The 'Paul is dead' myth | Page 22 | Fab Forum | The Beatles Bible

JPM-Fangirl said

Pineapple Records said
  As for Heather being an unreliable person of dubious integrity; that may well be, but does not necessarily mean that the particular allegations she made in those interviews are false.

Even still, she didn’t specify the nature of her ‘secret’, did she? It could be anything. It definitely doesn’t support the PID theory. For all we know, she could be talking about a slew of kids he fathered during his Beatle days (which he probably did), something highly illegal he’s done (which he probably has), or who knows what. Just because Heather goes on a rant about a box of evidence which would shock the world, doesn’t mean she’s referring to PID. 

But, for argument’s sake, what do you think? What’s Heather’s big secret, and has Paul been killed/replaced? 

Well, I like to approach these things analytically (if I’m going to approach them at all; I can think of a lot of other things more interesting to spend my time with than the Paul is Dead myth — though that’s relative to how much time one spends).  So I like to rack up the pros and cons and analyze their relative weight.  The weight in favor of the Paul is Alive claim is far greater than the converse; that’s my overall general opinion.

To me, two of the strongest facts favoring Paul is Alive are:  Paul’s eyes, and Paul’s musical genius.  His eyes look unique; nobody I’ve ever seen has eyes quite like that — pre- and post-1967 “accident”.  To find a “double” with eyes like that seems outlandish to me. 

Next, while the post-1967 Paul’s musical talent is markedly better than the pre-1967, so is Lennon’s and George’s, and one can reasonably chalk that progression up to growing as an artist.  Again, to find a “double” who just happens to be that amazingly talented in bass, guitar, keyboards, singing, and songwriting boggles the mind and strains credulity.

Beyond that, I also do find his pre- and post-1967 personality & charm to be too similar to make a “double” plausible; though that is a weaker argument than the other two.

That said, the accumulation of “clues” — audio and visual (from recordings, album covers, & lyrics) — is so copious and odd, that it seems something was going on.  It’s doubly odd, then, that the Beatles have always affected an attitude of bafflement and innocence; it just smells disingenuous.  One sound expert interviewed in one of those youtubes I saw said that while he doesn’t believe the PiD hoax, he can’t believe all the clues were mere coincidental artifacts of sound and/or imagination of credulous listeners, either.  (One of the youtubes had a sound recording of an interesting American TV show from the 1970s featuring the famous attorney F. Lee Bailey conducting a “mock trial” where he interviewed various witnesses and experts — including Paul’s brother Michael, Jane Asher’s brother, Alan Klein, a sound engineer, etc.)

As for the Heather thing, she said she was deeply betrayed and that it went way beyond infidelity.  Infidelity is a serious betrayal; what could possibly be “way beyond” infidelity?  If she’s not lying, it would have to be something over-the-top bad.  Secondly, the fact that she didn’t want to specify what it was either indicates it was something strangely serious, or she’s perpetrating a flagrant lie.  It’s just me, but I don’t like to impulsively assume one thing when there are two divergent possibilities.  I don’t mind leaning toward the likelihood that she was lying because she does seem to be a scuzzball of slimy lack of integrity; but to assert that with certitude seems to go too far.

At the end of the day, unless one takes a stand in favor of Paul is Alive and simply stops thinking about any doubts, one is left with a lingering residue of paradox or mystery.  This could be one reason why the PiD people tend to lurch into the supernatural, with shades of the “Illuminati” or other spiritual explanations (example, that the Beatles went to India to try to coax Paul’s posthumous spirit from the afterlife back into a new body) — because they sense that a mere natural explanation isn’t enough to account for what would have to be overcome to explain the objections to the PiD thesis.