Beatle’s “Paul is Dead” hoax finally explained, part 1

Originally posted by jtma508
I'll offer my personal theory. I have nothing to back it up. The Beatles togther with George Martin were pushing the envelope creatively and the rapidly developing recording technology aided this. As new technology became availabel the Beatles were among the first to experiment with it. in the 60's, prior to the onslaught of audio technologies, recording artists and engineers would play around with the technology they had available. Flanging came out of this, slap-back tape echo and who can forget The Band's odd Hammond B3 warble (produced by powering off and then on the tone wheel motor).

One technique the Beatles had started playing around with was tape reverse: mixing in tape segments played backwards (like in the song Rain). My guess ius that while messing with tape reverse they heard something that sounded like 'Paul is Dead' or something that suggested that idea. Being creative stoners they decided to run with it as an inside joke.

Just my humble opinion.

I agree with this.

The Beatles started out as a boy band who didnt write their own songs and most of their fame came from little screaming girls who just came to see them wiggle rather than listen to their musical talent. After awhile I think they got fed up with this image and their perception of their fans changed... they experimented with drugs and wanted to start and do something original and different. The combination of these things made them play with weird sound overdubs like this. It seems to me they added this as a joke for their crazed obsessive fans to find and blow out of proportion. You know you are a big deal when people listen to your records soo much they can find little obscure things like this. It was a silly ego boost.

You really think a huge pop star could have a car accident and not have 45 reporters right there on the scene? I know Paul is no Lindsay Lohan

Anyways I know the paul is dead thing isn't the main topic so I will put in my 2 cents. Whoever wrote this letter is obviously looking into the meaning of things a little too much. Based on the assumption that this guy is probably no stranger to psychedelic drugs (given the era and music influence), I take it as he "figured it all out" while on an acid trip or simply has taken too much. Just given the facts I would assume that this is the reason for looking into psychedelic rock and roll as some sort of prophetic underground religious language.

If you can take lyrics like girl and boy, sun and moon, and twist them to represent some sort of evidence of a conspiracy then you can do just about anything.

Nearly a two year member berating a one day member because you don't like what he posted. I left ATS for this very behavior once before although the more senior member pointed to lack of ATS points to justify his position. Let the mods drop the warn stickers or one of the the Three Amigos tell me to chill the F out as they boot me on a perma-ban, but I am calling you out right here and now.

YOU HAVE NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THAT BEHAVIOR!

The OP seemed rather benevolent about it but you felt the need to push buttons. Rather than taking the high road of agreeing to disagree you feel it is your duty to push the OP to point of wanting to tell you to F off. Don't dare state that you were denying ignorance, because even with another member pointing out with humor none the less you decided to embrace being an ass.

OP, welcome to the zoo. I find your theory far-fected but appreciate the time and thought that you put into it. But to contribute and expand upon it you mentioned that around 1984 your christ figure was confused and no longer hand the old bands to guide him. While 21 years old is a bit of a reach for needing guidence. Allow me to introduce Prince. Despite public perception (and being the impetus for Tipper Gore's PMRC) Prince's music was always a dichotomy of giving into temptation and spirituality. Darling Nikki was the result of giving into anger. Let's Go Crazy was a anthem of raise a joyous sound, not to let pressures of life overwelm you. The verse at the bridge from the soli was "Pills, Thrills and Daffodils will kill, Hang tough children He's Comin'. Purple Rain was of course a repent of misdeeds and a message of understanding and communion.

Knowlege of the full versions of the songs explains the journey of discovery and the path of spirituality including the song that was on the flip side of Purple Rain...God. The lyrics are an overview of Genesis and the Messiah absolving sins. The album Around the World in a Day (1985) explores these themes deeper. Sign 'O' the Times (1987) becomes quite deep at times including the lost song Power Fantastic. Look up those lyrics for a surprise to the image of Prince.

Mountains (1986) lyricly on of my favorites:

Once upon a time in a land called Fantasy
17 Mountains stood so high
A sea surrounded them and together they would be
The only thing that made you cry
You said the devil told you another Mountain would appear
Everytime someone broke your heart
He said the sea would overflow with all your tear
And that you would alway be lonely

But I say it's only Mountains
And the sea
Love will conquer
If you just Believe



EDIT to add Mountains

[edit on 30-5-2007 by Ahabstar]

There was a pretty cool and involved "Paul is Dead" site out there...sorry, lost the bookmark...(nope, here it is:
digilander.libero.it... ) but I gotta say that I always figured the Beatles were kinda over-rated. I could go on about their genius deriving from the creative tension generated between the Minstrel and the Shaman, but it's all so very twee. Martin gave them their sound.

Go ahead and shoot me, but in my very humble opinion, the Who was a better band...and we must also give the Kinks their due for how they added shape to the genre.

The Beatles just had great hooks...except for the medley at the end of Abbey Road...that is 16 minutes of Rock defined.

My vote goes to Jimi. Loved it all from the word go. Beatles for me was defined in A Day in the Life. Solo efforts would be Live and Let Die, Watching the Wheels, Harrison barely rates with All Those Years Ago, and Ringo...The cover of American Woman was cool with the guitar line he had.

Perhaps Prince had a better insight as to who and who was not. Perhaps it wasn't Paul at all, but some un-named female sojourner ... After all, "She Wore a Razzzzberry Beret"....

Sorry, this was not meant to be a derisive comment, only a funny in an otherwise tense situation.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
There was a pretty cool and involved "Paul is Dead" site out there...sorry, lost the bookmark...(nope, here it is:
digilander.libero.it... ) but I gotta say that I always figured the Beatles were kinda over-rated. I could go on about their genius deriving from the creative tension generated between the Minstrel and the Shaman, but it's all so very twee. Martin gave them their sound.

Go ahead and shoot me, but in my very humble opinion, the Who was a better band...and we must also give the Kinks their due for how they added shape to the genre.

The Beatles just had great hooks...except for the medley at the end of Abbey Road...that is 16 minutes of Rock defined.

It's the whole face thing that gets me. Paul’s face becomes an entirely different shape in the space of a few months… WTF?

As much as I doubt the reality of this idea, something just isn't right -

Originally posted by Mushroom Fields Forever
The Beatles started out as a boy band who didnt write their own songs and most of their fame came from little screaming girls who just came to see them wiggle rather than listen to their musical talent. After awhile I think they got fed up with this image and their perception of their fans changed... they experimented with drugs and wanted to start and do something original and different.

Actually the Beatles wrote their own songs from day one. Yes they did covers too. They made an agreement with EMI and George Martin, after they had a hit with Please Please Me, that all their singles would be their own songs. EMI was trying to get them to records someones elses song (forget its name) to release as their second single instead of Please Please Me.

As far as drugs, they were doing speed/uppers like 'black beauties' long before they got a record contract. Pot came in '64 through Bob Dylan, '___' in 65 from spiked coffee.
The Beatles were no naive boy band as their image might suggest.

They, especially John, were fed up with their image before they even hit the charts, but they wanted to be famous and in those days you had to wear suits. In the early 60's the music industry was still 'respectable' and was very conservative. They dumped the leathers and bad boy image and sold out to the industry.

The inside jokes, like the Paul is dead thing, was their little way of being rebellious inside an industry that required bands to do what their producer told them too. John hated the control over him, Paul reveled in it.

Paul being dead joke was a dig at Paul. The rest of the band saying Paul you are dead inside, sold out for a hit record. John, George and Ringo despised Pauls attitude but were too scared to quit the band. Well actually they all did quit at one time or another but were bought back after they changed their minds. John quit in 69 but Paul told him to wait and not tell anyone, then turned around and quit himself publicly. Typical Paul, he wanted to be the one to split the Beatles, cause he was a control freak.
Paul wanted to continue the myth, the rest had had enough, but he couldn't stand losing control that way so he had to quit to save face.

The only thing you done was 'Yesterday'...John Lennon

Just my opinion from years of being a Beatles fan...

Originally posted by Ahabstar
Nearly a two year member berating a one day member because you don't like what he posted.

It's that his post had NOTHING to do with the "Paul is dead" hoax.

I left ATS for this very behavior once before although the more senior member pointed to lack of ATS points to justify his position. Let the mods drop the warn stickers or one of the the Three Amigos tell me to chill the F out as they boot me on a perma-ban, but I am calling you out right here and now.

YOU HAVE NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THAT BEHAVIOR!

You know what ?? I bet there are 1000's of posts where someone disagrees with the OP....but if I do I get called on it ?? PLEASE ! SPARE ME ! His post..as previously stated...had NOTHING to do with the whole "Paul is dead" hoax (a subject I know alot about). I disagreed......he got mad.....so what else is new ?? Many posters (myself included) have had someone disagree with their theory's onehundred-fold. Welcome to the Club.

The OP seemed rather benevolent about it but you felt the need to push buttons. Rather than taking the high road of agreeing to disagree you feel it is your duty to push the OP to point of wanting to tell you to F off. Don't dare state that you were denying ignorance, because even with another member pointing out with humor none the less you decided to embrace being an ass.

Another insult......keep em coming !! I can take it.

(heavy sigh)

Okay, folks... ***I was alive during that time*** and as a fan was aware of how it came down. FowlPlay has the correct story.

Originally posted by Fowl Play
Rumors of Paul McCartney's death began to circulate in 1969, a time when the strained relationships among the Beatles were becoming public knowledge.

I'll add one more piece of information here -- it was common to smoke pot while listening to the records being played backwards. There was quite a movement then (called "back masking") that claimed you could find all sorts of truths if you back masked words and music. There was a small number of publications saying that this was true, and a lot of coincidental (and creative sound tweaking) evidence that it was true.

(...in other words, you had to listen through about 50 songs to find one "reference" and that was not a clear set of words but rather odd mumbles that you interpreted as words. Of course, it's just another form of paraidolia and the truth wasn't out there... but that didn't stop back masking afficionados.)

The original info came from such a back-masked session during which someone interpreted a set of sounds to be "turn me on, dead man." (I've heard it, and it takes a lot of mind-bending to make that phrase out of the souns.)

...cue the rest of the tale...

It hit the fan clubs first, then the rest of the public.

The story caught fire with the public when it was broadcast by a radio station in Detroit. Russell Gibb, a disc jockey for WKNR-FM, received a strange phone call from someone who identified himself only as Tom. The caller told Gibb that Paul McCartney had died in 1966 and was then replaced by a lookalike. The Beatles had subsequently left clues on their albums about this deception. The caller claimed that the cover photo of Abbey Road, the Beatles' most recent release at the time, represented a funeral procession with John as the minister, Ringo the undertaker, Paul the corpse, and George the gravedigger.

The big clue being that on this cover, Paul is barefoot and the hysterics then said that this was a sign of his being dead because they don't bury people with shoes.

It was quite the scene for awhile. A small number of fans went into shock and hysterics (many of us thought it was nonsense, though.)

Originally posted by Byrd
(heavy sigh)

Okay, folks... ***I was alive during that time*** and as a fan was aware of how it came down. FowlPlay has the correct story.

Originally posted by Fowl Play
Rumors of Paul McCartney's death began to circulate in 1969, a time when the strained relationships among the Beatles were becoming public knowledge.

I'll add one more piece of information here -- it was common to smoke pot while listening to the records being played backwards. There was quite a movement then (called "back masking") that claimed you could find all sorts of truths if you back masked words and music. There was a small number of publications saying that this was true, and a lot of coincidental (and creative sound tweaking) evidence that it was true.

(...in other words, you had to listen through about 50 songs to find one "reference" and that was not a clear set of words but rather odd mumbles that you interpreted as words. Of course, it's just another form of paraidolia and the truth wasn't out there... but that didn't stop back masking afficionados.)

The original info came from such a back-masked session during which someone interpreted a set of sounds to be "turn me on, dead man." (I've heard it, and it takes a lot of mind-bending to make that phrase out of the souns.)

...cue the rest of the tale...

It hit the fan clubs first, then the rest of the public.

The story caught fire with the public when it was broadcast by a radio station in Detroit. Russell Gibb, a disc jockey for WKNR-FM, received a strange phone call from someone who identified himself only as Tom. The caller told Gibb that Paul McCartney had died in 1966 and was then replaced by a lookalike. The Beatles had subsequently left clues on their albums about this deception. The caller claimed that the cover photo of Abbey Road, the Beatles' most recent release at the time, represented a funeral procession with John as the minister, Ringo the undertaker, Paul the corpse, and George the gravedigger.

The big clue being that on this cover, Paul is barefoot and the hysterics then said that this was a sign of his being dead because they don't bury people with shoes.

It was quite the scene for awhile. A small number of fans went into shock and hysterics (many of us thought it was nonsense, though.)

Thanks for the input Byrd... But what is your opinion on this whole face shape business -



PS - Who is the person in your avatar? He's familiar for some reason - it's been doing my head in!

Spend some time on the Paul is Dead type sites, study the staggering number of 'before and after' photos, take a look at the face-comparisons, listen to the voice analyses and even if you don't feel like reading the hundreds of threads and in-depth discussions & chronologies or care to view the privately-taken photos of Paul and Faul (when the latter was 'mid-transformation) ..... you will still have to at least acknowledge that Paulmanaged somehow to grow several inches when in his 20s, as well as change the shape of his ears and have his face lengthened and narrowed.

Now, it's possible that Paul McCartney decided for whatever reason to undergo extensive plastic surgery. And it may be that the real Paul McCartney decided to have painful leg-lengthening surgeries to increase his height. If so, along the way, his chest-hair diminished and his once hirsute legs and arms also shed a lot of hair.

Who knows --- maybe the real Paul McCartney wanted to change the shape of his nose and colour of his eyes ?

But guess he didn't realise that in the process, his accent would alter from his original, distinctive Liverpudlian Scouse to something approximating a psuedo Scouse accent -- or that he (a left-hander) would begin to turn into a right-hander-*pretending*-to-be-a-left-hander.

It's been suggested that the fact the real Paul McCartney was the only member of the Beatles who wasn't a jew -- and that this, along with his refusal to participate in the Tavistock Institute's agendas --- led to his being eliminated and replaced (not before he'd been poisoned and otherwise brutalised. Tough stock, the Liverpool Catholic Irish: Paul apparently survived several attempts on his life from those supposedly 'managing' his career and finances).

Which leads right along to the intrepid truth-seekers' analyses of photos, comments, etc. of the remaining Beatles --- and the conclusion that Ringo and George were also 'replaced', as was John, prior to his elimination.

As with all things controlled by those shady wheelers and dealers who control the 'entertainment' industry/media --- follow the money.

Good post Dock! I too have read through the *wealth* of information supporting the theory... Most of it truly is baffling!

This pic for example...



...is that seriously supposed to be the one and only Paul McCartney?

Originally posted by thebox
Thanks for the input Byrd... But what is your opinion on this whole face shape business -

(edited to add that that's a very UNconvincing graphic. The photos were not taken within days of each other, they've been resized, and his haircut and facial hair changed.)

Well, human faces DO change through the years as you gain and lose weight and as you finish growing. At 20, the skeleton and other parts of the body are still growing. And single pictures aren't good material... ran across a picture of me at 26 (my head was tilted down and I was wearing an outfit that I later remembered I borrowed from a girlfriend) that I didn't recognize as me and that didn't look like other photos of me. But it was me, in our house, sitting next to my husband with my mom on the other side of me.

And my face has changed since then. Cut the hair differently, lose weight, gain weight, medical conditions (some types of drugs add bone growth or may make your face puffy), etc, can change the way you look. Drug use (the Beatles were into drugs) can also change the texture of the skin. Amphetamines are particularly bad at doing this.

Posture can change height differences, too... you have to look at the whole aggregate of every bit of footage and every single photo. It's still Paul. Really.

PS - Who is the person in your avatar? He's familiar for some reason - it's been doing my head in!

Garret Maggart. Played anthropologist "Blair Sandburg" on "The Sentinel."

[edit on 31-5-2007 by Byrd]

Hi Thebox: like you, I'm from Lancashire. A Scouse accent is a Scouse accent. It's known worldwide. And it's virtually irradicable in an adult. The truthers have compliled a number of very old recordings and clips, interviews, etc., both of the real Paul McCartney and Faul-in-the-process-of-becoming-Paul. And there is Faul, early on in the 'transformation' process, sporting a very trans-Atlantic some-sort of accent which was trying very hard to be Scouse, but for those of us who know -- it wasn't. Although, these days, Faul/Macca is much better at it, having had what? --- thirty or so years practise.

Yes, the photo you linked is typical of Faul recovering from yet more plastic surgery at the insistence of those intent on making several fortunes out of a dead man: a murdered man imo.

But it's the height discrepancy that gives the game away. The real Paul wasn't a tall man. It irked him and he used to wear 'lifts' in his boots. Even then, he was far shorter than John and George.

Then along came Faul and suddenly 'Paul' was shoulder to shoulder with John and in some photos, is the tallest in the group by far.

So .... did Paul McCartney discover a magical growth-hormone, back in the 60's .... one so successful that it granted him a growth spurt of several inches when he was well into adulthood?

Who needs to make records when you can make ten times as much selling your magical height-increase secret, huh ? And if Paul could supposedly 'grow' several inches in a few months, way back then -- why, all these decades later, are Sly Stallone, Cruise and Arnie still having to rely on 'lifts' ?

If today's 'Macca' is the real Paul McCartney, I think he made a big mistake with his 'How to Become Uglier in Twelve Painful Plastic Surgery Procedures' though. That was never going to be a winner --- not like the magical 'Get Tall Fast' scheme could have been.

Most insidious of all though, is the ongoing adulteration of original photos of the real Paul McCartney. These *deliberately* distort photos of both the real Paul and the pretender-Faul, so that they appear to conform. In this way, the shadowy-ghouls hope to disprove that Faul replaced Paul. But they didn't figure on the many fans of the real Paul retaining (in bank vaults by this stage, most probably) *original* magazines, record-covers, signed photos, etc. etc. which show the real Paul, untouched. And *these* disprove and expose the adulterated photos.

The people behind this several decades long scam will stop at nothing. They still have big dollar signs across their eyes and as the Beatles music will continue to earn a fortune, particularly when the two final pretenders are dead ... those responsible for the duplicity are keen to dismiss the rumours of the real Paul's death and subsequent replacement by the long-suffering Faul/Macca.

They are currently in the process of 'lengthening' and 'narrowing' (as well as other modifications to make him look like Faul) original photos of the *real* Paul's face. And some truther sites have the two versions side by side, to illustrate the depth of this intended deception.

I resisted having to get Vista, but my old machine finally blew up a few weeks ago, taking my extensive Favourites lists with it, including all my Paul is Dead sites. I'm struggling on a new Vista now. Otherwise I'd post links to those photo & info filled sites, for those who find the subject intriguing and wish to learn more.

The evidence against today's 'Macca' being Paul McCartney is massive.

For one thing, the original Paul had solid legs and trunk. He wasn't tall. When Faul/Macca appeared on the scene, it was clear he was someone else: he had long, thin, lanky legs and much longer (and less hairy) trunk than the real Paul. His face was completely different, of course and still is, although those who rely now on supposedly 'old' photos of 'Paul' could be excused for finding no differences between those two very separate individuals, thanks to the deliberate distortions being conducted on photos of both so as to make them appear identical.

Faul's ears are set completely differently to those of the real Paul McCartney. Faul's mouth, teeth, chin and nose and even the set and closeness of his eyes are different to those of the real Paul, as are the real Paul's hands and feet. Faul has hammer-toes. for example. Real Paul did not --- as original and *un-retouched* photos clearly illustrate.

And those who knew the real Paul McCartney -- those who actually knew him and had been to see him play often, and who had a good measure of his character and personality --- have long been angered and saddened by the damage done to the real Paul's memory by the antics of Faux-Paul: Faul.

The real Paul McCartney was Liverpool Irish Catholic, born in the 1940s, schooled in the 50's and came to adulthood in the 60s. He wasn't a 'hippy'. He wasn't sophisticated. He was a product of his environment and conditioning. And although a lot's written today about the morality then, the truth is, it was still pretty conservative, especially int'north. Mini-skirts, Cilla Black hairdos, suits without lapels and Sean Connery playing James Bond were considered 'radical'. The Beatles were northern boys, raised in homes where parents pecked each other on the cheek only at Christmas and where people didn't even dare imagine their parents may once have had sex. The groin-clutching and masturbation on-stage were the province of 'American' entertainers, like Hendrix. The Beatles (the 'real' Beatles) would never have lowered themselves to anything like that. For them, sex was 'for private' (apart from their reported debaucheries in Hamburg). Look at the photos of the Beatles -- the very early photos: all wore 'shorts' type swimsuits, not lycra, on photo-shoots. They wore shirts at the beach and neat espadrilles. And even that flesh-baring would have been considered a bit 'Continental'.

Yet after Faul (not Paul) married Linda, there he is, with his un-Paul lankiness, on holiday, naked, with Linda's naked daughter (aged seven or so) a few feet away. Northern men, Liverpool Catholic men, do not hang out naked in front of little girls. The real Paul McCartney -- no matter how 'hippy' he was supposed to have become as result of Linda's influence -- would have considered it improper, 'wrong', to expose his genitals to a little girl, his step-daughter. And the real Paul would have instructed Linda to 'put some clothes on that girl'. People's character doesn't alter.

RIP, Paul McCarney

I’ve been telling people for years that if they want to understand what is happening in the world, they just need to listen to the music. It’s all there. Most of it was written during the 60's and early 70's. It’s God’s movie and it’s God’s soundtrack. The Paul thing is a little confusing. The Savior does know who is but his time has not yet come (no, it's not Paul) Be patient and wait to be awakened and totally awed.

Let me guess....Can it be...

In this day and age , and this time in life , i can not believe that free thinking human beings still give a rats @ss about this lame ploy .
Is there not anything better th think about or spend this all to short time
we have been alotted on this beautiful planet ? Surely there is ..

Mods...since my seriously witty image from the last post doesn't want to show up, can you remove both please?

Good god Johnny, that is so far out there I dont even know where to begin. Paul is alive and well, I believe all it the hubub is just young men with a good sense of humor pulling a prank. Thanks to whoever corrected the fact that the beatles did in fact write their own music. There were a handful of covers, but it was mostly their music. There are a lot of bands out there that helped form music into what it is today, but imo the beatles were so far ahead of their time, they deserve the due they get. Their are bands that come along and can be called by one person or another the greatest band or most influential band of that generation. Metallica, in the mid eighties, the emergence of Tool's unique sound in the mid nineties. But the one thing about the Beatles, their music spans generations, and their music will always touch something in people for many years to come.

That was way out there man, off base imho. Think Byrd summed it up pretty well, especially about the back masking stuff.

It was a fun and trippy post to read though.

Spacecakes at the picnic on strawberry fields, everyone's invited.

Yeah I just threw that in there to furkle your brain a bit more, forgive me.


X