Photo by Luiz Fernando Reis (Bealtes cor 36 on Flickr)
Creative Commons License -https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/
So, I ran into an article yesterday with what at first appeared to be huge and shocking news regarding the Beatles. According to the article, with screaming headlines, Ringo Starr had acknowledged that the "real" Paul McCartney had indeed died in 1966, and that the group had replaced him with a look alike who stepped in, so that fans would not be bitterly disappointed.
It was one of those stories that sounds a little too unrealistic, as you probably guessed. But the article looked professional, and I began to wonder if, indeed, Paul had died in 1966, and the guy that had replaced him became the "new" Paul McCartney. Of course, this would have given a whole new meaning to the notion of a "fifth Beatle."
The way the article was written sounded more convincing than I expected. Here was a quote from a sober Ringo Starr:
“We felt guilty about the deception. We wanted to tell the world the truth, but we were afraid of the reactions it would provoke. We thought the whole planet was going to hate us for all the lies we had told, so we kept lying but sending subtle clues to relieve our cousciousness (sic). When the first rumors finally began about the whole thing, we felt very nervous and started fighting a lot with each other. At some point, it was too much for John and he decided to leave the band.”
This article, written by Barbara Johnson, then suggested something that, if true, would indeed make a lot of sense:
"Neither Paul McCartney nor anyone from his entourage have commented Ringo Starr’s declaration yet, but the interview has already provoked a lot of reactions around the world. Journalists and paparazzis from around the world have surrounded the residence of the musician only minutes after the interview was broadcasted and are awaiting for the star to comment the allegations."
By that point, my eyebrows were raised, and I was wondering about the possibility that the Beatles legacy could and would be completely transformed after such a bombshell.
Apparently, this story was told in other places as well, and with some additional quotes:
“When Paul died, we all panicked,” he reportedly declared. “We didn’t know what to do, and Brian Epstein, our manager, suggested that we hire Billy Shears as a temporary solution.”
Starr then continued, “It was supposed to last only a week or two, but time went by and nobody seemed to notice, so we kept playing along. Billy turned out to be a pretty good musician and he was able to perform almost better than Paul. The only problem was that he couldn’t get along with John, at all.”
I did not have the time to look into the matter more at the time, but had that opportunity a little earlier, and found, predictably, that this "news story" was essentially full of crap. It was from the World News Daily Report, which I had been unfamiliar with, but which a friend of mine compared to the National Enquirer.
First of all, news that huge would surely have dominated the internet. Yet, nothing was on it regarding The Beatles, or either Ringo Starr or Paul McCartney. Then, I finally did get the opportunity to research a little further, and found some links specifically rejecting the story as false, which makes sense.
Still, I figured it was interesting enough that it was worth sharing here. If you encountered this story, and have not figured it out yet, there is no truth to the notion that Ringo Starr finally admitted that the "real" Paul McCartney died and was replaced.
No, Paul McCartney did not die, and is still very much alive today. Ringo Starr never said those things, implying that he actually died.
No, Ringo Starr Didn’t Just Confirm Paul McCartney Died In 1966, March 2, 2015:
FORMER BEATLE RINGO STARR CLAIMS THE “REAL” PAUL MCCARTNEY DIED IN 1966 AND WAS REPLACED BY LOOK-ALIKE February 25th, 2015 | by Barbara Johnson
Then of course there's Snopes.com, whose entire raison d'être is essentially to dispel hoaxes and urban myths. (Though they do, when appropriate, also confirm stories that sound as though they *should* be hoaxes or urban myths, but aren't.) At any rate, here's what they had to say about it. I suggest checking there in the future. http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/paulisdead.asp
ReplyDeleteUsually, I do check Snopes. Didn't this time, because I encountered that first article, and since that confirmed what I already suspected (again, the lack of any trends regarding the Beatles, McCartney, or Starr was the absolute giveaway to what I had already instinctively suspected was an outrageous story). After that, there really was no need to go farther with it, as the matter was decided.
ReplyDelete