A reader asked: Why didn't the Beatles do anything sinister while they held so much power in the 60's? Hell, even afterwards in the 70's? To pull out something now when most people aren't interested in them anymore would seem ridiculous.
This is a complex question. No matter which of the various scenarios you choose to follow, what is done is done. It happened a long time ago. The most likely scenario remains that the Paul McCartney we know today is the same one who met John Lennon on Saturday July 6th, 1957, at Woolton Parish Church Garden Fete. But we are here because some other compelling scenarios exist.
The most well known alternate theory is that Paul McCartney died in a car crash in late 1966 and was replaced. Books have been published about this version. The problem with the story is that it just doesn't add up. There are too many holes that don't make sense. How could an unknown person step in and take leadership of the biggest rock band on the planet? But that initial idea spawned other theories that attempted to fill in the holes.
In the late 1970s, Joel Glazier came up with a story that tied together the McCartney car crash scenario with the story of Faust. The "man on the flaming pie" was the devil and the Beatles made a deal. I believe it was Joel Glazier who discovered the mirrored message on the Sgt. Pepper drum. That is his voice describing the discovery in Rotten Apple 47. Glazier was also the first to tie in the Manson murders with his devilish portrayal of the moptops. Despite its supernatural components and appearance of being nothing more than a work of historical fiction, Glazier's scenario was more cohesive than any of the others that preceded it.
More recently Apollo C. Vermouth arrived on the discussion groups scene to set people straight about the ridiculous stories that were being conceived there, including multiple replacements for all of the Beatles, a bogus George Harrison death bed confession, Masonic conspiracies, and the infamous story of Don Knotts replacing Brian Epstein. Apollo hinted that the original Paul McCartney was replaced (by more than one person), but he was still alive and may have even continued to contribute to the Beatles behind the scenes. This mysterious character told his story in a convincing way, often via personal messages, and remained remarkably consistent throughout the process. Unfortunately when Apollo made his exit last year, there were pieces of his story that remained missing, although he promised that all of them were still right in front of our eyes.
Finally we have Iamaphoney, who has built an incredibly complex story that, like Joel Glazier, includes supernatural elements and like Apollo C. Vermouth, includes specific insights about clues within the works of the Beatles collectively and as solo performers. There was another common element between Apollo and Iamaphoney. Many of those who interacted with Apollo believe that he was in fact, Beatles road manager Neil Aspinall. But who was the brains of the Iamaphoney organization? Interestingly, a person who claimed that he or she quit the Iamaphoney organization told me that things started to unravel when their leader, Neil Aspinall passed away. The problem of course is that we can't ask Neil if he was behind either of these scenarios. It is difficult to harmonize the stories of Apollo and Iamaphoney, but I'm not sure that it would be impossible. One thing that Apollo said was that in order to solve the mystery, you need to start at the proper point of entry. I believe that both Apollo and Iamaphoney have the same point of entry.
So, why is this all coming to a head now instead of back in the 1960s or at least the 1970s when the Solo Beatles were still topping the charts?
The impact that the Beatles had on society has already happened. When we try to explain the magnitude of that impact we encounter differences of opinions. Some feel that their influence has been exaggerated. Some suggest that the Beatles, by bringing peace and love into the mainstream had positive influences on women's rights, race relations, and the reduction of hostility around the world. It's easy to look around the world and say, "Yeah, right. Where is that impact? Things are worse now than they ever were." The other side of the "Beatles changed the world" coin is that the impact and the motivation behind it was sinister. These people suggest that the Beatles are responsible for the drug culture, Satanic messages in music, and yes, the Manson murders.
It is an exaggeration to call him the Savior or to call him the Anti-Christ, but there is some evidence that Sir Paul McCartney is a powerful guy. Look at some of the headlines from his recent trip to Israel.
Sir Paul McCartney gets 5000-strong security guard after Israel gig death threats.
McCartney security 'greater than Bush'
He has met with World Leaders, such as Vladimir Putin. The documentary portion of "Paul McCartney in Red Square" contains several testimonies from people who believe that Paul McCartney and the Beatles changed the world.
On his recent trip for a one off concert in Kiev, McCartney met with Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko.
He received an honorary doctorate from Yale University.
He is also a knight.
Dr. Timothy Leary said, "I declare that The Beatles are mutants. Prototypes of evolutionary agents sent by God, endowed with a mysterious power to create a new human species, a young race of laughing freemen."
So, it is fair to say that he has some power. That begs the question: Is he a force for good or for evil? This is where I differ from most people who watch the Rotten Apple videos and believe they present Paul as the devil. However, although I disagree, I certainly see their point.
But there are also images in the Rotten Apple videos that seem to present a different view.
So is he the sacred ram and sacrificial lamb or is he the goat and the beast?
This next image from Rotten Apple 65 shows the Beatles logo superimposed over a sculpture from Coventry Cathedral, the place where John and Yoko planted acorns for peace 40 years ago. But it quickly fades into a shot of Aleister Crowley.
In the sculpture by Sir Jacob Epstein, St. Michael is subduing the devil. I wonder which of those two characters is most like Paul. The answer may be neither. It could be that the Beatles, because of their talent and fame, were chosen to be the messengers for the end times. What if the Sgt. Pepper album was some type of prophecy? What if all of the clues since then are simply there to point us back to Sgt. Pepper? It sounds crazy, but it might answer the "Why now?" question. Maybe Iamaphoney is saying that the world was warned in 1967 and now is the time that the events are unfolding. I am not the only one who has suggested that the Sgt. Pepper album is a clock. Maybe it is like a Mayan calendar. You can look at it and listen to it as it ticks away. Hell, maybe it's a time bomb. I hope not.