Log In
Register
Read the original blog post
6.44am
26 January 2017
Offline
Another clue here!
Side note: I don’t believe that Paul Is Dead.
I have a Beatles poster on my wall. You’ve probably seen it: qid=1495366868&sr=8-2&keywords=beatles+poster
It looks as if it was taken in 63 or 64 so it doesn’t line up with the theory but look at Paul – he’s wearing a grey suit while the others wear black. Coincidence? Probably. But it’s quite fun to analyse anything Beatles related for clues anyway. On Rubber Soul there seem to be a few: ‘I’m Looking Through You , you’re not the same’ ‘Drive My Car ‘ etc.
I've been up on the mountain, and I've seen his wondrous grace,
I've sat there on the barstool and I've looked him in the face.
He seemed a little haggard, but it did not slow him down,
he was humming to the neon of the universal sound.
8.43am
27 March 2015
Offline
I think that’d be one for this thread 
Formerly Known As JPM-Fangirl --
2016
'Out There' - 07-06-2015 - Ziggo Dome Amsterdam -- 'One On One' - 12-06-2016 - Pinkpop Festival Landgraaf
12.54am
27 March 2015
Offline Not sure whether to post this here, in the Sgt. Pepper ‘s 50th Anniversary thread, or in a thread for Paul’s upcoming birthday, but I though this would be the best place for it. A new Macca Lives video has been uploaded, and it’s a big one! Loads and loads of photo comps. Haven’t counted them, but they go quite fast and it’s 8 minutes long, so it could be as much as 100…. Anyway, the piano renditions of Penny Lane and Here, There And Everywhere make it worth the time, I think.
The following people thank Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^< for this post:
SgtPeppersBulldogFormerly Known As JPM-Fangirl -- 2016
'Out There' - 07-06-2015 - Ziggo Dome Amsterdam -- 'One On One' - 12-06-2016 - Pinkpop Festival Landgraaf
6.36am
22 May 2017
Offline 
I do not believe in paul is dead, it's probably an advertising strategy.
but in a demo of Let It Be Paul say "Read The Record On Mirror"LOVE on a mirror: CODE
TOUR on a mirror:Look
L.H.C.B on a mirror: I ONEI X He Die
The following people thank SgtPaulCampbell for this post:
SgtPeppersBulldogSgtPaulMcCartneyCampbell
1.03pm
1 December 2009
Offline 
Haven’t heard that demo, but isn’t it likely Paul actually says “…read the Record Mirror“, referring to the magazine?
The following people thank vonbontee for this post:
Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^<, WeepingAtlasCedarsGEORGE: In fact, The Detroit Sound. JOHN: In fact, yes. GEORGE: In fact, yeah. Tamla-Motown artists are our favorites. The Miracles. JOHN: We like Marvin Gaye. GEORGE: The Impressions PAUL & GEORGE: Mary Wells. GEORGE: The Exciters. RINGO: Chuck Jackson. JOHN: To name but eighty.
2.42pm
18 April 2013
Offline vonbontee said
Haven’t heard that demo, but isn’t it likely Paul actually says “…read the Record Mirror“, referring to the magazine?
I suppose you think John said “cranberry sauce” instead of “I buried Paul” as well?
The following people thank Expert Textpert for this post:
Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^<, SgtPeppersBulldog, vonbontee, WeepingAtlasCedars"If you're ever in the shit, grab my tit.” —Paul McCartney
3.43pm
27 March 2015
Offline ….and ‘House of Lords’ instead of what we all know to be ‘house of Paul’?
The following people thank Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^< for this post:
SgtPeppersBulldog, WeepingAtlasCedarsFormerly Known As JPM-Fangirl -- 2016
'Out There' - 07-06-2015 - Ziggo Dome Amsterdam -- 'One On One' - 12-06-2016 - Pinkpop Festival Landgraaf
5.51am
26 January 2017
Offline Every time I encounter a PIDer I direct them to Macca Lives on youtube. Fantastic at debunking it all, though I’m not sure if I just outright disbelieve it or think it was a marketing scheme.
I've been up on the mountain, and I've seen his wondrous grace,
I've sat there on the barstool and I've looked him in the face.
He seemed a little haggard, but it did not slow him down,
he was humming to the neon of the universal sound.
7.18am
22 May 2017
Offline Could Klaatu band have helped The Beatles to feed the rumor?
One of the members of this band that people claimed were The Beatles has a disc called LifeAfterLife
and on the cover there is a headless southpaw
The following people thank SgtPaulCampbell for this post:
SgtPeppersBulldogSgtPaulMcCartneyCampbell
11.28pm
15 May 2015
Offline I came across this comment in that weirdly amorphous Internet subcult of the Paul is Dead people:
Quote:
“I’ve found the easiest way to tell the two McCartneys apart is by
A: Eyelids/Eye socket shape. They do not share the same shape between the two men.
B: Any performance of him playing acoustic guitar pre-66, and after.
Paul No.2’s arm is shorter. He does not have the same span of reach that Paul No.1 had, which enabled him to rest his thumb on the low E string, and that thumb almost crossed the width of the soundhole. He easily could have touched the neck of the guitar with his fingers from the position his arm played in. Which should be the same for Paul No.2. But it’s not. He can’t reach that far, only when using smaller bodied acoustics, but not the Martin D-28. Only if he “side-straddles” it (see clips from India or James Paul McCartney Special) on his left leg does his arms/fingers allow him to play songs Paul No.1 played with the same radius/ulna length/dimensions. Paul No.1 also had longer phalanges. Paul No.2 does not play the same chords Paul No.1 played for Yesterday , nor does he strum it the same way. And some of that reason may be down to that finger length.”
End Quote.
As is usual in my experience reading their stuff, when they get down to some nitty grity about their “proof”, I find I can’t quite understand the mechanics of what the heck they’re talking about. Can anyone parse and explain that long paragraph in a way that is understandable?
A ginger sling with a pineapple heart,
a coffee dessert, yes you know it's good news...
1.20pm
15 May 2015
Offline One of the myriad “clues” that annoys me (because I can’t “see” what is claimed to be so obviously there) is the supposed guitar (a clump of yellow flowers) lying on the dirt in front of the “burial” of the Beatles on the Sergeant Pepper album cover. What annoys me is when the PIDers say “that’s obviously a left-handed guitar”. How can one so easily determine that from that clump of flowers?
A ginger sling with a pineapple heart,
a coffee dessert, yes you know it's good news...
1.41pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline Pineapple Records said
I came across this comment in that weirdly amorphous Internet subcult of the Paul is Dead people:Quote:
“I’ve found the easiest way to tell the two McCartneys apart is by
A: Eyelids/Eye socket shape. They do not share the same shape between the two men.
B: Any performance of him playing acoustic guitar pre-66, and after.Paul No.2’s arm is shorter. He does not have the same span of reach that Paul No.1 had, which enabled him to rest his thumb on the low E string, and that thumb almost crossed the width of the soundhole. He easily could have touched the neck of the guitar with his fingers from the position his arm played in. Which should be the same for Paul No.2. But it’s not. He can’t reach that far, only when using smaller bodied acoustics, but not the Martin D-28. Only if he “side-straddles” it (see clips from India or James Paul McCartney Special) on his left leg does his arms/fingers allow him to play songs Paul No.1 played with the same radius/ulna length/dimensions. Paul No.1 also had longer phalanges. Paul No.2 does not play the same chords Paul No.1 played for Yesterday , nor does he strum it the same way. And some of that reason may be down to that finger length.”
End Quote.
As is usual in my experience reading their stuff, when they get down to some nitty grity about their “proof”, I find I can’t quite understand the mechanics of what the heck they’re talking about. Can anyone parse and explain that long paragraph in a way that is understandable?
Drivel.
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
9.17am
1 January 2017
Offline
This is pretty much why PID is rubbish:
Look at this picture of Paul’s father James:
As well as this picture of Paul aged 11:
They both have a strong resemblance to modern day Paul. ‘Nuff said.
The following people thank SgtPeppersBulldog for this post:
memphis66, Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^<"Some kind of happiness is measured out in miles... "
2017:
12.19pm
9 March 2017
Offline I think we can all agree it’s fake but i like making up stupid theories so i think this myth is cool.
If you're reading this, you are looking for something to do.
12.39pm
15 May 2015
Offline SgtPeppersBulldog said
This is pretty much why PID is rubbish:Look at this picture of Paul’s father James:
As well as this picture of Paul aged 11:
They both have a strong resemblance to modern day Paul. ‘Nuff said.
Not only that, but the Paul we’ve grown up with over the decades (if you’re old enough) from the days of his solo career, through Wings, then after Wings, 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000s, to now — remarkably resembles the Paul from 1962-1966. Every time I read or hear a PIDer talk about how the “true Paul” looks “so different” from “Faul” I’m wondering what planet they’re on. In addition, the Gestalt of Paul’s physiognomy is singular, if not unique. I’ve never seen anyone who looks like him, though occasionally you see someone who vaguely resembles him. So for the other 3 Beatles and some supposedly nefarious cabal manipulating them to have found someone who looks that close to the original Paul — and who has amazing musical talent and a similar charisma — becomes ludicrous.
A ginger sling with a pineapple heart,
a coffee dessert, yes you know it's good news...
11.20pm
15 May 2015
Offline I realize this subject is a sensitive one on this forum, but I think if people have read some of my previous comments, they know where I stand (though it may not be enough to be not supremely, utterly situated in the camp that has zero doubts). Anyway, some random PIDer on some forum or other mentioned that she had “converted” to it after comparing 1966 photos of Paul with 1967 photos. I’m not sure how someone can amass enough of these unless one has a special booklet that verifies the dates on each, since Google Images doesn’t exclusively limit to a year even if you specify it.
At any rate, I took a few minutes to do that, assuming that Google Images wouldn’t be wildly off. Plus one can be sure if the respective years are relative to certain albums. While the consistency of Paul’s unique physiognomy has always been my sticking point of resistance to PID theory, I tried to be neutral and objective while looking at the pics, and it does seem — it’s subtle — that the 66 Paul looks noticeably more boyish in a baby fat sort of way with a more compact frame and a slightly more pixie-ish nose, while the 67 Paul looks ever so slightly leaner, handsomer and with a “taller vibe”. What I mean by a “taller vibe” is a phenomenon I’ve noted a few times in my life. Once years ago when I worked in an office, the head secretary was quite shorter than me, she was like 5″ (I’m 5’11”) and yet I was surprised when she told me her height. I told her she has a “commanding presence” that makes her seem taller than she is. That’s how Paul begins to look from 1967 on, and it increases. So I don’t know if it’s common, rare, or unheard of for a man to change like that from age 24 to age 25. But I sort of see it.
A ginger sling with a pineapple heart,
a coffee dessert, yes you know it's good news...
11.42am
15 May 2015
Offline Ron Nasty said
You’re listening to the wrong song, mmm.From Joe’s feature on the “Paul Is Dead” myth:
“At the end of I’m So Tired , John Lennon mutters ‘Monsieur, monsieur, monsieur, how about another one?’ When played backwards, this was interpreted by some as ‘Paul is dead, man, miss him, miss him’.”
I don’t hear either one — played forward I don’t hear “‘Monsieur, monsieur, monsieur, how about another one?” At best, I can just barely make out something that might be “How ’bout dinner?” But that’s it. The rest is unintelligible to me.
As for the backwards tape, I hear no “Paul is dead”, and only the slight possibility of “miss him, miss him,miss him”.
By the way, I’ve never been clear on the PID claims. Are they claiming these various backward sayings were originally taped forwards and what were issued on records were a reversal of an originally forward speech? Or are they saying John, et al., devised some forward speech that when reversed would yield those clues? The latter would be more ingenious (and more tortured). In the movie “Fire Walk With Me”, director David Lynch had a scene where he had this midget learn how to speak backwards, then Lynch played it forwards so that it sounds intelligible but has an eery quality of sounding reverse at the same time. That would be what John, et al., would have to do for the second theory.
At any rate, it seems plausible to me that John decided to mutter nonsense sounds that have the cadence of something possibly sensible but which are sheer gibberish. Why would he do this? The old Dada streak in him as an artiste.
A ginger sling with a pineapple heart,
a coffee dessert, yes you know it's good news...
11.33am
4 September 2017
Offline Man, reading through this thread takes me back to my MaccaFunHouse days. I remember seeing so many of the PIE stuff being debunked and hoping to convert any PIDer or PWRer that came on the board, but I think we only converted maybe one or two. Some even went on other PID sites trying to knock some sense into people, but even that was mostly fruitless.
I will admit, though, that PID had me convinced a total of two times: Once when I first read 60if, and when I first discovered Junior Campbell
6.29pm
15 May 2015
Offline Connor said
Man, reading through this thread takes me back to my MaccaFunHouse days. I remember seeing so many of the PIE stuff being debunked and hoping to convert any PIDer or PWRer that came on the board, but I think we only converted maybe one or two. Some even went on other PID sites trying to knock some sense into people, but even that was mostly fruitless.
I will admit, though, that PID had me convinced a total of two times: Once when I first read 60if, and when I first discovered Junior Campbell
I still hold out a slim hope that some day a reasonable dialogue could be had with at least some PIDers. But as long as both sides remain resolute in their opposition to each other, it won’t happen. While it takes two to tango, there would be some non-negotiable terms such a PIDer would have to agree to. One of them is to submit to polite but firm interrogation on their claims, where the non-PID side controls the conversation at that point. This would help to prevent a seeming tactic they indulge in, of barraging the listener with a complex tissue of 1,001 little assumptions and claims, without backing up most (or any) of them.
The following people thank Pineapple Records for this post:
Connor, Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^<A ginger sling with a pineapple heart,
a coffee dessert, yes you know it's good news...
7.19pm
18 April 2013
Offline https://www.standard.co.uk/new…..24216.html
This restaurant accidentally called their meatballs “Paul is Dead.”
The following people thank Expert Textpert for this post:
Beatlebug"If you're ever in the shit, grab my tit.” —Paul McCartney
3 Guest(s)