|
Post by chica on Apr 29, 2016 23:45:35 GMT -5
P.S I just finished reading Here There And Everywhere by Geoff Emerick. You said you read it and that he said when he recorded McFartney's music after the Beatles breakup that he had to do it with the windows in the recording room blacked out. You had to have read some other book because that wasn't in the book.
I've never even heard of that book, let alone suggested that I've read it. You must be referring to someone else.Sorry, that was hotman637. my bad.
|
|
|
Post by chica on Apr 29, 2016 22:25:41 GMT -5
Too add to all the confusion. The truth is coming out so TPTB throw out 10 other theories making it hard to see just WHAT the truth is. What I have posted comes from on high. I was one of the original founders of the first forums and left for a while but have made a brief return visit due to recent clarity on certain information. So, what kind of words of wisdom from on high do you have for us? What is TPTB?
|
|
|
Post by chica on Apr 29, 2016 20:14:31 GMT -5
Since they met at the Liverpool College of Art which John Lennon also attended and a meeting with Cynthia in a calligraphy class led to their relationship before the Beatles were ever famous, I seriously doubt she was a golddigger, the goldigger was that biosh Yoko.
P.S I just finished reading Here There And Everywhere by Geoff Emerick. You said you read it and that he said when he recorded McFartney's music after the Beatles breakup that he had to do it with the windows in the recording room blacked out. You had to have read some other book because that wasn't in the book. No I said that he FIRST recorded the Beatles back in the early sixties they were in SEPARATE rooms with no windows! I could be wrong but that is how I remember the book. I will see if I can find more about that. It just seemed awfully strange to me! You said this on thatsgrooveyman's post about the replacement timeline: The control room was up a flight of stairs not like they are now down level with the musicians, so it made it hard to interact with them they had to speak to them on speakers. He never said that sessions musicians replaced the Beatles totally. A guy named Andy White did sit in for Ringo on drums because being of small stature Ringo couldn't get a certain song right.
|
|
|
Post by chica on Apr 29, 2016 16:08:23 GMT -5
Yeah, just imagine if he had treated his son with respect and love. I hope he's burning in hell for the way he treated Julian!, and his mom! I always felt that long-suffering Cynthia was smarter than she looked and knew which way the winds of fortune were blowing when she became pregnant with Julian in '62. Of course John couldn't have been a "present" father at the time of Julian's birth because the Beatles were just beginning to take off on an unprecedented meteoric rise. Still, there was no excuse for him not having more contact with the kid later on. Since they met at the Liverpool College of Art which John Lennon also attended and a meeting with Cynthia in a calligraphy class led to their relationship before the Beatles were ever famous, I seriously doubt she was a golddigger, the goldigger was that biosh Yoko.
P.S I just finished reading Here There And Everywhere by Geoff Emerick. You said you read it and that he said when he recorded McFartney's music after the Beatles breakup that he had to do it with the windows in the recording room blacked out. You had to have read some other book because that wasn't in the book.
|
|
|
Post by chica on Apr 29, 2016 9:23:35 GMT -5
Mardas gave the Beatles regular reports of his progress, but when they required their new studio in January 1969, during the Get Back project that became Let It Be, they discovered an unusable studio: no 72-track tape deck (Mardas had reduced it to 16 tracks),[55] no soundproofing, no talkback (intercom) system, and not even a patch bay to run the wiring between the control room and the 16 speakers that Mardas had fixed haphazardly to the walls.[55] The only new piece of sound equipment present was a crude mixing console which Mardas had built, which looked (in the words of Martin's assistant, Dave Harries) like "bits of wood and an old oscilloscope".[55] The console was scrapped after just one session. Harrison said it was "chaos", and that they had to "rip it all out and start again,"[56] calling it "the biggest disaster of all time."[55] Harrison's suspicions of Mardas' competence had been raised when he saw him wandering around in a white coat with a clipboard, and considered the possibility that Mardas had "just read the latest version of Science Weekly, and used its ideas".[57] Mardas later stated that he had never been in the basement of Savile Row, as the studio equipment he was building was being tested in Apple Electronics, at Boston Place, Marylebone.[12] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_AlexAttachments:
|
|
|
Post by chica on Apr 28, 2016 21:06:56 GMT -5
lol Yeah, just imagine if he had treated his son with respect and love. I hope he's burning in hell for the way he treated Julian!, and his mom!
|
|
|
Post by chica on Apr 28, 2016 11:57:07 GMT -5
I don't see that at all, the nose is clearly John's. By the time they made MMT John was in and out of hairstyles all the time. You could be right. As a matter of fact, the first time he cut his mop top hair was in the filming of "How I Won The War" during the recording of St. Pepper:
|
|
|
Post by chica on Apr 27, 2016 10:48:33 GMT -5
I find this very odd. Why are John and George helping Nicola blow up a red balloon and George is dressed like a gangster holding a gun with a bird pecking on his hat in the MMT booklet in the EPI version.
Hmm... Seem to be Sir Paul portraying John. Hair and nose belong to Sir Paul. Look at his hair, it's exactly like it is in the cartoon:
|
|
|
Post by chica on Apr 27, 2016 10:06:02 GMT -5
I find this very odd. Why are John and George helping Nicola blow up a red balloon and George is dressed like a gangster holding a gun with a bird pecking on his hat in the MMT booklet in the EPI version.
Hmm... Seem to be Sir Paul portraying John. Hair and nose belong to Sir Paul. I don't see that at all, the nose is clearly John's. By the time they made MMT John was in and out of hairstyles all the time.
|
|
|
Post by chica on Apr 26, 2016 10:23:39 GMT -5
So your off the Kray twins theory? Not exactly, I'm just open to various options/explanations as to what happened to McCartney in the mid-60s. I find this very odd. Why are John and George helping Nicola blow up a red balloon and George is dressed like a gangster holding a gun with a bird pecking on his hat in the MMT booklet in the EPI version.
|
|
|
Post by chica on Apr 25, 2016 8:20:41 GMT -5
So your off the Kray twins theory?
|
|
|
Post by chica on Apr 25, 2016 8:13:18 GMT -5
So your off the Kray twins theory?
|
|
|
Post by chica on Apr 24, 2016 22:24:26 GMT -5
So your off the Kray twins theory?
|
|
|
Post by chica on Apr 24, 2016 22:24:02 GMT -5
Uhhhhh, you can't surgically stretch a chin. I don't believe JPM is dead these days, but that he did suffer a car accident in 1965. Maybe August-September 1965. This accident didn't kill him, but further proved him incapable of making any further public appearances, therefore doubles were trained and used throughout the Beatles career. JPM was in the studio quite a bit, but wasn't quite the same mentally. When Sgt. Pepper's was being made, JPM's mental capacity was degrading further into new lows, due to high consumage of LSD. JPM seemed to have even concluded that his actual soul departed his from body after the accident in '65, and that the soul of Aleister Crowley now possessed him, further prompting him to believe he was the 'Son Of The Magickian.' Anyways, Rubber Soul hints the accident with two stand-out songs: 'Drive My Car' and 'I'm Looking Through You.' Remember what Faulie said, 'there are TWO Paul McCartney's.'
|
|
|
Post by chica on Apr 24, 2016 15:12:15 GMT -5
Look at the chins, the one on the right is much longer, as a matter of fact it almost comes to a point and look at the big cleft in it!
"You been a naughty boy you let your face grow long."
|
|
|
Post by chica on Apr 24, 2016 9:50:31 GMT -5
I like Tina Foster a lot. Johnson sounds ok here, but I question his motives. On the subject of 911 he is a joke. We're not talking about 9/11, well at least I'm not. What kind of motives could the guy possibly have? It looks like to me you just flat don't like the guy or are a handler. Eddy, you spurred my interest in your comments of Mr. Johnson and I got to looking, So is Dr. Jusdy Wood a liar too?
|
|
|
Post by chica on Apr 20, 2016 15:00:35 GMT -5
I like Tina Foster a lot. Johnson sounds ok here, but I question his motives. On the subject of 911 he is a joke. We're not talking about 9/11, well at least I'm not. What kind of motives could the guy possibly have? It looks like to me you just flat don't like the guy or are a handler.
|
|
|
Post by chica on Apr 20, 2016 13:17:19 GMT -5
Read the link. Since the interview with Mr. Johnson and Tina Foster didn't have a thing to do with Dr. Wood, I'm assuming and correct me if I'm wrong that you are claiming Mr. Johnson is a rabbit holer that has not done any legitimate research into PID, or are you claiming that about Tina Foster?
Mr. Johnson agrees with everything Tina says and even asks a couple of questions that Tina can't answer that even I knew the answer to.
So is it your intenet to just slam Mr. Johnson or Tina also?
|
|
|
Post by chica on Apr 19, 2016 21:34:14 GMT -5
the interviewer is Andrew Johnson, a 911 rabbit hole digger, he was a Judy Wood (911 gatekeeper) promoter. Fetzer is a 911 gatekeeper, and so is Andrew. Notice he has done zero research on PID What is a rabbit hole digger and a Judy Wood (911 gatekeeper) promoter?
|
|
|
Post by chica on Apr 19, 2016 14:07:08 GMT -5
Seems like a cloaked statement to me. Maybe. The thing that gets me is George at 26,27,28 says they lovED John and they lovED Paul not love Paul. When a person is dead it is very common for people to say "boy we really lovED that guy" not "boy we really loVE that guy". If McFartney is really Paul, What? he and Ringo don't love him anymore? George very clearly puts ED on love in both cases with John and Paul.
|
|
|
Feet
Apr 19, 2016 9:21:14 GMT -5
Post by chica on Apr 19, 2016 9:21:14 GMT -5
This has really got me puzzled. Sorry don't have a date on the vintage one with Martha. The one with Paul/Faul standing against the door frame was supposedly taken by Linda. Look at the feet of the one with Martha and the one with Paul/Faul sitting against the brick wall they look the same (very long), could it be because of the angle the one against the door frame the feet don't look as long? Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by chica on Apr 19, 2016 9:09:42 GMT -5
It's hard to stand here representing the Beatles when this is all that's left. What he actually says is, "It's hard, really, to stand here...supposedly representing the Beatles...what's left, I'm afraid..." Seems like a cloaked statement to me.
|
|
|
Post by chica on Apr 19, 2016 9:03:37 GMT -5
Could I please get some feed back?
|
|
|
Post by chica on Apr 18, 2016 21:31:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by chica on Apr 18, 2016 16:37:15 GMT -5
This is one of the best Tina Foster interviews I've heard. But I'm having trouble figuring out who is interviewing her. And he must have put stuff on the internet that he felt was being monitored by someone and he calls them his handler. Can anyone make out who he is saying it is, it's at about 49:09 on the interview .
|
|