|
Post by CoconutFudge on Apr 26, 2008 20:53:55 GMT -5
I am not going to wholeheartedly believe this until more can be proven (I don't know how, but I have to think if it's true there's more to it than NIR Committee [??] saying so), but man, if it IS true, then holy shit indeed. If it is fabricated... well, I don't know why anybody would be deceitful enough to play with us that way, although I am sure there are many that would, but that's messed up.
|
|
|
Post by fireman on Apr 27, 2008 1:25:47 GMT -5
We regret to inform you that NIR member Apollo C. Vermouth has passed away. He was Neil Aspinall. Our thoughts and prayers go out to him and his family. Neil's contributions to these forums shall be greatly missed. Nircommittee IMHO, unless Nircommittee were to provide some sort proof to this sensationalistic theory it is nothing more than that. ... Or maybe Nircommittee is ACV? Good way to provide a convenient "death" or simply just screw around with everyone.
|
|
|
Post by MikeNL on Apr 27, 2008 4:19:00 GMT -5
We regret to inform you that NIR member Apollo C. Vermouth has passed away. He was Neil Aspinall. Our thoughts and prayers go out to him and his family. Neil's contributions to these forums shall be greatly missed. Nircommittee IMHO, unless Nircommittee were to provide some sort proof to this sensationalistic theory it is nothing more than that. ... Or maybe Nircommittee is ACV? Good way to provide a convenient "death" or simply just screw around with everyone. mindfuck is not far away here
|
|
|
Post by jarvitronics on Apr 27, 2008 11:53:21 GMT -5
Apollo, You have frequently said something on the order of "those involved MUST follow the story line," with emphasis on the MUST. I am curious to know how wide that "MUST" net is cast, i.e. how many individuals are locked into the script to which you refer? Peace. -j === Jarv The story line? In all truth, about 65% of what is written is based on things that actually happened. The remainder, sheer fantasy. Now, to figure what is, and what isn't. It was agreed, BY ALL INVOLVED, that once the "story" is told, not to deviate from any previous statements. You know, and I know, that there ARE clues to be found on Pepper. Just what those "clues" allude to, has not yet been figured out. But, when asked of John, George, or Ringo, there was always the "total rubbish" response. That is the story line. Deny! I have been accused of "jerking you all off" with my cryptic responses. Truth is, you've been jerked off from day one! THAT was part of the "story line." A little mystery for you to figure out. When things began to turn a bit "beyond the beyond", I tried to get the loonies back on the right path. The theories of CIA, KKK, UFO's, Paul in space, Don Knotts....fucking hell!!! I'M JERKING YOU OFF? ? Keep it simple, follow the clues, have a spot of fun, That is the "story line" NOW. There is a method to my madness. Apollo
|
|
|
Post by jarvitronics on Apr 27, 2008 12:18:39 GMT -5
mindfuck is not far away here Oh the irony... -j
|
|
|
Post by tafultong on Apr 27, 2008 14:25:02 GMT -5
Apollo, You have frequently said something on the order of "those involved MUST follow the story line," with emphasis on the MUST. I am curious to know how wide that "MUST" net is cast, i.e. how many individuals are locked into the script to which you refer? Peace. -j === Jarv The story line? In all truth, about 65% of what is written is based on things that actually happened. The remainder, sheer fantasy. Now, to figure what is, and what isn't. It was agreed, BY ALL INVOLVED, that once the "story" is told, not to deviate from any previous statements. You know, and I know, that there ARE clues to be found on Pepper. Just what those "clues" allude to, has not yet been figured out. But, when asked of John, George, or Ringo, there was always the "total rubbish" response. That is the story line. Deny! I have been accused of "jerking you all off" with my cryptic responses. Truth is, you've been jerked off from day one! THAT was part of the "story line." A little mystery for you to figure out. When things began to turn a bit "beyond the beyond", I tried to get the loonies back on the right path. The theories of CIA, KKK, UFO's, Paul in space, Don Knotts....fucking hell!!! I'M JERKING YOU OFF? ? Keep it simple, follow the clues, have a spot of fun, That is the "story line" NOW. There is a method to my madness. Apollo Thanks, Jarv. I was hoping you would share at least one of the exchanges to which you referred.
|
|
|
Post by il ras on Apr 27, 2008 16:55:47 GMT -5
Hi ACV, I'm sorry to be one of the many that, I suppose, disturb you with questions that you cannot answer for a number of reasons...
I just wanted to share with you the idea I came up after all these years of PID\PWR.
I think that the replacement of Paul took place as, something the Beatles had to to, was not already accomplished.
Am I on the wrong route?
Best Regards
Il ras
------------------------------------------------------------------
Greetings
I don't mind being "disturbed." Many feel I've been disturbed for quite some time. I know this has been mentioned several times before, but it does come close to home. Remember that show on the telly, "Bewitched"? The original actor playing Darrin passed away. They quickly replaced him with another actor, to keep the show intact. Now, the original Darrin needn't have died. Maybe, he just said "fook it" and headed for greener pastures. Went on holiday, so to speak. But, to keep the original premise in place, somebody had to assume the role. Now imagine, if you will, that scenario in context to this "mystery." Only in this case, the original Darrin came back to the show, after his fancy of leaving proved to be not quite in his best interest. By then, the show was on the "outs", and the cast grew tired of each other, thus putting an end to the show. Now, each blamed the other for the demise, for whatever reason they could muster, and went their seperate ways. It's kinda like that. Only different. I told ya I was disturbed.
Apollo
|
|
|
Post by fireman on Apr 27, 2008 16:56:18 GMT -5
mindfuck is not far away here Oh the irony... -j ;D
|
|
|
Post by fireman on Apr 27, 2008 17:01:16 GMT -5
Hi ACV, I'm sorry to be one of the many that, I suppose, disturb you with questions that you cannot answer for a number of reasons... I just wanted to share with you the idea I came up after all these years of PID\PWR. I think that the replacement of Paul took place as, something the Beatles had to to, was not already accomplished. Am I on the wrong route? Best Regards Il ras ------------------------------------------------------------------ Greetings I don't mind being "disturbed." Many feel I've been disturbed for quite some time. I know this has been mentioned several times before, but it does come close to home. Remember that show on the telly, "Bewitched"? The original actor playing Darrin passed away. They quickly replaced him with another actor, to keep the show intact. Now, the original Darrin needn't have died. Maybe, he just said "fook it" and headed for greener pastures. Went on holiday, so to speak. But, to keep the original premise in place, somebody had to assume the role. Now imagine, if you will, that scenario in context to this "mystery." Only in this case, the original Darrin came back to the show, after his fancy of leaving proved to be not quite in his best interest. By then, the show was on the "outs", and the cast grew tired of each other, thus putting an end to the show. Now, each blamed the other for the demise, for whatever reason they could muster, and went their seperate ways. It's kinda like that. Only different. I told ya I was disturbed. Apollo Il ras, thanks for posting. This is, IMHO, one of the most notable ACV messages...it alludes more to what ultimately happened in the "story" than most I've read. ... Jarv, the message you posted was also very interesting. ... To both of you, thanks!
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Apr 27, 2008 17:30:04 GMT -5
Hi ACV, I'm sorry to be one of the many that, I suppose, disturb you with questions that you cannot answer for a number of reasons... I just wanted to share with you the idea I came up after all these years of PID\PWR. I think that the replacement of Paul took place as, something the Beatles had to to, was not already accomplished. Am I on the wrong route? Best Regards Il ras ------------------------------------------------------------------ Greetings I don't mind being "disturbed." Many feel I've been disturbed for quite some time. I know this has been mentioned several times before, but it does come close to home. Remember that show on the telly, "Bewitched"? The original actor playing Darrin passed away. They quickly replaced him with another actor, to keep the show intact. Now, the original Darrin needn't have died. Maybe, he just said "fook it" and headed for greener pastures. Went on holiday, so to speak. But, to keep the original premise in place, somebody had to assume the role. Now imagine, if you will, that scenario in context to this "mystery." Only in this case, the original Darrin came back to the show, after his fancy of leaving proved to be not quite in his best interest. By then, the show was on the "outs", and the cast grew tired of each other, thus putting an end to the show. Now, each blamed the other for the demise, for whatever reason they could muster, and went their seperate ways. It's kinda like that. Only different. I told ya I was disturbed. Apollo Dick York did not "pass away" in the middle of the "Bewitched" series; he suffered some sort of accident on set which disabled him from working on the show any longer, which is when he was replaced by Dick Sargent. York did not die until a few years ago; indeed, he outlived Sargent by many years. The analogy doesn't work anyway. Nobody ever confused Dick York and Dick Sargent, and nobody could possibly confuse the two of them. Dick Sargent never could have pretended to be the same individual as Dick York. Nor is there any reason to suppose that Dick York would have stayed out of sight on a permanent basis in order to maintain that illusion.
|
|
|
Post by tygrefyfe on Apr 27, 2008 17:40:59 GMT -5
I think that's why he said "It's kinda like that- only different." Apparently, and if what ACV had given us to think about is true, then this scenario has been mentioned before somewhere on this board. Paul left for some reason and we get Paul/Bill for Sgt Peppers and then the original came back towards the end (Let it Be/ Mountain man?).. If it's supposed to fit, are we to think that the 66somethingish guy that calls himself Paul McCartney is the real deal, why are there so many facial and voice discrepancies in him? Did the real Paul decide after the break up of the band leave into obscurity again? I do recall it being mentioned here that the real Paul passed away not too long ago. Other than that, I'm confused.
|
|
|
Post by il ras on Apr 27, 2008 17:42:05 GMT -5
65, you didn't get the sense of the example....
|
|
|
Post by skyward on Apr 27, 2008 17:49:33 GMT -5
65, you didn't get the sense of the example.... I agree with you il ras. It wasn't intended to be a direct and literal one-to-one analogy. It supports PWR and then he came back... It still leaves some questions unanswered. Assuming this was the case, did the original have any input in the band's music or did the 'new kid on the block' have any input. What happened to each after the Beatles broke up, did the original start Wings or did he collaborate with the replacement for a time or something else?
|
|
|
Post by ramone on Apr 27, 2008 17:57:48 GMT -5
65, you didn't get the sense of the example.... I agree with you il ras. It wasn't intended to be a direct and literal one-to-one analogy. It supports PWR and then he came back... It still leaves some questions unanswered. Assuming this was the case, did the original have any input in the band's music or did the 'new kid on the block' have any input. What happened to each after the Beatles broke up, did the original start Wings or did he collaborate with the replacement for a time or something else? I would say both had input at different times. ''Paul left for some reason and we get Paul/Bill for Sgt Peppers and then the original came back towards the end (Let it Be/ Mountain man?).'' Possibly. But think White Album and Abbey Rd. perhaps Maybe even more possible. (Not to mention Sgt. P itself)
|
|
|
Post by il ras on Apr 27, 2008 17:59:27 GMT -5
Or maybe he came back but... it was too late and they kept the substitute
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Apr 27, 2008 18:04:46 GMT -5
But how did I not get the sense of the example?
Carrying the example further, it's as if the producers of "Bewitched" sought to act as though there had never been any substitution and as if Dick Sargent really was the same person as Dick York.
Carrying it STILL further, it's as if -- even while pretending that it was the same actor -- they left clues on the set -- some of them fairly gruesome -- to the effect that Dick York had died (YID: York is dead) -- when, in fact, Dick York had not died at all but only retired because of a disability.
And carrying it STILL further, it's as if Dick York fully recovered from his disability and later returned to the set of "Bewitched" to play Darren, even after the producers of the show had already dropped clues to the effect that Dick York was dead.
None of this happened. None of this COULD happen. It makes no sense that either the producers of Bewitched or the actors involved would have conducted themselves this way.
Why should the Beatles behave this way?
|
|
|
Post by tygrefyfe on Apr 27, 2008 18:05:05 GMT -5
I agree with you il ras. It wasn't intended to be a direct and literal one-to-one analogy. It supports PWR and then he came back... It still leaves some questions unanswered. Assuming this was the case, did the original have any input in the band's music or did the 'new kid on the block' have any input. What happened to each after the Beatles broke up, did the original start Wings or did he collaborate with the replacement for a time or something else? I would say both had input at different times. ''Paul left for some reason and we get Paul/Bill for Sgt Peppers and then the original came back towards the end (Let it Be/ Mountain man?).'' Possibly. But think White Album and Abbey Rd. perhaps Maybe even more possible. (Not to mention Sgt. P itself) It is possible, Ramone that he did have more input on songs. The only person I trust with a great ear for that is Doc. He's said numerous times that on some after official death date of 1966 albums he was stumped because of the real James Paul's vocals are on them. Then the theory of 'unused portions of tracks were possibly used in later songs' came out. If what ACV said was true, then he was still alive and working with the Beatles at different times.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Apr 27, 2008 18:05:21 GMT -5
I posted this at the end of August last year, it was pretty recent at the time.
JoJo
Greetings, mate. You caught me at a good time. As for the "POE" connection, it serves more as a "blueprint" than an actual code. Although, many can be sussed. Same as Carroll, it serves the purpose to seek new ways of "seeing" what is there. There's nothing you can see that isn't shown. You just need to know what you're looking for. Then it will all make sense. Kind of shines a new light on the subject. Many have actually hit the mark, but refused to accept the conclusions. Funny how that keeps comng up, from time to time. Oh well, yeah life is good.
Having a good death is more important.
Apollo
|
|
|
Post by tygrefyfe on Apr 27, 2008 18:10:13 GMT -5
But how did I not get the sense of the example? Carrying the example further, it's as if the producers of "Bewitched" sought to act as though there had never been any substitution and as if Dick Sargent really was the same person as Dick York. Carrying it STILL further, it's as if -- even while pretending that it was the same actor -- they left clues on the set -- some of them fairly gruesome -- to the effect that Dick York had died (YID: York is dead) -- when, in fact, Dick York had not died at all but only retired because of a disability. And carrying it STILL further, it's as if Dick York fully recovered from his disability and later returned to the set of "Bewitched" to play Darren, even after the producers of the show had already dropped clues to the effect that Dick York was dead. None of this happened. None of this COULD happen. It makes no sense that either the producers of Bewitched or the actors involved would have conducted themselves this way. Why should the Beatles behave this way? Good 65! My thoughts though are a very big IF when it comes to Apollo C Vermouth. I was just going with it....
|
|
|
Post by tygrefyfe on Apr 27, 2008 18:12:58 GMT -5
I posted this at the end of August last year, it was pretty recent at the time. JoJo
Greetings, mate. You caught me at a good time. As for the "POE" connection, it serves more as a "blueprint" than an actual code. Although, many can be sussed. Same as Carroll, it serves the purpose to seek new ways of "seeing" what is there. There's nothing you can see that isn't shown. You just need to know what you're looking for. Then it will all make sense. Kind of shines a new light on the subject. Many have actually hit the mark, but refused to accept the conclusions. Funny how that keeps comng up, from time to time. Oh well, yeah life is good.
Having a good death is more important.
ApolloI just thought of the quote" with friends like these, who needs life?"
|
|
|
Post by skyward on Apr 27, 2008 18:17:25 GMT -5
But how did I not get the sense of the example? Carrying the example further, it's as if the producers of "Bewitched" sought to act as though there had never been any substitution and as if Dick Sargent really was the same person as Dick York. Carrying it STILL further, it's as if -- even while pretending that it was the same actor -- they left clues on the set -- some of them fairly gruesome -- to the effect that Dick York had died (YID: York is dead) -- when, in fact, Dick York had not died at all but only retired because of a disability. And carrying it STILL further, it's as if Dick York fully recovered from his disability and later returned to the set of "Bewitched" to play Darren, even after the producers of the show had already dropped clues to the effect that Dick York was dead. None of this happened. None of this COULD happen. It makes no sense that either the producers of Bewitched or the actors involved would have conducted themselves this way. Why should the Beatles behave this way? Your are right about that, 65if2007, and I think that is what was covered by this comment- "Now imagine, if you will, that scenario in context to this "mystery." " In context to this mystery would entail what you have written. An aside, we all realize that just because we're entertaining the notion that the original post is 100% legit doesn't mean we all believe it is 100% legit, right? We don't have to keep announcing our skepticism.
|
|
|
Post by il ras on Apr 27, 2008 18:39:57 GMT -5
But how did I not get the sense of the example? ..... .... this is how I read the example: the producers of "bewitched" needed to carry on with the show even if Dick York was quitting (ACV didn't say he passed away ), so a substitute was found. Even if Dick York decided to come back, the show\the cast was already set and so they took separate ways.
|
|
|
Post by ramone on Apr 27, 2008 19:06:03 GMT -5
I posted this at the end of August last year, it was pretty recent at the time. JoJo
Greetings, mate. You caught me at a good time. As for the "POE" connection, it serves more as a "blueprint" than an actual code. Although, many can be sussed. Same as Carroll, it serves the purpose to seek new ways of "seeing" what is there. There's nothing you can see that isn't shown. You just need to know what you're looking for. Then it will all make sense. Kind of shines a new light on the subject. Many have actually hit the mark, but refused to accept the conclusions. Funny how that keeps comng up, from time to time. Oh well, yeah life is good.
Having a good death is more important.
ApolloJust reread that one last night and got hit with a weird feeling. And his D. York illustration is not a point to point exactness. Closer to a template itself. ''But think White Album and Abbey Rd. perhaps'' I pulled those up from the well. From my understanding- behind the scenes contributions
|
|
|
Post by il ras on Apr 27, 2008 19:25:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jarvitronics on Apr 27, 2008 19:37:10 GMT -5
Originally said by Lennon, if memory serves, with respect to the cover of Pepper. Anyone have a source on that? The song Flying is credited to all four Beatles. Might the "two are flying, two are not" statement imply that only two of the four Beatles appear on the cover of Pepper - meaning two are actors? -j
|
|