Paul McCartney died in 1966 - replaced by Billy Shepherd

Thank you seagull. I'm hoping we can move forward with this discussion.

I had an interesting tought that went something like this: The Beatles were a bit rough around the edges when they were playing in Germany. Then Brian put them in suits and gave the world an image of four clean cut lads from Liverpool. After Brian's death, the Beatles were, once again a little rough around the edges. Maybe they're trying to tell us that the Fab Four were the fake Beatles and the 1967 guys were who the Beatles really were.

reply to post by darkelf


I spent an afternoon last week googling around looking for which archetype each Beatle may have been chosen to represent.

I wondered if Paul's archetype may have been chosen because he was due to die - sort of like the sacrificed god. I didn't come up with anything too useful, though.

I do take your point - each of their characters seems to have been 'designed' to be appealing. John the cynic, Ringo the joker, George the spiritual one and Paul the romantic, boy next door type.

It's awful to say it, but in some ways it's easier to think that Paul may have died young while he was still funny, cute, affable - all the words we've used to describe him - instead of growing up into the miserable, arrogant old man he seems to have become.

Originally posted by berenike
In this thread you make reference to Paul having been killed in a Yellow Rescue Helicopter.
Do you have any more information, please.

Berenike,

Apologies for this delayed reply due to hijacking of my computer by malevolent hackers which so far can only be defeated in safe mode, requiring further measures on short notice. So I will be brief and very partial in awaiting more time to grant you a proper response.


According to the thesis that Paul died on the North American continent (his car reportedly rammed by thugs in a larger car) he seemingly was picked up in a rural area by a Canadian Rescue helicopter. This is the part of the story which some find difficult to accept, given that these helicopters were seemingly dedicated to ocean rescue on the Pacific coast, but we will note below that they have been recognized for rescuing countless people on land.


Was Paul in Seattle or further North in Canada, either is possible. He might have been picked up by a Canadian helicopter in the USA as there has been a historic collaboration between US and Canadian agencies making border issues a moot point. Thus we must entertain both hypotheses.


Here is a link to a description of the Canadian rescue helicopter presumably in use at that time. You will note its resemblance to a Yellow Submarine which might not be entirely coincidental:


www.cbc.ca...


Regarding the historical use of this helicopter, they state the following:

"The Labrador Helicopter was used as a search and rescue tool for almost 41 years in Canada and had its official retirement in 2004..."

"The federal government bought 18 CH-113 Labradors in 1963. They have provided support to the army, air transport and search and rescue operations. Labradors were the backbone of Search and Rescue (SAR) squadrons located in Comox, B.C., Trenton, Ont., Greenwood, N.S. and Gander, Nfld. Since 2002, only six Labradors have remained operational in the country."

"Lt.-Col. Colin Goodman, who has flown Labradors on the west and east coasts, says the Labradors have saved "thousands of hikers, snowmobilers, boaters and aviators." The helicopters have gone out on an average of 440 missions a year."

This means that they were put into service in 1963, three full years before the suspected Yellow Submarine episode. Here is the original Yellow Submarine album artwork for reference (you may note the satanic sign over Paul's head "pointing the finger", so to speak):







The Yellow Submarine on the album sports 4 thick periscopes which look a bit like broken off propellers if one stretches the imagination. Also, portholes are usually not found on submarines but windows similar to portholes are found on these helicopters.

And the CH-113 Labrador does look something like a yellow submarine which has just emerged from the deep in that photo. Some supposed that this meant that he had died submerged in the helicopter, but it stands to reason that he might have been simply finished off in such a flying ambulance just like Princess Diana was allowed to die in her ever so long ambulance drive to a hospital just a few minutes away? After all, such a copter would not need to be submerged to look like a sub!


I will be back later with further data regarding the accounting of the event, unless those more diligent than I bring forth that information first.




[edit on 21-9-2009 by Getsmart]

Hi

Over the past few weeks I've been researching a number of topics, including Caldean Numerology, Frequencies, and ... Paul Is Dead. Not to say they are related, it's just the order in which I went. I've looked into PID quite seriously for at least 8 years now, but it was from a different angle. My point was never to prove Paul was dead. My point was to show that no matter what was being presented, one had to look at the external events happening around The Beatles, they as creative artists interpreting these stimuli, and what comes out.

One of these observations being, for almost every George Harrison "heavy" topic song per album, there is a Paul McCartney "light" soon to follow, as in "Within You Without You" followed by "When I'm 64". The other examples won't be gone through, but just look After 1966. The question being, why is this done consistently? Once is enough. Twice is coincidence. Three times or more alludes to a deliberate placement.

Another observation found was approach "Come Together" as the telling of 4 individual people. Not one character. Or the observation that "Maxwell" kills 3 people with a hammer, but promises one person they will "do you no harm".

An observation that after 1966, particularly after "Nowhere Man", Lennon, for 2 years consistently mentions the colours yellow and green, and allusions to rivers/water/streams to a point that it becomes almost obsessive. And then in 1968, snaps out of this period, suddenly much more cryptic. And rather than approach Glass Onion "knowing" what the words mean and inundated with Beatles mythology, one approached it just taking it for the words it used and what they meant or alluded to. And then go BACK in with Beatles mythology intact and see what that song or how it was constructed PSYCHOLOGICALLY opens up. Doing so, led me to see the whole Abbey Road album as the wake of a funeral.

It struck me strange that all of a sudden in 1966, The Beatles 3 main composers all became concerned with Death (REVOLVER), and not in the baby I'll die without your love kinda way. If you follow their 'meteoric' rise, and the very much detailed accounts of it, you will see patterns emerge -- the psyche of the creative mind. Like Lennon's growing insecurities manifested in 3 songs of Jealousy (the end being "Run For Your Life"), and other various hints of 'inner' turmoil or concerns voiced in song. (The "White" Album is like a soap opera when read this way. Btw - if Harrison namedrops a Beatles song whether in the band or solo, 99% of the time it will be a McCartney song or reference to made)

I had to seriously consider if The Beatles had THAT much power to convince photographers, media, assistants, girlfriends, producers, peers, to go along with an elaborate 'joke' or hoax. Because too many things lined up in place 'by accident' that involved too many people for it not to be spilled by someone as a prank or moneymaking scheme. When I pointed out to Beatles fans that it does not take more than a stopwatch while watching Yellow Submarine to notice how long those filmmakers spent developing and introducing the characters of Ringo, John and George, and how little time with ... Paul. That this movie pre-dated 'PID' mass media attention only said to me, maybe they picked up on something subconsciously, because reports say The Beatles had little to do with this movie's content. To constantly portray Paul as "different" from 1966 onward and involving so many in that telling, just seemed to me implausible. It would be exposed for exactly what it was a long time ago - "The Beatles told me when taking the photograph make sure Paul is different man, it will be cool" did not jibe. Denial of any knowledge of it, and 'coincidence' the culprit is found more often than not.

Anyway, just posting these thoughts because it's just a different angle. And that angle led me to believe something serious did happen in 1966. Touring or not was the least of it.

reply to post by suckerfly

Thanks for this refreshing condensed version of your 8 years of PID research. It is good to share your insights and impressions.


Since you seem to lean towards thinking "something" happened back in 1966, you may wish to take a gander at this thread about PID, what can we do about it:

PID THREAD NOTIFICATION

This is just a short note to direct you to a thread designed specifically for Those who are convinced PID. It no longer speculates as to whether Paul Is Dead but instead taking that assumption to be a fact, and moves the speculation up one level to explore WHO did it and WHY?

This thread, for reasons unknown, was moved from the Above Top Secret Skunk Works forum, where it seemed to belong, to the Below Top Secret Chit-Chat and General Offtopic Discussion Forums / People Section. Here is a direct link to avoid getting lost in the labyrinth:

PID - Motivations for the Murder of Paul McCartney
www.belowtopsecret.com...

For those still not convinced about Paul having been replaced, you may take a look at early Beatle's interviews and photos at this site:

www.beatlesinterviews.org...


We must consider the close relationship between Paul McCartney and John Lennon, and then weigh this against the follwing video showing Faul's reaction to learning of his lifelong friend John Lennon's assassination:




Also, I am linking to another post which shows disturbing composite photos that present Faul as being originally Billie, not Billy - as in of the female gender!


A woman Sargent Pepper who may be seen in these photos in her normal guise, both young and old, compared to Faul at the same age. It does seem odd, and one can imagine Heather Mill's surprise in discovering this?


60if.proboards.com...


PID experts, please weigh in on this one.

When looking at the "Butcher Cover" one has to say, well maybe that was not in the best taste but what were they trying to achieve with this? One story suggests destroying the "Beatlemania Bug". That would certainly do it.

But if you read about the photo sessions for that particular release and start disregarding "Coincidence" and " a great number of co-conspirators and accomplices in a joke or hoax", you have to start saying, that is too coincidental for its own good. And someone's not saying something OR the subconscious says it for them. The original design of that album was meant to be a triptych. The "butcher" element only one of the three images meant to be shown. The photographer specifically stated The Beatles were tired of 'Beatlemania' and wanted it done with, and this was a good way to do it -- through allusions to religion and symbolic images. If one looks at the 'history' of them as personalities, the two most 'tired' of Beatlemania were Harrison and Lennon. The Beatles greatest detractors within the ranks if there were any. The two seemingly most vocal about not touring anymore. And I found it interesting that in this triptych proposed, that one of those images was meant to be the famous photograph of George hammering a nail into John's head.

As an artist myself, but also looking at the climate of the times I have to consider this one point. In an album by the most 'famous' band of their time, a product released that did not represent all 4 members would just not happen. I just found it very odd that it was considered to have in this triptych, 2 group shots and just one image of John and George and NOT have a comparitive or parallel image chosen for Paul and Ringo --- odd. Think about it, if you understand where I'm going with that. I would say Paul & Ringo might be quite put out that John & George got singled out on a Beatles album just to prove they didn't like Beatlemania much.

Then go to REVOLVER and its cover. Why are John & George the only ones seemingly given 'flesh'. Were they better friends with Klaus Voormann? Why is Paul faced away? Why is Ringo half-turned? Did Klaus do numerous sketches and find it looked better this way? Why are these guys suddenly so concerned about death in these songs? Why is Lennon constantly talking about floating downstream from this point onward? Or Rain. Or yellow and green? What's on this guy's mind? Is he in retreat from something? The answer would be from Fans -- no he's on a lot of drugs, stop analysing it. I'd say no. There's something there going on in this guy's life where he is either escaping or retreating from something. All evidence from lyrical 'looks'and constantly checking date of writing / recording to an outside event in Beatles mythology said some problem started happening in 1965. And it seemed to happen right after ... "Yesterday". The death songs on Revolver suggested to me by their date of writing/recording that it could have been a process where one saw the other was writing about Death, and said, o! we can talk about this now. So in that instance, by osmosis the subject is approached. 2 songs, sure. 3 songs ok. That it seems quite heavy on the composers minds for this one particular album just strikes me as artistically 'odd'.

And then to emerge on the other said as a Faux band ... with that insistent use of Paul McCartney being 'different'. Way way too symbolic and following a course or chosen path. Whether consciously or subconsciously chosen by the 'chosen'.

I did not know until quite recently that Aleister Crowley appears twice on the Sgt.Pepper cover. My question always was --- who chose him.

Thanks for giving it time Getsmart. I have actually checked out much of that board's content over the past few days. In my way of 'finding out about things' I do read as much as possible, but then I have to find evidence in contrary to it. I have to see both sides of a proposed theory before I 'buy' it.

Right now, my leanings are on the side of PID. Not all of its proposed theories, because sometimes i think "less is more". Keep it simple, and you build around it. Make it complex and it falls apart. I know something definitely happened in 1966.

I'm still reading sites which support both sides. While looking for PIA and PID sites, the information regarding other conspiracies has been quite persuasive.

Right now, I am a bit off center to the PID side. After just scratching the surface, I am also leaning toward at least one other Beatle being replaced and other famous names having more than one incarnation.

If PID, or any other related rumors are just that, why are those rumors vilified and contested so tenaciously by the opposing side, if it is ridiculous and completely untrue?

[edit on 9/22/2009 by Ethera]

I also find it very morbid and opportunistic for McCartney to insist that "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" be the first single from Abbey Road. A Beatle fan will say it had nothing to do with Charles Manson or Helter Skelter, it was written around January 1969. I'd say, but when it was pushed to be a single is more important. Because the timing of that and the Tate -LaBianca murders is too close to eachother. And that there is plausible evidence to say that The Beatles would have known through someone, or directly known one of the victims.

When you suggest that to a diehard Beatles fan, that the supposed six degrees of separation between Charles Manson and The Beatles are more like One, Two at the most Three degrees, the first name they'll mention is Dennis Wilson. Much too easy. I'd go right for Terry Melcher or Derek Taylor. The possibility that word of the death of Roman Polanski's wife and unborn child would reach the ears of The Beatles quite quickly cannot be laughed at. You have to consider it a very high probability. I mean never mind the little circle of inclusion of the Dakota, Roman Polanski, John Lennon, Mark David Chapman and Mia Farrow. That's an odd little circle of combined instances leading to a conclusion.

In the years I've been on the internet, and meeting people only 'online', there has been only person in 9 years that I know solely online, that knows people I grew up with or another person that knows them. Only one. It took about 6 years to find that one oddity, that person known only by internet that has had brushes with people I know in 'the real world'. To think that Sharon Tate / Charles Manson went by unnoticed or ignored by The Beatles is just ... it would be denial of something very .. well I'll just say it. Sinister. Damn creepy. Nevermind the First Process Church and Aleister Crowley and L.Ron Hubbard and Rosemary's Baby and Helter Skelter. I find it damn creepy that between Paul McCartney (and the other 3) and Charles Manson lie only about 2 or 3 contacts. You could say maybe Derek Taylor and Terry Melcher weren't in contact anymore. You could try and say I'm proposing Polanski called up a Beatle and said hey - my wife's just been murdered and their quoting your songs and it was in a place that maybe Terry Melcher rented to them.

I just find it really bizarre that McCartney would consider this a good choice for the 1st single from Abbey Road. With ALL that going on, and the probable knowledge that at least one of those people murdered would be a name they recognised, either by mutual friends or business contacts. If it were me, out of respect I'd take the song off the album, regardless if it was written completely unaware of anything. It's not publicity you want. Or is it. Depends on who wants it and what for.

Originally posted by suckerfly
I also find it very morbid and opportunistic for McCartney to insist that "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" be the first single from Abbey Road. A Beatle fan will say it had nothing to do with Charles Manson or Helter Skelter, it was written around January 1969. I'd say, but when it was pushed to be a single is more important. Because the timing of that and the Tate -LaBianca murders is too close to eachother...

Excellent point about that song. I'm sure you're aware that Susan Atkins scrawled "1234567 All good children" in blood, which quite coincidentally was also on Abbey Road.

... According to a 2002 interview published in Mojo magazine, former Capitol president Alan W. Livingston stated that it was Paul McCartney who pushed strongly for the photo's inclusion as the album cover, and that McCartney reportedly described it as "our comment on the war".[7] ...

en.wikipedia.org...

On the war or on SRA & the evil people behind the war, the entertainment industry, etc.

And about "Helter Skelter," which was Faul:

...McCartney (sic) then "wrote 'Helter Skelter' to be the most raucous vocal, the loudest drums, et cetera" and said he was "using the symbol of a helter skelter as a ride from the top to the bottom—the rise and fall of the Roman Empire—and this was the fall, the demise."[1]...

en.wikipedia.org...(song)

Vladimir Lenin once said: "One quick way to destroy a society is through its music."

Yes Faulcon I am aware of that
That whole series of Paul Is Dead - Rotten Apple I find visually great, and excellently edited. Though I keep an open mind when viewing it, and know certain portions of it do take content out of its context in service for its aim, I do find much of it telling. I was particularly interested in the McCartney footage in Africa, because ... I'd never seen or heard tale of it before, and remember distinctly it not being mentioned in Anthology. And that hand gesture he does in Rotten Apple 45 -- I cannot do without some severe pain shooting up my 2nd and 3rd fingers.

This all started for me back in 2000/2001. I forget what it was that perked my curiosity -- but itwasn't PID. It was someone's questioning of what Glass Onion meant. And I went into that song as if I were blind to it, and what was it telling me if I had no Beatles history to pull from. And then went back in again with that information, but applied the folklore to it. Very interesting. It led me to Werner Erhard, because some insisted it had links to the song, and I could find none to it. But I found Werner Erhard interesting. That's the kind of stuff that can get a movie star elected president.

That same wiki entry on the butcher cover:

In early 1966, photographer Robert Whitaker had The Beatles in the studio for a conceptual art piece entitled "A Somnambulant Adventure." For the shoot, Whitaker took a series of pictures of the group dressed in butcher smocks and draped with pieces of meat and body parts from plastic baby dolls.

He took more than that. As mentioned before, which is failed mention in that Wikipedia entry, is the triptych design. A huge amount of photos were taken without butcher's attire on. If my memory serves correctly, the butcher element was meant to be either the centrepiece of the triptych, or one of it's side pieces. One of the side pieces was definitely meant to be the image of George hammering a nail into John's head, the 'Christ' allusion to have great portent in later months after this photo shoot. They hadn't even done the "bigger than Christ" phase of the proceedings, but this whole photo shoot and much of its intent was NOT only as McCartney states its purpose, and very much leads up to any destruction of Beatlemania and that aftermath and backlash. And the odd preoccupation with Death that occurs on REVOLVER and then ...

Beatles lore and legend says that the song Blackbird is about racial discrimination in the southern U.S. Not true, in my opinion, just a made up story to cover up the dark side of Blackbird... the phooka

It was one of 5 Beatles songs performed in the Wings Over America tour, contains the word "wings", and has been a mainstay in Macca concerts since the Back in the USA tour up to the present. The word "dead" also appears in the lyrics.

There is a blackbird built into the design of the Sir Paul McCartney coat of arms, so it must be an important theme.

I suspect the real meaning has something to do with a satanic cult practice a la Aleister Crowley (also, see EYES WIDE SHUT). There is a reference here...

www.lashtal.com...

"A bit of a blurb about AC in an article by R.U. Sirius for 10 Zen Monkeys that is covering the timeline of Sir Paul's drug use.

"In Blackbird: The Life and Times of Paul McCartney by Geoffrey Giuliano and ex-Wings member Denny Laine, Laine claims that, in the mid-1970s Paul and Linda were heavily into the occult and Aleister Crowley. The 1975 album, Venus and Mars seems to have a bit of an occultist vibe."

Read the full story here: www.10zenmonkeys.com..."

The blackbird symbol, according to the following link, can be seen as a Phooka...

www.squidoo.com...

"In their natural state they are humanoid, however these shapeshifters rarely show humans their true form. Common forms they take include... rooks... and most any black bird"

Occult encyclopedia mentions the blackbird in demonology...

www.thelemapedia.org...

The "light of the dark black night"... is that Illuminati, an illumination?

Anyway, the song may be about the occult in some way.

Originally posted by switching yard
Beatles lore and legend says that the song Blackbird is about racial discrimination in the southern U.S. Not true, in my opinion, just a made up story to cover up the dark side of Blackbird... the phooka...

That is a really interesting interpretation, switching yard. Looking at the lyrics, I'm wondering if Paul might have been the blackbird.

Blackbird singing in the dead of night
Take these broken wings and learn to fly
All your life
You were only waiting for this moment to arise.

Blackbird singing in the dead of night
Take these sunken eyes and learn to see
All your life
You were only waiting for this moment to be free.

Blackbird fly blackbird fly
Into the light of the dark black night.

Dead singer w/ black hair... I don't know. Maybe... If it's an allusion to Paul, it doesn't negate a possible occult connection...

Whenever I have seen the 'inspiration' for Blackbird told and told again, and the song 'glorified' for its intent, I always ... just shake my head.

Because lyrically, it's really not all that in support of any 'Civil Rights' cause. To say your wings have been broken, but they will heal and you'll fly again ... that's supportive. He doesn't say that in that song. Basically he says, you're crippled by this, deal with it. As if it was 'okay' to break the wings in the first place. I think 'Civil Rights' is a convenient reason for the song's inspiration for those who want to believe that. It looks nice on the surface.

You could try this:

mara-gamiel.blogspot.com...

I am neither for nor against the argument that this song is about Civil Rights or the Occult. I'm not swayed either way by it. I've never truly been a fan of the song in the first place. I just thought it was a nice song, pleasant to hear. Seeing its effect on 'fans' I realise it does have meaning for them, that it has not had for me.

If you remove any of its meaning as metaphorical, or its history, and just look at the words and what they are literally saying, the most you can ascertain is whether it's a good song in asserting a point. Is it effective at its purpose, whether that's relating something to a listener in a clear or conveyed manner. Remove all knowledge of the song prior, and approach it from its literal telling.

Blackbird singing in the dead of night
Well literally this says what it says. There is a bird, and it's singing. I know it sounds weird to approach a song this way, because it brings it down to its root, analysing each word and what its purpose is in context with the words around it. Do blackbirds sing at night? Yes they do sometimes. Either fooled by streetlights or establishing territory as an early riser. But usually it's the Male blackbird that sings. We have to assume "dead" by definition meaning •not showing characteristics of life especially the capacity to sustain life; no longer exerting force or having energy or heat; "Mars is a dead planet"; "dead soil"; "dead coals"; "the fire is dead"• Our familiarity with associating a time of night to be 'dead' is when all is still and unmoving. Nothing is stirring. The 'poetic' usage of such a designation. We are given a character, an action, and a time/and or place of event. We have no clue why the blackbird is singing. All we know is it's most likely a male. Female blackbirds do sing, but it's the male that is typically known for melody, using the song as a territory marker, mating ritual, etc. They just have more use for it.

Take these broken wings and learn to fly
A condition is presented. Whether the 'injury' is recent or long suffered is unclear nor said. You have to think, what does your mind suggest reading the line, as is. Mine says it's recent. That's just automatic, but there is no indication at all by this line when this injury happened. It is then suggested, take the condition you are presently in, and do what you would naturally do anyway (as a bird). Remember, this is removing metaphor almost completely. Whether the bird knows how to fly already, or is just learning, is again, not said nor implied. "Start to fly" would indicate previous knowledge. "Learn to fly" suggests a newness to the ability. In context with the condition of injury, the ability to fly with broken wings. Whether a bird can do that or not I'm not sure. Walk with broken legs. Write with broken hands. See if it happens.

All your life
Whether all your life is related to the line before it (continuation of a thought or presented idea) or the line following it (presentation of an idea towards a conclusive end) is ... unknown. It could be both. When it's sung, how it leads or follows could suggest to you which it is. But if you're just reading it, that one line could be the end of line 2 in this work, or the beginning of line 4. Take these broken wings and learn to fly all your life.
All your life you were only waiting for this moment to arise. Which is it?
We're going to assume it's the latter.

What moment? We've been told nothing of some outside event whatsoever saying this is the time to arise. No instruction to the bird to fly. But we have to assume there is something 'calling' this bird into action. Taking it in context with the first line and the 'time' -- no one else is supposedly doing anything at all. It's the dead of the night. All is still. So we have an injured bird, male, singing at an 'untimely' hour, all of a sudden called into action by an event unknown but important to its 'purpose'.

Hmmm.

[edit on 24-9-2009 by suckerfly]

Black bird singing in the dead of night
Repeat of a previously presented idea.

Take these sunken eyes and learn to see
Okay, let's look at the condition of sunken eyes as a malady. As in the previous verse, the condition has been given no indication whether it is recent or long suffering. We just know it is a condition the bird is in. Sunken eyes as a condition, medically, tends to be attributed to tiredness, fatigue, illness, the loss of fat around the eye due to ageing. Dehydration can also be a cause for the condition. It doesn't cause blindness. So again, the bird is given a condition or state of being and is told to perform a natural task (whether previously known or to be newly acquired).

all your life
you were only waiting for this moment to be free
And again, an unknown event causes this bird to take some form of action from a previous, unsaid condition. Free. To be free suggests previous entrapment or imprisonment. You have to be Trapped to know the state of Freedom. One begats the other. Love/Hate Right/Wrong etc. As this is the only character presented in the piece, whether in the dead of night others are trapped or waiting to arise is unknown. We only know about this one bird. Free of 'what' is unclear. Is it that bad in the dead of night?

"Blackbird fly, Blackbird fly
Into the light of the dark black night."

What light is there in the dark black night? We have to give McCartney here poetic licence, the right to juxtapose opposites for the sake of imagery. We can only attribute the light qualities we've been indoctrinated to associate with light -- Good / Truth / Right /White and the same to Black - Bad / Lies / Wrong / Absence. White Magick Black Magick. Bad guys all wear black and so on. We have been given no indication there was light in the dead of night in the first place. All we know is there is now a light to fly to for this bird. This bird is broken, possibly ill, or of old age, just by the 'physical' condition McCartney as a writer has put this bird in, through unknown circumstances, perpetrators or events. Is the light the Moon? A beacon? A searchlight? A star? No clue. It's just a light.

That's all there is really to this song, the remainder is a repeat of ideas and then a 'chant' of arise til it concludes.

So now, when someone asks you "What is 'Blackbird' about, you can tell them. You can say:
The song is about a blackbird, most probably male, singing at an inappropriate or unusual time, injured and 'afflicted' by unknown cause or event, beckoned by an unknown reason or event to take a course toward an unknown light source. Because it was supposed to.

With metaphor applied, with history and inspiration applied, one can attribute this song is about anything and everything. Or nothing at all. But now that you know what this song is about, literally, you can then take all of its history and 'creative meaning' and say "It could be about this because ..." but "It can't be about this because ..." and really that's down to McCartney's skills as a writer. Did he effectively get his point across, whatever it was, choosing the words he chose to present it.

"Blackbird" is a Beatles song from double-disc album The Beatles (also known as The White Album). Blackbird was written by Paul McCartney, but credited as usual to Lennon/McCartney. McCartney was inspired to write this while in Scotland as a reaction to racial tensions escalating in America in the spring of 1968 and (according to Sony/ATV Songs LLC 1968) McCartney stated that he had a black woman in mind when he wrote the song ('bird' being British slang for a woman)."