on a public street. If McCartney died in 1966, then in addition to all the people who knew him and kept quiet for over 50 years, government agencies are part of the conspiracy as well.
Not buying it, regardless of how "convincing" the videos may be.
|
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Jun 2, 2018 14:28:18 GMT -5
Raybar.
Oh, they covered that very thing on one of the videos! This reporter they interviewed said he called a government agency asking if James Paul McCartney had died in a car accident in November of 1966. Apparently, [according to that reporter at any rate] the United Kingdom has a freedom of information act similar to the USA. He said he was told this information was "classified" and then they hung up on him.
Don't know how true that story is -- but that's what the fellow claimed.
But if this is true and the original Paul McCartney is dead -- it would be one of the biggest hoaxes ever pulled off.
Relatives and close friends would have had to been paid off. The substitute would have to spend his entire life as another person.
And the original Paul would have been buried and forgotten with little mourning because very few people would know he was dead.
It boggles the mind.
But the videos claim they had government help to pull it off and they talk about their secret service type branch. M16 or whatever -- can't recall the exact number after the M.
It sounds so off the wall, doesn't it? But a guy in his mid twenties doesn't suddenly grow 2 inches and change eye color from dark brown to green overnight!
And when I look back on it-- I never really noticed that he was suddenly taller, or that his eyes were a different color. Or that as a left handed person, he suddenly began to slip up and become ambidextrous.
--Debutante
|
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Jun 2, 2018 16:46:00 GMT -5
It's like I said about falsifiable evidence - what would it take to prove that there was no conspiracy, not the other way round?
Anyway, as to some of your other points:
>He couldn't play piano. Then all of a sudden, he could.
---He could always play piano. Long before the Paul-is-Dead fad, he played both live and on film.
>Why, for example, Lennon and McCartney who were originally the best of friends suddenly couldn't stand to work together.
---They were having problems for years. Everyone blamed John's attachment to Yoko, but other bands also broke up for various reason (ABBA, etc.)
>But comparisons between the early photos of Paul.and the latter ones [and especially videos] really do look like two totally different guys.
---If you could see a photo of me from college (early 20's) and one from just a few years later, you'd swear that it wasn't the same guy. I have seriously morphed about every 10 years for most of my life. And, no, I am not an extraterrestrial - or not that I will admit.
>Relatives and close friends would have had to been paid off.
---Even slight friends. Minimum of several hundred and more likely to run in the thousands. From many different nations. Nations where MI6 had little or no influence.
>But a guy in his mid twenties doesn't suddenly grow 2 inches
---Who says that he did? Could it just be heels?
>and change eye color from dark brown to green overnight!
---My eyes shift color depending on the light. Mine also range from dark brown to green. Not just overnight, but just walking into a different room or going outside. (Again, not an alien, just a weird human.) And, of course some celebrities and such choose to wear colored contacts to change their eye color for cosmetic purposes.
The key premise, that the Brits were worried about mass suicide among the young, just doesn't make sense. Maybe 1963, but not 1967.
The big push for the story came in October 1969 when University of Michigan student Fred LaBour called WKNR-FM with many of the clues. He was surprised when newspapers across the US picked up the story and spread it, since he had made up many of the clues from nothing.
In November 1969 there was a TV program broadcast on WOR in New York, hosted by F. Lee Bailey. Bailey cross-examined LaBour and other "witnesses" about the rumors, but left it to the viewer to reach a conclusion. But just before the show, LaBour admitted to Bailey that his stories had been a joke, but the TV show was about to start, so they went ahead as if LaBour were honest.
So we know for certain that at least some of the "clues" were total BS. Since no one ever exposed those back in 1969, there is at least the possibility that all of the clues are bogus. Too confusing to sort out 50 years later.
|
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Jun 2, 2018 19:07:51 GMT -5
Hi Fred:
Well, I don't consider the album stuff clues because you can bend stuff to see a clue in almost anything. That's why I am disappointed in the book I am currently reading. This fellow seems to think the Beatles have done nothing but write songs about the real Paul for the past fifty years in clue form. He sees them in everything they've composed collectively and solo.
There is another person making a set of videos who claims the original James Paul McCartney didn't die in the accident, but was severely injured and replaced. [Lost a leg]. Those videos are really freaky because the person posts an old man she claims is the real James Paul McCartney.
Weirdly, this old man looks more like the young Paul than Sir Paul. And this old man just happens to be married to the first known girlfriend [before fame] of McCartney-- a girl named Dot. The video maker backs it up with photos of old Dot and young Dot and old Paul and young Paul.
That is one weird video. Especially when there is a photo included of this old man meeting and chatting away with Julian Lennon.
Now that could be a coincidence because this old man just happened at the time to be caretaker of James Paul McCartney's childhood home. [Cue Twilight Zone Music].
I tell you those videos are really fascinating. There is something weird there.
Either there was a twin nobody ever knew about or Paul was replaced or something.
I don't think they had cloning then, even though somebody speculated that in viewer's remarks under the video.
That old man has a face mole in the exact same spot as the young Paul
It is weird.
--Debutante
|
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Jun 3, 2018 8:24:17 GMT -5
Unless it was part of the makeup. 8->
Like I said, the original cause doesn't make sense. My experience with government is that they only keep secrets to protect those in power, not for the good of the public. If something is likely to be embarrassing to a powerful politician or a top general or such, then the full power of the government is sometimes cranked up to protect that person. Mass suicide among the young in 1967?
“Hrumpf”, says middle-aged Lord Doodoo. “Don’t like those damn hippies anyway. And besides, the Beatles are encouraging our youth to take LSD and go off and follow Indian gurus. Good riddance, says I.”
I was in college in 1967 and that was certainly the attitude of the elders around me. The Beatles, Bob Dylan, etc., were all seen as threats to society, changing the values of the young and encouraging disrespect to established institutions. If their followers wanted to thin themselves out, so much the better. Remember the Vietnamese Buddhists who burned themselves alive to protest the South Vietnam government? The elders around me at the time would say stuff like, “Hey, I’ll be happy to bring the gasoline, if any American anti-war protestors want to do that.” The young were the enemy.
But maybe I was living in the dark, Satanic world of Texas Southern Baptists and England was much nicer. LOL
Some people, and I’m one of them, have many look-alikes. There are at least 4 other men just in Austin who look very much like me. I’m often approached by people who think I’m someone they know and they’re surprised when I’m not that person. Now and then I see one myself. I never approach them. Don’t know what to say. Hey, are you missing a twin somewhere. Unfortunately, we don’t look at all like Sir Paul. Alas. 8->
|
|
