|
Post by B on Sept 25, 2007 10:53:07 GMT -5
I disagree. ;D I think he's right, and you're wrong, although I respect your detective work. Go to the video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTXKC9CMRjEAt 00:40, there are 5 bars on the left (above 'Ringo's head) - blue album. At 00:45, there are 4 bars on the left (above Ringo's head) - red album. You have inserted a fifth bar here: that isn't really there, imo. Compare the dimensions of the distant ceiling in the second and third pictures you posted. There is a small, but significant, difference.
|
|
|
Post by That Latvian Guy on Sept 25, 2007 10:56:53 GMT -5
I disagree. ;D I think he's right, and you're wrong, although I respect your detective work. Go to the video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTXKC9CMRjEAt 00:40, there are 5 bars on the left (above 'Ringo's head) - blue album. At 00:45, there are 4 bars on the left (above Ringo's head) - red album. You have inserted a fifth bar here: that isn't really there, imo. Put your glasses on! There are five bars, the fifth is barely visible but you can see it if you try
|
|
Jude
Hard Day's Night
Acting Naturally
Posts: 34
|
Post by Jude on Sept 25, 2007 11:13:57 GMT -5
I agree with Letter B, although I can't completely verify it for myself since I don't have the Red or Blue albums. When the two shots are combined....who is that person standing in the upper left corner of the shot? Just northwest of Ringo's head....who is that?
|
|
|
Post by The Deceptionist on Sept 25, 2007 11:16:31 GMT -5
I disagree. ;D I think he's right, and you're wrong, although I respect your detective work. Go to the video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTXKC9CMRjEAt 00:40, there are 5 bars on the left (above 'Ringo's head) - blue album. At 00:45, there are 4 bars on the left (above Ringo's head) - red album. You have inserted a fifth bar here: that isn't really there, imo. It's there, trust me. Its hard to see - as I said, the depth of field in the '63 photo isn't as great as the '69 one so it is blurred. Add to that the fact that youtube has uber-low quality resolution and you have your answer. Get out your copy of Please Please Me or The Red Album and run a magnifying glass over it... or - hold on and I'll scan a better unaltered version: [I'm scanning at 1200DPI, just for you ] [click it to see it full-size]
|
|
|
Post by The Deceptionist on Sept 25, 2007 11:19:03 GMT -5
I agree with Letter B, although I can't completely verify it for myself since I don't have the Red or Blue albums. When the two shots are combined....who is that person standing in the upper left corner of the shot? Just northwest of Ringo's head....who is that? I'm still waiting on the bootleg geeks at the BZforum to confirm which bootleg the above photo is from. I'm absolutely adamant that the picture used is from a bootleg. And I wouldn't be surprised if the person you mean has little or nothing to do with anything PID. It's not. I overlayed the two pictures on Photoshop and the angle is significantly different. The pillars don't line up; the '69 photographer was stood a few feet off from where the '63 photographer was stood. The only reason that it looks as though IAAP is correct is because when he shows it, he shrinks the 'Red Album' picture that we see overlayed at ~0:45. OF COURSE it will look as though they're on the floor above if the picture is shrunk, think about it... Have I sold it to you yet?
|
|
|
Post by skyward on Sept 25, 2007 11:21:57 GMT -5
Assuming they are at different levels, I don't know if they are, but assuming they are, is that really relevant, was it intentional or just a technical flub? I just think it would be hard to say, definitively, that this is a clue. Of course, if it was an intentional clue, then you'd have to deduce the message, which is also open to interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by B on Sept 25, 2007 11:31:44 GMT -5
OK, I've changed my mind. (For now...)
|
|
|
Post by The Deceptionist on Sept 25, 2007 11:36:31 GMT -5
Peter Griffin on Misleading Videos and Disinformation:"You know what really grinds my gears? This IAAP. IAAP with all those little videos, jumping around there on stage, half-naked with your little videos. Ya know? You're a...You're out there jumping around and I'm just sitting here with my beer. So, what am I supposed to do? What you want? You know, are we gonna go out? Is that what you're trying to - why why are you leaping around there, throwing those things all up in my, over there in my face? What do you want, Phoney? Tell me what you want? Well, I'll tell you what you want, you want nothing. You want noth- Oh, well it appears I've been fired. Well, as long as I'm no longer working here, let me tell ya something: You know what really grinds my gears? You, I Am A Phoney! F*CK YOU!!! ... Diane?"
|
|
|
Post by tafultong on Sept 25, 2007 11:43:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by The Deceptionist on Sept 25, 2007 11:50:50 GMT -5
I'm not sure what he was up to on this one. Is he on the level? Is he on the 5th or 6th level? I don't know what level he's on, but I have heard that there are seven levels. www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGuKC3wZ6esLol I love that story; the first time they got stoned I believe? My friends use that as their prime example for disliking Paul.. But he wasn't far wrong. There are of course 7 chakras, and 7 is one of those 'lucky' numbers that reoccurs throughout the cosmos time and again from days of the week to the deadly sins.. maybe he was on to something?
|
|
|
Post by horseloverphat on Sept 25, 2007 12:00:36 GMT -5
"so what was the point in the video??" in regard of the cover shots you've posted and the fact that they seem on the same levels....I'm just a little uncertain about the 'red' lp number of floors...it could be 4 or 5...IAAP has overlapped the images to show the difference...so maybe he is right? with the juxtaposition shot and meaning....aside. (allusions to dante three realms of the dead perhaps, which ties in with the judgement of osiris etc) seems it could be a very early Faul shot on the blue lp...and Get Back too. Faul's chin is obscured by his forearm (as in Get Back)....not the case in the other pics. A problem with Faul's chin/lower jaw line at the time the shot was taken? Funny thing is... this RA episode for some reasons makes me hark back to a movie called Angel Heart (Alan Parker, did Floyd's The Wall)...where in the scene at the end he (Mickey Rourke) travels down an elevator shaft indicative of a descent into hell...especially seeing as this was superceded by Lucifer (De Niro) reclaiming his soul. from Wiki re: Angel Heart. Rourke plays Harry Angel, a seedy private investigator in 1955 New York City. Louis Cyphre (De Niro) hires Angel to locate Johnny Favorite, a popular big band crooner who was severely injured in World War II and hospitalized with profound brain damage. Cyphre discovers that the hospital falsified Favorite's records, and wants Angel to find out what happened, as Favorite owed a debt to Cyphre. (there is a nurse alive)Angel must finally face the fact that he is Johnny Favorite himself, having abducted and, through a Satanic ritual, taken the place and identity of the original Harry Angel, a soldier returning from the war whom he (Favorite) randomly picked off the street. (Sound familiar?)Favorite had promised his soul to the Devil in exchange for worldly success, but then tried to renege by taking the place of another. It is only after he realizes his true identity that Cyphre can claim what is his: Favorite's very soul. Over the end credits, there is a lengthy sequence of Angel descending in a rickety old elevator, apparently on his way to Hell. Cyphre taunts, "That's it, Johnny. Take a good look. No matter how cleverly you sneak up on a mirror, your reflection stares you right in the eye."Sounds very much like a reworking of our story re: Paul/Faul!!! Any thoughts......? ps.... This latest video seems to be mainly a filler....in a recent one no.53 he states that the date 12112007 will be relevent in respect of JPM...now this is something that cannot (imo) be ascertained from LP covers/lyrics etc this (if the date is reliable) is a claim of prior knowledge...so what does the date have to do with anything shown in IAAP's videos....he must be claiming being privvy to a form of fore/prior knowledge....in respect of JPM....is that right?
|
|
Jude
Hard Day's Night
Acting Naturally
Posts: 34
|
Post by Jude on Sept 25, 2007 13:15:26 GMT -5
Horseloversphat, The McCartney Years DVD is being released November 13, so the 12112007 (or, in the European dating system, November 12, 2007) date seems to imply that something will take place on the day before.
|
|
|
Post by The Deceptionist on Sept 25, 2007 13:20:14 GMT -5
update: After browsing the BZ forum I have indeed come across someone with this ... ...as their avatar. I sent them a PM, so I should be able to find a) what bootleg this features in and b) a bigger version of the picture - minus the black area we see in RA55 Et Voila... Just a clever bit of image manipulation; the picture is from a record titled: 'Selections From The Beatles 1962-1966 & 1967-1970 - US - CD ALBUM - Promo'. eil.com/shop/moreinfo.asp?catalogid=22833In this picture you can clearly see that they use the '69 background and just paste the '63 bodies onto the level above. I don't know where the extra person on the left came from in the RA55 version yet. Perhaps just another bit of IAAP image trickery? Compare with.. Looking at this its apparent that IAAP didn't use the 'Selections' image above [note the position of '63 John Lennon's hands] but he almost certainly took his inspiration from it. In fact, looking closer at the small avatar at the top of this post it doesn't look like that person used the 'Selections' picture either. I'm still waiting on a reply from them, so I will keep you all informed as it develops... EDIT: Hold a ruler along the left corner of the stairwell [ie running from where Ringo's right arm is to the top] on the 'selections' version and you will see that the perspective is correct and that it doesn't falter from this straight line. However, looking at the smaller avatar picture and IAAP's version it appears that they have the [noticeably lighter] roof of the '63 shot and that the perspective goes off-line from where they pasted the '63 picture in - like I said, the photographer was stood at a slightly different angle in the two photo-shoots.
|
|
|
Post by horseloverphat on Sept 25, 2007 13:25:54 GMT -5
"Horseloversphat, The McCartney Years DVD is being released November 13, so the 12112007 (or, in the European dating system, November 12, 2007) date seems to imply that something will take place on the day before."
Yes..that is right, the day after the dvd is released.
but....IAAP is claiming fore knowledge of something in this case, has there been any discussion about how he could have access to such information....(divine intervention)?
or will it turn out to mean something totally different.?
the origin of this info is the most important point...imo.
|
|
Jude
Hard Day's Night
Acting Naturally
Posts: 34
|
Post by Jude on Sept 25, 2007 13:57:33 GMT -5
I think that there is something significant about the date 11/12. 11+12 = 23, which, for various reasons seems to be an evil number, not the least of which is the fact that 2 divided by 3 is .666. Conversely, the date 11/13 or 11 + 13 = 24 seems to suggest completion and fulfillment (24 hours in a day).
|
|
Jude
Hard Day's Night
Acting Naturally
Posts: 34
|
Post by Jude on Sept 25, 2007 14:02:50 GMT -5
Peter Griffin on Misleading Videos and Disinformation:"You know what really grinds my gears? This IAAP. IAAP with all those little videos, jumping around there on stage, half-naked with your little videos. Ya know? You're a...You're out there jumping around and I'm just sitting here with my beer. So, what am I supposed to do? What you want? You know, are we gonna go out? Is that what you're trying to - why why are you leaping around there, throwing those things all up in my, over there in my face? What do you want, Phoney? Tell me what you want? Well, I'll tell you what you want, you want nothing. You want noth- Oh, well it appears I've been fired. Well, as long as I'm no longer working here, let me tell ya something: You know what really grinds my gears? You, I Am A Phoney! F*CK YOU!!! ... Diane?"
That was hilarious. ;D Did you see the Family Guy Star Wars special? I just watched it. Very funny stuff.
|
|
|
Post by The Deceptionist on Sept 25, 2007 14:12:43 GMT -5
That was hilarious. ;D Did you see the Family Guy Star Wars special? I just watched it. Very funny stuff. lol I couldn't resist Star Wars special eh? I haven't seen any new ones since Meet the Quagmires, so if its newer than that I'll have to go look-see and if its older than that - then I'll have to rack my memory and look on my hard-drive.. either way, it sounds like something that will provide quotes abound lol
|
|
|
Post by The Deceptionist on Sept 25, 2007 14:21:10 GMT -5
ok... it appears the elusive figure on the left IS Michael Jackson, so the picture IAAP is using has undoubtedly been doing the rounds on the internet for a while from the BZ forum: in fact, I now have the picture in question... its a bit of a moot point now really...
|
|
Jude
Hard Day's Night
Acting Naturally
Posts: 34
|
Post by Jude on Sept 25, 2007 14:54:43 GMT -5
Wow, this is getting complicated. Where did the Michael Jackson/Beatles picture originate, then? As you pointed out, the stairwells line up differently than in the bootleg cover. So the question is, did iamaphoney make this version of the image himself? Probably not, but why would someone make their own version of the stairwell image rather than use the pre-existing one from the bootleg? I'm confused... Whatever the source of the Michael Jackson edit, the actual bootleg cover is such an amazing work of Photoshoppery that I am beginning to wonder if it's photoshopped at all! To me, it doesn't look like they were "pasted" in there.
|
|
|
Post by The Deceptionist on Sept 25, 2007 16:00:09 GMT -5
Wow, this is getting complicated. Where did the Michael Jackson/Beatles picture originate, then? As you pointed out, the stairwells line up differently than in the bootleg cover. So the question is, did iamaphoney make this version of the image himself? Probably not, but why would someone make their own version of the stairwell image rather than use the pre-existing one from the bootleg? I'm confused... Whatever the source of the Michael Jackson edit, the actual bootleg cover is such an amazing work of Photoshoppery that I am beginning to wonder if it's photoshopped at all! To me, it doesn't look like they were "pasted" in there. Ok.. to me it seems an obvious parody to come up with. Some clever soul, most likely a Beatle fan, made the link between having not only both eras of the Beatles looking down at the viewer but Jacko and his kid, too. So its possible that this could even be a couple of years old. With regards to why they didn't just use the original... I don't know - maybe they got a bit more satisfaction knowing they did all the work themselves. As far as photoshop trickery goes, this isn't too difficult a feat to achieve. Simply lasso the '63 bodies from the original, resize accordingly, perhaps alter the levels, contrast etc and then just paste over the '69 version. However, the way the Jacko one works is that they lassoed the bodies of the '63 pic upwards, not including the bannister they're leaning on, and again just pasted it onto the '69 shot. Unfortunately, the resolution this picture is in makes it hard to tell how many floors are above them - take a blurry image and shrink it and you're left with: an ambiguous picture - but I am quite satisfied, in my mind at least, that in both instances they were standing on the same floor. Close, IAAP - but no cigar The actual bootleg cover may be old enough for it to have been done by hand - in which case you pretty much just do the same thing, only with a craft knife or pair of scissors and a colour copier. P.S. I just watched that Star Wars special. I haven't laughed out loud at a cartoon like that in ages lol. Such a precise and perfect parody. Only now I'm looking for the Robot Chicken one, too hehe.
|
|
Jude
Hard Day's Night
Acting Naturally
Posts: 34
|
Post by Jude on Sept 25, 2007 16:34:30 GMT -5
I laughed my head when they mentioned the Robot Chicken episode.
Peter: Yeah, but I don't anyone really knows that show exists.
Chris: Come now, let's not be glib, dad.
|
|
|
Post by The Deceptionist on Sept 25, 2007 19:02:14 GMT -5
www.beatlefans.com/film/Beatles%20Get%20back%20Photo%20Session%20Page.htma fella [it might not have been a fella] from the BZ forum also directed me to this link which shows John and George in different suits. Apparently EMI had built a porch where the original photographer had stood, so they couldn't replicate the picture exactly. So they took some pictures from a different angle and then EMI had the porch taken down so they could re-shoot on a different day, from the correct angle - although they were still out slightly in the final prints. Notice Paul's chin is covered in EVERY photo taken on both days. oh, and here's a reversal of today's EMI stairwell paradigm
|
|
|
Post by MikeNL on Sept 26, 2007 0:37:36 GMT -5
some really weird Faul pics (from the site The Deceptionist gave) look at how angry he looks at the second
|
|
Jude
Hard Day's Night
Acting Naturally
Posts: 34
|
Post by Jude on Sept 26, 2007 1:13:28 GMT -5
Haha, I love Bill's face. He can look really cute and funny one moment (just like Paul), but when he wants to he can look really badass and scary. This colorful personality can also be seen if you compare a song like "I Will" to something insane like "Helter Skelter".
|
|
Jude
Hard Day's Night
Acting Naturally
Posts: 34
|
Post by Jude on Sept 26, 2007 1:22:32 GMT -5
oh, and here's a reversal of today's EMI stairwell paradigm Don't you mean THIS is a reversal? Thanks for the link, by the way! I never thought I'd see such hi-res Beatles photos!
|
|