Re: It's The Muppet Show!
Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2022 8:12 am
If you've ever looked into the Paul/Faul conspiracy, then you'll know there is a lot of research around, 'Paul died and was replaced'. The idea being shortly after The Beatles last tour of the U.S. finishing 29 August 1966, the band returned to England and Paul was killed in a car crash. There is a far more logical explanation about why what transpired with The Beatles happened post 1966, but one of the claimed proofs of his death is Paul's false ears. Here's a blog post discussing it, unfortunately most of the youtube videos have now gone away.
https://plasticmacca.blogspot.com/2009/ ... -ears.html
Beatles fake ears & Paul's ever-changing earlobes
From the video:
But taking another couple of stills from the video, you'll see the fakery is not confined to Paul's ears. It's his nose, his forehead and his hair. And it is perfectly reasonable why, particularly during the first five years of The Beatles. Whoever you believe wrote the songs, and I'm of the opinion they were written by Lennon and McCartney, the band was under contract to a record label, and that meant the songs, the visuals, any spin-off items sold and 'The Beatles' actual image were all wholly owned by EMI. The contract was five years in duration, starting from 27 March 1962, and ending in March 1967.
There were evidentially fractures behind the scenes in 1964 when Paul McCartney was interviewed for BBC's A Degree of Frost, in which he pretty much confirmed once the contract was over, he was retiring. But what it also meant, as soon as the band walked away from EMI, they could no longer use the mop-top look as that was owned by EMI not the four band members. I can be quite sure of this because of what Paul said in his 1987 Wogan interview, this was the second interview a person claiming to be Paul McCartney gave to Wogan, but it is my conjecture that the 1986 interview is by the person conspiracy theorists know as Faul. Again, this thread is not about going into detail on that, but everything I have learns since my original hypothesis only strengthens it as being accurate.
In that 1987 interview, Paul talked about his school days and how the band started, as I recall he said he was good at literature and poetry, but that his teacher didn't think he would amount to much with his music. So when he was signed by EMI he wrote to that teacher to say, you'll be happy to hear I'm on such-and-such wage. I don't remember numbers, but it was high compared to the average he would be expecting to earn from other careers. My point, he earned a wage so he was still an employee. The Beatles, if you look on Company's House, was set up as a business with one hundred shares, the fact Paul says he was on a wage confirms he and the other band members were not share holders. Having worked for both college and university in which I earned a salary/wage I know there was a clause in the contract that stated any intellectual property I create while I'm employed by them, they own the copyright. It doesn't actually matter if I do it in my own time, by working for them, I agree, they own it all. Likewise, this will have been the case for The Beatles, while with EMI, they dictated the look, where The Beatles went, who doubled for them, etc. etc. This is not to say Paul McCartney didn't have some sway, but in the 1964 Frost interview, there is some indication the underlying structure is standard to any other employer/employee relationship in the UK at the time.
So, Paul McCartney, if that is indeed his birth name, is different to PAUL MCCARTNEY, and because EMI could not claim the skin on Paul's face as their property, but they wanted to be able to defend their copyright, they made the band members wear a false skin. And if the band members use this look outside of EMI's terms, they could have been sued as readily as any other bootlegger. It is all highly logical when you add profit and sweat labour to the equation. After March 1967 when the band declined a new contract with EMI, they set up their own label and distanced themselves from the EMI look; also, Paul McCartney decided to remain connected to the band but take more of a backseat, moving the Scotland. I don't think the band members really wanted to deceive, it's just the things they would rather not say, and because Apple Corps was a business designed to make money, the same as say Pfizer now, truth got thrown out of the window in the pursuit of profit. And this will be the case for all other bands owned by labels. My feeling, people started to notice, and the transgender thing was amplified to misdirect from discussing money, contracts and wages, and the fact the people promoted who we think we know are actually works of fiction with the sole aim to sell products.
https://plasticmacca.blogspot.com/2009/ ... -ears.html
Beatles fake ears & Paul's ever-changing earlobes
From the video:
But taking another couple of stills from the video, you'll see the fakery is not confined to Paul's ears. It's his nose, his forehead and his hair. And it is perfectly reasonable why, particularly during the first five years of The Beatles. Whoever you believe wrote the songs, and I'm of the opinion they were written by Lennon and McCartney, the band was under contract to a record label, and that meant the songs, the visuals, any spin-off items sold and 'The Beatles' actual image were all wholly owned by EMI. The contract was five years in duration, starting from 27 March 1962, and ending in March 1967.
There were evidentially fractures behind the scenes in 1964 when Paul McCartney was interviewed for BBC's A Degree of Frost, in which he pretty much confirmed once the contract was over, he was retiring. But what it also meant, as soon as the band walked away from EMI, they could no longer use the mop-top look as that was owned by EMI not the four band members. I can be quite sure of this because of what Paul said in his 1987 Wogan interview, this was the second interview a person claiming to be Paul McCartney gave to Wogan, but it is my conjecture that the 1986 interview is by the person conspiracy theorists know as Faul. Again, this thread is not about going into detail on that, but everything I have learns since my original hypothesis only strengthens it as being accurate.
In that 1987 interview, Paul talked about his school days and how the band started, as I recall he said he was good at literature and poetry, but that his teacher didn't think he would amount to much with his music. So when he was signed by EMI he wrote to that teacher to say, you'll be happy to hear I'm on such-and-such wage. I don't remember numbers, but it was high compared to the average he would be expecting to earn from other careers. My point, he earned a wage so he was still an employee. The Beatles, if you look on Company's House, was set up as a business with one hundred shares, the fact Paul says he was on a wage confirms he and the other band members were not share holders. Having worked for both college and university in which I earned a salary/wage I know there was a clause in the contract that stated any intellectual property I create while I'm employed by them, they own the copyright. It doesn't actually matter if I do it in my own time, by working for them, I agree, they own it all. Likewise, this will have been the case for The Beatles, while with EMI, they dictated the look, where The Beatles went, who doubled for them, etc. etc. This is not to say Paul McCartney didn't have some sway, but in the 1964 Frost interview, there is some indication the underlying structure is standard to any other employer/employee relationship in the UK at the time.
So, Paul McCartney, if that is indeed his birth name, is different to PAUL MCCARTNEY, and because EMI could not claim the skin on Paul's face as their property, but they wanted to be able to defend their copyright, they made the band members wear a false skin. And if the band members use this look outside of EMI's terms, they could have been sued as readily as any other bootlegger. It is all highly logical when you add profit and sweat labour to the equation. After March 1967 when the band declined a new contract with EMI, they set up their own label and distanced themselves from the EMI look; also, Paul McCartney decided to remain connected to the band but take more of a backseat, moving the Scotland. I don't think the band members really wanted to deceive, it's just the things they would rather not say, and because Apple Corps was a business designed to make money, the same as say Pfizer now, truth got thrown out of the window in the pursuit of profit. And this will be the case for all other bands owned by labels. My feeling, people started to notice, and the transgender thing was amplified to misdirect from discussing money, contracts and wages, and the fact the people promoted who we think we know are actually works of fiction with the sole aim to sell products.