|
Post by puzzled on Dec 4, 2008 22:27:32 GMT -5
And just to clarify further, "the lies" I was referring to is the media's selective bombardment of particular ideals, and not pointed and any individual's claims about their personal experiences with aliens.
|
|
|
Post by B on Dec 4, 2008 22:29:18 GMT -5
What was offensive was the suggestion that the abductees must be lying because their stories aren't consistent. (Not true, in my opinion - that their stories aren't consistent.) I don't understand people who, when they hear that someone has had an odd experience, decide the person is lying. I can understand thinking that the person might somehow be mistaken as to what happened to them, but I don't go around thinking people are liars when they tell ghost stories, or big foot encounter experiences, etc. unless they are known to be tellers of "fish tales" in the first place.
As for the engagement, I've told the jeweler to keep the ring.
OK, I lied.
"the lies" I was referring to is the media's selective bombardment of particular ideals, and not pointed and any individual's claims about their personal experiences with aliens."
That's not how you wrote it though. Sorry if I misunderstood.
|
|
|
Post by puzzled on Dec 4, 2008 22:38:38 GMT -5
Granted, I wasn't clear in my wording. I guess I figured I have harped on it so much that in my mind it is a given...?
But then I forget, I haven't been at this here forum long, so I can't expect people to read my mind either.
I too dislike people who don't believe others' experiences, as I think I had previously mentioned in a PM to you? In fact, I'm don't even want to be lumped into that group, so I hope you'll give me another chance.
I'd like to say I'll be more careful about my wording, but because of my health I often go days without sleep, so my mind wanders and I don't communicate clearly. Can I apologize ahead of time for potential stupid things I might say in the future? It's bound to happen! ;D
|
|
|
Post by B on Dec 4, 2008 22:57:01 GMT -5
That must be awful, to go days without sleep. I start to hear voices after 4 days, so I try to avoid those long sleepless stints.
|
|
|
Post by sunsoflight on Dec 4, 2008 23:33:46 GMT -5
Your line about how your mind wanders reminded me of "Fixing a Hole" off Pepper. Read down to the Inspiration segment on Wiki. It was really about mending a hole in the road? Yes, of course, to stop his mind from wandering, where it will go. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixing_a_Hole
|
|
|
Post by sunsoflight on Dec 4, 2008 23:33:53 GMT -5
BTW, welcome puzzled.
|
|
saulgoode42
Hard Day's Night
Rock & Soul for the People
Posts: 6
|
Post by saulgoode42 on Dec 5, 2008 10:48:12 GMT -5
Never heard of John pissing on nuns or taunting church-goers, but what it makes me think is that he was only (or at least partially, ha ha) human. Like Jesus, the legend overshadows the actual person, warts and all. I'm sure Jesus probably had a few failings, too. My bigger point is that John's life and accomplishments mirror those of Christ's more than anyone else I can think of.
Anyhow, I don't think there are any abduction stories in 'Chariots' either. But the Springmeier point is valid, since the MK Ultra spooks could be capable of just about anything. As I said before, I actualy heard John himself allude to the fact that all rockstars were working for 'the Company'. However, with the early 'Flaming Pie' reference taken into consideration, plus the fact that the Beatles' music is the best example of divine-inspiration I can think of in all of human history, I tend to think there really might be an extra-terrestrial/extra-dimensional connection to the lads. Or, maybe they were just really really talented and lucky! Who the heck knows.
Another scenario my overly imaginitive mind will put out there, regarding the main topic of this site: Paul was killed in a car accident, and John, as the true reincarnation of Christ, was moved to resurrect him, only to watch him become all show-bizzy and subsequently develop distaste and regret of using his magic in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by puzzled on Dec 5, 2008 12:54:30 GMT -5
Furtherly off topic, but I can't leave it alone... It is a sickness. (I slept almost 4 hours, so I'm hoping I can get thru this without possibly sticking my foot in my mouth...wish me luck).
You all have me questioning my memory now, as to the timing of my childhood and when it is that started reading about alien abductions. I know that it was well before the 80's because I graduated highschool in 1981 and I started reading on these topics in junior high.
I looked up online this morning, and the Betty & Barny Hill incident occurred in 1961, but was not reported until a couple of years later. I only mentioned Chariots of the Gods, not because of inclusion of abduction reports, but that it was made into a major film (which I saw in the theater when it was released) and it discussed the ideas of et's being here on earth throughout history, so it is just an indication that these things were being discussed openly in the mainstream earlier than that.
I lived in a very small country town. I remember vividly having my mother drop me off at the main library in Washington State (near the location of the first military-engaged "flap" that they will admit to anyway, which was viewed by many in 1947 I believe). At the time I was looking for information regarding Witchcraft (I was a teenager, and bored) but at that time in history, anything regarding witchcraft was almost impossible to find. But because of the topics I was searching, I came across the older pulp-style (referred to as hokey above) paperbacks that included many different stores of the supernatural, and some of these short stories included supposed stories of abduction, and succubi type stories. They were written in a very sensational style, although they claimed to be real reports, they could have been written by the author as fiction for all I know. Just want to point out again that it was being discussed.
Additionally, there were two reference books that I found that had lists of all different kinds of "unexplained" phenomena. One of those texts was actually academic and cited, and included stories throughout history. In fact I remember reading about the "mowing devil" from the original manuscript that shows that pic of the devil with his scythe in his hand, cutting down crop circles. This again was being discussed in the literature long before I ever saw a crop circle, or saw one shown on television. I recall the other text including information about anomalistic archaeological finds, which captured my fascination to this day. Like the things they would find inside coal seams, or at the bottom of wells, again reported from the first settlers here in the U.S. The very first settlers even wrote about the small pyramids found near the Montauk area when they first arrived.
There were references to olde-English manuscripts that described alien abductions in very similar detail to what happens now, but obviously accepted in a different light. At that time the only possible explanation for such experiences was DEMONS, and that is how they were dealt with. Exorcisms and further physical abuse of the victim is all that came from that approach. So after reading those stories, the B & B Hill story was familiar by the time I heard about it. Obviously everyone did not read those sorts of pulps and reference materials, but if I could find them in my podunk town, so could many others.
And again - the writers, publishers, media moguls and people with questionable morals in charge of the huge media corporations are the ones in charge of what information is made available to us. They are the ones that can manipulate our perceptions, if only by constant repetition alone. Just the same as have no books available at a library because a topic is considered taboo, we can only take in what information is provided (or thru direct experience). So any questions about the veracity of anyone's story rests with the writer or producer and their presentation, rather than questioning any individual's story about what they themselves experienced. The fact that so few people are in charge of information that goes out into the world worries me. When I see what sorts of things they repeatedly put out there with the massive resources they have, it really worries me.
I hope I have clarified my position. I probably just pissed off ten more people instead. I am new, and it makes me uncomfortable to leave a false idea hanging out there about who I am. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by puzzled on Dec 5, 2008 20:07:59 GMT -5
saulegoode wrote: Never heard of John pissing on nuns or taunting church-goers, but what it makes me think is that he was only (or at least partially, ha ha) human. Like Jesus, the legend overshadows the actual person, warts and all. Thought I should post a link, just in case someone wanted to check it out. I've seen it mentioned in quite a few places, not just this one article. I think I misstated that it was in Germany, but the article says in Liverpool: The story of John Lennon is one much closer in spirit to what would be termed punk rock than to traditional pop. First of all, the way John Lennon and thousands of other youth embraced skiffle in England, is reminiscent of the way punk bands exploded in the 1970s often similarly without knowing how to play an instrument! Secondly, John Lennon's famous antics on the stage while the Beatles played in Germany included mocking the Nazis' salute and wearing a toilet seat around his neck. Such attempts to shock are often associated with the later punk era. Indeed, one of John Lennon's youthful pranks had been to urinate from the rooftop of a Liverpool church upon nuns passing below. Thirdly, the early Beatles' scruffy Teddy Boy leather and T-shirt look was also much closer to the attire of the rebellious and radical punk musicians of the 1970s than their later cleaner moptop image dressed in capitalist business attire. John Lennon's anger and sense of the absurd was of course expressed in his acerbic lyrics. Interestingly, his later political self only appears as a logical extension of his former pre-Beatles and early Beatles self if we do not consider his brief 9 years as a famous Beatle. It is true that traces of his rebelliousness were often found in his Beatles interviews, and his statement that the Beatles had become more famous than Christ was a rare albeit unwitting use of his fame to upset the status quo that would probably not be rivaled until the Sex Pistols starting swearing on British national television a dozen years later. One could argue, then, rather successfully, that John Lennon's Beatles spell, while it of course contributed enormously in melody and marketing to pop music in the 20th Century, was a sort of "selling out" and a turning away from his enormously creative potential and in particular from his genuine, political and critical nature. Beatles fans might take exception to that statement. But imagine if a contemporary grunge band like Nirvana of the 1990s for example had abandoned their aggressive look and musical style in favor of suits and short hair and singing pretty love songs guaranteed to win them a larger if not international audience, as well as to earn them favor with the royal family, in short, a similar "cuddly" look as the Beatles opted for in 1962? www.worldsocialism.org/articles/imagine_by_john_lennon.php
|
|
|
Post by ph0neyprophet on Dec 17, 2008 22:29:52 GMT -5
I might be posting something totally random here, but watch the John Lennon - Give Peace a Chance from Toronto in 1969..
Now, this might seem totally bizarre, but listen carefully to how he's singing. I know, it's probably nothing and I'm just listening to it over and over.
But, if he is really a word manipulator, can you hear "All we are Sayan, give peace a chance."
|
|
|
Post by B on Dec 17, 2008 23:09:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ph0neyprophet on Dec 17, 2008 23:50:17 GMT -5
lol, I mean doesn't it somewhat sound like "Satan" as if it was played backwards?
|
|
|
Post by trutha on Jan 16, 2009 21:54:36 GMT -5
the MK Ultra spooks could be capable of just about anything. As I said before, I actualy heard John himself allude to the fact that all rockstars were working for 'the Company'. saulgoode42, can you remember where you heard John say that? If John had been running around spook-infested Laurel Canyon, then might he not have been working for the Company (CIA) himself?
the Beatles' music is the best example of divine-inspiration I can think of in all of human history, I tend to think there really might be an extra-terrestrial/extra-dimensional connection to the lads. I will PM you about this...
Anyway, I really think the Beatles were neck-deep in the intelligence business. I had already suspected CIA had killed John. Now I'm thinking they were behind whatever happened to Paul. I think the Satanic stuff is just a cover. I will never in a million years believe that John "sold his soul to the Devil." That sounds like disinfo to me - a way to discredit the man & what he stood for. I think he must have been a good guy to get himself on the bad side of the CIA.
|
|
|
Post by B on Jan 16, 2009 22:39:51 GMT -5
trutha, I recall the context of the conversation, even if I don't recall the source, and this: "I actualy heard John himself allude to the fact that all rockstars were working for 'the Company'."is not what he said. He was talking about McCartney, and then he said that McCartney, Dylan, and Mick Jagger were "all company men", meaning (presumably) that they were willing to do what they were asked to by the record companies. Lennon was saying that he would not want to have to work under such circumstances, and that he "didn't miss it" (recording). Wikipedia says this of the term "company man": en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_man""Company man" also is a term relating to a "Yes" Man, or someone who will do anything demanded of them by those who are supervising them. This term originated in the military where groups or divisions of soldiers were called "companies," thus the term Company. The term has since been used in the private sector as a term to demean someone who is well liked by their superiors and often gets better or lighter jobs than the rest of their co-workers. "--------------------------------- Of late, the term has come to be associated with spies: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_Man_(film)"Company Man (2000 film)
Company Man is a 2000 Anglo-American comedy film directed by and written by Peter Askin and Douglas McGrath. Film stars Douglas McGrath, Sigourney Weaver, John Turturro, Ryan Phillippe, Alan Cumming, Anthony LaPaglia with Woody Allen and Denis Leary as "Officer Fry". Bill Murray had a cameo appearance in the film, but his appearance was cut.
Plot In the 1960's, Alan Quimp is a school teacher of English grammar and married with the very demanding woman Daisy Quimp . In order to avoid the constant mockery in Daisy's family, Alan says that he is a secret CIA agent. Daisy tells everybody, the CIA acknowledges the lie, but due to a coincidence, Alan has just helped and hidden the professional Russian dancer Petrov who wanted to leave Russia. The CIA decides to hire Alan as an agent, to get the credits of bringing Petrov to USA, and immediately decides to send him to a very calm place, Cuba."--------------------------- However, the spy aspect has been a recent evolution of the word. Now when Faul does a song "Spies Like Us" and includes a characature of himself in the video similar to how he appears on the White Album poster, then he may well be suggesting that he was involved in a governmental agency like MI5 or MI6 at some point: Paul McCartney - Spies Like Uswww.youtube.com/watch?v=27ATt3FXAUYBut it is unlikely that The Beatles as a group were employees of such agencies. In the times following World War 1, and since, globe trotting stars have, at times, carried messages from governmental agencies. Harpo Marx wrote about doing it in his biography. Others have as well. This doesn't mean the stars were regular employees of such agencies; just that they were used by governments in the capacity of couriers, as they often performed before royalty of other countries. Postscript: When I started this thread, I never intended to say that John sold himself to the devil, nor do I believe that he did. At least, not in the way it is usually conceived: a person sells his soul to the devil, and has success with the devil's assistance. I never quite followed through on this thread, because I haven't been able to put the pieces together to my own satisfaction, but I think Lennon may have unwittingly been convinced to do things that resulted in harm to his buddy Paul, without realizing what the concequences would be. Like Judas did to Christ in the Bible. (Hey Jude...)
|
|
|
Post by trutha on Jan 17, 2009 0:22:01 GMT -5
^ The CIA is referred to as "The Company." At least, that's how CIA officers refer to it. I actually do think there is a strong intelligence link w/ the Beatles. The Laurel Canyon crowd (Byrds, Doors, Mamas & Papas, etc) seemed to have intell connections, at least, according to the LC articles at davesweb.cnchost.com/. Anyway, I would like to see the original source where John reportedly said that, if anyone knows.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Jan 17, 2009 9:27:18 GMT -5
There was a syndicated radio show called the "Lost Lennon Tapes" back in the 80's, and I have the collection, but problem is.. there are hundreds of 15 minute clips. I likely couldn't find it real quick, but I've heard it. My first impression, for what it's worth, is that he meant McCartney (and Jagger) were "company men" in the more ordinary sense, do as they are told and so on.
|
|
|
Post by P(D)enny La(i)ne on Jan 17, 2009 11:56:20 GMT -5
trutha, I recall the context of the conversation, even if I don't recall the source, and this: "I actualy heard John himself allude to the fact that all rockstars were working for 'the Company'."is not what he said. He was talking about McCartney, and then he said that McCartney, Dylan, and Mick Jagger were "all company men", meaning (presumably) that they were willing to do what they were asked to by the record companies. Lennon was saying that he would not want to have to work under such circumstances, and that he "didn't miss it" (recording). Wikipedia says this of the term "company man": en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_man""Company man" also is a term relating to a "Yes" Man, or someone who will do anything demanded of them by those who are supervising them. This term originated in the military where groups or divisions of soldiers were called "companies," thus the term Company. The term has since been used in the private sector as a term to demean someone who is well liked by their superiors and often gets better or lighter jobs than the rest of their co-workers. "--------------------------------- Now when Faul does a song "Spies Like Us" and includes a characature of himself in the video similar to how he appears on the White Album poster, then he may well be suggesting that he was involved in a governmental agency like MI5 or MI6 at some point: Paul McCartney - Spies Like Uswww.youtube.com/watch?v=27ATt3FXAUYBut it is unlikely that The Beatles as a group were employees of such agencies.In the times following World War 1, and since, globe trotting stars have, at times, carried messages from governmental agencies. Harpo Marx wrote about doing it in his biography. Others have as well. This doesn't mean the stars were regular employees of such agencies; just that they were used by governments in the capacity of couriers, as they often performed before royalty of other countries. What if they were RELUCTANT employees of such agencies, B? Like identity thief, Commander (William) Shears (Holden) in Bridge On The River Kwai was a reluctant "employee" of the British Special Forces: Plot:
Two prisoners of war are burying a corpse in the graveyard of a Japanese World War II prison camp in southern Burma. One, American Navy Commander Shears (William Holden), routinely bribes guards to ensure he gets sick duty, which allows him to avoid hard labour. A large contingent of British prisoners arrives, marching in defiantly whistling the Colonel Bogey March under the leadership of Colonel Nicholson (Alec Guinness)...
...Nicholson sets off on an inspection of the bridge and is shocked to find disorganization, shirking and outright sabotage. He orders Captain Reeves (Peter Williams) and Major Hughes (John Boxer) to come up with designs for a proper bridge, despite its military value to the Japanese. He wants to demonstrate the superiority of British ingenuity and also to keep his men busy to maintain morale.
Meanwhile, Shears and two other men attempt to escape. The others are killed; Shears falls into the river as a Japanese solider fires a shot, is swept downstream and is presumed dead. After many days in the jungle, he stumbles into a Siamese village, whose residents help him get to the British. Shears is shipped to a hospital in Colombo, Ceylon.
Major Warden (Jack Hawkins), a member of the British Special Forces, blackmails Shears into joining his mission to destroy the bridge. Warden knows that Shears is not Shears at all, but an enlisted man masquerading as him. The two men had survived the sinking of their ship. When the officer was killed by a Japanese patrol, Shears switched uniforms with him, hoping to get preferential treatment in captivity. It didn't work, but he then had no choice but to continue the impersonation. In return for his services, Shears will not be charged with impersonating an officer, an offense punishable by death. They are joined by the untested Lieutenant Joyce (Geoffrey Horne) and a fourth commando, Captain Chapman.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bridge_on_the_River_KwaiAt 7:34 in this clip, Shears even says: "I'll apply for a medical discharge. I'll tell them that I impersonated an officer because I went off my rocker in the jungle. I'm getting worse you know? Sometimes I think I'm ADMIRAL HALSEY"
|
|
|
Post by B on Jan 17, 2009 16:42:09 GMT -5
Interesting post P(D)enny, as usual.
|
|
|
Post by trutha on Jan 19, 2009 20:11:52 GMT -5
John != Satan. In fact, it looks like he's fighting Satan (or satanists - Illuminati?) John Lennon Bring On The Lucie (Freeda Peeple) www.youtube.com/watch?v=1J6HXbUXbSA(Alright Boys, this is it, over the hill) We don't care what flag you're waving We don't even want to know your name We don't care where you're from or where you're going All we know is that you came You're making all our decisions We have just one request of you That while you're thinking things over Here's something you just better do Free the people now Do it, do it, do it, do it, do it now Free the people now Do it, do it, do it, do it, do it now Well we were caught with our hands in the air Don't despair paranoia is everywhere We can shake it with love when we're scared So let's shout it aloud like a prayer Free the people now Do it, do it, do it, do it, do it now Free the people now Do it, do it, do it, do it, do it now We understand your paranoia But we don't want to play your gameYou think you're cool and know what you are doing 666 is your nameSo while you're jerking off each other You better bear this thought in mind Your time is up you better know it But maybe you don't read the signs Free the people now Do it, do it, do it, do it, do it now Free the people now Do it, do it, do it, do it, do it now Well you were caught with your hands in the killAnd you still got to swallow your pill As you slip and you slide down the hill On the blood of the people you killed Stop the killing (Free the people now) Do it, do it, do it, do it, do it now Stop the killing (Free the people now) Do it, do it, do it, do it, do it now Bring on the lucie www.rockpoplyrics.com/john_lennon/bringontheluciefreedapeeple.phpI'm guessing "lucie" is Lucifer?
|
|
|
Post by mommybird on Jan 19, 2009 22:26:43 GMT -5
That has been discussed before, Trutha. I think that you might be right about this. In my humble opinion, I believe the lyrics point to John fighting the forces of evil.
|
|
|
Post by B on Jan 19, 2009 22:54:46 GMT -5
I agree. And I believe he's using the term "Lucie" as a term for light, rather than as a name per se.
|
|
|
Post by trutha on Jan 19, 2009 23:21:07 GMT -5
"I believe he's using the term "Lucie" as a term for light"
Ah, yes, that makes sense - "Luc."
"I believe the lyrics point to John fighting the forces of evil." - Yep.
|
|
|
Post by B on Jan 21, 2009 20:04:58 GMT -5
Bring on the Lulin! www.universetoday.com/2009/01/14/comet-lulin-is-on-the-way/"...when viewed with a telescope or binoculars, you may be able to see the comet's apparent motion against the background stars. This is quite unusual! Today, January 14, the comet is at perihelion, closest to the sun. As it moves to its closest approach to Earth on February 24, Lulin is expected to brighten to naked-eye visibility in rural areas, (at best about magnitude 5 or 6) and will be observable low in the sky in an east-southeast direction before dawn."
|
|
|
Post by trutha on Jan 25, 2009 21:47:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mrluigi on Jan 26, 2009 9:26:12 GMT -5
|
|