Strange stories of The Beatles

[nonhocapito]

[ I have split the above posts from the Chatbox. The title is a bit creative, I welcome alternatives if you think it is important. ]

So many interesting considerations in this thread!

lux: you're probably right, the clues are not so important, considering that they leave so much to the imagination. On the other hand, they are important, because without them the story would had never even come out in the first place. So it can be useful to wonder what do they mean or why they're there.

Maat: as often you are probably the quickest to call bullshit with well-grounded arguments. So trusting your instincts and your arguments, I take back my favorable comments about that website, that were a bit superficial. You are right, it smells of that DallasGoldBug crippled method and its manipulative clues so it must be taken with lots of circumspection.

Besides, once again that approach deals with the "resemblance" problem: a problem that by definition for its vagueness seems to be unsolvable, and that for this reason is a favorite of all the shills and perps we deal with. So, food for thought there.
For the time being I am still open to the idea that a replacement of Paul McCartney might actually have happened: there seems to be something that indicates this. But, given the almost unsolvable nature of this problem, I find much more interesting to study the story of the Beatles in light of what we do here on this forum: as a possible faked or hyped instrument of propaganda -- used to bring around a transformation of our society and culture that still continues today.

The famous words of John Lennon about the Beatles being "better known than Jesus Christ" seem to belong to that kind of program.

[Maat]

*
The Beatles' American tour (11 dates between August 15 and 31, 1965)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles'_1965_US_tour

Quick question: Does anyone know why Paul, John and George sported this star on their jackets in the famous 1965 SHEA STADIUM concert in New York?


(frames extracted from "She`s A Woman - Shea 1965" : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgC81VJarLQ )

At 1:30 into this video Paul points to his star and makes a funny hush-hush gesture...

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtziAysRZ_o

(I have lots more questions concerning the SHEA STADIUM concert...

The badges explained:
http://forum.songfacts.com/showtopic.php?tid/145238/

The New York Police Department was worried that fans attending the shows would jam the tunnels in and out of Manhattan, so the Beatles were escorted from the Warwick Hotel to the Manhattan East River Heliport and flown by helicopter to the roof of the World's Fair building in Flushing Meadows Park, not far from Shea Stadium.

Next, the group jumped in a Wells Fargo armored van and were driven to the stadium. The van driver gave each of the Beatles a Wells Fargo "agent badge," which they all wore at the evening's concert.

More about the 'Shea' Badge with pics @ http://www.beatlesuits.com/Beatlesuits_shea_badge.htm

Beatles manager, Brian Epstein, had wanted a grand entrance like no other and had arranged for the band to be helicoptered down onto the outfield grass and then run up on the stage to start their closing segment of the show. The city of New York intervened and, citing safety concerns, disallowed the plan at the last minute.

With the helicopter already acquired, the plan was changed to the Beatles being taken by limousine from where they were staying at the Warwick Hotel to the Manhattan East River Heliport. From here they were helicoptered to the roof of the World’s Fair building across the street from the stadium. In the basement garage of the building, the Beatles were met by Wells Fargo security and put in the back of a Well’s Fargo armored car for the short drive into the bowels of Shea Stadium.

Shortly after, a mock ceremony was presided over by the Wells Fargo personnel “deputizing” the band and presenting them each with a gold ‘Wells Fargo Agent’ badge. The armored car driver was later interviewed after the show and stated that he was quite surprised when Paul McCartney told him that he would see that the band wore the badges on stage...

[nonhocapito]

Simon: Yeah there's something wrong with that Shea stadium concert... All I can think about, are Dave McGowan stories about the fact that the "real musicians" of all those west coast bands were unknown artists "behind the stage". I don't know if this is true. And I am not daring to say that the Beatles had no talent. But certainly they weren't that great on stage, this is a well known fact, and it kinds of put a dent in their ability to conceive all those brilliant tunes and melodies. For simple that they are or seem to be, they require a great instinct and knack for music, no?

The different drum set... was maybe because of the "All star show" that preceded the Beatles show:

From http://eu.movieposter.com/poster/MPW-38 ... adium.html

Hey, but... look at that producer name up there, pretty important it must be. Well, probably just another harmless jewish businessman from NYC, no?

In 1964, he brought many Israeli singers to the United States for their first major concerts, among them Shoshana Damari, Shaike Ophir and Yaffa Yarkoni, who appeared at Carnegie Hall a year after the Beatles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sid_Bernstein

So, regarding the stars: Thanks Maat for the Wells fargo detail. However, is there a possibility that the choice of a six-pointed star was not so incidental, but rather ...a Brian Epstein/Sid Bernstein signature?

[lux]

Dear lux,

This notion that all the Beatles (not just Paul) were replaced around that period in 1966 intrigues me (and others, I'm sure). Care to post some of the photographic and video evidence you say you have accumulated regarding this?

Take John, for example.

There is virtually no difference between these photographs, taken 11 years apart. Notice how perfectly all of the features fall on top of each other, the teeth, the eyes position, the overall head shape: even his Adam's apple perfectly matches.
http://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/fc1.html

These overlapping portraits were taken in 1963 and 1974. 11 years apart. They seem to match perfectly, indicating that John was probably not replaced in or around 1966 as you say you believe. Do you have any information/photos/video to disprove this image I have posted? I look forward to your response.

Yes, I've seen the "flickering gifs" evidence, lots of them. I find them to be laughable and prove nothing. I once made one myself combining a famous man and woman to "prove" they were the same person (as a joke). It was pretty convincing.

But, as I said, I don't blame anyone for not believing it. If you see the photos of "John Lennon" below as all being of the same person then that is what you see (but I don't):













Note square chin:


Note pointed chin:


"John" also had important behavioral & personality differences before and after 1966. The original John Lennon had an acerbic wit and a prankster mentality. He was a genius but not particularly a nice guy (e.g., his infamous "Jesus" comment and frequent insults). He was also a writer of several books. The post 1966 "John" wrote no books and had a completely different personality, more of a "peace-nik" and "Free Love" proponent -- nothing like the original. John Lennon also had a distinctive stance whenever he performed while playing guitar which suddenly disappeared and was never seen again after 1966. You can see it in many early Beatle vids on YouTube. Not an easy habit to break for a musician.

Of course, musically speaking, the band as a whole took an entirely new direction after 1966 and, to make things more confusing, also changed their looks by suddenly growing facial hair, more or less all at the same time. They had one more major concert, Candlestick Park, SF (and possibly one in Japan too but timing of that is uncertain). The Candlestick Park concert, for some reason, is very hard to get a full video or audio copy of (I've been trying) and which received more than a few bad reviews. They then suddenly stopped playing live concerts citing "we can't hear ourselves play because of the screaming girls" (yeah, what a pain that must be for guys in their twenties) though they did later supposedly play live on a rooftop where fans were not allowed to see them directly and which is heavily edited and shot with multiple cameras to the point there's some question that they were even playing the instruments we hear (George especially).

But, even the later "John" may have had impostors. The ER doctor who treated "John Lennon" after his shooting stated that he knew "John" personally as they were friends and neighbors and both their kids went to the same private school. They saw each other frequently. Yet the doctor said he did not recognize the person that was brought in after the shooting that he treated. It wasn't until later that he asked the nurse to look at the patient's ID that he was told it was Lennon. (note that the doctor's statements were later changed from the original interview and may now be different from the above).

Anyway, this is not all the info I have looked at before coming to my conclusions by any means but it is a quick sampling of some of it.

[simonshack]

*
Here are 2 images supposedly snapped during the very same, iconic concert at the SHEA STADIUM in 1965:



It is difficult to believe that the kick drum was replaced - somewhere along the concert. Isnt'it?
And what about the entirely different image quality? Aren't the two above images supposed to be from the very same camera?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
source of upper picture: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtziAysRZ_o
source of lower picture: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sg5MGMp22YU

[Maat]

Lux, can you explain why you don't believe it's possible that an intelligent but immature larrikin with prodigious talent could mature and change his behavior and style in any way? Especially after being exposed to the rarefied world of fame, fortune, international perspectives; influenced by Hindu philosophy and the women in his life.

As for their sounding crappy live, I have a hard time counting more than a rare few popular rock groups that can manage to sound as good live as their studio recordings — and those are usually only one or two out of half a dozen or so live performances on a particular tour. Obviously, when playing concerts one after another, the stress on their voices takes its toll as well as a list of other factors affecting the sound quality and their performances. Plenty of examples on Youtube of famous bands sounding like shit live (and not trying to hear themselves over hysterically screaming fans either )

I also remember feeling embarrassed for the usually melodic Boy George when I saw news clips in Australia of his final concert on tour at the time (80s); his voice was totally shot from the strain by then. Some bands can actually sound better when live, inspired by the electric energy of the audience, such as Mark Knopfler of Dire Straits — although that only applied to the instrumental performance, not the vocals which were mumbled.

Of course popular iconic figures in any genre will be exploited by parasites and power brokers of all types, from commercial marketing to propaganda if they can. What else is new? How successful those machinations are depends upon the strength of character and personality of the subjects. i.e. the stronger the self esteem and individuality, the more resistant to external manipulation. Compare U2, nuff said?

And I still haven't seen any hypothesis for how even one Beatle could have been "replaced", especially since creating 'replicants' is still not possible outside a Sci-Fi movie like Blade Runner

(Not talking about their original drummer, Pete Best, who was replaced with Ringo Starr on 16 August 1962)

[Maat]

*
Here are 2 images supposedly snapped during the very same, iconic concert at the SHEA STADIUM in 1965:



It is difficult to believe that the kick drum was replaced - somewhere along the concert. Isnt'it?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
source of upper picture: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtziAysRZ_o
source of lower picture: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sg5MGMp22YU

Sounds Incorporated were the opening act at that Beatles concert, Simon


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARoNORAg624

Poor guys were stuck with pacifying the waiting crowd, which starts chanting "we want the Beatles" towards the end (can't blame 'em, that band was awful — no wonder we've never heard of them )

[Mickey]

Wow! Totally new and bizarre info for me. What I do not understand is why?

[antipodean]

What I find strange about all this is that the latter day Paul in his 60s, bears more of a resemblance to the pre 1967 Paul, than the post 1966 Paul.




http://plasticmacca.blogspot.com/2009/0 ... -faul.html

Maybe for what ever reason Paul was replaced for a few years.
It was after the 1966 US tour that the Beatles decided to no longer perform live.
They went into the studios to do Sgt. Pepper, after which some of them seemed to embrace the hippy movement.

[RoyBean]

Fab 4 simplaced...really???

say it ain't so, please



Wow.

[reel.deal]

[simonshack]

Thanks, Maat - for both clarifications!

In time, though, I may submit some musings concerning the SHEA STADIUM concert.

[lux]

Last year a forensic pathologist published an article in the Italian version of Wired magazine about her analysis of the 'Paul Is Dead' photographic evidence. The original intention was to debunk the rumors but instead the result of the analysis was a confirmation that the current "Paul McCartney" is NOT the original.

Source:
http://www.erichufschmid.net/TFC/FromOt ... alian.html

[lux]

Lux, can you explain why you don't believe it's possible that an intelligent but immature larrikin with prodigious talent could mature and change his behavior and style in any way? Especially after being exposed to the rarefied world of fame, fortune, international perspectives; influenced by Hindu philosophy and the women in his life.

As for their sounding crappy live, I have a hard time counting more than a rare few popular rock groups that can manage to sound as good live as their studio recordings — and those are usually only one or two out of half a dozen or so live performances on a particular tour. Obviously, when playing concerts one after another, the stress on their voices takes its toll as well as a list of other factors affecting the sound quality and their performances. Plenty of examples on Youtube of famous bands sounding like shit live (and not trying to hear themselves over hysterically screaming fans either )

I also remember feeling embarrassed for the usually melodic Boy George when I saw news clips in Australia of his final concert on tour at the time (80s); his voice was totally shot from the strain by then. Some bands can actually sound better when live, inspired by the electric energy of the audience, such as Mark Knopfler of Dire Straits — although that only applied to the instrumental performance, not the vocals which were mumbled.

Of course popular iconic figures in any genre will be exploited by parasites and power brokers of all types, from commercial marketing to propaganda if they can. What else is new? How successful those machinations are depends upon the strength of character and personality of the subjects. i.e. the stronger the self esteem and individuality, the more resistant to external manipulation. Compare U2, nuff said?

And I still haven't seen any hypothesis for how even one Beatle could have been "replaced", especially since creating 'replicants' is still not possible outside a Sci-Fi movie like Blade Runner

(Not talking about their original drummer, Pete Best, who was replaced with Ringo Starr on 16 August 1962)

I did not say such a thing as this ...

Lux, can you explain why you don't believe it's possible that an intelligent but immature larrikin with prodigious talent could mature and change his behavior and style in any way?

... nor have I made a particular point of ...

As for their sounding crappy live ...

... so I can't comment on those things.

IMO the best evidence of replacement is in the altered physical appearance and mannerisms. Changes in behavior also do exist and do contribute but they are not as important, obviously. As I said I only posted a sampling of the facts that I've looked at. There is much more to it and an entire book could easily be written on the topic. For example a person does not normally one day change his ears from having attached earlobes to detached earlobes. Or change the direction of the "swirl" in his hair or change the way he plays a musical instrument or the way he stands or moves his body. But, I invite others to do their own research rather than simply read my opinions.

As for your comment on a hypothesis regarding how it is done, I would ask you: Do you really need to know how the magician 'saws the lady in half' to know that he does not really saw the lady in half? In other words if you don't know how he does it, does that mean it must be done by magic?

Or, if I don't explain how NASA faked Apollo astronaut voice transmissions coming from the Moon does that mean they really went there?

I am not a cosmetic surgeon nor a geneticist and I can't give you the details of how the tricks of replacements are done. I suspect a combination of methods are used. This may include surgery. It may also include the use of lookalikes, twins or siblings. It may even include genetic technology that is not publicly known. These are among the speculations which I am considering. Cloning, we are told, is a reality at least in some forms. So are other genetic manipulations -- genetically modified plants and animals have become an everyday part of human life (unfortunately), for example. And, secret research and technologies in many fields do evidently exist -- sometimes we find out about them later and sometimes we don't.

But, if you are waiting to read about human genetic manipulation or duplication in Scientific American before you consider that possibility then, I'm sorry, I can't help you there. I can't give details on how they do it because I am not an expert in such things. And, if I was an expert and if I knew how they did it I still wouldn't tell you because I probably wouldn't have long to live if I did.

As an aside, I have seen "aircraft" operate in a manner outside what "science" tells us is possible. This was over 40 years ago and they still say it's impossible. Yet I've seen it quite plainly and without doubt but I can't prove it to you because you weren't there. As a result it's a knowledge that I have but I can't share. It at least demonstrates to me that technologies exist which are not revealed to the public regardless of who was piloting those things. So, as a result, I don't discard an idea involving technology simply because "I don't know how they did it." That may be a difference between how I look at things and how you look at things -- I don't know.

It wasn't long ago, for example, that the idea of an aircraft being invisible to radar was considered sci-fi. At least until such aircraft began dropping bombs on Iraq about 20 years ago. Now we're told they have or will soon have aircraft that are invisible to human sight as well.

All I can say is that after a considerable amount of study I feel certain that a "magic trick" has been performed as regards The Beatles and after 1966 they were not the same people. But, again, this is something that is hard or perhaps impossible to prove and I have no desire to try. IMO it's one of those things you have to look at yourself and make your own decision about. I did supply a link above to some scientific evidence (the Italian Wired article translation) that supports the idea that PM was replaced but, again, the "how" is not known.

[fbenario]

All I can say is that after a considerable amount of study I feel certain that a "magic trick" has been performed as regards The Beatles and after 1966 they were not the same people. But, again, this is something that is hard to prove and I have no desire to try.

Another oddity of this situation is that the period when The Beatles produced the most revolutionary, new music, in so many different ways, is after 1966. Their stuff beforehand was much more of the I Want To Hold Your Hand very basic pop, and the post-66 material was much more complex. Could it be possible the replacements had more musical creativity and originality than the original 4 who became so famous?