Were The Beatles Ever Organic?

[B]

food for thought

Sage of Quay™ - Were The Beatles Ever Organic? (Aug 2018)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Co4DDOC85S4


Mike Williams' Paul Is Dead Channel
Published on Aug 18, 2018

[joseph]

I was thinking about why Pete Best had to leave The Beatles and the thought came to me that the social controllers couldn't have a band made up of John,
Paul, George and Peter - probably the four most important saints in English Christianity.

What I've been thinking for a while now is how long it took to produce With The Beatles, when it comprised so many cover versions.
They were a very tight band and could have knocked that out in a very short time.

You may already know that I believe With The Beatles was the last album they appeared on the cover of - I also believe this production period was when they
wrote the tracks for A Hard Day's Night and many more. What I think happened was George Martin was stringing them along, telling them to save those songs
for the movie. This they did because they weren't in charge. This would give Martin, the other conspirators and the record company leverage against the replacements.
I think I've heard on here that they didn't get a lot of royalties until the 70's (someone will have to enlighten me on that.)

I believe they were an organic band. They knew of the existence of their doubles, but were unaware that they were going to be sacrificed and replaced.
This plan would therefore been in place when George Martin was sent to look after them and Ringo replaced Pete Best.

What I found interesting (if a little misinformed) was a video posted on the Beatles Never Existed forum that somebody here talked about yesterday.
It's a good explanation of Tavistock's goals with The Beatles. youtu.be/6iILTislLGE

[sniffer]

oo-ee here we go again.
"The Beatles were part of an attack on our humble Christian community! Counterculture is EVIL! Smoking weed is devil-worship!"
Two years ago, I'd maybe find it funny. Not anymore. We are back full circle to the type of people who burned Beatles records in 1966.
Why not cut the middleman (Tavistock/Freemasons/Illuminati/Lizard-people) and just blame the Jews?

Here's some more food for thought:
www.mirror.co.uk/science/people-who-believe-god-created-13110217

[joseph]

Hahaha! I haven't laughed so hard in months. "I'll show him! I'll link to a tabloid article that is pure mockingbird media propaganda."

There in the link is a prime example of what the term "conspiracy theorist" was coined to achieve - sheepdogging people into fearful acceptance of
fake news narratives, "Ooh, I don't wanna be like that guy. Better shut up."

[sniffer]

Aug 21, 2018 6:09:53 GMT -5 joseph said:

Hahaha! I haven't laughed so hard in months. "I'll show him! I'll link to a tabloid article that is pure mockingbird media propaganda."

There in the link is a prime example of what the term "conspiracy theorist" was coined to achieve - sheepdogging people into fearful acceptance of
fake news narratives, "Ooh, I don't wanna be like that guy. Better shut up."

Yes it's a "Sun" article - the first link I found on google. Personally I've seen it elsewhere.
Does it matter? Here are other sources:
www.livescience.com/63388-conspiracies-creationism-share-teleological-thinking.html
www.independent.co.uk/news/science/conspiracy-theories-creationism-psychology-911-moon-landing-fake-a8499511.html
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180820113047.htm
www.mnn.com/health/fitness-well-being/stories/creationists-and-conspiracy-theorists-make-same-cognitive-error-study-finds
www.realclearscience.com/quick_and_clear_science/2018/08/21/creationism_and_conspiracy_theories_arise_from_an_error_in_thinking.html

Notice I left the links as are (like I did with the Sun article). Those are really not the issue.
If you think about it a bit, honestly, you'll have to admit it's true. By the way, I'm not for any second claiming there CANNOT be a conspiracy,
or that Paul didn't die/was replaced etc. I'm just sick of the way people treat these theories as facts,
and I don't think that if you pepper it with terms like "Mockingbird" "Shill" or "Fake News" it means you know what's going on.

It also bothers me that conspiracy theories became, in the last ten years, all-encompassing in nature.
If you believe one you have to believe the others and everything is connected to everything (which is part of what this study talks about).
I mean, let's suppose, for example, that Paul was replaced - does it mean that 9/11  was an inside job?
Does it mean the CIA killed JFK? Suppose only 2 of them are true - and if they are, does it necessarily mean there's a connection between them?

Couldn't two - or three - or a hundred conspiracies happen, unrelated at the same time?
People like Alex Jones and David Icke take every conspiracy theory out there and just add them up to the "big picture"
and now people expect everything to be connected. I get why they do it - it's their livelihood and people love it - 
but the result is the same as religion or blind ideology - the old "Everything is because of x"

I don't mind asking questions. It's when people get too sure of the answers that I get worried.

[sniffer]

Aug 20, 2018 22:32:21 GMT -5 joseph said:

I was thinking about why Pete Best had to leave The Beatles and the thought came to me that the social controllers couldn't have a band made up of John,
Paul, George and Peter - probably the four most important saints in English Christianity.
...
This plan would therefore been in place when George Martin was sent to look after them and Ringo replaced Pete Best.

 ... now in all fairness, I was a dick. Just as you (rightly) pointed out and mocked the "Sun" article for being, you know, a Sun article, 
I attacked you ad hominem - that's not very friendly, and definitely not part of a fruitful discourse, so back to the above quote(s).

If being "John Paul George and Peter" was any problem (again, I... find it hard to believe)
getting rid of George would've been way easier - Pete was better looking than him (back then)
and very popular with the girls/fans. What's more, there's this:

"During 1961–1962, Neil Aspinall became good friends with Pete and subsequently rented a room in the Bests' home.
Aspinall became romantically involved with Mona. During this period, Aspinall fathered a child by Mona:
Vincent "Roag" Best. Roag was born on 21 July 1962,  and just three weeks later, on 16 August 1962, the Beatles dismissed Pete." 
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Best

Now, maybe it's just coincidence (or bad luck) but if there was a non-musical reason for Pete's dismissal, my money's on this
I admit, it's more telenovela than dystopian sci-fi but on the other hand it's something no one denies -
yet no one is too eager to talk about. That combination, to me ... smells like the truth 



 

[hotman637]

Aug 21, 2018 4:37:01 GMT -5 sniffer said:

oo-ee here we go again.
"The Beatles were part of an attack on our humble Christian community! Counterculture is EVIL! Smoking weed is devil-worship!"
Two years ago, I'd maybe find it funny. Not anymore. We are back full circle to the type of people who burned Beatles records in 1966.
Why not cut the middleman (Tavistock/Freemasons/Illuminati/Lizard-people) and just blame the Jews?

Here's some more food for thought:
www.mirror.co.uk/science/people-who-believe-god-created-13110217

What I came to see is that people are not "lizards" (Icke is a retard) or "monkeys" or "Sheeple"!

Look at peoples EYES and what is staring back at you? INSECTS! People have INSECT EYES!

We are cold calculating beady insects! Insects and humans are also the ONLY creatures that can create an ENTIRE civilization!

Insects operate in TWO ways! By algorithms and orders from the Queen Bee!

So OF COURSE they are called The Beatles!

[B]

Bumble Bee (Mono Version)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=quwf9GwHihE

[timmyb52]

I happen to agree with Mike Williams on this one. I think The Beatles were organic up until they meet with Brian Epstein.
However,the story of their lives up until that point has been manipulated and enhanced in places to make them more fascinating and attractive...much easier to feel a common bond with.