BEATLES MYTHS : Fifty Years of Fact & ‘Fab’-rication

reply to post by switching yard



Hi switching yard.

This thread was mainly meant as a bit of light hearted entertainment for most ATS readers with fact and fabrication all mixed together to let people decide for themselves.

Whilst others have paid a bit more attention to the finer details. People who have a much greater knowledge of the Beatles than me. (Although I do know a fair bit I am far from an expert).

You appear to have spent a long time researching the Paul is Dead rumours and I'd be interested to know whether you are addicted to researching the details because you are still unsure or whether you believe that Paul really was replaced?

For instance one theory is how Faul (Fake Paul) grew a few inches after 1966.




















Then there is the issue of how a replacement could possibly deal with every single person he would have been expected to have known pre-1966?

And of course Paul's own comments on the issue "....by the way I'm still alive"



Do you think it's all a game that the Beatles played along with for fun or do you think there really is something to the PID story?

I think there was something to it much more complicated than Paul dying in a car crash and the inner circle developing a replacement and planting clues. That was the general theory when I heard of it back when the rumor first circulated in America.

My interest in The Beatles began when I was a kid and saw them live on the Ed Sullivan show. I'd never seen such a polished performance of pop music before. They were number one on the radio with I Want To Hold Your Hand at the time, so I had heard them on the radio, but seeing them live on television just knocked me out! I was a big fan from then on to this day.

One thing I have learned about the Paul Is Dead (PID) topic is to keep a very open mind. Don't make any assumptions or presumptions and be open to new theories about it. When you think you have a good idea of what happened, you dig in that direction only to find that there is much, much more to it than you thought. That's been my experience with it, looking into it. I believe that most of the truth has been very well hidden. Either we will never know the truth or it may be discovered years or many years from now. The clues are very cryptic. If there is an actual code, no one has cracked it yet, to my knowledge. The obvious clues only tease us, they don't reveal the actual, solid truth that researchers yearn for. Like I said before, trying to get at the truth of PID is like trying to discover the true history of the CIA or British Intelligence or the English Royal Family. Yes, you can learn things on the surface, but how deep can you really get? Certain things are not accessible to the general public.

I've recommended that newbies start with iamaphoney's Rotten Apple Series on YouTube, not necessarily because I agree with the perspective of iamaphoney, but because in that series you get most if not all of the known details that other researchers have dug up. Saves you hours of digging. But look at that series with an open mind and realize that some of iamaphoney's conclusions might be wrong or only half right and some avenues opened up by other researchers might be just as or more valid than iamaphoney. Just keep an open mind, that's my best advice.

The guy on the scene now, Sir Paul McCartney (and realize there may be more than one Paul double making appearances nowadays) isn't about to confess anything or tell you the truth. So don't look for any confessions. Ringo (if he is the original one, which I doubt) has already stated that he will never assist with a biography of The Beatles or an autobiography. He refuses to assist researchers looking into the history of The Beatles. He feels that he has done all he is willing to do when the official Anthology book was published by Apple.

Heather Mills has said "Paul" betrayed her in a way that would shock the world so badly, the world can't handle the truth. She was and still may be afraid for her life. She has said that she has a "box of evidence" that she has given to a close friend with instructions to expose it to the world if she is killed whether her (Heather's) death would appear to be an accident, suicide, or murder. I believe Heather was also paid one of the biggest divorce settlements in world history and was made to sign a non-disclosure agreement in order to get the money. I could be wrong but I think that's what went down and why you won't be hearing the true story from Heather Mills.

Lately my opinion, which could change, is that no original Beatle remained in the band past the year 1966. I think that a whole new band was formed secretly sometime in 1966 and went on to make all the psychedelic period Beatles songs and albums.

Above all, I love the Beatles' music --- all of it. The early songs, the psychedelic songs, the solo years after the band broke up, all the music made by all of them: I love. So you see, although I think Paul was replaced (and the others, too) I have collected all the McCartney solo material and love listening to it. Same with the other Beatles. The music is always enjoyable for me, as well as the movies.

No matter what happened, they're still my favorite band and always will be, Like other researchers, I would love to know the truth. I doubt that the truth will be available to me in my lifetime.

reply to post by switching yard


very interesting post. why and for what purpose would the members be replaced?

Social engineering psyops experimentation on a mass scale.

The new Beatles were probably in development a couple of years before they recorded together. Sgt Pepper was their first whole album. It wasn't an album made by the originals.

Just my current opinion. You guys should form your own opinions. By the way, the Sgt Pepper album is my favorite record of any from any artists. It's a masterpiece of creative genius. I just don't think the original Beatles made it.

reply to post by switching yard


Great response.

I remember the first I heard of the Paul is Dead rumours was on a radio show "Beatles Days in their Lives" which was made just after John Lennon's death. Too young to remember the Beatles as a working band my dad filled me in with some of the details (he actually saw them in the Cavern) and seemed to think that the Beatles had been playing tricks on us all but did mention the Sgt Pepper and Abbey Road clues which I found intriguing at the time. But as you say it's difficult to form an opinion if you only scratch the surface of not just the Paul is Dead rumour but the whole Beatles story. That was 1981 or 1982 as well and there was no such thing as the internet.

What is apparent is that Lennon dominated the band prior to 1966 until they stopped touring. After that there was a definite shift and McCartney (or McCartney II ) began to slowly wrest control especially after Brian Epstein's death. You can see that once the Get Back sessions came around Lennon has nothing left to offer but "Don't Let Me Down" as a great new song, which is eventually sidelined to the B-side of Get Back. Meanwhile Macca has already written "Let it Be", "Get Back" and the "Long and Winding Road" along with "Two of Us" - which I think John actually enjoyed.

I still wonder why "Let it Be" has never been released on DVD (nor on video since the early 1980s. I actually have a battered VHS 30 year old copy of it and it's a pretty dull film until the concert on the roof). The whole film was digitized and cleaned up for the Anthology. But here we are 18 years later having seen all the other Beatles official films released on DVD (twice in some cases) and no sign of "Let it Be" . It shows Paul and George having a bit of a tame argument but I am not sure what or who is really holding it back?

Then there is the influence of Yoko. It is interesting that the last photo of John and Paul (that is in the public domain) is during his "Lost Weekend" in LA 1974, free from Yoko, and when according to May Pang he was going to record with Paul again on "Venus & Mars". Not long after Yoko was back with John and it seems he became more distant from his old pals again.

George and Paul's relationship always seemed prickly during the late 1960s and after the break up. It is notable that they never actually recorded completely together after 1970 except for the Anthology. George seemed to have fallen out with John by the mid 1970s as well.

As for Ringo, he always appeared to be generally on good terms with the other Beatles and played on many of the other Beatles solo albums as well as had them write and record on his. But he was not asked to play with Paul for Live 8 or the Olympics. Paul turned up for Ringo's 70th birthday concert but when Ringo turns up in Liverpool for a concert on Paul' birthday, and Paul is just a few blocks away at LIPA, Paul is asked if he will be going see his old band mate and replies "Why would I wanna do that?"

Something changed in the mid-1960s as far as the Beatles were concerned although who, what and why are still questions I have yet to understand in full.

As for the music. It must have been great being there as it was released in the 1960s hearing the musical splitting of the atom. George Martin's role should not be underestimated either.

I had to make do with it all after the Beatles had split up and it still sounds great today. Yep the music was the most important thing about the Beatles. There are even some great tracks in their solo stuff too.

Thanks again for your interesting thoughts.

reply to post by mirageman


My Dad worked at Kennedy Airport when the boys first showed up on our shores. I was privileged enough to be present and pretty close to them because I was on the same side of the fence as they were. This was before they had those jetways from the terminal to the plane and they had to deplane onto the tarmac down a flight of stairs from the plane. I saw them fairly up close. My friends were totally jealouse. I was only 7 in 64 but I remember it like it was yesterday. I also saw the Rolling Stones when they came in. They stopped and played a song right there on the tarmac.

reply to post by mirageman


Paul was on Jay Leno one night talking about this. Jay was saying that it was believed that a duplicate was inserted into the group and Paul said laughing Yeah, that would be me ! It was funny to see. Guess you had to be there cuz its not as funny writing it.

reply to post by spiritualarchitect


Hey interesting that you mention Manson. Of-course there is the whole 'Helter Skelter' episode which may well have been a major factor in the Beatles quitting as a group. Not that any one is going to admit to it though.

Go back to 1966, San Francisco and the Fab Four have just played what is rumoured to be their last concert. After the concert the boys (John, 'Paul', and George) head into town to chill-out. Remember that they were into some pretty dark themes at that time. They had an album cover banned because it looked like babies chopped-up, with blood everywhere (!).

At that time Anton Le Vey's Church of Satan was the big thing in SF. Many great stars were visiting the church as either members or guests. So, seeking out this new and exciting thing, the lads pay a visit. There are suggestions that the visit was pre-arranged and a private show was given by Le Vey's performers.

Staff at the church that night include Susan Denise Atkins (also using the name Sadie Mae Glutz - given to her by either Le Vey or a document forger), and
Robert Kenneth "Bobby" Beausoleil. Both held very spiritual ideas. Both would later go on to committ murders. Susan Atkins was an out and out Satanist.

That night, playing the role of a vampire, Susan performs her almost naked routine. The Beatles are mesmerized by her performance, which includes flashes of her eyes that lightern the procedings. John later writes about her performance in "Sexy Sadie".

After the show, at-least John and one other Beatle (we're not sure if it was Paul or George) went back to Susan's place. They chatted about her beliefs, which totally blew-away John. Susan told them that she used the 'stage' name of Sadie. She went into great detail about her beliefs which included the need for a race war to get-rid of segregation and racism (this was only 2 years after 1964 don't forget, and segregation was still a very real thing in the US). Combined with her Satanic ideas - killing people could be a good thing, for example) John's growing urge toward anti-establishmentism took on a new dimension. His compositions took on greater meaning and more complexity as the lyrics he wrote spoke of things such as The Book of Shadows, guns, death and war.

In essence, John was transformed by his contact with Susan Atkins (Sadie Mae Glutz). He was impelled to write about his experience that night. She laid it down for all to see (means: Sadie told me her plans) is one example. The song "Sexy Sadie" was released on The Beatles (aka. "The White Album") to general astonishment and awe at such a monster album.

By then Susan had hooked-up with Manson and the other girls, and Bobby Beausoleil. They group of friends heard the White Album and became fixated on what The Beatles had recorded. Special meaning was taken from tracks such as Revolution 9, Sexy Sadie, Helter Skelter, Happiness Is a Warm Gun, Piggie and Blackbird.

Seeing the songs as support for her cause, Susan (now routinely called Sadie Mae Glutz) started on at Charles manson about her ideas. Even to him they were radical. But he 'reflected' her ideas to encourage her loyalty and friendship - she was useful in winning friends with the bikers with whom Charlie often conducted his drug deals. Sadie was simple currency: sex was traded for all manner of drugs.

As time went on Sadie gathered her own followers and actually established her own all-female 'family' in Mendocino. They called themselves witches.

But things went awry and the girls all ended back with Charlie at Spahn Ranch. In August 1969 Sadie was part of the group that murdered seven people, including Roman Polanski's actress wife Sharon Tate. The killings became known as "The Helter Skelter Murders" when the prosecutor disclosed his theory. That was very late 1969.

Upon hearing about the Helter Skelter Murders and Susan's connection - and their very own culpability in the crimes - a hasty meeting was arranged by an Apple manager to discuss the ramifications of Helter Skelter. The out come of the meeting was that a cover story would be given to distance their connection to Sadie: The song was now about the Maharishi and how he hit-on one of the girls whilst The Beatles were in India. In fact, this story was only told by John many years after 1969. At the same meeting it was agreed that following this debacle, The Beatles would never record as a group again (despite them having a recording contract until the late 1970's - which saw them release "Live At The Hollywood Bowl" in 1977), but that would stay secret.

Paul was so angry at John's involvement that it was a decisive factor in him quitting despite the agreement to keep their break-up a secret.

Yeah watching the Beatles feb 9 1964 Ed Sullivan Show right now. 49 years ago. yeah the legacy is the music! whatever happened to them- who cares! back then it was a great time to be a kid- wish we could go back in time, for an instant. but watching this performance is the next best thing.

Now this. There are theories about John and Paul. But why not Ringo and George? Is it possible that two Beatles could project their thoughts? Into manifestations that became the other two Beatles. There are no African American Beatles. Think about it.

Originally posted by mirageman

John Lennon had little regard for religion. His infamous comments in 1966 “Christianity will go, it will vanish and shrink. I needn’t argue about that. I’m right and will be proved right. You just wait.. . .We’re more powerful than Jesus ever was..”, inflamed bible belt Americans and caused all sorts of pandemonium as they toured the Southern United States in 1966

This is a brilliant thread and one I've thoroughly enjoyed reading. However, I feel I must correct you on the above quote you posted. Lennon never said the Beatles were more powerful than God, but more popular.

"Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink. I needn't argue about that. I'm right and I will be proved right. We're more popular than Jesus now. I don't know which will go first - rock n' roll or Christianity."

Just a minor mistake in an otherwise great post. :up

Edit: I can't find Lennon's apology for the "Jesus" remark, but here's an actor reenacting what Lennon said

Originally posted by dougc411
Now this. There are theories about John and Paul. But why not Ringo and George? Is it possible that two Beatles could project their thoughts? Into manifestations that became the other two Beatles. There are no African American Beatles. Think about it.

I don't understand what you are trying to say? Why would there be African American members of this band (although actually, I take that back as Billy Preston played keyboards on several tracks so technically he was a member of the band, arguably). Not sure what you think there is to think about?

Originally posted by Snsoc
reply to post by mirageman

 

The OP leaves me with so many questions:

How exactly does one sell his soul to the Devil? Doesn't the Devil already have the souls of all non-Christians? And how does one contact the Devil, anyway? These days, there's probably a website or 1-800 number (linking you to a call center in Bangalore) but how did Mr. Lennon do it in 1960? I've met Satanists and none of them have ever claimed to be able to contact the actual Satan in person. How much influence did Lucifer have in the actual song-writing process? Why does the Prince of Darkness want to promote bubblegum pop?

Yes that one mystifies me to be honest so I dug a bit deeper. This question was actually asked to the author of the "Lennon Prophecy" - Josepeh Niezgoda on Coast to Coast a few years ago. You can find it on Youtube by searching for it. George Noory asks him how the deal was completed.

Basically Niezgoda fudges the answer and Noory doesn't pursue it. Niegzgoda gets about as far as stating "Something happened in Germany....it was desperation". Then he goes on about how John had lost his mother, ,his father had left him at an early age and never comes back to how, why and exactly when Lennon signed his soul away to the devil. So basically he doesn't really know. .

Make of that what you will.

reply to post by motownredux


Yep the Lennon quote is actually a misquote that I admit I mixed up with the original interview with Maureen Cleave. I may have got it from here www.abovetopsecret.com... but I really can't remember.

Someone else pointed it out earlier in the thread and I hold my hands up to the error.

Whether Lennon really sold his soul to the devil is all part of the Beatles mythology now.

This song (never released officially it's a demo from John's last days) is supposedly another clue.

“Well, I tried so hard to stay alive, But the angel of destruction keeps on hounding me all around. But I know in my heart that we never really parted, oh no.....

reply to post by mirageman


Thank you so much for this terrific thread! Thanks also to the others that have contributed.

Reading all this has almost been as good as time travel. I was sooooo miffed that I missed their debut on the Sullivan Show that long ago night.....much like the day of the Kennedy assassination, I can remember 'where I was' the moment I found out I had missed them!

Thanks again! S and F for you and many of the other posts!

-frayed

For any Beatles fans in the UK -

BBC 4 are showing a "Please Please Me" documentary at 21:00 which follows todays re-recording of the album by various artists.

It is followed by both parts of a Brian Epstein story shown a few years ago:

www.bbc.co.uk...

Available on the BBC I-player after that and on Youtube most probably....

Then there will be a half hour show featuring Heather Mills explaining all the details of how Paul (the real one) is really dead and how she became hopping mad when she found out.

I just got done watching a youtube video where someone suggests that The Fonz shot Robert Kennedy and is related to Imadinnerjacket of Iran, that JFK is actually Jimmy Carter, that Jim Marrs was Jack Ruby but is actually is David Rockerfeller Sr and Lee Harvey Oswald is actually Jim Reeves. God alone knows what their views on the Beetles might be.

reply to post by threewisemonkeys


Imadinnerjacket. Thats great. I am adding that to Osama been Hiding and So damn insane.

reply to post by spiritualarchitect

Sorry, I've not checked back in a while, here's the link again: stagevu.com...

reply to post by switching yard


HI THIS IS LITLENEUTRINO, THANK YOU FOR SHARING OUR CHANNEL.

WE'VE BEEN WORKING IN TRANSLATION OF ARTICLES AND VIDEOS FOR YOU.

YOU CAN FIND MORE ABOUT OUR ENGLISH WORK IN:
www.facebook.com...

Blessings. See ya!!!!