Art of the Skeptic: I Buried Paul

There is a relatively popular theory that famous member of The Beatles is dead, and in fact was long before the band split or he began his solo career. There is considerable history to the theory, but I'm still not inclined to believe it. Why? Because it's my job to be skeptical, that's why. Anyways, in September of 1969, a group of students from American college published a series of articles citing evidence that Paul had died in a car crash in January of 1967, and was replaced by a look-alike. They had all sorts of reasons to back up their claim, and a frenzy of "clue-finding" quickly began. To me this part sounds like a gritty re imagining of Scooby-Doo, but still, I have to had it to the kids they have some pretty convincing points. Such as hidden messages in songs by The Beatles. and secret meanings in their album covers. Perhaps the most popular example, and the namesake of this post, the infamous, "I buried Paul" line.

Skeptical? Click the post title to read more.

Toward the end of The Beatles' song "Strawberry Fields Forever" John Lennon can be heard saying something that sounds disturbingly like, "I buried Paul." Paul, (Or should I say, Paul 2.0!) went on record saying the line was "Cranberry sauce", but said all funky-like, "Cran berry sauce" As if it were three words rather than two. I find this explanation quite satisfactory myself, because it is easy to see how the two phrases could sound alike, especially with proper inflection. However, I will bring up other points against it for the benefit of my readers. So, to do this, I ask you all to look at this, from a marketing perspective: Why in the hell would Parlophone, or Capital (The Beatles' record producers at that time, UK and US respectively.) ever let them give away this big secret, even if the truth were obfuscated? The answer is they wouldn't. It would ruin The Beatles, as half their success was their image, and their image was a group of friends getting together and jamming out. No one member could be replaced (Well... alright, Paul and John couldn't be replaced) And they wouldn't be able to sneak it in if the approximately two hundred million people living in the U.S. in 1967 DID notice. Not to mention that the two million people living in the U.S. weren't listening to music on sophisticated sound equipment. No, not even if it was a Beatles song. And, believe it or not, they didn't get to hear the recording session live, you know for incomparable clarity. But hey, Maybe the sound guy and record executives present just happened to mishear, despite their greatly increased sound quality. Anyways, I want to move on to the realism of the idea.

Think about this, so your top selling band loses a member, but you managed to keep things quiet about his death, cause, y'know, it's easy to fake police reports and buy out neighbors etc. Anyways, you've come this far, but the band is gone if you can't replace the bandmember, but the bandmember is irreplaceable... or is he?


Yup, he is. Whaddaya wanna do, find a look-alike who has equal instrumental talent and the same voice? Well, you're gonna have to come to grips with the fact that that isn't happening. A look-alike? yea okay. Equally talented? sure. Same voice? Ehhh... getting unlikely, but possible. All three? Nope. Not happening. Sure you could have the singer sing, the bassist play ( it should also be noted that Paul played instruments other than the bass, but that was a major instrument for him. Also, he played left-handed.) and finally, the look-alike appear in photographs. But what happens when the look-alike gets interviewed? And Paul suddenly sounds eight? Hmm that's odd. Well I guess he might be sick and just lost his voice. Oh wait that interview was a month ago, and he stills sounds like that. Yet he can sing bass. And that's where your tower of lies comes crashing down. Still, let's look at before and after photos, maybe they aren't even replicas.

Paul circa 1966

Paul circa 1968

Well, uh "they" and by "they" I mean "he" looks prettymuch exactly the same. Admittedly with a different angle, and I would say slightly longer hair. So I find it unlikely there was a look-alike. Admittedly this photographic analysis is nowhere near as detailed as some have been, even going so far as to check for scars. In  case you're wondering, they came to the same conclusion. An extremely old photo showed Paul with a scar in the same place as a very recent one. So I hope that matter is settled. Next, let's discuss The Beatles' recording before and after Paul's "death"

I've been applying makeup in the exact same spot daily, for  44 years!

Now, Paul is undeniably tied for the most important member of The Beatles. Sorry George and Ringo, You'll have to learn to live with that. Anyways, him and John were the group's most prolific songwriters. Without one of them, albums would not be finished in as quickly, and would be of far lower quality. Isn't it odd then, that Paul died during the recording of what is debatably The Beatles' best album? That's right. The album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band  was recorded from December of 1966 to April of 1967. Needless to say, April of 1967 is after January of 1967, the month of Paul's supposed death. So given that one of the greatest contributers to their musical quality was suddenly lost, I don't think that The Beatles could have produced their best material. Especially if they had to deal with the trauma of his death.

Need I go on? I really don't know what else to say, Paul is alive, has been since June 18^th 1942, and to be honest shows little sign of slowing down. So there you go, he didn't die, The Beatles still did, and there are more important conspiracies to worry about.  If you want to form your own opinion, look at the Wikipedia article. On another note, PLEASE let me know of any theories you want me to look into, I need something to chew on.