|
Post by beacon on Mar 6, 2013 8:32:58 GMT -5
My new book, the Beatles Book of Revelations is now available and will be free on Amazon from tomorrow until Saturday. March 7 - 9 2013. It is an in depth look at all the Beatle related conspiracies, including obviously Paul is Dead, the Aquarian Conspiracy, the deaths of John Lennon and Brian Epstein, the Beatles LSD and CIA, Manson, the Redlands Bust and much more and whilst there may not be that much that is new to the experts here I am sure that it will provide something you didn't already know. The trailer is below. Please follow the link below to obtain the book www.amazon.com/Beatles-Book-of-Revelations-ebook/dp/B00BPBRI9O/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1362565292&sr=8-1&keywords=beatles+book+of+revelationsAs ever, I would appreciate feedback and so please avail yourself whilst it is free and let me know what you think. My earlier work, the Sgt. Pepper Code will also be free on these days for anyone who has not yet got it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2013 9:28:18 GMT -5
Maybe we can unearth the Holy Grail togetherPepperland The unearthly paradise. lol
|
|
|
Post by vOOdOOgurU on Mar 6, 2013 16:31:51 GMT -5
Reading through the major points of the book. Good stuff.
I don't believe the Beatles had much to do with the Sgt Pepper cover and the picking of the people who appear, apart from Harrison's inclusions of the assorted Gurus. A few articles by Merseybeat's Bill Harry, and personal correspondence, along with an intuition about who should appear, but never did; leads me to believe that the cover has more to do with Fraser and Blake and THEIR choices for who should appear. The absence of Brigitte Bardot is what tips me off to this, and led me to see that question, answered hours later by a Bill Harry article. Harry also contests the cause of Sutcliffe's death.
As said, just briefly going through the contents. Good stuff. I think with The Beatles PARTICIPATING in some of the "manufactured" stories (like that Moped crash, and 9th November) it implicates them more than what you actually want to say in your book. Which I notice quite often in this subject approached, because there's that "The Beatles are innocent and good" aura that prevents a truly objective appraisal of their actions.
From what I've read on the LSD portion of your book, you give the impression that all The Beatles admitted to LSD use prior to McCartney's 16th June/19th June admission. But I cannot find any such admittance by Harrison or Lennon specifically. And they certainly did not couple any promotion they did for Transcendental Meditation with a "top it up with a dose of LSD" bonus advice. It's McCartney that advocated LSD. In an article that is "lost" to an unknown reporter to a now defunct magazine which was grabbed for the LIFE article. I have a hard time finding anything Lennon or Harrison said about LSD usage BEFORE 1967. It came out AFTER McCartney's admittance. McCartney's also the one who signed the petition for the legalisation of marijuana, along with the guarantee of the other Beatles signatures (without even their consent or knowledge such a petition was being made.)
The Epstein portion -- one fact remains is that The Beatles could have walked out of their contract with him at any time. He did not sign it. Only Alistair Taylor as witness signed it, and the 4 signatures of Harrison, Lennon, McCartney, Starkey. Epstein did not sign it. So if they were unhappy with his management, they could walk out of that contract with NO legal ramifications doing so. Such a manager was he. Never heard of a manager ever doing that honestly.
If there was ONE Beatle that was suspect of Epstein's skills doing his job, I believe that was McCartney. You can find evidence that he had doubts, or was going behind the back of his representation and checking out the score. Though Harrison was known as the Beatle that was more aware of the financial aspects of their career , and evidence states he was, simply by that coming out of Harrisongs after 4 years of hibernation to sweep all ownership and rights to his own work. Much to the chagrin of Klein, who hoped Harrison and Starkey would be under the umbrella of Apple Publishing. But he was wrong. It's McCartney that seems to be a bit shadier about his dealings. Especially with that acquisition of more shares than Lennon owned (much to Lennon's surprise in 1969). McCartney in general, and you touch on this in the Jackson portion of your book --- had problems with The Beatles being used in advertising, but no problems using Buddy Holly's work for the same. And I've seen the interviews where he shows his malice towards this action -- as if The Beatles are untouchable. Kind of like if you suggest they may have had more to do with things than liked behind the scenes, and less to do with things that are out in the open. It's a thin line, and one has to choose either one or the other. Implicate them, or avoid some obvious factors that do in favour of the mythos.
Klein denies putting word out on the streets that 2 Beatles approached him for representation, after announcing in June 1966 he was going to get them by the end of the year. November seems a good time to make that move. It's just funny how McCartney is out of town when this all breaks the papers. Not only is he rumoured to have died at this point, he also can't be reached for comment. Because he's looking for Lennon who has already returned from Spain.
Hmmm.
|
|
|
Post by vOOdOOgurU on Mar 6, 2013 16:47:32 GMT -5
And btw --
I do have that missing portion of Ed Sanders book that the Process Church objected to being in print. The file is too large to upload here in attachment. Let me know, I can always send it via email.
|
|
|
Post by vOOdOOgurU on Mar 6, 2013 17:50:27 GMT -5
I don't "buy" this portion of your book: That it was a marketing ploy, and that the gift would keep on giving. Too bad about the internet totally driving people away from BUYING things, and downloading every format possible of this remarkable marketing ploy, rendering its yield for capital return VOID and USELESS. Probably why such effort was put into reviving it with the advent of such avenues for avoiding purchase, like Myspace, Youtube, Facebook, Napster etc. Right? Hence iamaphoney and a renewed interest and greater ramifications, at risk of sullying the Beatles as "the good guys" and giving them slightly sinister and occultish links. Why? To compete with the Slip Knots and Marilyn Manson's of today? The Jay Z's? In effort to GIVE The Beatles cart blanche to try anything to sell their product, you give them permission to be genius in doing so, yet by all accounts it serves no more than a trickster or Pt Barnum style prank, hardly befitting the reputation their "legacy" in history befits. How can you have the best of both worlds and hold this theory? You want to give them credit for shrewd marketing that anticipated a lull in Beatles product 2 years before the lull ever happened, anticipate technology that would be 40 years down the road, on multiple media formats, yet ignore that The Beatles couldn't even acquisition the purchase of their own song catalogue twice. Remarkably astute with Hoaxes and dragging their name down into the gutters of the esoteric and dark, yet incredibly dumb when purchasing their own legacy and insuring it is not dragged down with it. Because interested parties are too tight with the wealth they've already accumulated to dare buy their own legacy. The suggestion that PID is a marketing ploy, that not only counts on the consumer picking up on what is advertised, but also anticipates trends and technology decades before it appears, is ... Well it would be like a marketing campaign suggesting toothpaste MIGHT clean your teeth. You'd hope with all the money thrown into the ads and placement of such things, and the expenditure put into this campaign to convince the consumer, that hopefully they one day might decide that YES toothpaste does clean your teeth, is .... that's not business. That's not how business operates. Business hammers into your head what works and what doesn't. It puts products in your stores that are harmful and not harmful to you, counting on a repeated advertising campaign that insures if you try this product , you will get results. What results are up in the air. But that's not the design of business to tell you what the results truly are. They just want your money. And they'll do just about anything to get it. They'll lie, cheat, steal to do this. But you're saying that this marketing ploy of advertising someone was killed in a car accident, and replaced by a double, anticipated a lull 2 years before its time, anticipated technological advances decades before they appeared, and still yields capital in a time where we see that downloading things for free is more popular than paying for these things. With a band whose reputation is "golden" but with this marketing ploy, gets dragged down into the world of the Krays, the pedophiles, the Satanic, and just the downright sinister and diabolical. Because they need the money. They needed the money when they wanted to buy back their catalogue! Wait, no they didn't. They had the money, they just refused to part with the money they had to purchase it. I like your book, from what I've read of it. But I believe promoting it as a marketing ploy is the old have your cake and eat it too (which I've never understood anyway) -- -but it kind of smacks of that "best of both worlds" -- you don't have to say the Beatles were sinister or involved in things, keeping their legacy intact, but also admit that the marketing ploy brings them right down into the gutter with all the rest of the rats of the world. What is it you want? A shiny Beatle, or a slightly mucky one with heartwarming songs. Choose
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2013 19:43:24 GMT -5
BOOK OF REVELATIONS
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2013 19:54:40 GMT -5
That it was a marketing ploy, and that the gift would keep on giving. Too bad about the internet totally driving people away from BUYING things, and downloading every format possible of this remarkable marketing ploy, rendering its yield for capital return VOID and USELESS. Probably why such effort was put into reviving it with the advent of such avenues for avoiding purchase, like Myspace, Youtube, Facebook, Napster etc. Right? Hence iamaphoney and a renewed interest and greater ramifications, at risk of sullying the Beatles as "the good guys" and giving them slightly sinister and occultish links. Why? To compete with the Slip Knots and Marilyn Manson's of today? The Jay Z's? In effort to GIVE The Beatles cart blanche to try anything to sell their product, you give them permission to be genius in doing so, yet by all accounts it serves no more than a trickster or Pt Barnum style prank, hardly befitting the reputation their "legacy" in history befits. How can you have the best of both worlds and hold this theory? You want to give them credit for shrewd marketing that anticipated a lull in Beatles product 2 years before the lull ever happened, anticipate technology that would be 40 years down the road, on multiple media formats, yet ignore that The Beatles couldn't even acquisition the purchase of their own song catalogue twice. Remarkably astute with Hoaxes and dragging their name down into the gutters of the esoteric and dark, yet incredibly dumb when purchasing their own legacy and insuring it is not dragged down with it. Because interested parties are too tight with the wealth they've already accumulated to dare buy their own legacy. The suggestion that PID is a marketing ploy, that not only counts on the consumer picking up on what is advertised, but also anticipates trends and technology decades before it appears, is ... Well it would be like a marketing campaign suggesting toothpaste MIGHT clean your teeth. You'd hope with all the money thrown into the ads and placement of such things, and the expenditure put into this campaign to convince the consumer, that hopefully they one day might decide that YES toothpaste does clean your teeth, is .... that's not business. That's not how business operates. Business hammers into your head what works and what doesn't. It puts products in your stores that are harmful and not harmful to you, counting on a repeated advertising campaign that insures if you try this product , you will get results. What results are up in the air. But that's not the design of business to tell you what the results truly are. They just want your money. And they'll do just about anything to get it. They'll lie, cheat, steal to do this. But you're saying that this marketing ploy of advertising someone was killed in a car accident, and replaced by a double, anticipated a lull 2 years before its time, anticipated technological advances decades before they appeared, and still yields capital in a time where we see that downloading things for free is more popular than paying for these things. With a band whose reputation is "golden" but with this marketing ploy, gets dragged down into the world of the Krays, the pedophiles, the Satanic, and just the downright sinister and diabolical. Because they need the money. They needed the money when they wanted to buy back their catalogue! Wait, no they didn't. They had the money, they just refused to part with the money they had to purchase it. I like your book, from what I've read of it. But I believe promoting it as a marketing ploy is the old have your cake and eat it too (which I've never understood anyway) -- -but it kind of smacks of that "best of both worlds" -- you don't have to say the Beatles were sinister or involved in things, keeping their legacy intact, but also admit that the marketing ploy brings them right down into the gutter with all the rest of the rats of the world. What is it you want? A shiny Beatle, or a slightly mucky one with heartwarming songs. Choose Oh, We Wouldn't HAVE IT ANY OTHER WAY ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2013 19:58:39 GMT -5
Reading through the major points of the book. Good stuff. I don't believe the Beatles had much to do with the Sgt Pepper cover and the picking of the people who appear, apart from Harrison's inclusions of the assorted Gurus. A few articles by Merseybeat's Bill Harry, and personal correspondence, along with an intuition about who should appear, but never did; leads me to believe that the cover has more to do with Fraser and Blake and THEIR choices for who should appear. The absence of Brigitte Bardot is what tips me off to this, and led me to see that question, answered hours later by a Bill Harry article. Harry also contests the cause of Sutcliffe's death. As said, just briefly going through the contents. Good stuff. I think with The Beatles PARTICIPATING in some of the "manufactured" stories (like that Moped crash, and 9th November) it implicates them more than what you actually want to say in your book. Which I notice quite often in this subject approached, because there's that "The Beatles are innocent and good" aura that prevents a truly objective appraisal of their actions. From what I've read on the LSD portion of your book, you give the impression that all The Beatles admitted to LSD use prior to McCartney's 16th June/19th June admission. But I cannot find any such admittance by Harrison or Lennon specifically. And they certainly did not couple any promotion they did for Transcendental Meditation with a "top it up with a dose of LSD" bonus advice. It's McCartney that advocated LSD. In an article that is "lost" to an unknown reporter to a now defunct magazine which was grabbed for the LIFE article. I have a hard time finding anything Lennon or Harrison said about LSD usage BEFORE 1967. It came out AFTER McCartney's admittance. McCartney's also the one who signed the petition for the legalisation of marijuana, along with the guarantee of the other Beatles signatures (without even their consent or knowledge such a petition was being made.) The Epstein portion -- one fact remains is that The Beatles could have walked out of their contract with him at any time. He did not sign it. Only Alistair Taylor as witness signed it, and the 4 signatures of Harrison, Lennon, McCartney, Starkey. Epstein did not sign it. So if they were unhappy with his management, they could walk out of that contract with NO legal ramifications doing so. Such a manager was he. Never heard of a manager ever doing that honestly. If there was ONE Beatle that was suspect of Epstein's skills doing his job, I believe that was McCartney. You can find evidence that he had doubts, or was going behind the back of his representation and checking out the score. Though Harrison was known as the Beatle that was more aware of the financial aspects of their career , and evidence states he was, simply by that coming out of Harrisongs after 4 years of hibernation to sweep all ownership and rights to his own work. Much to the chagrin of Klein, who hoped Harrison and Starkey would be under the umbrella of Apple Publishing. But he was wrong. It's McCartney that seems to be a bit shadier about his dealings. Especially with that acquisition of more shares than Lennon owned (much to Lennon's surprise in 1969). McCartney in general, and you touch on this in the Jackson portion of your book --- had problems with The Beatles being used in advertising, but no problems using Buddy Holly's work for the same. And I've seen the interviews where he shows his malice towards this action -- as if The Beatles are untouchable. Kind of like if you suggest they may have had more to do with things than liked behind the scenes, and less to do with things that are out in the open. It's a thin line, and one has to choose either one or the other. Implicate them, or avoid some obvious factors that do in favour of the mythos. Klein denies putting word out on the streets that 2 Beatles approached him for representation, after announcing in June 1966 he was going to get them by the end of the year. November seems a good time to make that move. It's just funny how McCartney is out of town when this all breaks the papers. Not only is he rumoured to have died at this point, he also can't be reached for comment. Because he's looking for Lennon who has already returned from Spain. Hmmm. hmmmm
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2013 20:00:18 GMT -5
up
|
|
|
Post by beacon on Mar 7, 2013 4:14:39 GMT -5
Reading through the major points of the book. Good stuff. I don't believe the Beatles had much to do with the Sgt Pepper cover and the picking of the people who appear, apart from Harrison's inclusions of the assorted Gurus. A few articles by Merseybeat's Bill Harry, and personal correspondence, along with an intuition about who should appear, but never did; leads me to believe that the cover has more to do with Fraser and Blake and THEIR choices for who should appear. The absence of Brigitte Bardot is what tips me off to this, and led me to see that question, answered hours later by a Bill Harry article. Harry also contests the cause of Sutcliffe's death. As said, just briefly going through the contents. Good stuff. I think with The Beatles PARTICIPATING in some of the "manufactured" stories (like that Moped crash, and 9th November) it implicates them more than what you actually want to say in your book. Which I notice quite often in this subject approached, because there's that "The Beatles are innocent and good" aura that prevents a truly objective appraisal of their actions. From what I've read on the LSD portion of your book, you give the impression that all The Beatles admitted to LSD use prior to McCartney's 16th June/19th June admission. But I cannot find any such admittance by Harrison or Lennon specifically. And they certainly did not couple any promotion they did for Transcendental Meditation with a "top it up with a dose of LSD" bonus advice. It's McCartney that advocated LSD. In an article that is "lost" to an unknown reporter to a now defunct magazine which was grabbed for the LIFE article. I have a hard time finding anything Lennon or Harrison said about LSD usage BEFORE 1967. It came out AFTER McCartney's admittance. McCartney's also the one who signed the petition for the legalisation of marijuana, along with the guarantee of the other Beatles signatures (without even their consent or knowledge such a petition was being made.) The Epstein portion -- one fact remains is that The Beatles could have walked out of their contract with him at any time. He did not sign it. Only Alistair Taylor as witness signed it, and the 4 signatures of Harrison, Lennon, McCartney, Starkey. Epstein did not sign it. So if they were unhappy with his management, they could walk out of that contract with NO legal ramifications doing so. Such a manager was he. Never heard of a manager ever doing that honestly. If there was ONE Beatle that was suspect of Epstein's skills doing his job, I believe that was McCartney. You can find evidence that he had doubts, or was going behind the back of his representation and checking out the score. Though Harrison was known as the Beatle that was more aware of the financial aspects of their career , and evidence states he was, simply by that coming out of Harrisongs after 4 years of hibernation to sweep all ownership and rights to his own work. Much to the chagrin of Klein, who hoped Harrison and Starkey would be under the umbrella of Apple Publishing. But he was wrong. It's McCartney that seems to be a bit shadier about his dealings. Especially with that acquisition of more shares than Lennon owned (much to Lennon's surprise in 1969). McCartney in general, and you touch on this in the Jackson portion of your book --- had problems with The Beatles being used in advertising, but no problems using Buddy Holly's work for the same. And I've seen the interviews where he shows his malice towards this action -- as if The Beatles are untouchable. Kind of like if you suggest they may have had more to do with things than liked behind the scenes, and less to do with things that are out in the open. It's a thin line, and one has to choose either one or the other. Implicate them, or avoid some obvious factors that do in favour of the mythos. Klein denies putting word out on the streets that 2 Beatles approached him for representation, after announcing in June 1966 he was going to get them by the end of the year. November seems a good time to make that move. It's just funny how McCartney is out of town when this all breaks the papers. Not only is he rumoured to have died at this point, he also can't be reached for comment. Because he's looking for Lennon who has already returned from Spain. Hmmm. Many thanks for taking the time to read and comment on the book. I always appreciate feedback, good, bad or indifferent and, ultimately, we will only get to the truth by working together and pooling information so thank you.
|
|
|
Post by beacon on Mar 7, 2013 4:16:02 GMT -5
And btw -- I do have that missing portion of Ed Sanders book that the Process Church objected to being in print. The file is too large to upload here in attachment. Let me know, I can always send it via email. Thank you but I have the first edition of the book.
|
|
|
Post by vOOdOOgurU on Mar 7, 2013 5:17:14 GMT -5
And btw -- I do have that missing portion of Ed Sanders book that the Process Church objected to being in print. The file is too large to upload here in attachment. Let me know, I can always send it via email. Thank you but I have the first edition of the book. No worries, I know it's a bit hard to find on the internet It's feedback, so please take it as that and nothing personal. It's truly my only problem with your theory. Otherwise, good book
|
|
|
Post by vOOdOOgurU on Mar 7, 2013 13:10:38 GMT -5
Charlie Lennon:
"Never at any time did my mother Mary Lennon Maguire ever enter America. It was my father who brought his American wife over here and it was she who died in childbirth. That is how our mother became Jack's housekeeper. Later on, of course, he married my mother. So I don't know where Julia Baird gets all this talk from, none of it is true. I don't know how my mother died after giving birth to her third child because after her so-called death, my mother gave birth to Alfred, my sister Edith and of course, young 70-year-old Charlie, born 25th November 1918, and to finish off I will give you the date of my mother's death. It was 30th January 1949."
Mythology and Truth. The Beatles story is full of myths and legends, and so little of them actually resemble truth, it's scary.
|
|
|
Post by vOOdOOgurU on Mar 10, 2013 18:34:06 GMT -5
Once upon a long ago, lived four young lads I'm sure you know. The other three, you know them two. You'll know me better when this is through. Before the band was on the run, a natures child followed the sun. And soon the four became a three, a list of clues for those to see. A story told in fine detail, to keep the loonies on the trail. A coin, a sheep, a favored son, were welcomed guest when the day was done. Now, those days are gone, the stories told, in rivers of ash, and urns of gold. A final hint to all of those, who refuse to see the Emporer's clothes. Once upon a long ago ( Children searched for treasure Nature's plan went hand in hand With pleasure, such pleasure) lived four young lads I'm sure you knowThe other three You know them two You'll know me better when this is throughBefore the band was on the run( Well, the rain exploded with a mighty crash as we fell into the sun, And the first one said to the second one there I hope you're having fun.) a nature's child followed the sun(mother nature's son, I'll follow the sun) And soon the four became a three( the other three, and them two -- making 5) A list of clues for those to see a story told in fine detail to keep the loonies on the trail( the lunatics are on the path, you have to keep the lunatics off the grass. From remembering games and daisy chains and laughs. ) A coin, a sheep, a favored son, were welcomed guest when the day was done. Now, those days are gone, the stories told, in rivers of ash(there is the River Ash in Surrey. Not important, just mentioning - its worst flooding was in 1947) and urns of gold. (ashes to ashes, dust to dust, cremation.) A final hint to all of those, who refuse to see the Emporer's clothes.( the emperor has no clothes"The Emperor Wears No Clothes" or "The Emperor Has No Clothes" is often used in political and social contexts for any obvious truth denied by the majority despite the evidence of their eyes, especially when proclaimed by the government. LENNON: Listen, if somebody's gonna impress me, whether it be a Maharishi or a Yoko Ono, there comes a point when the emperor has no clothes. There comes a point when I will see. So for all you folks out there who think that I'm having the wool pulled over my eyes, well, that's an insult to me. Not that you think less of Yoko, because that's your problem. What I think of her is what counts! Because - fuck you, brother and sister - you don't know what's happening. I'm not here for you. I'm here for me and her and the baby! Saw your posts over at Mystery Tramp mysterytramp.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=clues&action=display&thread=2&page=4
|
|
|
Post by beacon on Mar 12, 2013 12:40:07 GMT -5
Once upon a long ago, lived four young lads I'm sure you know. The other three, you know them two. You'll know me better when this is through. Before the band was on the run, a natures child followed the sun. And soon the four became a three, a list of clues for those to see. A story told in fine detail, to keep the loonies on the trail. A coin, a sheep, a favored son, were welcomed guest when the day was done. Now, those days are gone, the stories told, in rivers of ash, and urns of gold. A final hint to all of those, who refuse to see the Emporer's clothes. Thank you for re-posting this, perhaps the most cryptic, of Apollo C Vermouths missives. I have often wondered what it truly meant and thanks to your post I have been reconsidering it. I think the key may be contained within the line; ‘A coin, a sheep, a favored son, were welcomed guest when the day was done’. This, I believe, is a biblical reference to Luke 15; The Lost Sheep, The Lost Coin and the Lost Son which I will post below. The Parable of the Lost Sheep Then Jesus told them this parable: “Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Does he not leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbours together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.’ I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.
The Parable of the Lost Coin “Or suppose a woman has ten silver coins and loses one. Does she not light a lamp, sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it? And when she finds it, she calls her friends and neighbours together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost coin.’ In the same way, I tell you, there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.”
The Parable of the Lost Son Jesus continued: “There was a man who had two sons. The younger one said to his father, ‘Father, give me my share of the estate.’ So he divided his property between them. “Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had, set off for a distant country and there squandered his wealth in wild living. After he had spent everything, there was a severe famine in that whole country, and he began to be in need. So he went and hired himself out to a citizen of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed pigs. He longed to fill his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything. “When he came to his senses, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired men have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired men.’ So he got up and went to his father. “But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him. “The son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’ “But the father said to his servants, ‘Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let’s have a feast and celebrate. For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ So they began to celebrate. “Meanwhile, the older son was in the field. When he came near the house, he heard music and dancing. So he called one of the servants and asked him what was going on. ‘Your brother has come,’ he replied, ‘and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.’ “The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him. But he answered his father, ‘Look! All these years I’ve been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!’ “‘My son,’ the father said, ‘you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ ”So what does this tell us? Well the parables are all about welcoming sinners back into the fold and could, therefore, possibly imply that Paul left, was replaced, and then returned. Certainly the parable of the lost son is interesting with its talk of being ‘dead and is alive again’. The line ‘were welcomed guest when the day was done’also implies that the parables become relevant once Paul had returned to the band, or, to the direction the band is headed. At least this seems to be what Apollo wants us to believe. I am not a great believer in PID or PWR as I feel this is disinformation, but, clearly something happened, so what? The line from Apollo’s post; ‘Before the band was on the run, a natures child followed the sun. And soon the four became a three, a list of clues for those to see’ should be explored in greater detail. Could the line ‘a natures child followed the sun’ refer to Paul’s African trip in 1966? In ‘The Beatles Book of Revelations’ I consider if McCartney may have been subject to some form of brainwashing, or mind-control, whilst resident at the Asher household. This is based largely on Richard Asher’s profession and McCartney’s recollection of how the song ‘Yesterday’ came to him in a dream. I now wonder if the Africa trip may have been in order that he could be ‘de-programmed’? Following this, the line; ‘A story told in fine detail, to keep the loonies on the trail’ could mean that the PID hoax – which remember didn’t emerge until 1969 – was pure disinformation. ‘Now, those days are gone, the stories told, in rivers of ash, and urns of gold. A final hint to all of those, who refuse to see the Emporer's clothes’. Another hint that, having set this story in motion (PID) there was no going back, but, the band still split acrimoniously and that it was McCartney who made the most money and who, to this day, is the one still standing and working. A lot then rests, I guess, on the identity of Apollo. Was Apollo really Neil Aspinall? All we can do is speculate: certainly Neil ghost-wrote for the Beatles Monthly Magazine using the nom-de-plume Billy Shepherd, and that magazine was definitely used to create a phoney Beatle history. The ‘False Rumour’ piece is testament to that. The fact that it was Iamaphoney who first identified the ‘False Rumour’ article is, in my opinion, no coincidence as I do believe that Neil Aspinall founded and funded the Iamaphoney organisation. During my research for ‘The Beatles Book of Revelations’ I discovered that Aspinall had an otherwise dormant film company called Standby Films Ltd. When I looked into the accounts of Standby Films I discovered that in the years 2006 - 2008 – the final years that the company traded – they show that it was paying out over £200,000 per year to some mysterious creditor with no, visible, product to show for it. The only known output from Standby Films Ltd came in 1999 when it released a film about Jimi Hendrix, called Hendrix: Band of Gypsys. Even more intriguingly,if you research who the company directors were for Apple Corps Ltd during the life of Neil Aspinall, you will discover that the company secretary was listed as being Standby Films Ltd rather than Aspinall himself.Now, this maybe a means of tax avoidance, but, it also provides a means by which Apple Corps could have been, indirectly, funding Iamaphoney. Interestingly, if the internet rumours are to be believed, Iamaphoneys aborted Revelation movie has been stopped by a cease and desist order, not from Apple as might be expected, but from EMI over copyrighted material. Maybe MikeyNL can shed some light on this? Alternatively, in the original Apollo post we have a typo; ‘A coin, a sheep, a favored son’. Would Apollo, if he was Neil, use the American spelling of favoured? Who knows? ‘Loonies’ and ‘Emporers’ are also misspelled so I guess it is possible. As I have said before, this is all purely hypothetical, but, as of March 2013 this is where I am at. Come April I dare say it will have moved on. As ever all I can do is present the information as I see it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2013 12:49:50 GMT -5
Blah blah blah Easier to just read the LAST THREE WORDS. Day was done Sun's favored Son
|
|
|
Post by vOOdOOgurU on Mar 12, 2013 14:42:12 GMT -5
Blah blah blah Easier to just read the LAST THREE WORDS. Day was done Sun's favored Son No need for pictures then. blah blah blah.
|
|
|
Post by vOOdOOgurU on Mar 12, 2013 14:44:49 GMT -5
Once upon a long ago, lived four young lads I'm sure you know. The other three, you know them two. You'll know me better when this is through. Before the band was on the run, a natures child followed the sun. And soon the four became a three, a list of clues for those to see. A story told in fine detail, to keep the loonies on the trail. A coin, a sheep, a favored son, were welcomed guest when the day was done. Now, those days are gone, the stories told, in rivers of ash, and urns of gold. A final hint to all of those, who refuse to see the Emporer's clothes. As I have said before, this is all purely hypothetical, but, as of March 2013 this is where I am at. Come April I dare say it will have moved on. As ever all I can do is present the information as I see it. You're welcome. The post intrigued me. I always wondered why iamaphoney flashed images of two different coins in some videos.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2013 19:17:05 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2013 19:24:35 GMT -5
apocalypse (n.) late 14c., "revelation, disclosure," from Church Latin apocalypsis "revelation" Not this book. My Book, darlin'.
|
|
|
Post by ramone on Mar 12, 2013 20:04:36 GMT -5
"Alternatively, in the original Apollo post we have a typo; ‘A coin, a sheep, a favored son’. Would Apollo, if he was Neil, use the American spelling of favoured? Who knows? ‘Loonies’ and ‘Emporers’ are also misspelled so I guess it is possible."
ACV was pretty cryptic - more to the masses, less to a few, maybe less to a two, And even less to a you.
Cheers Mike
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2013 20:10:53 GMT -5
"Alternatively, in the original Apollo post we have a typo; ‘A coin, a sheep, a favored son’. Would Apollo, if he was Neil, use the American spelling of favoured? Who knows? ‘Loonies’ and ‘Emporers’ are also misspelled so I guess it is possible." ACV was pretty cryptic - more to the masses, less to a few, maybe less to a two, And even less to a you. Cheers Mike What did he say in his last post, ram one? did you read it? Get those sunglasses ready. It's gonna be a bright, bright, Sun shiny Day
|
|
|
Post by ramone on Mar 12, 2013 20:24:05 GMT -5
I lean towards the Original -
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2013 20:29:07 GMT -5
I lean towards the Original - Yeah, but I actually put you in the ORIGINal bobsled Not to mention, John Candy ;D lol
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2013 20:29:43 GMT -5
This title, there is reason to believe, was formerly inscribed upon the pope's crown. The following testimony on this point is given by the late Elder D. E. Scoles, of Washburn, Mo.:— "I have met two men who declare that they have seen this specific crown; and their testimony is so perfectly in agreement that I am convinced that what they saw is true. The first man was M. De Latti, a Sabbath-keeper who had previously been a Catholic priest, and had spent four years in Rome. He visited me when I was pastor in St. Paul, Minn., several years ago. I showed him my tract, 'The Seal of God and the Mark of the Beast.' He at once told me that the inscription was not correctly placed in my illustration. He stated that he had often seen it in the museum at the Vatican, and [pg. 625] gave a detailed and accurate description of the whole crown. When my tract was published [Feb. of 1895], I was ignorant of the arrangement of the words of the Latin inscriptions, hence, in the illustration of the crown, placed them in one line. Brother De Latti at once pointed out the mistake, and said the first word of the sentence was on the first crown of the triple arrangement, the second word on the second part of the crown, while the word Dei was on the lower division of the triple crown. He also explained that the first two words were in dark-colored jewels, while the Dei was composed entirely of diamonds. ;D "During a tent-meeting which I held in Webb City, Mo., I presented the subject, 'The Seal of God and the Mark of the Beast.' I used charts to illustrate it, one being a reproduction of the crown as Brother De Latti had described it. A Presbyterian minister was present, Rev. B. Hoffman, and when I described the crown, he spoke out publicly and made a statement to the congregation, saying that while in Rome studying for the priesthood, he had seen this very crown, and noted its inscription, and that the word Dei was composed of one hundred diamonds. I met him and learned his name, and visited him at his home, and was convinced from his description that this was the identical crown that Brother De Latti had seen, but which has been denied by many. I then asked him for a written statement, and he gave me the following:— " ' To Whom It May Concern: This is to certify that I was born in Bavaria in 1828, was educated in Munich, and was reared a Roman Catholic. In 1844 and 1845 I was a student for the priesthood in the Jesuit College in Rome. During the Easter service of 1845, Pope Gregory XVI wore a triple crown upon which was the inscription, in jewels, Vicarius Filii Dei. We were told that there were one hundred diamonds in the word Dei; :Dthe other words were of some other kind of precious stones of a darker color. There was one word upon each crown, and not all on the same line. I was present at the service, and saw the crown distinctly, and noted it carefully." kicking the masses in the asses ;D
|
|