• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Paul Is Dead (Sixties Hoax)

I looked into this many years ago and according to some people Paul and Faul have different types of earlobes. One has attached and one detached.
 
New Beatles film that covers the making of their 1970 album Let It Be, which had the working title of Get Back, and draws from material originally captured for Michael Lindsay-Hogg's 1970 documentary of the album, also titled Let It Be.

Originally conceived as a feature film, The Beatles: Get Back consists of three episodes with runtimes between two and three hours each, resulting in a total runtime of nearly eight hours of material.

Unlike Michael Lindsay-Hogg's 1970 documentary, Peter Jackson (Director) said in reference to the long-reported acrimony surrounding the original Get Back project, he was "relieved to discover the reality is very different to the myth ... Sure, there's moments of drama – but none of the discord this project has long been associated with."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles:_Get_Back
 
There's nothing about Paul being dead in the documentary, though. He looks very much alive throughout.
 
GNC said:
There's nothing about Paul being dead in the documentary, though. He looks very much alive throughout.
Click to expand...
You mean I've gone off topic? True. Just though that some Paul and/or Beatles fans might like to know about it.
 
Floyd1 said:
You mean I've gone off topic? True. Just though that some Paul and/or Beatles fans might like to know about it.
Click to expand...

Sort of, I suppose the doc proves Paul was very much himself after he "died", so the conspiracy holds even less water.
 
GNC said:
Sort of, I suppose the doc proves Paul was very much himself after he "died", so the conspiracy holds even less water.
Click to expand...
It doesn't prove anything to the people who think he was replaced in 1966.
 
Floyd1 said:
It doesn't prove anything to the people who think he was replaced in 1966.
Click to expand...

Well, there's no hope for them, it's obviously him, you see him composing and playing and discussing stuff in a way only he would. There isn't an actual rebuttal to the doc from the conspiracists, is there?!
 
GNC said:
Well, there's no hope for them, it's obviously him, you see him composing and playing and discussing stuff in a way only he would. There isn't an actual rebuttal to the doc from the conspiracists, is there?!
Click to expand...
Not sure as it's not been out long and until today I hadn't talked about the Paul/Faul conspiracy for years (afair). I do know that one point that is often mentioned is that Paul/Faul had different earlobes. One had attached the other detached.
 
I wasn't paying close attention to his ears, but are the fake one's attached or detached?

Here's the trailer for Get Back (rather than the full eight hours), if any interested parties want to check out Paul's lugs:
 
GNC said:
I wasn't paying close attention to his ears, but are the fake one's attached or detached?

Here's the trailer for Get Back (rather than the full eight hours), if any interested parties want to check out Paul's lugs:
Click to expand...
Difficult to tell because of his beard.
 
GNC said:
I wasn't paying close attention to his ears, but are the fake one's attached or detached?

Here's the trailer for Get Back (rather than the full eight hours), if any interested parties want to check out Paul's lugs:
Click to expand...
It's many years since I delved into all this (and have forgotten a lot of stuff) but apparently Paul's are attached and Faul's detached.

(Quite often when you look up Paul's (supposed) car crash, it will come up with a photo of Tara Browne's car crash (18th December 1966) which he was killed in, but that was on a different date to the alleged date that Paul died (9th November 1966).
 
Paul on the far right from 1958



211025_r39235.jpg


And much more recently
gettyimages-905846220.jpg
 
Trouble is, Paul has been photographed so many times that you could take any two photos from different years and see similarities and differences. Heck, John started to look like Yoko at one point.
 
I’ve watched the first two parts of the Get Back film & found it fascinating.

In the first part they’re booked into a huge Shepperton film studio for rehearsals for a projected back to basics gig & film. None of them like the venue, they don’t have any complete songs, are scratching round the songs they used to play in Hamburg etc, are fairly grouchy with each other apart from long suffering Ringo who they call Ritch. None of them want to be there, Paul tries to gee them up but they’re untogether, unenthusiastic, sound a bit shite, uncommitted & amateurish. It shows the progression of Paul actually writing Get Back in the rehearsal, from a sketchy idea & few lyrics to a more complete song. They have a ‘last night’s song’ segment where they show the others what they’d come up with since the previous day. They’re a bit desperate for material.

There’s a fairly awkward meeting with Peter Sellers who’s filming The Magic Christian with Ringo later. They discuss Brian Epstein who they refer to as Mr Epstein & reflect on the fact they don’t have anyone giving them direction. George eventually has enough, leaves the rehearsal & the band & goes home. John & Paul retire to a cafe to discuss but unbeknown to them, the film makers have a bugged their table with a microphone so we hear the discussion. They agree ‘if George isn’t back by Tuesday we’ll get Clapton’. It ends there. All quite downbeat.

In part two, George is persuaded to return, they relocate to the Apple building basement, Billy Preston drops in as he’s in town & is promptly added to the band. Immediately the whole atmosphere changes, sound is probably better, enthusiasm returns & they start having fun. The released version of Get Back is recorded. They sound like a different band. Songs appear & are more fully realised. All much more positive & upbeat.

Third part is the rooftop gig which I haven’t yet seen.
 
It's curious in that although Helpl (both film and album) Sgt. Peppers and the Magic Christian film represent landmarks in my life, I've never taken much interest in the Beatles per se. It does seem obvious, though, that after Sgt. Pepper they never really operated properly as a band - is that where the myth comes from?

Never had much time for John's work after the Beatles, although Imagine is obviously very memorable as a tune. Found Paul's early post-Beatles stuff more interesting, and have huge respect for George - so sad the Traveling Wilburys were overtaken by events so quickly.
 
Cochise said:
... It does seem obvious, though, that after Sgt. Pepper they never really operated properly as a band - is that where the myth comes from? ...
Click to expand...

I don't think that's a specific / direct cause, but I'd say it was a key factor in setting the context within which the Paul Is Dead meme / UL was spawned. Here's how I saw it and still see it ...

In the space of approximately 1 year (1967 / 1968) the Beatles 'institutionalized' themselves in ways that proved problematic for the four members to handle. This institutionalization occurred in both the musical and business (making a living) aspects of their individual and joint lives.

The release and success of Sergeant Pepper's put the Beatles in a dominant position within popular music generally. They weren't just figures in the pop / rock sphere anymore - they'd become icons in the history of music overall. The album was so unexpectedly complex and unique it set a benchmark that would be difficult to repeat, much less surpass, thereafter. Once they'd done Sergeant Pepper's they would have a hard time reverting to anything less epic (as the new Get Back documentary demonstrates).

Meanwhile, their behind-the-scenes business affairs had reached a scale where they had little choice but to go corporate (founding the multi-faceted Apple media empire in 1968). Once this happened the Beatles were increasingly sucked into dealing with business matters above and beyond the musical activities that initially drew them together.

Things seemed to darken after that. Fans began to lose enthusiasm for their music, because it seemed to be getting too esoteric / artsy / complicated to embrace. It seemed there was an endless series of crises and arguments over Apple affairs, and this sideshow dominated Beatles news.

They'd become mired in their own runaway success.

Near the end of 1968 they released The Beatles (aka The White Album), which seemed to reflect fragmentation and lack of coherence for the band. It had become clear each of the four Beatles was increasingly veering off to concentrate on his own personal interests and projects. The single they released in the mean time (Revolution / Hey Jude) didn't make any sense. Revolution seemed like a snide put-down of the political activism that had emerged during the preceding couple of years, and Hey Jude was a turgid sappy mess.

Their primary audience (young folks) began to ask if the Beatles were 'over' (i.e., they'd run their course).

This was the depressive context as of autumn 1969, when American DJs and writers dusted off the old (1967) rumor about Paul being killed in a UK auto accident, suggested clues to the rumor's truthfulness derived from the most recent albums, and launched what we'd now call a viral meme.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top