Paul is or is not dead

Saturday 23 February 2008This is more than 15 years old. Be careful.

The original weblogs were running logs of stuff seen on the web. They were great for remembering some useful or wacky thing that you had surfed to, and thought you might want to tell others about, or find again later yourself. Though blogs have since grown to be more of a personal expression and publishing phenomenon, they are still very useful for that same goal of recording a slice of the web.

I often recall a page later and wish that I had linked to it here, so that I could find it again. I also recall pages that I am certain I did link to from here, then find that I did not.

The other day at lunch, the Paul Is Dead conspiracy theory came up. I mentioned a wacko page “proving” that Paul was dead, and said I had linked to it years ago. Turns out I hadn’t.

I don’t think this is exactly the page I was remembering, but it’ll serve: The King is Naked uses minutely observed photographic evidence to prove that Paul McCartney was replaced in 1966 by a surgically altered double referred to as Faul (faux Paul).

Meanwhile, Larry Curtis, in his Sir James Paul McCartney page also exhaustively examines the photographic evidence, and concludes that it’s all nonsense.


I read a Time magazine article by Lev Grossman about 9/11 that sums up my thinking about modern-day conspiracy theories.,8816,1531304,00.html

A lengthy quote:

"[The Loose Change conspiracy movie] appeals to the viewer's common sense: it tells you to forget the official explanations and the expert testimony, and trust your eyes and your brain instead. It implies that the world can be grasped by laymen without any help or interference from the talking heads. Watching Loose Change, you feel as if you are participating in the great American tradition of self-reliance and nonconformist, antiauthoritarian dissent ..."

Maybe this is less of an American attribute and more of a human one. A psychological need to interpret the world and communicate The Truth to media power.
Josh, that is an interesting piece, summed up, it says that conspiracy theorists are rejecting the notion that major events can have minor causes. They want the effort to be commensurate with the outcome.

But in the Paul case, there was no horrific outcome, so why is everyone fascinated with this crazy notion that Paul has been replaced by a double?

Add a comment:

Ignore this:
Leave this empty:
Name is required. Either email or web are required. Email won't be displayed and I won't spam you. Your web site won't be indexed by search engines.
Don't put anything here:
Leave this empty:
Comment text is Markdown.