Paul_is_dead
- Thread starter pno
- Start date
DIstortIoner
New member
its a reference to paul is dead.I think they do it for attractin more fans
ridethetiger
New member
Paul is already dead yes, the characters are very different,from 1966 onwards
ridethetiger
New member
The voice is not the same after 1966,there are something going on,growing of moustache then u find even lennon voice changing dramatically so as to make us think' oh that is still the same paul' it really took some years before he fully imitate the real paul's vocal quality,something which if u brainwash yourself 24 hours a day thinking u are paul..u can achieve that.Not to mention abit of plastic surgery here and there.
daryl
New member
anyone has any idea why John wrote Glass Onion? cause of all these people overanalysing the lyrics and album covers and basically everything to prove their own mistaken notion that Paul is dead. i admit that it is exciting and it might be true, but everything points to it not being true. the only so called "evidence" are those stupid "clues" in the album booklets and some lyrics here and there which are so vague.
btw, John's hated his voice. he tried all sorts of shit to change it in the studio. i know that cause i read the book by Geoff Emerick.
the whole band started keeping long hair and moustaches, it was the goddamn hippie revolution.
if Paul really died, what about Jane Asher? his relatives? all just a cover? and why would the Beatles let some random dude take over the band? from 1966 onwards, Paul basically took over as leader of the band.
if you really want to believe Paul is dead, if you brainwash yourself 24 hours a day thinking that Paul is dead, he will be dead. to you that is.
haha, i remember reading an excerpt from an interview with Paul. Reporter: "so, are you still dead?"
btw, John's hated his voice. he tried all sorts of shit to change it in the studio. i know that cause i read the book by Geoff Emerick.
the whole band started keeping long hair and moustaches, it was the goddamn hippie revolution.
if Paul really died, what about Jane Asher? his relatives? all just a cover? and why would the Beatles let some random dude take over the band? from 1966 onwards, Paul basically took over as leader of the band.
if you really want to believe Paul is dead, if you brainwash yourself 24 hours a day thinking that Paul is dead, he will be dead. to you that is.
haha, i remember reading an excerpt from an interview with Paul. Reporter: "so, are you still dead?"
ridethetiger
New member
daryl,you know something? u are very convincing yeah,but anyone has any idea why John wrote How do you Sleep? I don't have to even explain, go and read the lyrics and you will know.
You said the only so called "evidence" are those stupid "clues" in the album booklets and some lyrics here and there which are so vague? There are enough evidences or you want me to even show u more? on youtube?
John's hated his voice. he tried all sorts of shit to change it in the studio. i know that cause i read the book by Geoff Emerick <=== oh really? i am surprised having read the book,you are not turned on yet. hahaha! Anyway, it would be really too obvious if only Paul 'tries to sound different' and not his singing partner john,isnt' it?
The beatles let some "random dude" come on,you are being randomly ignorant who "billy shears" is. Do more research will you?
Ultimately the facts or clues or evidences are all there. You are simply refusing to see the light.
You said the only so called "evidence" are those stupid "clues" in the album booklets and some lyrics here and there which are so vague? There are enough evidences or you want me to even show u more? on youtube?
John's hated his voice. he tried all sorts of shit to change it in the studio. i know that cause i read the book by Geoff Emerick <=== oh really? i am surprised having read the book,you are not turned on yet. hahaha! Anyway, it would be really too obvious if only Paul 'tries to sound different' and not his singing partner john,isnt' it?
The beatles let some "random dude" come on,you are being randomly ignorant who "billy shears" is. Do more research will you?
Ultimately the facts or clues or evidences are all there. You are simply refusing to see the light.
daryl
New member
John wrote how do you sleep as a response to Paul, who wrote some song (i forgot the title) which John felt offended by.
haha, i guess your so called evidence is the line "those freaks was right when they said you was dead?". i think it's pretty self-explanatory. It's a dig at Paul, John is saying that the Paul he has known is "dead", not literally, but metaphorically. Gosh. you know what? I happen to have done my research on the hoax cause I'm a die hard fan. Mostly on the internet. and while i felt that they were pretty interesting, they held no water for me cause basically, the mind believes what it wants to. I held an objective pov and if you do I'm sure you'll see my argument is stronger. for the geoff emerick book, i dont get what you're trying to say. firstly, paul wasn't the one who wanted to sound different. paul is gifted with his voice and he does impersonations very well for example, little richard, elvis. i'm not surprised his voice sounds different in some recordings. i remember reading one of those hoax sites which stated that "paul" called in to a radio show and a voice analyst analysed his voice and realised it was different from the real paul's voice. well.... i was taken in by that until i read the Tony Bramwell book. turns out that Bramwell was the one who called in, a hell of a joke. and as for those head-measuring shit on some other sites, well, haha, you measure shit from a photograph? btw, features DO change over time.
for those who want to know more just google paul is dead you'll get all you need. judge as you will.
haha, i guess your so called evidence is the line "those freaks was right when they said you was dead?". i think it's pretty self-explanatory. It's a dig at Paul, John is saying that the Paul he has known is "dead", not literally, but metaphorically. Gosh. you know what? I happen to have done my research on the hoax cause I'm a die hard fan. Mostly on the internet. and while i felt that they were pretty interesting, they held no water for me cause basically, the mind believes what it wants to. I held an objective pov and if you do I'm sure you'll see my argument is stronger. for the geoff emerick book, i dont get what you're trying to say. firstly, paul wasn't the one who wanted to sound different. paul is gifted with his voice and he does impersonations very well for example, little richard, elvis. i'm not surprised his voice sounds different in some recordings. i remember reading one of those hoax sites which stated that "paul" called in to a radio show and a voice analyst analysed his voice and realised it was different from the real paul's voice. well.... i was taken in by that until i read the Tony Bramwell book. turns out that Bramwell was the one who called in, a hell of a joke. and as for those head-measuring shit on some other sites, well, haha, you measure shit from a photograph? btw, features DO change over time.
for those who want to know more just google paul is dead you'll get all you need. judge as you will.
daryl
New member
and oh billy shears, haha. i know who he is... basically the rumours say he won some lookalike contest, right. william campbell?
ok, answer this. would the Beatles, with their strong sense of brotherhood and all, let campbell take over paul's identity? all they had to do was to bury him in the back and credit him for a few songs here and there, not let him hog the freaking limelight. but but but Paul was actually most active in the years following 1966. would George have allowed that? we all know George was struggling to rise above the Lennon-Mccartney monopoly of songwriting in the Beatles. would he have let campbell get the credit? they could easily have let campbell stay as a non-contributing member, just to please the masses. instead, the new paul was so prolific.
and if you were to state the Beatles stopping their touring cause Paul was dead, that's bull. the Beatles had a very good reason why they stopped their touring. do i have to say it out here? i think you know it.
ok, answer this. would the Beatles, with their strong sense of brotherhood and all, let campbell take over paul's identity? all they had to do was to bury him in the back and credit him for a few songs here and there, not let him hog the freaking limelight. but but but Paul was actually most active in the years following 1966. would George have allowed that? we all know George was struggling to rise above the Lennon-Mccartney monopoly of songwriting in the Beatles. would he have let campbell get the credit? they could easily have let campbell stay as a non-contributing member, just to please the masses. instead, the new paul was so prolific.
and if you were to state the Beatles stopping their touring cause Paul was dead, that's bull. the Beatles had a very good reason why they stopped their touring. do i have to say it out here? i think you know it.
Aki S. Ian
New member
wow you seem to know alot.. woot woot.
ridethetiger
New member
YouTube - paul is dead - the rotten apple 36 n
the above is for people who has no clue what me and daryl is discussing about,
"ok, answer this. would the Beatles, with their strong sense of brotherhood and all, let campbell take over paul's identity? " <===== why not? It is precisely the love for the original Paul that they decided to carry on this till infinity, everyone knows,maybe you don't know,that Paul is not only all the gal's favourites,but is the most loved beatle of the beatles.
"Paul was actually most active in the years following 1966. would George have allowed that?"<===== Why not? If John (the loud mouth) can keep quiet about it? and reveal clues in his songs, why not George the Quiet one?
"instead, the new paul was so prolific" <===== is it really that hard to learn something from john,george martin and other unknown 'teachers'?
'and if you were to state the Beatles stopping their touring cause Paul was dead, that's bull.' <====== i didn't say that,cause it is true they stopped for other reasons, but the fatal accident happen after candlestick park concert.
If i am not wrong, you haven't even watched the youtube series yet. Do some research, i will be waiting for your answer.
the above is for people who has no clue what me and daryl is discussing about,
"ok, answer this. would the Beatles, with their strong sense of brotherhood and all, let campbell take over paul's identity? " <===== why not? It is precisely the love for the original Paul that they decided to carry on this till infinity, everyone knows,maybe you don't know,that Paul is not only all the gal's favourites,but is the most loved beatle of the beatles.
"Paul was actually most active in the years following 1966. would George have allowed that?"<===== Why not? If John (the loud mouth) can keep quiet about it? and reveal clues in his songs, why not George the Quiet one?
"instead, the new paul was so prolific" <===== is it really that hard to learn something from john,george martin and other unknown 'teachers'?
'and if you were to state the Beatles stopping their touring cause Paul was dead, that's bull.' <====== i didn't say that,cause it is true they stopped for other reasons, but the fatal accident happen after candlestick park concert.
If i am not wrong, you haven't even watched the youtube series yet. Do some research, i will be waiting for your answer.
