There was a rumor that the band Klaatu was actually the Beatles using a pseudonym to release an album in 1976.
They did have a very Beatles sound, especially [Sub-Rosa Subway](https://youtu.be/uc6s6S-MrzY?si=Qlh4arNLyps9DVXZ)
Which sounds like it could have been a track straight off of Sgt. Pepper with its instrumentation and Paul like vocals.
Full article here explaining the hoax
https://www.openculture.com/2019/03/the-band-everyone-thought-was-the-beatles-revisit-the-klaatu-conspiracy-of-1976.html
Only thing that throws me off from believing this is the fact that the Beatles apparently made α secret band, yet they made it sound exactly like the Beatles. If they truly were to do that, they would make it sound completely different and add α bunch of weird effects on the vocals and sing in different voices (something Paul has α talent for). Also, this sounds WAY more like Wings than it does the Beatles
I analyzed the font of u/droffit's alphas, and they seem to match up with the font of a couple alphas in a recently declassified CIA document about the emerging presence of doppelgängers in 1960s boy bands.
For a few years, I've heard the theory that The Beatles were put together as a CIA project.
EDIT: Correction - would be more accurate to say a British Intelligence project initially...then possibly other intelligence agencies getting onboard eventually.
It's been quite a while since I've read anything about it so I'm a little foggy but, IIRC, it was basically a theory that they were put together by British Intelligence (not so much CIA initially...although maybe different country's intelligence agencies working together eventually?) as a mind control experiment, over the younger generations especially.
As I said before, I'm a little foggy on the explicit details, but that was the basic gist of the theory.
For what purpose?
I mean they became the forefront of the counterculture movement in the US. They channeled Civil Rights ideas and drug use… I can’t see that really being beneficial to the British government though
Yes. The UK’s Mi6 formed The Beatles. But when they became “more popular than Jesus” in the U.S. the CIA recruited Yoko into their [MK Ultra](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MKUltra) program, gave her copious amounts of LSD to control her mind, and Yoko successfully infiltrated and broke up The Beatles.
A coworker told me this one a while back:
The Beatles were a manufactured band and had a team of writers and musicians who actually made the music. John, Paul, George, and Ringo were just the faces of the band but did no actual musical work.
The justification? No four people could possibly be that talented.
A simple counter argument? Then who the hell did people see up on stage playing?
Obviously I don’t believe this, but just because you saw them playing on stage doesn’t mean there wasn’t α team writing the music. Also, when the music got more complex (Sgt Pepper and onwards) the Beatles stopped touring, which could mean it was other people in the studio. Not to mention that you literally couldn’t even hear the Beatles when you saw them live.
But the Get Back movie completely destroys that theory considering the entire film is the Beatles writing and playing music.
It’s α stupid theory, but it’s still possible they weren’t the ones writing the music (which I 100% don’t believe)
>Then who the hell did people see up on stage playing?
We *saw* them play, but we never *heard* them play, because the girls were screaming too loudly. That's because the crew actually just blasted female screams into the speakers while the four guys pretended to play, and hoped no one would notice
Yes, those people actually heard them play. But The Cavern was just a testing ground to see if the boys had any musical talent. Turns out they didn't, they were playing horribly, but the audience was too drunk to dislike it
This seems like something that flat earth people would grab onto. Some people will apparently just refuse to believe the obvious truth because some part of it confuses them or seems improbable.
I was thinking it reminded me of the moon-landing-was-faked people, in that both theories seem to rest on the notion that something this amazing couldn’t happen.
Which seems like a sad way to go through life, thinking amazing things are impossible.
Not a conspiracy but.. In the MMT booklet , there’s a photo of John beside a sign that says “The Best Way to Go is By M&D C. (Mark David Chapman’s initials)
The photo shows “M&D Coa” before it cuts off. It’s M&D Coach, a bus service. You can see the complete sign in the film when Ringo is buying his ticket for the MMT bus
That was in a book I read about John Lennon cutting a deal with the devil. It was interesting to say the least. it had all kinds of weird things in there.
Could be very likely true even if it was just a once off thing… John is quoted saying Brian said “I’d like to touch you” after John pulled his pants down and said for him to just put it in or something along those lines
[The Beatles were part of a neo-Marxist plot by Theodor Adorno (who wrote all of their songs) to destroy western civilization and values.](https://www.theguardian.com/music/shortcuts/2019/sep/10/a-little-help-from-my-neo-marxist-philosopher-adorno-fifth-beatle-according-olavo-carvalho)
Also makes it harder to negotiate a sale when you’re dealing with a number of family members rather than just one person that maybe you’ve got blackmail material on
The theory that John was bisexual would count I guess. Most of them are pretty stupid and easily debunked, like those morons that think Ringo rarely played drums on the records.
But alas, the high quality of the jaunt of the cephalopod proved too massive a weight for the group to bear, and they subsequently split up--though they may have been ignorant on a conscious level, they knew within their unconscious mind that the group could no longer withhold the Starr Power. What was once a blessing, had become a curse, gnashing viciously at the bare threads of humanity.
It's possible that John was bisexual, why shouldn't he have been?
I actually think it's possible, that might have explained a bit about Lennon and his relationship with McCartney, but I'm far from sure about it.
Well, I'd say their relation was unusually intense for a friendship between men, most straight men don't call a falling out with a male friend a "divorce".
I don't know if this was due to the isolation and enmeshment involed in being in a world-famous band, or Lennon's neediness, or romantic feelings. I'm just not willing to rule out romantic feelings.
I don't think it was anything romantic, it was an intense sort of soulmate thing. Or like they said, the four of them fought like brothers but you still love your family
We can all believe whatever we like, because none of us knows for sure. And unless Lennon wrote a totally honest memoir to be published after both he and Yoko died, we'll never know.
I think John was probably at least curious and there was that whole holiday alone with Brian. But I don't think there was anything more than admiration with the Beatles. Paul at least said he never saw anything and they used to share beds back in the Hamburg days
Man with a foolish grin is keeping perfectly still…means a corpse…sees the sun going up as the world spins round…through a glass onion. The man of a thousand voices…is the replacement.
First I discovered a YouTube channel that has "proofs" that Paul was in fact replaced, but that he's not dead. He lives under the name of John Halliday in his childhood house: https://youtu.be/kDIfy1N0ouI?si=nCCrYKY5vt0rJzQy
Also John was replaced too and it was his doppelganger who got shot, the real John is alive till this day under the name of Colin Unwin and is Halliday's best friend: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhBDmrhS_5k
Then, after spending more time than I should watching this channel I found my favorite one: The Beatles never existed.
https://www.theawl.com/2014/10/the-beatles-never-existed/
As said in a comment in one of those videos: this must be the highest level of Beatles shitposting
Here are some I just made up:
- George Martin played every single piano part on the Beatles' records. He would secretly replace Paul's layers after he left the studio (just to prove that he could)
- Bob Dylan was working with the FBI in 1968 to help breakup the Beatles by turning George into a rogue hippie diva, but Lennon did it first on his own volition.
- Paul IS Ringo, but Ringo was Sam and "Sam" is dead
I am very surprised that nobody's ever suggested that Yoko was the one working with the FBI to break up the Beatles and turn John into a drugged-out hippie diva!
Fans have accused Yoko of everything else, conceivable, why not that?
There’s a theory that the Kray brothers were blackmailing Epstein and when he died, they sent Robert Fraser (who they were also blackmailing) to get his hooks into Paul with heroin, and once that failed they sent Yoko to be John’s handler. So, not FBI, but along the same lines.
Part of that theory may be true for all I know, Epstein would definitely have been at risk for blackmail. And the UK's gangsters certainly would have taken an interest in getting part of that Beatle money, or a larger part.
What isn't even remotely believable is serious gangsters like the Krays trusting a flake like Yoko to work professionally and reliably for them!
Love these sorts of threads -
* Yoko had John hypnotised in 1974 under the guise of curing his smoking habit. He apparently vanished for three days and returned to break things off with May Pang acting glazed-over. From then on he apparently had random outbursts about wanting to get back with Pang and serious mood swings, but that might just be the drugs, idk.
* Paul might've had sex with Yoko before she met John. Forget who but a random biographer mentioned how Yoko came to Paul to try and get one of his lyric sheets for a John Cage project. He disagreed but went upstairs with her to talk, coming down an hour later hugging and acting real giggly.
* John wanted to join up with the Weather Underground when he first came to New York but was personally talked out of it by Bobby Seale.
* George unknowingly met a member of the Manson cult (either Squeaky Fromme or Susan Atkins) when he visited Haight-Ashbury.
* Ringo was roofied in 1978 while drinking in Monaco which lead to a suicidal nervous breakdown where he shaved his head and eyebrows clean off.
* Paul helped orchestrate the death of Mal Evans in 1976 when Evans started demanding royalties for Sgt. Pepper sales, which, if rumour is to be believed, he [went uncredited for co-writing with McCartney in 1967.](https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/mal-evans-gave-paul-mccartney-sgt-pepper-idea/)
* My personal favourite is the one where Yoko secretly kept John's ashes, slept with them under her bed for a while, then had an intern mix them into a soup, which she drank.
There’s some fascinating “evidence” of that in the form of a low budget indie film from 2009 called “Let Him Be” and even a album associated with the film I highly recommend to any Beatles fan, regardless of whether or not they’d truly believe in the conspiracy, it’s a beautiful fantasy to immerse yourself in as this album is very Lennon-esque. I’ll plug it in the YT link below…
https://youtu.be/ldprtBLrLSw?feature=shared
The lack of background information on this album is what had people thinking it could possibly be John, living in solitude out of the spotlight, and since this was released in 2009, it was a sneaky release of new music from John and he picked 2009 due to his perceived connection to the number 9
[This absolute wacko](https://lennonmurdertruth.com/stephen-king-murderer/) who thinks Stephen King murdered John Lennon as part of a government conspiracy.
Careful, it’s a deep, *deep* rabbit hole.
That was me. lol
I actually sort of kinda proved it but most fans don't want to believe it. He played lead guitar along with the four Beatles for that one song.
The original live recording has a total of three guitars on it. Perkins likely playing his 1956 Gibson Switchmaster which is the lead guitar that opens the song. Immediately after the intro George joins on his 12 string Rick 360 playing rhythm guitar. Then finally the solo was played by John, likely with his Rick 325.
I feel if you played on α Beatles album you’d probably tell someone. Not to mention that people rarely ever played on the Beatles albums, so it would have definitely been something one of the four would have mentioned at least once. Especially since it was one of their heroes. Also, there was people in the studio (probably George Martin) keeping track of who played what. You can read the personnel for every Beatles track (for example, studio notes say Clapton played on ‘while my guitar gently weeps’)
Also, don’t forget that the Beatles overdubbed instruments, so 3 guitar parts doesn’t mean it was 3 different people. And even if it was 3 different people, who’s to say it was Carl Perkins? Why not Keith Richards? I’m only asking because you claimed to have proved it someplace else
There would've been legal reasons for him not receiving any credit. Think of the whole Eric Clapton on WMGGW situation.
The 3 guitars were present on the *basic track*, meaning they weren't overdubs. The only guitars that were overdubbed were John's two additional guitar solos since the live one he played was pretty bad. That live solo was faded out in the stereo mix but you can hear all three going together in the mono mix.
- WMGGW could mean "While My Guitar Gently Weeps - 2018 Mix", a track from *The Beatles* (2018) by The Beatles.
---
^[/u/RingoStarr39](/u/RingoStarr39) ^(can reply with "delete" to remove comment. |) ^[/r/songacronymbot](/r/songacronymbot) ^(for feedback.)
So then why didn’t he ask for credit? And why didn’t the Beatles suggest he got credit? They gave Billy Preston credit, why not do the same for Carl Perkins? You can play on α song without credit by the way, it’s not something that α band MUST include legally, unless the musician asks to remain anonymous. But why?
Ok so if there was 3 guitars, then who’s to say it was Carl Perkins and not someone else?
Someone else? Who else could it be?
It's confirmed from multiple sources that Carl was indeed in the studio with them that day. He was paying them a visit since he had just finished his own UK tour.
This was the idea that John and Stuart had a fight where John ended up kicking Stuart in the head.
Stuart died from a brain haemorrhage some 12 months later after a period of complaining about bad headaches.
The reality seems to be more like Staurt was randomly attacked and John and the others came to his rescue. And whether that led to his brain problems is unknown.
That Pete Best was fucked out because Paul was jealous of his looks.
Paul, the “cute one,” wasn’t competing with Pete for anything, but that made Pete, his mom, and his fans feel better about the firing.
Yoko actually stalked Paul first before John asking him to participate in her art Project but Paul redirected her to John.
Yoko's first target for her romance scheme was Paul but Paul rejected her advances.
I'd like to share a short essay from Ian MacDonald's brilliant *Revolution in the Head* on what makes the Beatles so susceptible to conspiracy theorizing:
>It goes without saying that the late Sixties were drenched in mind-expanding drugs with all the extraneous ‘creativity’ this entailed. Wild rumours circulated like psychic epidemics: Dylan was in drag on the cover of Bringing It All Back Home, Warhol’s peel-off banana on the sleeve of The Velvet Underground and Nico was impregnated with LSD, Jimi Hendrix was murdered by the Mafia, etc. The silliest of these pattern-seeking compulsions, the ‘Paul is dead’ hysteria, swelled into an international folly which some diehards are loath to relinquish to this day. That such credulity was dangerous became clear in August 1969 when the Manson Family crossed the interdisciplinary divide between textual analysis and mass-murder. Yet who had started the fashion for recording things backwards, leaving in mumbled off-mike obscurities, writing lyrics by throwing coins on the I Ching, and requesting LP covers with pictures of Aleister Crowley and Adolf Hitler on them? Who set up chains of suggestive self-reference in their lyrics for the explicitly avowed fun of confusing people?
>Lennon’s love of word games and louche sexual euphemisms was life-long, as was his running battle with those with a taste for over-interpretation. Though there was little harm in it to begin with, there was a double-standard at work here. (Obscurity was his sanctuary from the condescension of intellectuals, whose pretensions, which he hated, tended to mirror his own.) Later, though, his encounter with LSD and love-hate relationship with Dylan’s surrealism impelled him to embrace creative confusion in a far more concerted way.
>The essence of the confrontation between straight society and the counterculture was a clash between logical/literal and intuitive/lateral thinking. Central to hippie thought was the idea of disarming straight certainties by means of ‘mind games’ which paralleled the disorientating effects of psychedelic drugs. Many of The Beatles’ records of 1966-70 embody such concepts, while most of those that don’t were nonetheless shaped by them. The common factor was chance-determination, or ‘random’, as the group referred to it. Under the influence of LSD and avant-garde art, they came to accept accidental occurrences - and by extension the first things that entered their minds - as intrinsically valid, rather than, as they once had, working their inspirations and felicitous mistakes into something more disciplined. Listeners were left to generate their own connections and make their own sense of what they were hearing, thereby increasing the chances of dangerous misinterpretation along Mansonian lines.
>This is not to damn creative randomness in itself. Few artists outside the canons of tradition have refused to improve their work merely because the way to do so struck them by accident. Yet to treat chance-determined productions as identical with material intentionally vested with meaning is to meddle in a relativism that can only escalate towards chaos - and chaos draws psychopaths. For many modern artists, ‘aleatory’ procedures (literally, those of the diceman) are so basic as to be beyond question, an assumption maintained by their audiences, which are usually small enough to prevent such phenomena spreading far enough to affect unstable minds. In rock, the audience has no predictable bounds and stars have often found themselves harassed by demented individuals among the millions following their careers. (That this happens hardly at all nowadays is a perverse index of the vacuity of contemporary pop.) To the extent that they were invoked by the aleatory philosophy of derangement associated with the Sixties counterculture, obsessions such as those which beset Charles Manson, and later Lennon’s assassin Mark Chapman, were inevitable. As prominent advocates of the free-associating state of mind, The Beatles attracted more crackpot fixations than anyone apart from Dylan. While, at the time, they may have seemed enough like harmless fun for Lennon to make them the subject of the present sneeringly sarcastic song, in the end they returned to kill him.
>The extent of the pattern of misleading self-quotations Lennon was disowning in this [Glass Onion's] lyric is indicated by the fact that two of the five Beatles songs mentioned in it also contain references to other Beatles songs. (One, [122] LADY MADONNA, refers to [116] I AM THE WALRUS which in turn refers to [103] LUCY IN THE SKY WITH DIAMONDS.) A title-phrase its author had had in mind for some while, GLASS ONION had the right associations of transparency and endless layers of meaning, but didn’t fit the metre of the chorus. This, though, failed to stop Lennon including it - indeed, the song features another phrase-in-search-of-a-lyric, ‘the Cast Iron Shore’, which he had long been looking for an excuse to use, (The reference, apt enough, is to the dismal waterfront between Aigburth and Garston on the north side of the Mersey where random rubbish from Liverpool’s sewers washes up.)
>With its bluesily dissonant D sharp, the sour A minor melody of GLASS ONION eloquently voices its author’s scorn, yet the song remains unlikeable. Whether or not Lennon was fed up with being a Beatle, there was no excuse for berating those of their fans who had trustingly fallen for the group’s multi-layered conceptual jokes. The string-section’s bleary diminished chords at the end - doubtless meant to convey the dull-wittedness of the literal-minded - with hindsight seem to evoke a blurring of the boundary between playfulness and bad faith.3 In the end, GLASS ONION says less about the credulity of pop fans than the self-regard of pop stars.
One that I read a few years ago: that’s The Beatles were several different sets of musicians. The first set did the early beat music, who were replaced by four different people who did the folky mid-period (Help!, Rubber Soul), to be replaced by another set did the psychedelic years (Revolver, Sgt Pepper, Magical Mystery Tour), then a fourth set that did the back to roots music of the White Album, Get Back/Let It Be, Abbey Road. The theory was that the same four of people couldn’t have come up with so many different styles of music is such a short time span while still in their 20s.
There was actually a rumor which predates Paul Is Dead by three or four years that John got replaced by a lookalike/soundalike and that they left clues on the cover of one of their albums. It was a pretty small rumor that didn’t really go anywhere but that same concept was co-opted by the PID theorists in late September-early October 1969.
The short version is John either died or got tired of being a Beatle and left the band in early 1965 right before production started on their new film and soundtrack album Help!, so the remaining Beatles searched for a lookalike/soundalike to take his place. Then while they shot the cover picture for said album they all stood with their hands in flag semaphore positions which, to the untrained eye, seemed to spell out HELP. But some military brats who lived on base with their fathers cracked the code and revealed they actually spelled out [NUJV (or NVUJ depending on what country you bought the album from, but I’ll get to that in just a second) which supposedly stood for “New Unknown John Vocalist” (or “New Vocalist, Unknown John”)](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/beatles-help-album-cover/). Some PID theorists actually even retroactively claimed the J really stood for James (Paul’s first name) even though Paul wouldn’t have gotten into his “fatal” car accident until November 1966, another year and a quarter after the album was released in August 1965.
Now about the album cover. The actual reason why they didn’t spell out HELP was because they tried that once during the photo shoot and didn’t end up liking how it looked graphically. So the photographer Robert Freeman had them pick a different flag semaphore letter at random, took pictures of them individually, and then arranged the letters until they were all satisfied with the final result. Then Capitol Records (the American distributor of their Parlophone Records) swapped a couple of them around so that Paul, who was holding the J position, was pointing at the Capitol Records logo. Funny how history doesn’t exactly repeat itself, but it often does rhyme as Mark Twain once supposedly said.
All Beatles other than Paul were replaced
[https://udel.edu/\~mm/beatles/paulLives/paulLives.html](https://udel.edu/~mm/beatles/paulLives/paulLives.html)
A couple I have heard:
1. The Beatles are communists (Back in the U.S.S.R.)
2. John secretly converted to Christianity a few months before he died (lol)
> John secretly converted to Christianity a few months before he died (lol)
I mean, he didn't really have to convert, he was raised in the Church of England and made his confirmation. But after his atheist phase in the early 70s, there are photos of him wearing a cross necklace around '74, and apparently he got obsessed with televangelists for a while when he was back at the Dakota. I think religion was just something he swung back and forth on at various points in his life.
In 1964 the nuns in my grade school told us we shouldn’t listen to the Beatles because they were “Communists” — a lie that wouldn’t fly once we discovered they were millionaires.
Odd, it I first heard of it last year and then it vanished, but there was some suggestion around the time John was shot that he might be ill and it was implied he might be terminally ill.
I read a book that claimed that Lennon sold his soul to the devil for fame during his late teenage years. It had a loads of supporting evidence and cited all sorts of “clues” in his lyrics and his personal life. It said that his murder was the final reaping of his soul by an agent of satan.
It was really just proof that a billion people can see the same set of facts and come up with a billion different interpretations.
My lasting impression is that the author just took too much LSD or was unable to accept that talent exists and some people have it and others don’t. I’m sure that’s how all of these kinds of rumours start.
Ringo wasn’t the studio drummer, ever
George always had someone play for him because no way someone that young could play that well
John was assassinated by the CIA
Shit like that
I once saw a video of a guy who believed Paul was dead, The Beatles didn't write most of their music, and they were put together by Tavistock as part of some mind control agenda of the New World Order, and Faul was the only musically talented member. It was nuts.
I read a very long string of comments once in a Facebook argument involving a boomer who insisted that everything after Beatles For Sale was George Martin. Heaping incredible amounts of credit on him for things he would never have even tried or wanted to do in reality.
That had John lived, he would have met up with Paul on his planned tour of England in 1981, presumably leading to an 80s reunion album (And if not that, then Live Aid would have done got the four back together, if just for one show).
There's the whole Charles Manson conspiracy theory, that the white album was a coded call to arms to trigger a race war in the USA. The key tracks bring Piggies, Helter Skelter and Revolution 9.
It's completely stupid and repugnant but there's plenty that's been written about it.
I still believe to this day that there is no such thing as The Beatles. Ringo is just moving really fucking fast and making it seem like there are four people at once. Once the breakup happened he was probably just tired of going so fast all the time…
Not quite a conspiracy but the one about The Beatles album from another dimension.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/3cGOhKa4nn3WLpckTEmJrK?si=9IUDuIGITzOELegHD9oRJQ
The beatles never existed.
There is also a conspiracy theory that they were a fake band to influence the mind of people and they didn't wrote their own songs.
I had somebody argue with me that Ringo had his drums overdubbed (in ‘63, too, so unlikely) by some guy named Bernard Purdie and that Ringo barely did any drumming for the Beatles following ‘63 because he was “so bad” and the other 3 hated his drumming.
Which doesn’t explain why he was still in the band until 1970…
That John Lennon left The Beatles in 1966 and was replaced by the glasses wearing guy who became the 'new' John Lennon. The 1963-65 John Lennon is still alive today living under a new identity as Colin Unwin.
There was a rumor that the band Klaatu was actually the Beatles using a pseudonym to release an album in 1976. They did have a very Beatles sound, especially [Sub-Rosa Subway](https://youtu.be/uc6s6S-MrzY?si=Qlh4arNLyps9DVXZ) Which sounds like it could have been a track straight off of Sgt. Pepper with its instrumentation and Paul like vocals. Full article here explaining the hoax https://www.openculture.com/2019/03/the-band-everyone-thought-was-the-beatles-revisit-the-klaatu-conspiracy-of-1976.html
Only thing that throws me off from believing this is the fact that the Beatles apparently made α secret band, yet they made it sound exactly like the Beatles. If they truly were to do that, they would make it sound completely different and add α bunch of weird effects on the vocals and sing in different voices (something Paul has α talent for). Also, this sounds WAY more like Wings than it does the Beatles
why are your a's α's
I too want an answer to this
Its not all of them either 🤔
I analyzed the font of u/droffit's alphas, and they seem to match up with the font of a couple alphas in a recently declassified CIA document about the emerging presence of doppelgängers in 1960s boy bands.
Richard Bachman begs to differ.
Sounds more like the Beatles and Bowie had a kid. Not sure how anyone could actually mistake them for being the Beatles.
You cannot convince me that isn't Paul McCartney. It has to be.
Not just the vocals, I’ve never heard someone sound so much like Paul on bass
You're so right lol im believing this just bc its way more fun than not
I mean people say the same about Münchner Freiheit’s “Keeping The Dream Alive” - many websites credit it as a McCartney song and it’s a German band
[удалено]
I wouldn’t say “their version of Calling Occupants” since it’s *their* song and anything else is a version of
The entire band was just Ringo moving really fast.
Not theory, fact
After 8 years Ringo became burnt out after both being all the Beatles, but also carrying all of rock n roll on his back plus partying all the time.
He became clay Aiken
it’s takes a lot to be an icon.
Yep. That is true.
For a few years, I've heard the theory that The Beatles were put together as a CIA project. EDIT: Correction - would be more accurate to say a British Intelligence project initially...then possibly other intelligence agencies getting onboard eventually.
I heard the same but it was the FBI…or the BBC, I don’t remember exactly
I’ve always heard that it was B.B. King
It was actually Matt Busby. He’s always been kinda squirrelly.
It was the Monkees.
I can dig it
And now we’d like to do Hark the Angels come
And Doris day
Dig it
Wasn't there one that claimed they were a communist front to corrupt American youth?
Yep...I believe I've heard that one as well.
Elvis said something similar about them when he met with Nixon.
He didn't want John to get his green card.
Ok, explain this one please.
It's been quite a while since I've read anything about it so I'm a little foggy but, IIRC, it was basically a theory that they were put together by British Intelligence (not so much CIA initially...although maybe different country's intelligence agencies working together eventually?) as a mind control experiment, over the younger generations especially. As I said before, I'm a little foggy on the explicit details, but that was the basic gist of the theory.
If true, that one backfired a little bit.
Typical reactionary conspiracy theory that tries to repaint free thought as the *true* mind control
So like tic rock?
tavistock institute theory is prob somewhat true
Dig it. Dig it.. Dig it…(etc)
For what purpose? I mean they became the forefront of the counterculture movement in the US. They channeled Civil Rights ideas and drug use… I can’t see that really being beneficial to the British government though
Yes. The UK’s Mi6 formed The Beatles. But when they became “more popular than Jesus” in the U.S. the CIA recruited Yoko into their [MK Ultra](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MKUltra) program, gave her copious amounts of LSD to control her mind, and Yoko successfully infiltrated and broke up The Beatles.
yoko being a handler and surpressor for john makes sense to me tbh.
That would be Mi5
A coworker told me this one a while back: The Beatles were a manufactured band and had a team of writers and musicians who actually made the music. John, Paul, George, and Ringo were just the faces of the band but did no actual musical work. The justification? No four people could possibly be that talented. A simple counter argument? Then who the hell did people see up on stage playing?
The Monkees vibes
I'm a believer.
Obviously I don’t believe this, but just because you saw them playing on stage doesn’t mean there wasn’t α team writing the music. Also, when the music got more complex (Sgt Pepper and onwards) the Beatles stopped touring, which could mean it was other people in the studio. Not to mention that you literally couldn’t even hear the Beatles when you saw them live. But the Get Back movie completely destroys that theory considering the entire film is the Beatles writing and playing music. It’s α stupid theory, but it’s still possible they weren’t the ones writing the music (which I 100% don’t believe)
>Then who the hell did people see up on stage playing? We *saw* them play, but we never *heard* them play, because the girls were screaming too loudly. That's because the crew actually just blasted female screams into the speakers while the four guys pretended to play, and hoped no one would notice
What about the people at The Cavern who could actually hear the boys play?
Yes, those people actually heard them play. But The Cavern was just a testing ground to see if the boys had any musical talent. Turns out they didn't, they were playing horribly, but the audience was too drunk to dislike it
Their extensive solo careers and live performances are a good counterargument as well.
This seems like something that flat earth people would grab onto. Some people will apparently just refuse to believe the obvious truth because some part of it confuses them or seems improbable.
I was thinking it reminded me of the moon-landing-was-faked people, in that both theories seem to rest on the notion that something this amazing couldn’t happen. Which seems like a sad way to go through life, thinking amazing things are impossible.
Not a conspiracy but.. In the MMT booklet , there’s a photo of John beside a sign that says “The Best Way to Go is By M&D C. (Mark David Chapman’s initials)
What’s it supposed to stand for?
https://preview.redd.it/asgj33zpf58c1.jpeg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=aacbdfe98f6584ed7a5d256e251f04c7c5113fc0 I think it says M & D Coach.
The photo shows “M&D Coa” before it cuts off. It’s M&D Coach, a bus service. You can see the complete sign in the film when Ringo is buying his ticket for the MMT bus
that is so fucking eerie
That was in a book I read about John Lennon cutting a deal with the devil. It was interesting to say the least. it had all kinds of weird things in there.
what’s the book?
Interviewer: You’ve heard the rumor that Paul is gay? John: I’ve had him, he’s no good.
Some people think John and Brian Epstein had some kind of sexual relationship when they took a trip to Spain just the two of them.
It’s very very possible. Epstein *was* gay and Yoko has pretty much outed John as bisexual
That’s a rumor not a conspiracy theory.
Didn't Lennon actually say he'd "took me trousers down" on that trip?
Could be very likely true even if it was just a once off thing… John is quoted saying Brian said “I’d like to touch you” after John pulled his pants down and said for him to just put it in or something along those lines
I'm sure there's a Lennon quote about "fagging about"
Laying around smoking cigs?
There's a whole song about that 😂
Pete Shotton wrote about this in his book, this story is taken directly from the book.
[The Beatles were part of a neo-Marxist plot by Theodor Adorno (who wrote all of their songs) to destroy western civilization and values.](https://www.theguardian.com/music/shortcuts/2019/sep/10/a-little-help-from-my-neo-marxist-philosopher-adorno-fifth-beatle-according-olavo-carvalho)
Shoulda tried harder
They were so antiwestern that the queen made them MBE's.
John and Paul got into a huge argument in India that permanently damaged their relationship
What was the supposed argument about
Marmite
https://www.heydullblog.com/uncategorized/what-happened-in-india/ This post contains a bit more info
No info just speculation in that link.
RemindMe or however that works
Wow. Very ahead of their time to be arguing about that back then.
They were just such innovative geniuses
There was some tension there with rumors of the Maharishi being a fraud that I think had a lasting impression on how they saw each other
What would the argument have been over?
I’m such a believer in this one. Everything changed after India. How have y’all not heard of this?
Sony killed Micheal Jackson so they could take ownership the Beatles catalog.
I thought that Jackson had sold everything, including the Beatles catalogue, by the time he died.
Also makes it harder to negotiate a sale when you’re dealing with a number of family members rather than just one person that maybe you’ve got blackmail material on
Every time I hear this https://youtu.be/y2bVIBwpCTA?si=VDYvQ5T80SkFTNWE He was 10 🙁
The theory that John was bisexual would count I guess. Most of them are pretty stupid and easily debunked, like those morons that think Ringo rarely played drums on the records.
But that’s true. After Paul died and was replaced, his replacement played drums. Ringo was just there for photographs.
Ringo was biding his time until they would let him sing his octopus song
But alas, the high quality of the jaunt of the cephalopod proved too massive a weight for the group to bear, and they subsequently split up--though they may have been ignorant on a conscious level, they knew within their unconscious mind that the group could no longer withhold the Starr Power. What was once a blessing, had become a curse, gnashing viciously at the bare threads of humanity.
It's possible that John was bisexual, why shouldn't he have been? I actually think it's possible, that might have explained a bit about Lennon and his relationship with McCartney, but I'm far from sure about it.
What about his relationship with Paul?
Well, I'd say their relation was unusually intense for a friendship between men, most straight men don't call a falling out with a male friend a "divorce". I don't know if this was due to the isolation and enmeshment involed in being in a world-famous band, or Lennon's neediness, or romantic feelings. I'm just not willing to rule out romantic feelings.
I don't think it was anything romantic, it was an intense sort of soulmate thing. Or like they said, the four of them fought like brothers but you still love your family
We can all believe whatever we like, because none of us knows for sure. And unless Lennon wrote a totally honest memoir to be published after both he and Yoko died, we'll never know.
I think John was probably at least curious and there was that whole holiday alone with Brian. But I don't think there was anything more than admiration with the Beatles. Paul at least said he never saw anything and they used to share beds back in the Hamburg days
John was most definitely attracted to guys and girls. The only speculation is what he acted on.
In Bob Spinks biography he says that John hooked up with Brian Epstein on vacation. Unclear exactly what they did but it wasn’t nothing.
That’s not a conspiracy, Yoko confirmed that he was bi years ago
Well, why not? Read the interview with him and so on. You can start by that interview when he was interviewing himself.
I'm surprised, with all the wacky JFK conspiracies, there wasn't one that involved the release of "With The Beatles"
Ringo was on the grassy knoll
The fool on the hill
They were TELLING us the whole time
Man with a foolish grin is keeping perfectly still…means a corpse…sees the sun going up as the world spins round…through a glass onion. The man of a thousand voices…is the replacement.
First I discovered a YouTube channel that has "proofs" that Paul was in fact replaced, but that he's not dead. He lives under the name of John Halliday in his childhood house: https://youtu.be/kDIfy1N0ouI?si=nCCrYKY5vt0rJzQy Also John was replaced too and it was his doppelganger who got shot, the real John is alive till this day under the name of Colin Unwin and is Halliday's best friend: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhBDmrhS_5k Then, after spending more time than I should watching this channel I found my favorite one: The Beatles never existed. https://www.theawl.com/2014/10/the-beatles-never-existed/ As said in a comment in one of those videos: this must be the highest level of Beatles shitposting
Here are some I just made up: - George Martin played every single piano part on the Beatles' records. He would secretly replace Paul's layers after he left the studio (just to prove that he could) - Bob Dylan was working with the FBI in 1968 to help breakup the Beatles by turning George into a rogue hippie diva, but Lennon did it first on his own volition. - Paul IS Ringo, but Ringo was Sam and "Sam" is dead
I like your 2nd theory the most
I am very surprised that nobody's ever suggested that Yoko was the one working with the FBI to break up the Beatles and turn John into a drugged-out hippie diva! Fans have accused Yoko of everything else, conceivable, why not that?
There’s a theory that the Kray brothers were blackmailing Epstein and when he died, they sent Robert Fraser (who they were also blackmailing) to get his hooks into Paul with heroin, and once that failed they sent Yoko to be John’s handler. So, not FBI, but along the same lines.
Part of that theory may be true for all I know, Epstein would definitely have been at risk for blackmail. And the UK's gangsters certainly would have taken an interest in getting part of that Beatle money, or a larger part. What isn't even remotely believable is serious gangsters like the Krays trusting a flake like Yoko to work professionally and reliably for them!
Love these sorts of threads - * Yoko had John hypnotised in 1974 under the guise of curing his smoking habit. He apparently vanished for three days and returned to break things off with May Pang acting glazed-over. From then on he apparently had random outbursts about wanting to get back with Pang and serious mood swings, but that might just be the drugs, idk. * Paul might've had sex with Yoko before she met John. Forget who but a random biographer mentioned how Yoko came to Paul to try and get one of his lyric sheets for a John Cage project. He disagreed but went upstairs with her to talk, coming down an hour later hugging and acting real giggly. * John wanted to join up with the Weather Underground when he first came to New York but was personally talked out of it by Bobby Seale. * George unknowingly met a member of the Manson cult (either Squeaky Fromme or Susan Atkins) when he visited Haight-Ashbury. * Ringo was roofied in 1978 while drinking in Monaco which lead to a suicidal nervous breakdown where he shaved his head and eyebrows clean off. * Paul helped orchestrate the death of Mal Evans in 1976 when Evans started demanding royalties for Sgt. Pepper sales, which, if rumour is to be believed, he [went uncredited for co-writing with McCartney in 1967.](https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/mal-evans-gave-paul-mccartney-sgt-pepper-idea/) * My personal favourite is the one where Yoko secretly kept John's ashes, slept with them under her bed for a while, then had an intern mix them into a soup, which she drank.
That the Beatles blatantly ripped off and stole all their songs from a band called The Rutles. Is there NO justice?
You’re just trying to upset the apple cart 🙄
John is alive?
There’s some fascinating “evidence” of that in the form of a low budget indie film from 2009 called “Let Him Be” and even a album associated with the film I highly recommend to any Beatles fan, regardless of whether or not they’d truly believe in the conspiracy, it’s a beautiful fantasy to immerse yourself in as this album is very Lennon-esque. I’ll plug it in the YT link below… https://youtu.be/ldprtBLrLSw?feature=shared The lack of background information on this album is what had people thinking it could possibly be John, living in solitude out of the spotlight, and since this was released in 2009, it was a sneaky release of new music from John and he picked 2009 due to his perceived connection to the number 9
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jtaPUF0xT8
[This absolute wacko](https://lennonmurdertruth.com/stephen-king-murderer/) who thinks Stephen King murdered John Lennon as part of a government conspiracy. Careful, it’s a deep, *deep* rabbit hole.
Its nice of people when they so clearly announce their schizophrenia to the world.
When I clicked on the link I accidentally clicked your user name. For a second it looked like you were just talking about yourself
I don't know if it's a conspiracy exactly, but I've read that Carl Perkins is actually playing on Matchbox instead of George
That was me. lol I actually sort of kinda proved it but most fans don't want to believe it. He played lead guitar along with the four Beatles for that one song.
And how do you proved that?
The original live recording has a total of three guitars on it. Perkins likely playing his 1956 Gibson Switchmaster which is the lead guitar that opens the song. Immediately after the intro George joins on his 12 string Rick 360 playing rhythm guitar. Then finally the solo was played by John, likely with his Rick 325.
Why keep it α secret though?
I don't think it was a secret so much as no one really made a big deal of it at the time. Then everyone just forgot about it.
I feel if you played on α Beatles album you’d probably tell someone. Not to mention that people rarely ever played on the Beatles albums, so it would have definitely been something one of the four would have mentioned at least once. Especially since it was one of their heroes. Also, there was people in the studio (probably George Martin) keeping track of who played what. You can read the personnel for every Beatles track (for example, studio notes say Clapton played on ‘while my guitar gently weeps’) Also, don’t forget that the Beatles overdubbed instruments, so 3 guitar parts doesn’t mean it was 3 different people. And even if it was 3 different people, who’s to say it was Carl Perkins? Why not Keith Richards? I’m only asking because you claimed to have proved it someplace else
There would've been legal reasons for him not receiving any credit. Think of the whole Eric Clapton on WMGGW situation. The 3 guitars were present on the *basic track*, meaning they weren't overdubs. The only guitars that were overdubbed were John's two additional guitar solos since the live one he played was pretty bad. That live solo was faded out in the stereo mix but you can hear all three going together in the mono mix.
- WMGGW could mean "While My Guitar Gently Weeps - 2018 Mix", a track from *The Beatles* (2018) by The Beatles. --- ^[/u/RingoStarr39](/u/RingoStarr39) ^(can reply with "delete" to remove comment. |) ^[/r/songacronymbot](/r/songacronymbot) ^(for feedback.)
So then why didn’t he ask for credit? And why didn’t the Beatles suggest he got credit? They gave Billy Preston credit, why not do the same for Carl Perkins? You can play on α song without credit by the way, it’s not something that α band MUST include legally, unless the musician asks to remain anonymous. But why? Ok so if there was 3 guitars, then who’s to say it was Carl Perkins and not someone else?
Someone else? Who else could it be? It's confirmed from multiple sources that Carl was indeed in the studio with them that day. He was paying them a visit since he had just finished his own UK tour.
'John killed Stuart Sutcliffe'
Elaborate
This was the idea that John and Stuart had a fight where John ended up kicking Stuart in the head. Stuart died from a brain haemorrhage some 12 months later after a period of complaining about bad headaches. The reality seems to be more like Staurt was randomly attacked and John and the others came to his rescue. And whether that led to his brain problems is unknown.
I read some BS theory that John slept with Linda and Paul slept with Yoko
BS indeed, in truth John slept with Paul and Linda with Yoko, and only *then* they had a foursome
George was so jealous he tried to cope by smoking so many cigs his lungs couldn’t handle
Yoko set up Paul and Lindas arrest in Japan.
The account of this in Albert Goldman’s book is pretty funny and quite believable.
What does it say?
That yuko broke up the Beatles 💀
Ahh yes ... the infamous Yuko Uno.
Should have played a reverse card to get the band back together
That Pete Best was fucked out because Paul was jealous of his looks. Paul, the “cute one,” wasn’t competing with Pete for anything, but that made Pete, his mom, and his fans feel better about the firing.
If you play maybe i’m amazed backwards, you’ll hear a recipe for a really ripping lentil soup!
Early rumor: they were actually bald.
‘Arthur’ is the fifth Beatle
Yoko actually stalked Paul first before John asking him to participate in her art Project but Paul redirected her to John. Yoko's first target for her romance scheme was Paul but Paul rejected her advances.
They were witches that wanted to incite a race war
I recall reading one where it was thought Stu got into a fight with either John or Paul and the resulting head injury is what killed him.
Was that from Albert Goldman’s biography on John?
Honestly, I can’t remember, but I do remember reading it and it’s something I think about every time Stu is brought up.
Stuart’s sister claimed this, but later retracted it.
I'd like to share a short essay from Ian MacDonald's brilliant *Revolution in the Head* on what makes the Beatles so susceptible to conspiracy theorizing: >It goes without saying that the late Sixties were drenched in mind-expanding drugs with all the extraneous ‘creativity’ this entailed. Wild rumours circulated like psychic epidemics: Dylan was in drag on the cover of Bringing It All Back Home, Warhol’s peel-off banana on the sleeve of The Velvet Underground and Nico was impregnated with LSD, Jimi Hendrix was murdered by the Mafia, etc. The silliest of these pattern-seeking compulsions, the ‘Paul is dead’ hysteria, swelled into an international folly which some diehards are loath to relinquish to this day. That such credulity was dangerous became clear in August 1969 when the Manson Family crossed the interdisciplinary divide between textual analysis and mass-murder. Yet who had started the fashion for recording things backwards, leaving in mumbled off-mike obscurities, writing lyrics by throwing coins on the I Ching, and requesting LP covers with pictures of Aleister Crowley and Adolf Hitler on them? Who set up chains of suggestive self-reference in their lyrics for the explicitly avowed fun of confusing people? >Lennon’s love of word games and louche sexual euphemisms was life-long, as was his running battle with those with a taste for over-interpretation. Though there was little harm in it to begin with, there was a double-standard at work here. (Obscurity was his sanctuary from the condescension of intellectuals, whose pretensions, which he hated, tended to mirror his own.) Later, though, his encounter with LSD and love-hate relationship with Dylan’s surrealism impelled him to embrace creative confusion in a far more concerted way. >The essence of the confrontation between straight society and the counterculture was a clash between logical/literal and intuitive/lateral thinking. Central to hippie thought was the idea of disarming straight certainties by means of ‘mind games’ which paralleled the disorientating effects of psychedelic drugs. Many of The Beatles’ records of 1966-70 embody such concepts, while most of those that don’t were nonetheless shaped by them. The common factor was chance-determination, or ‘random’, as the group referred to it. Under the influence of LSD and avant-garde art, they came to accept accidental occurrences - and by extension the first things that entered their minds - as intrinsically valid, rather than, as they once had, working their inspirations and felicitous mistakes into something more disciplined. Listeners were left to generate their own connections and make their own sense of what they were hearing, thereby increasing the chances of dangerous misinterpretation along Mansonian lines. >This is not to damn creative randomness in itself. Few artists outside the canons of tradition have refused to improve their work merely because the way to do so struck them by accident. Yet to treat chance-determined productions as identical with material intentionally vested with meaning is to meddle in a relativism that can only escalate towards chaos - and chaos draws psychopaths. For many modern artists, ‘aleatory’ procedures (literally, those of the diceman) are so basic as to be beyond question, an assumption maintained by their audiences, which are usually small enough to prevent such phenomena spreading far enough to affect unstable minds. In rock, the audience has no predictable bounds and stars have often found themselves harassed by demented individuals among the millions following their careers. (That this happens hardly at all nowadays is a perverse index of the vacuity of contemporary pop.) To the extent that they were invoked by the aleatory philosophy of derangement associated with the Sixties counterculture, obsessions such as those which beset Charles Manson, and later Lennon’s assassin Mark Chapman, were inevitable. As prominent advocates of the free-associating state of mind, The Beatles attracted more crackpot fixations than anyone apart from Dylan. While, at the time, they may have seemed enough like harmless fun for Lennon to make them the subject of the present sneeringly sarcastic song, in the end they returned to kill him. >The extent of the pattern of misleading self-quotations Lennon was disowning in this [Glass Onion's] lyric is indicated by the fact that two of the five Beatles songs mentioned in it also contain references to other Beatles songs. (One, [122] LADY MADONNA, refers to [116] I AM THE WALRUS which in turn refers to [103] LUCY IN THE SKY WITH DIAMONDS.) A title-phrase its author had had in mind for some while, GLASS ONION had the right associations of transparency and endless layers of meaning, but didn’t fit the metre of the chorus. This, though, failed to stop Lennon including it - indeed, the song features another phrase-in-search-of-a-lyric, ‘the Cast Iron Shore’, which he had long been looking for an excuse to use, (The reference, apt enough, is to the dismal waterfront between Aigburth and Garston on the north side of the Mersey where random rubbish from Liverpool’s sewers washes up.) >With its bluesily dissonant D sharp, the sour A minor melody of GLASS ONION eloquently voices its author’s scorn, yet the song remains unlikeable. Whether or not Lennon was fed up with being a Beatle, there was no excuse for berating those of their fans who had trustingly fallen for the group’s multi-layered conceptual jokes. The string-section’s bleary diminished chords at the end - doubtless meant to convey the dull-wittedness of the literal-minded - with hindsight seem to evoke a blurring of the boundary between playfulness and bad faith.3 In the end, GLASS ONION says less about the credulity of pop fans than the self-regard of pop stars.
One that I read a few years ago: that’s The Beatles were several different sets of musicians. The first set did the early beat music, who were replaced by four different people who did the folky mid-period (Help!, Rubber Soul), to be replaced by another set did the psychedelic years (Revolver, Sgt Pepper, Magical Mystery Tour), then a fourth set that did the back to roots music of the White Album, Get Back/Let It Be, Abbey Road. The theory was that the same four of people couldn’t have come up with so many different styles of music is such a short time span while still in their 20s.
I read something once that John’s death was actually a targeted assassination orchestrated by George Bush Sr.
There was actually a rumor which predates Paul Is Dead by three or four years that John got replaced by a lookalike/soundalike and that they left clues on the cover of one of their albums. It was a pretty small rumor that didn’t really go anywhere but that same concept was co-opted by the PID theorists in late September-early October 1969. The short version is John either died or got tired of being a Beatle and left the band in early 1965 right before production started on their new film and soundtrack album Help!, so the remaining Beatles searched for a lookalike/soundalike to take his place. Then while they shot the cover picture for said album they all stood with their hands in flag semaphore positions which, to the untrained eye, seemed to spell out HELP. But some military brats who lived on base with their fathers cracked the code and revealed they actually spelled out [NUJV (or NVUJ depending on what country you bought the album from, but I’ll get to that in just a second) which supposedly stood for “New Unknown John Vocalist” (or “New Vocalist, Unknown John”)](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/beatles-help-album-cover/). Some PID theorists actually even retroactively claimed the J really stood for James (Paul’s first name) even though Paul wouldn’t have gotten into his “fatal” car accident until November 1966, another year and a quarter after the album was released in August 1965. Now about the album cover. The actual reason why they didn’t spell out HELP was because they tried that once during the photo shoot and didn’t end up liking how it looked graphically. So the photographer Robert Freeman had them pick a different flag semaphore letter at random, took pictures of them individually, and then arranged the letters until they were all satisfied with the final result. Then Capitol Records (the American distributor of their Parlophone Records) swapped a couple of them around so that Paul, who was holding the J position, was pointing at the Capitol Records logo. Funny how history doesn’t exactly repeat itself, but it often does rhyme as Mark Twain once supposedly said.
Bernard Purdie played most of the drums on the early albums.
All Beatles other than Paul were replaced [https://udel.edu/\~mm/beatles/paulLives/paulLives.html](https://udel.edu/~mm/beatles/paulLives/paulLives.html)
https://www.reddit.com/r/beatles/s/SMH0fyh8rE Here's the link to the original post that has the Beatles Iceberg. It's got everything you'll ever want
Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds is actually about LSD and John was just saying that shit about Julian to sound good
A couple I have heard: 1. The Beatles are communists (Back in the U.S.S.R.) 2. John secretly converted to Christianity a few months before he died (lol)
> John secretly converted to Christianity a few months before he died (lol) I mean, he didn't really have to convert, he was raised in the Church of England and made his confirmation. But after his atheist phase in the early 70s, there are photos of him wearing a cross necklace around '74, and apparently he got obsessed with televangelists for a while when he was back at the Dakota. I think religion was just something he swung back and forth on at various points in his life.
Conservatives were probably already calling them communists years before they made Back in the USSR
In 1964 the nuns in my grade school told us we shouldn’t listen to the Beatles because they were “Communists” — a lie that wouldn’t fly once we discovered they were millionaires.
I remember a conspiracy that all the Beatles were dead and were replaced, except Paul. John died in 1962, George in 1963 and so on.
The White Album was written to ignite a race war. This theory resulted in some devastating events.
Odd, it I first heard of it last year and then it vanished, but there was some suggestion around the time John was shot that he might be ill and it was implied he might be terminally ill.
Check out “you can’t unhear this” on yt he’s crazy. Not so much theories but still good
John Lennon killed a sailor in Hamburg.
I read a book that claimed that Lennon sold his soul to the devil for fame during his late teenage years. It had a loads of supporting evidence and cited all sorts of “clues” in his lyrics and his personal life. It said that his murder was the final reaping of his soul by an agent of satan. It was really just proof that a billion people can see the same set of facts and come up with a billion different interpretations. My lasting impression is that the author just took too much LSD or was unable to accept that talent exists and some people have it and others don’t. I’m sure that’s how all of these kinds of rumours start.
That Yoko broke up the band?
Ringo wasn’t the studio drummer, ever George always had someone play for him because no way someone that young could play that well John was assassinated by the CIA Shit like that
The first two singles he didn’t play on it, it was drummer Andy White.
I only heard that for Love Me Do. And even then, the single version did have Ringo on it but the album had him on tambo.
I once saw a video of a guy who believed Paul was dead, The Beatles didn't write most of their music, and they were put together by Tavistock as part of some mind control agenda of the New World Order, and Faul was the only musically talented member. It was nuts.
It was fun at the time. Made it very exciting. You had to be there. I’m still in touch with one of the band members.
I read a very long string of comments once in a Facebook argument involving a boomer who insisted that everything after Beatles For Sale was George Martin. Heaping incredible amounts of credit on him for things he would never have even tried or wanted to do in reality.
Pete Best wasn’t really the best
That had John lived, he would have met up with Paul on his planned tour of England in 1981, presumably leading to an 80s reunion album (And if not that, then Live Aid would have done got the four back together, if just for one show).
There's the whole Charles Manson conspiracy theory, that the white album was a coded call to arms to trigger a race war in the USA. The key tracks bring Piggies, Helter Skelter and Revolution 9. It's completely stupid and repugnant but there's plenty that's been written about it.
Meet the Beatles was actually Meat the Beatles.
I still believe to this day that there is no such thing as The Beatles. Ringo is just moving really fucking fast and making it seem like there are four people at once. Once the breakup happened he was probably just tired of going so fast all the time…
Years ago, I read a detailed account on some fringe religious website that claimed the Beatles were “agents of Satan”. Major eyeroll…
Yeah there are several.. but all of them make little sense frankly.
Not quite a conspiracy but the one about The Beatles album from another dimension. https://open.spotify.com/episode/3cGOhKa4nn3WLpckTEmJrK?si=9IUDuIGITzOELegHD9oRJQ
That Yoko Ono broke the Beatles.
Bernard Purdie played drums on the recordings
The beatles never existed. There is also a conspiracy theory that they were a fake band to influence the mind of people and they didn't wrote their own songs.
They had a rumor in the first half of their carreers where people thought they were all bald and wearing wigs
I honest to god think John and Paul were in love with each other
I had somebody argue with me that Ringo had his drums overdubbed (in ‘63, too, so unlikely) by some guy named Bernard Purdie and that Ringo barely did any drumming for the Beatles following ‘63 because he was “so bad” and the other 3 hated his drumming. Which doesn’t explain why he was still in the band until 1970…
there aren't 4 beatles its just ringo running fast
http://overlaphotel.blogspot.com/2013/08/meet-scarabs.html?m=1
The walrus wasn’t Paul.
That John Lennon left The Beatles in 1966 and was replaced by the glasses wearing guy who became the 'new' John Lennon. The 1963-65 John Lennon is still alive today living under a new identity as Colin Unwin.