[removed]

I mean, connected brits hanging out with connected brits is nothing crazy. The baby guts album cover is weird, but also awesome.

How is that satanic hand gestures

The question is how does

The "O.K." gesture and " I love you" in ASL translate to a satanic ritual? Those are two prevalent and we'll known signs, I was hoping for supporting evidence...

I don't think so. They just wrote really great songs.

I celebrate their whole catalog. Too many to list. But off the top of my head

She loves you Girl Sexy Sadie

Heck, it's harder to think of ones i dont like. How about you?

Yeah i love all those too. Great stuff.

Great choices!

Baby You're a Rich Man

I Me Mine

Hey Jude

All of 1964 & 5. That's about a hundred songs. Not a psyop.

Don't Bother me is awesome. George's songs were fantastic. I think if he wasn't standing next to Lennon & McCartney on stage he would have been more recognized for his songwriting.

Very true.

I celebrate their whole catalog. Too many to list. But off the top of my head

She loves you Girl Sexy Sadie

Heck, it's harder to think of ones i dont like. How about you?

My vote is Tavistock.

Beatles thread sounds great. Jan Irvin has some good material on this.

I was actually thinking about this the other day.

People are constantly critiquing modern celebrities and trying to make connections suggesting a less than organic rise to fame. If this type of manipulation of music is happening then it would make sense that one of the most influential pop culture forces of all time would be a part of it.

With that said I haven't actually done any research into whether or not there could be anything to this, and my knowledge of the Beatles is lacking so I don't have much to go off there.

Their rise to fame is very well documented, a summary being John meets Paul through a mutual friend and asks him to join his band 1957, Paul asks his school friend George to join band 1957, first record recorded in 1958, regular gig at the Cavern Club made them famous locally, 2 years (1960 - 62) spent playing at strip bars in Hamburg and living above the club, audition for DECCA records in 1962 which they failed, they get signed by producer George Martin to a crap deal at the end of '62 because he's the only label left that haven't rejected them but he tells them to ditch their drummer, they ask their mate Ringo to join, who played for a band they shared their residency in Hamburg with. They release Please Please Me and begin touring UK then Europe, then Ed Sullivan sees them landing in London while he's at the airport there and invites them onto his show, and they make it in America.

Before US fame they toured and played for 10,000 hours together which is why they're so damn good.

Yep, you can hear them getting better when you listen to their early rehearsal tapes compared to the Hamburg 1962 tapes, 8 hours of playing 7 days a week with 1 day off a month will do that for you. They were just insanely dedicated to becoming famous, that's basically the top and bottom of it.

IMO they were given special treatment because of people like Savile and the rest.

Don't know about Tavistock but the Beatles were definitely a manufactured psyop.

Paul didn't die and wasn't replace. He was twins from the beginning.

John Lennon is still alive and his assassination was a hoax.

The Beatles as they were presented to us never existed.

That 'Paul is twins' thing makes no sense. 'Mike has the better voice, but Paul likes the limelight' - so which one of them spent 2 years playing dodgy clubs in Hamburg? Which one of them charmed the crowds at live shows? It doesn't address this at all, all it does is spend 30 pages looking at pictures of Paul from various angles.

I think the Beatles were good guys, they caused way too much trouble for the establishment not to be. I do however believe that the Beatles independently explored the ideals of Crowley and occultism and put references to it in their music. Crowley himself appears on the Sgt Pepper cover twice and some claim the opening lines of the first song reference Crowley.

I don't think any of it was nefarious though and it was likely just an area of study that they found interesting and thought it would be neat to reference it in their art.

As for Paul, I used to believe he was replaced but I have since convinced myself that the task of finding someone who looks just like him, plays just like him and writes the same and even greater level of music like him is impossible.

I do believe that John's death was government involved, with Yoko Ono being a handler of sorts and I don't know enough to say if George's attack was government involved or not.

The pictures just don't provide strong enough evidence, you can cherrypick ones that look different or alike, you also have to consider so many factors when examining these pictures, lighting, angles, changing technology, and so on. The best picture or video evidence for me are the interviews, the characteristics show no change, and for a lookalike to be able to match these unconscious subtleties is simply impossible given the time frame we have here.

The music aspect is a bit stranger, but you have to remember how 1966 marked a huge change in their music, but watching performances of Paul singing Yesterday, even decades later, I think you still have those subtleties that would be impossible to reproduce in a double. Also, if this new Paul was even better than the original, I can't understand why Billy and the Pepperpots weren't huge. Paul was among the greatest songwriters of his era at the time, if his replacement was even better I just find it very unlikely he was kept hidden away so easily.

Again, I suggest you watch those videos I linked to and see how the unconscious subtleties match exactly. Examining different interviews based on fleeting aspects like mood is faulty, a lot changes but your unconscious ticks and movements don't and for a double to match those is impossible unless he was trained for a very, very long time.

I've seen the Wired article thrown around a lot but I don't put very much credence in it. It's primarily based on picture analysis, which is nowhere near conclusive for type of claims we're making.

The clues I think are a mixture of the genuine occult references they put in their music and a case of pareidolia where people are looking for symbols where none really exist. I'll admit I haven't looked into the eye color to know enough for sure, but we have to also consider that many early pictures of Paul were black and white, so in the process of coloring them there may be cases where the person doing the editing messed up the eye color.

As far as the clues go, I'll go back to my earlier point that the Beatles studied and referenced the occult in their music and these symbols that often times related to death were misconstrued into meaning that Paul was dead. Of course, the Beatles could have deliberately made it seem that way, it's something that John would have gotten a huge kick out of.

Anyways, I'll check out that stuff you linked, I absolutely love this topic and can spend days looking into it and it's a very refreshing break from the current trends on this sub.

I think it can all be explained with an analysis of the occult symbolism present throughout their work. For this I recommend "The Sgt Pepper Code", it's an online book, not too long of a read, that gives a very detailed analysis of the symbolism on the Sgt Pepper cover and other work from their career and connects it together to show that PID is the wrong message and the Beatles wanted us to take the clues in a different direction.

Beyond the obvious greatness of the music, I think the Sgt Pepper album also tells a fantastic story entirely through it's symbolism, and I think it's a message the Beatles didn't want to flat out say, which explains the secrecy in interviews or the red herrings with Paul Is Dead stuff.

Yeah, no worries about cost for this one as it's provided free of charge (which always give a credibility boost for me). Anyways, I'm glad we had such a great discussion, I always love getting a chance to talk about Beatles conspiracies, it's my two favorite things rolled into one.

Well said

Issue with Paul is Dead theory is that the body double would have been responsible for the vast majority of Paul's music catalogue, including the most memorable and significant works.

At the point in time when Paul is alleged to have died, he was not a big name and could have been replaced with anyone like they did with the drummer. Why go through the trouble of having someone impersonate a low time musician?

I agree with you up until your second point.

At the time of Paul's alleged death, the Beatles were the most famous act in modern music history. Never before has any band reached that level. A death in the group would be disastrous and have a very large effect on society. That's the only reason why a double would ever be considered, sure you had other major acts of the 60s die prematurely, but none of them were at the level the Beatles attained. I'm not advocating the theory, I'm just giving a reason why so many would even consider the double theory in the first place.

I think they were the Greatest band ever, never to be duplicated. I don't understand why people think its some Tavistock conspiracy. Do you think some sinister guys in some lab wrote all their songs to Hypnotize everyone or some such shit? Listen to all the in the studio stuff you can find where you hear them staring with the bare bones of songs. Over time, and by adding layers and working on take after take they, eventually, generated absolute Masterpieces.

    Some people are just REALLY good at that. And, in my opinion, The Beatles were the Best.

Can we give Pink Floyd second place?

I Love me some Floyd. But I'm not sure I can give them the 2nd Place Trophy.....

Stones or Zeppelin? Little Richard?

The Stones from about '69-Some Girls album were Fantastic. That's why I don't buy into the Beatles vs. Stones argument. The Beatles were done recording in '69. The Stones were, to me, just beginning to be The Stones in 1969.

Floyds "Metal" was ahead of their time. Dark side was the best recorded album at that time, and is still better than some new ones.

Not to be That Guy but it was "Meddle". Great stuff. You don't "listen" to "Echoes". You EXPERIENCE it.....

but there are elements to their story that also make me raise an eyebrow.

Such as? you started this thread with essentially zero content.

“I was hoping other people would provide the evidence I didn’t”

I personally totally don't believe what OP is presenting, but why not discuss it? This is what this sub is all about.

I believe you have misunderstood me. I'm not saying it shouldn't be discussed. I'm saying that when starting a thread, the OP has a larger obligation than, "hey guys talk about the Beatles some things really make me raise my eyebrow and Paul might be dead."

OP didn't even present a theory, it was basically a writing promt

Lennon solo certainly seems legit. Give Peace a Chance, Happy Xmas War Is Over, Imagine (commie), Revolution (Beatles)

Gotta love the crazy unreleased John tracks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WtmH1hxivU

People seriously believe Paul died and was replaced and the rest of the band, including the new Paul, figured instead of just moving ahead and pretending everything is okay - they put clues in their music for people to find?

Are people that stupid?

I was hoping that more people would provide insight into the Tavistock theory, which I don't know much about but am interested in.

You don’t seem to know much about it either.

Believe me I read and know all about it. It's hilarious and slightly interesting, but that someone can actually believe it as fact is just ridiculous.

They were a combination of stupid and high on bad 60s weed.

I'm stupid, I took a quick look at the Paul is Dead page and thought it said he died in 1962. It was actually 1967 which invalidates what I said.

Further proof that "Paul is dead" is made up. I've heard 1962, 1964, 1966, and 1967 which means it is spread in different ways and not one is true.

I always thought The Beatles were a corporate band, like The Monkees. Maybe I was wrong and misread their origins at some point.

I still love the story about how when touring with Roy Orbison their fans were so loud and anxious for the Beatles that people couldn't hear Roy. Instead of complaining or anything, Roy took the stage and started singing. He sang quietly so in order for the crowd to actually hear anything they had to shut the hell up, which they did and he apparently was very well received afterwards.

Paul McCartney is the same Paul McCartney, that much I know. He was not replaced. Beyond that, Lennon was definitely killed by TPTB and not some lone nut. That's all I know for sure.

Watch that David Frost interview someone posted earlier. Same voice and facial expressions as the Paul that was in the Chris Farley interview 30 years later, and every other interview in between. It's the same guy. Only explanation would be if he was cloned, but I don't think we were cloning people at that point to doppelgänger-esque levels.

I'm good at spotting frauds, and that's the same guy. You can choose to believe time or not.

Those two photos look much more alike than before and after meth photos. Considering the amount of drugs he did, it makes sense. He also grew taller after the Beatles became famous, but before 1966. If he had shrank, or if the growth happened suddenly in 1966, I could understand.

I think-and again, take what I say for face value-this is a man who's testosterone was elevated because he was one of the globe's alpha-males. All of the traits you see as different in his face in the second picture you linked to can be explained by elevated testosterone. Stronger jaw, longer face, etc. Normally that would be due to HGH or Steroid use, but for a Beatle who had pussy chasing him by literal millions, and what that would do to someone's hormones and therefore their appearance.

The guy was the first mainstream-famous person to openly admit to using LSD. That is a permanent alteration of the brain. I've definitely noticed a change in people's appearance even when they started casually smoking weed. LSD is not meth-level appearance altering, but he was doing it, and it probably affected his appearance.

The funny thing is, Lennon's appearance changed way more during his Beatles tenure. He looked like Reggie Watts by the end.

Also he's 20 in the first picture and 25 in the second one, obviously his appearance changed. He was still just a kid in the first picture. This is a genuine before and after he supposedly died and was replaced.