It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Paul McCartney died in 1966 - replaced by Billy Shepherd

page: 112
33
<< 109  110  111    113  114  115 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by faulconandsnowjob
 


It's interesting how Linda and Yoko were disliked by fans.

It was easily dismissed as jealousy, but other stars had girlfriends who didn't attract the sort of hostility that Linda and Yoko suffered.




posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Yes it is odd. The early Beatles seemed to have very healthy relationships with women. I realize there were the parties on the road and the usual rock star fooling around, but when it came to actually settling with steady girlfriends and wives, I would say that Jane, Cyn, and Maureen (and Patti, too) were having Beatle relationships consistent with what we think of as the usual boyfriend--girlfriend situation in our society.

However, after those intelligent and very attractive ladies suddenly dropped their Beatles as if there became a shocking problem, then you have Yoko and Linda come right in and chain themselves to John and "Paul" unlike anyone ever does in our real society. It is just not normal. Any therapist would tell you that these co-dependent relationships were not healthy, despite the "true love" theme put out there.



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   
Not PID, but this is classic SNL w/ Eddie Murphy as Clarence, the "most dominant" Beatle:

video.aol.ca...



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Benny

I`m right handed, smoked when I was younger and would never light up a cigi (for myself or anyone else) with my left hand, just wouldn`t do it.
I have a friend who is ambidextrous but uses the same hands for the same things out of habit. Bill above would have to light up with his left hand as Paul was left handed but here shows us his true nature as he has done many times before (playing guitar in India/switching the bass around on Sgt. Pepper, holding a cigi in his right hand on the front cover of Abbey Road).

[edit on 3-9-2009 by Uncle Benny]


Yourproof is that because you are seemingly obsessive compulsive about which had you use, others must be as well?

I am right handed and smoke and I can say with absolute certainty all the smokers I know can, and do, use both hands to light cigarettes, hold cigarettes, and will switch them back and forth. Saying you can not, for whatever reason, is not proof of anything other than your personal inability to perform a task ambidextrously, especially since I have seen smokers use both hands before.

I should also bring up the guitar subject. I am by no means a professional player, actually not very good at all, but when I did strum, I found I could play with both my right and my left hands. I can still play a right or left handed guitar, even though I prefer to play certain songs with a certain hand, I am capable of doing so with either.

You did not broach the issue of the seating arrangement, which would have made lighting the cigarette with the left hand awkward. The left hand would have had to snake between the two men. Considering the angle, Paul's hand would have been facing palm inward, thumb inward, meaning some type of twisting would have been necessary to light the cigarette without the cigarette actually moving over Paul's hand after being lit. It's logical to use the hand with the palm facing the smoker, so the lighter can be held comfortably and neither the flame nor the lit cigarette move over flesh.


[edit on 9/4/2009 by Ethera]



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ethera
Yourproof is that because you are seemingly obsessive compulsive about which had you use, others must be as well?


The above statement is yours, not mine, that`s all I`ll say about it!


Ethera - I should also bring up the guitar subject. I am by no means a professional player, actually not very good at all, but when I did strum, I found I could play with both my right and my left hands. I can still play a right or left handed guitar, even though I prefer to play certain songs with a certain hand, I am capable of doing so with either.


Complete and utter rubbish FULLSTOP!



aorAki - I don't know if this REALLY counts as evidence as, as I have posted previously, I'm left-handed and while I generally use my left hand to light my fags I can and do use my right hand as well...and remember that Paul, being a left-hander in a right-hander's world may well have been able to use his right hand to light a cigarette...comparing a right-hander's experience of smoking with that of a lefty doesn't work...other left-handed smokers I know can happily use a lighter with both hands, and some even smoke with their right hand (though I do 'religiously' use my left!)...


I agree aorAki this in no way counts as evidence, it may simply be taken as an indicator about the man - Like I`ve said before we`re not in a court.


Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
Not PID, but this is classic SNL w/ Eddie Murphy as Clarence, the "most dominant" Beatle:

video.aol.ca...


"The Clarences"
- very funny faulcon!

[edit on 4-9-2009 by Uncle Benny]



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 07:24 AM
link   
Speaking as the culprit who found the picture of Paul / Faul using the lighter, I'd like to say that I didn't think one picture would 'prove' anything either.

I just thought it would be an addition to the evidence and as Uncle Benny says, could be used as an 'indicator'.

As I said, I have difficulty using a lighter with the 'wrong hand' but, to be fair, I asked a left handed friend about it.

He said it made no difference to him, but we must remember we are talking about smokers here. My personal belief is that any one of them, if they were gasping enough for a fag, could strike a match using their toes.

Which would be an easy feet (!) for Faul to accomplish since he appears to have six of them



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Benny

The above statement is yours, not mine, that`s all I`ll say about it!


No, you clearly based your opinion as to how smokers light and hold cigarettes on your personal experience.



Complete and utter rubbish FULLSTOP!


Really? So there is no need for the term ambidextrous? Your inability to utilize both hands for certain tasks does not preclude the other six billion people from being able to do so. Ask a typist, who is "useless" with one hand or the other how that works for them. As a right-handed person who works with computers, when I am smoking and mousing, I can smoke with the left, but can't mouse with it. I guess that is rubbish to, because it is something you can not do?


Your conclusions are
. Again, you assume all people must be like you.


PID supporters would be taken more seriously if their evidence were presented without conjecture and faulty logic, less personal attacks, insults, and accusations of lying.



[edit on 9/4/2009 by Ethera]

[edit on 9/4/2009 by Ethera]



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ethera
PID supporters would be taken more seriously if their evidence were presented without conjecture and faulty logic, less (sic) personal attacks, insults, and accusations of lying.


Oh, hold on there, Nelly. I think you have us confused w/ the PIA'ers. I've had to put about 6 PIA'ers on ignore b/c I got tired of the constant stream of insults they were spewing. I guess they thought they were going to deter me from posting? LOL! They have no idea who they're dealing w/... Anyway, anyone who reads thru this thread will see from which side the vast majority of insults is coming.


[edit on 4-9-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by berenike
Speaking as the culprit who found the picture of Paul / Faul using the lighter, I'd like to say that I didn't think one picture would 'prove' anything either.

I just thought it would be an addition to the evidence and as Uncle Benny says, could be used as an 'indicator'.


The indicators that Bill is right-handed are stacking up. The proof that Bill isn't Paul are the different facial features, eye color, & height.

Used car salesman Bill



Rockstar Paul




posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ethera
No, you clearly based your opinion as to how smokers light and hold cigarettes on your personal experience.


When you label someone you`ve never met with words like "obsessive compulsive" (after one or two posts) it`s time to look within and examine the issues affecting your own life.


Really? So there is no need for the term ambidextrous? Your inability to utilize both hands for certain tasks does not preclude the other six billion people from being able to do so. Ask a typist, who is "useless" with one hand or the other how that works for them. As a right-handed person who works with computers, when I am smoking and mousing, I can smoke with the left, but can't mouse with it. I guess that is rubbish to, because it is something you can not do?


I`m just after mentioning my friend who is ambidextrous, in fact my mother is also. That`s why I stated people who are ambidextrous habitually use the same hands for the same activities - I`m speaking from experience.


PID supporters would be taken more seriously if their evidence were presented without conjecture and faulty logic, less personal attacks, insults, and accusations of lying.


PIA and PID are dead terms to me - These boxes suit debunkers who are trying to narrow down the thinking on the thread. There is a never ending stream of debunkers on threads like this to... "keep our minds right" you know.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Benny

When you label someone you`ve never met with words like "obsessive compulsive" (after one or two posts) it`s time to look within and examine the issues affecting your own life.

I just find it funny how Ethera could think that being right or left-hand dominant is the same thing as being "obsessive compulsive."



[edit on 4-9-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Benny
PIA and PID are dead terms to me - These boxes suit debunkers who are trying to narrow down the thinking on the thread.



That's a good point. It's really more about whether he was replaced. When it's in terms of "is he dead?" then people will be like, of course not. I saw him on TV/in concert/ etc just the other day. Putting it in terms of whether he was replaced will *hopefully* get people to take a closer look at the faces.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by switching yard
 


Pauls plan for the 'Let it Be' movie was to play a show somewhere unusual to finish it off, but John and those other two weren't interested. That was what Paul was talking to John about. He was trying to talk John into doing it, that's why the talk about early shows and nervousness, he was trying to explain to John that they'd been nervous before about playing live and got over it.

In the end of course Paul couldn't convince John, or the others, to play a show, so the compromise was to play on the roof of the studio.

The Paul, John convo was relevant to the context of the movie, that's why it was in there. If you notice, anything important to Paul was in there, he had a lot more say in the production of their later releases because those other three couldn't be bothered.

No conspiracy.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by switching yard
Just a quick note...

the run out groove of Sgt Pepper (at the very end of the long fade out of A Day In The Life), Beatles half sing, half say the following which is repeated...

"I never could see any other way." (laughter in background)


That's not what it says.


PAUL 1974: "Then the 'this-little-bit-if-you-play-it-backwards' stuff. As I say, nine times out of ten it's really nothing. Take the end of Sgt Pepper. Some fans came around to my door, giggling. They said, 'Is it true, that bit at the end? Is it true? It says, We´ll **** you like Supermen.' I said, 'No, you´re kidding. I haven´t heard it, but I´ll play it.' It was just some piece of conversation that was recorded and turned backwards. But I went inside after I´d seen them and played it studiously, turned it backwards with my thumb against the motor-- turned the motor off and did it backwards. And there it was, sure as anything, plain as anything. 'We´ll **** you like Supermen.' I thought, 'Jesus, what can you do?'"


And it's not the Beatles singing it, it was just a random piece of conversation taken from a studio tape and turned backwards, just like all the other odd bits of convo they added to their recordings. They weren't adding secret messages, just playing around with new studio techniques.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   
It isn't necessary for anyone to fill me in on the Beatles lore and legend. The why this and that and oh this is just innocent. Please.

John didn't respond to the little lecture by "Paul" in LET IT BE because they were not friends. Why were they not? Explain the deterioration of the John & Paul friendship. John and George, after all the shows and tours of the early days were not nervous in the least about performing. They had performed to audiences non-stop for years. What the clip sounds like to me is "Paul" trying to drop venue names so that people would connect him to them. John gets that and won't allow "Paul" the pleasure of a conversation. You tell me why there is such bad blood between them.

The run out groove does say "I never can see any other way." What do you reckon the little snippet of conversation is saying? Look, this album was some 700 hours in the making. Everything on it was very meticulously done. They didn't just tack on a snippet of a piece of idle, meaningless conversation. Who are you kidding?

The entire Sgt Pepper album is just dripping with meanings on multiple levels. Call it surreal poetry if you like, but all words on the album whether sung or spoken have overt and covert meanings.

I've read most of the Beatles biographies, the Anthology book, the Macca biography penned with Barry Miles, and so forth. I'm very familiar with the oft repeated legend and lore stories. However, I'm convinced that the true Beatles history is largely unknown to the public and these bio books have established and perpetuate myths and disinformation. A lot of journalists and authors have had the wool pulled over their eyes by these repeated coverup stories from the Beatles' organization. Macca recites the same phoney stories over and over the same way each time as if he has a repertoire of them.

The public have been brainwashed by many bogus stories of Beatles history and it is time to see through them and realize there is much, much more to the real history. Not everything is as innocent as the Apple organization would like you to believe.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Example of a bogus story from the lore and legend that Macca is fond of telling...

goes something like this...

Macca: Yoko knocked on my door. I didn't know who she was. She asked me for handwritten song manuscripts so she could auction them off to raise money for an art project. I told her I didn't have any that I would part with, but she should go and ask my partner John for some of his. She then went to John's house.

Now, this is such a silly story I don't know why anyone would believe it. But people do because they think anything Macca says is the gospel truth.

In reality, a hippie artist looking for a handout would not have access to the Beatles. This business of Macca answering his door to strangers is absurd. Him sending a stranger to visit John is absurd, would never happen. It is plainly just a cooked up story to cover up the real truth of how Yoko got into John's life. Also, I don't believe the tale about John falling in love with her after digging her art show, you know, John's oft repeated story about pretending to give her imaginary money for an imaginary nail and so forth. I think that's all a crock, really.

TPTB want you to think it was by mere coincidence and serendipity that John met Yoko and Macca met Linda. I don't think these meetings were accidents, but I don't know the true stories, it's always been covered by nonsense.

[edit on 4-9-2009 by switching yard]



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by switching yard
John didn't respond to the little lecture by "Paul" in LET IT BE because they were not friends. Why were they not? Explain the deterioration of the John & Paul friendship.


Not sure what you're asking here? Are you saying they were friends, or not?

I'd guess he didn't respond because he was just tired of Paul trying to convince him of something he didn't want to do. He didn't need to respond, it wasn't the first time Paul had this discussion with him and Paul new what his repose would be (unless John changed his mind which he didn't). Yes there were not 'friends' at this point, there relationship was very strained. This had all been explained in this thread so I'm not going to repeat the whole story, go look for it.


John and George, after all the shows and tours of the early days were not nervous in the least about performing. They had performed to audiences non-stop for years. What the clip sounds like to me is "Paul" trying to drop venue names so that people would connect him to them. John gets that and won't allow "Paul" the pleasure of a conversation. You tell me why there is such bad blood between them.


Yes they were nervous about doing a show in public. They had not played live in over 3 years, and the reason they stopped is because they were scared to continue due to all the death threats, and complete chaos their shows were becoming.

If you think musicians ever get used to playing live, and do not suffer nerves, then you know nothing about live performance.


RITCHIE YORKE: "John was sick from nerves most of the way across the Atlantic. 'Nerves?' I asked. 'Hell yes,' Lennon replied. 'My God, I haven't performed before a large audience for four years. I mean, I did the Rolling Stones' Circus film with a small audience, and I did the Cambridge '69 gig; but they didn't even know I was coming. So we didn't sleep at all on Friday night, and I was nervous all the way across.'"

beatles.ncf.ca...

Yeah they don't get nervous...



The run out groove does say "I never can see any other way." What do you reckon the little snippet of conversation is saying? Look, this album was some 700 hours in the making. Everything on it was very meticulously done. They didn't just tack on a snippet of a piece of idle, meaningless conversation. Who are you kidding?


No it doesn't, that is nothing but your opinion. Did you read my post or just skim through it, I explained what it says, or rather Paul did. It is very well know by real Beatles fans what it says. I'm not kidding anyone, the point of the piece of convo added to the run-out groove was not what it said but simply that it was there. It didn't matter what it said, it was the first time anything had been put in a run-out groove and that was all that mattered. Just like it didn't matter what the first thing was said on the telephone or the television, or radio. Not everything is a conspiracy.


The entire Sgt Pepper album is just dripping with meanings on multiple levels. Call it surreal poetry if you like, but all words on the album whether sung or spoken have overt and covert meanings.


Again that's just your opinion. You have NO idea what overt, or covert, meanings there are, or not. If you hadn't seen this hoax on the net you would be clueless as to what the album might contain. It's all just OPINION, and most of it uneducated.


I've read most of the Beatles biographies, the Anthology book, the Macca biography penned with Barry Miles, and so forth. I'm very familiar with the oft repeated legend and lore stories. However, I'm convinced that the true Beatles history is largely unknown to the public and these bio books have established and perpetuate myths and disinformation...


Not all of us get our information second hand from other people books...
You have no evidence that your version of events is any more genuine than what is printed in books.


The public have been brainwashed by many bogus stories of Beatles history and it is time to see through them and realize there is much, much more to the real history. Not everything is as innocent as the Apple organization would like you to believe.


Not all Beatles information comes from Apple, they can't control everything. It's just your opinion that there is much more to the Beatles story, sry to disappoint you but there isn't, really. You are the one allowing yourself to be 'brain washed' by silly internet hoaxes, that most of us real Beatles fans knew about before the internet ever existed.

Some of us have access to more than just books, such as knowing people who were there, to base our opinions on...


[edit on 4-9-2009 by Wally Hope]



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   
No need to get emotional. Of course, you're welcome to believe any malarky you and other 'real Beatles fans' know to be true. I didn't mean to insult your religion.

Another howler is the myth about them going to the dinner party of a dentist and he secretly put '___' into their coffee. They innocently didn't know what was happening and went to a club where they thought they were going mad.

If anyone believes that, wow, you're pretty gullible.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by switching yard
 


Who's getting emotional?

It's funny whenever your hoax is questioned we're getting 'emotional', or angry, or are insulting you. Yet all the PID posts are based completely on emotional thinking, not a logical thought in sight.

I'm just replying to a thread on a public website, if you don't like your hoax being questioned then maybe a public forum is not for you?

How about debating some of my points instead of focusing on what you incorrectly perceived as my emotional state?

BTW spiking drinks at parties with '___' was very common in the mid sixties before it was made illegal. So again your opinion is based on what? Why is that story bogus when it was quite common, and there is no reason to make up that story? It's just silly mate. Not everything is a lie or a conspiracy, paranoid much?

So a relevant quote..."Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."...Marcello Truzzi

[edit on 4-9-2009 by Wally Hope]



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Benny
When you label someone you`ve never met with words like "obsessive compulsive" (after one or two posts) it`s time to look within and examine the issues affecting your own life.


When you label someone a liar, which you are doing when you insist their situation is rubbish, do take your own advice. Now you are telling me to examine my own life. Haven't your post been deleted due to personal attacks?



I`m just after mentioning my friend who is ambidextrous, in fact my mother is also. That`s why I stated people who are ambidextrous habitually use the same hands for the same activities - I`m speaking from experience.


Someone who uses one hand for a task does not preclude others from being able to use both. Again, you are labeling every member of a group erroneously. The ambidextrous person you know may not be able to switch hands. His particular situation does not exclude others from being able to do so.


PID supporters would be taken more seriously if their evidence were presented without conjecture and faulty logic, less personal attacks, insults, and accusations of lying.


PIA and PID are dead terms to me - These boxes suit debunkers who are trying to narrow down the thinking on the thread. There is a never ending stream of debunkers on threads like this to... "keep our minds right" you know.




They are dead to you. Again, you use your personal perspective to blanket the whole. The terms are still used quite frequently. As someone who is reading this and other sites and boards, I see PID and PIA still in use.

As someone who is on neither side and just finds this topic interesting, while taking in strictly evidence presented from both sides in order to form my own opinion, when I say the tone presented here by the PID'ers is off putting, instead of attacking, maybe you should consider it would be more conducive to your efforts to present what you have found to open minds and not those closed by the manner in which they are treated. If someone makes a point, it can be argued with civility, grace, and eloquence.




top topics



 
33
<< 109  110  111    113  114  115 >>

log in

join