Tuesday, January 27, 2015

The Tragical History of PID - Part 2



In September 1969, Tim Harper reported on the latest West Coast college gossip, namely that McCartney had died in a car crash in 1966. On September 17, 1969, Harper’s article, “Is Beatle Paul McCartney Dead?” was published in the Drake Times-Delphic paper. Days later, college papers all over the country were running the story, and the news of McCartney’s demise swept across America. 

Various clues as to Paul’s death were found by fans desperate for answers. One of the cluesters was Tom Zarski. He and his friends found back-masked messages on the White Album. On October 12, 1969, he called into Russ Gibb’s Detroit radio show to inform everyone that Beatle Paul was dead. 

Zarski made it known that there was something fishy going on with Paul McCartney. According to Zarski, several tracks on the Beatles’ White Album contained backwards messages revealing the truth about Paul’s death. For example, “Revolution #9” was said to disclose the sounds of a fiery car crash when played backwards. The oft-repeated phrase “number nine, number nine” revealed the dark message, “turn me on, dead man, turn me, on dead man” when played backwards. The song, “I'm So Tired,” concealed the back-masked message, “Paul is a dead man, miss him, miss him, miss him.” More clues about McCartney’s death were found in other Beatles’ songs and album covers. 

During the show, thousands of listeners were glued to the radio as Gibb and his callers discussed the evidence and what could be behind “The Great Cover-up.” One of those listeners was a student named Fred LaBour, who wrote a review of the Beatles’ album, Abbey Road, for the college newspaper the next day. On October 14, 1969, the Michigan Daily reported “McCartney dead; new evidence brought to light.” According to LaBour’s article, “Paul McCartney was killed in an automobile accident in early November, 1966 after leaving EMI recording studios tired, sad, and dejected.” LaBour reported that McCartney had been found four hours later, “pinned under his car in a culvert with the top of his head sheared off. He was deader than a doornail.” LaBour proclaimed the accident had been covered up and a double found to replace McCartney. 



The national press picked up the story, which “was quoted extensively everywhere. First the Detroit papers, then Chicago, then, by the weekend, both coasts.” On October 21, 1969, the London Times published a report on the “Paul is Dead” rumor. The next day, The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times ran the story. The possibility that McCartney could be dead was discussed on the “evening news of all three major television networks, and in prestigious national magazines such as Time and Life.” 

Many people started to investigate the possibility of McCartney’s death and to look for clues on Beatles’ records, such as backwards messages and photographic clues. The sale of Beatles’ albums skyrocketed as those searching for clues bought copies just to play them backwards. More than 400 clues were eventually found. 

____________________________________


9 comments:

  1. What if Faul is an exact clone?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is wrong on two counts. One, he is palpably, knowably a different man, once one knows how to compare evidence properly and fully on all fronts. Two, clone theory from some person in the past (in my strong opinion) is unnecessary, not to mention unlikely. It is possible, maybe just possible, in the period in question (late 1930s), for Bill's birth. (He states he is 30 in late 1967 in Magical Mystery Tour, but his Twitter acct gives the number 38, so he may have been born in 1938 and rounded up a few months in his statement.) But he needn't be anyone famous' son (Crowley or not) or a clone (famous or not), to be a good general impersonator, talented club-lounge musician with an intellectualist bent, who reached for more and achieved some good songs, benefited from stretching to be like Paul and working with the Beatles and benefited also from the public's general confusion of Paul's work with his.

      We cannot know much about him, directly. Our few clues are his "jokes" about himself, his tendencies and interests, his living arrangements (with a subtle Scottish touch to the odd word, early on), etc.

      We can know he is not Paul, not merely by circumstantial case but photographic considerations (including body language). Thus, he is not an exact clone, no matter what.

      Nice try to get back to a near "Paul is Alive" position, Anonymous. But you can't "get back". Bill is Bill and Paul is Paul and no, they're not the same look.

      Delete
  2. Denny Laine is consistently different than Bill (Faul). A dark moustache in black-and-white -- & his colouring and manner is radically different than Bill and Paul -- does not a Bill (or Paul) make.

    Having said that, it is worth noting on the main subject matter here, that Tom who called in, supposedly had not read LaBour's article. Both LaBour & Tom claim in different places that they heard the basic idea from others (including bands who had been from or to England). We may also note that though LaBour said to F. Lee Bailey that he "made it all up", he later clarified that by saying that he made up his own version, into a storyline with his own version of clues added. Next to last, we may note that the text reference from Feb. 1967 in Beatles book (then UK-only) magazine places the basic rumour much earlier and without art-only clue status. In that line of mentions, we may add a sub-point: that whether the rumour had started before the mention or the Beatles had created it in Feb. 1967, the rumour at least would date from then. Finally, we may note that Emilio Lari (as you well know, Tina, of course), has now come out not only with his conviction (without proof) that Paul died, but with a direct statement (though not under oath) that he heard the rumour in London in late 1966. Not proof that he died, on its own, of course, this testament would be a lie or true or a misremembered item. It is not, however, insignificant if it is not a lie: he is likely to remember when he heard such a thing, and that he seemingly heard the rumour early suggests strongly that the rumour was around then.

    Proving the death is different, slightly, but these facts are included in the proof as a whole story, a whole argument.

    I intend this post as an important summary, for new people, of the available points on this issue of "public myth" vs "Beatle involvement" and date (1969 vs 1966-67) for the rumour's start.

    Thank you for your wide, baseline work, Tina.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The evidence shows Paul McCartney was replaced in 1966 after 2 years of Faul practicing the Paul role in private and in public. This is evidenced by Faul appearing as Paul in Beatle concerts in both 1965 and 1966. Whether Paul was replaced voluntarily or involuntarily is not known. What is known is that he was replaced by Faul permanently in Seattle during the 1966 America tour. The 1966 America tour is that last time Paul McCartney was seen playing with the Beetles.

    There has been no tangible evidence of Paul’s death, only speculation and opinion. . It is possible Paul McCartney is still alive, we just don’t know and until there is some concrete evidence we won’t know either way, however time is marching on.

    Coincidently it looks to me based on photos and other evidence John was replaced in 1967; not sure about the other two chaps.

    BTW, this is about the only website I can post this without being ripped apart which proves how easy it is to fool the general public and fool even those that believe in conspiracies!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not sure if I agree on the exact concert/date he was replaced, but I do also believe Faul filled in and practiced publicly and privately. For example, the Beatles second appearance on the Ed Sullivan show in 1965. After Faul/Paul performed Yesterday, John said "Thank you Paul, that was just like him". He just looks differently in 1965 and 1966. I saw almost no changes in Paul from 1960-1964. Unless he gained weight, his jaw and face just doesn't look quite the same.

      Delete
    2. Yup you are correct about the Ed Sullivan show in 1965 and if you look at the concert film footage at least if it isn't removed from youtube you will see other Faul/Beatle concerts. Off the top of my head I recall Japan and Shea Stadium but there are more.

      There is film footage of the Beatles getting off the plane in San Francisco for the Candlestick Park concert and it's Faul getting off with his camera almost falling down the stairs by the way. This was August 29 1966 and it was the last concert of the America Tour then back to England. To my knowledge Paul was never a Beatle again from then on it was all Faul.

      Check it out nice clear footage -
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b59tEMNUd5E

      The previous two concerts were LA August 28 and Seattle August 25. Whatever went down happened in the summer of 1966 right here in America.

      Paul and Faul were swapping concerts with each other adding a real curious twists to this whole PID affair.

      Delete
    3. Yes, I agree with you. Now what I'm trying to figure out, is how early they began using Faul and who was truly the real Paul.

      Delete
    4. I was really surprised I think it was at least a year. I worked my way back from the America tour via film footage. I wish I wrote it all down at the time but didn't. I did post what I found on this web site though so it's here somewhere.

      Delete
  4. Hi!
    Thank you for a good blogg.
    I wonder. Do you know anything about Ringo? When did he die? How?

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for your comments. They will appear once they have been approved.