I see what you mean but I don't think we can imagine the Beatles to be unaware of the "Paul is dead" clues back then. No chance. Don't forget Lennon singing "here's another clue for you all, the walrus was Paul". By that time (white album, magical mystery tour) it is clear that the Beatles are planting the clues themselves -- not simply as happenstance on album covers, but also in the texts of the songs that they apparently write and sing. And BTW, I think this is already clear in Sgt Pepper (A day in the life).Maat wrote:Has anyone considered the possibility that the entire "PID conspiracy story" itself was a 'perp-created' and/or 'hijacked' & fed PsyOp experiment, to test/monitor and refine their methods for distracting and 'herding' people's perceptions? Especially since it was originally started in and perpetuated by the Media.
i.e. What if no Beatles were ever "replaced", but the initial rumors deliberately planted and nurtured, without the Beatles' knowledge at all? Their hippy-style influence and anti-war stance was hardly something the PIC would have been happy about, so didn't the 'conspiracy' ideas help to distract if not entirely discredit that influence (as the perps would have hoped)?
We now know they did just that for 9-11 to control perceptions and cyber-herd people into disinfo dead-ends (encouraging the belief that 3,000 people really "died" in the WTC etc.). Remembering that what is too hard (or impossible) for them to do for real, they fake it by creating the illusion that it happened. They're not "Illuminati" just Illusionists
Just a thought, anyway
I can easily see the "Paul is dead" conspiracy theory being planted and fake -- but the story must be more complex than simply the media playing it against the Beatles. The Beatles were complicit. This much we know. Maybe it is all a prank, maybe a distraction, maybe Paul was replaced after he accidentally died because the band just didn't want to get off the tiger they were riding -- and the clues were their "insurance" in case rumors started flying.
In any case our analysis of the Beatles can and must -- I believe - go beyond the "Paul is dead" theory, but not in the sense of acquitting everyone -- rather as another pretext to start investigating closely what happened in the second half of the past century with the birth of rock and pop music. Was it a spontaneous phenomena -- or a crucial instrument of propaganda and a transformational cultural tool? Was it what the people really wanted (the loud music, the dancing, the obliviousness) or was it something imposed on them?
Why the crowds booed Dylan when he carried his public from acoustic folk to electronic rock?
What the people really wanted? (Maybe to continue the, say, Woody Guthrie experience of a music for everyone, for everyone to write and sing and share?) And what was instead wanted for them? (Maybe for them to be subdued by a music that only "others" could produce and give to them, creating the parallel world of "music stars" that was so hard to get into?)
This at least is what interests me... Even today, if I (as I very rarely do) go back to listening to albums I once revered such as "meddle", "exile on main street" or "revolver", I cannot help to wonder if I am enjoying authentic products of popular culture, or rather genetically-engineered instruments of mass distraction, if not of brain-twisting-and-washing.