|
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 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 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 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 10:24:02 GMT -5
Ok... where did IAAP get the idea that they were shot on different levels from?? I'm not in the habit of taking his word as gospel, so I had a look at my Please Please Me LP and the inlay for my Blue Album CD [which features both the Red and Blue album shots] and I just can't see how he would have thought that they weren't the same. I scanned the images, numbered the pillars and highlighted the floors above them to illustrate what I mean. [Incidentally the Red album shot is slightly different from the Please Please Me shot but only insofar as the poses have changed] [click the images for larger versions] ok.. picture 001: The Red Album Shot, clean. The top floor pillars are slightly blurred but nevertheless they are still there! picture 002: The Red Album Shot, numbered pillars, highlighted floors. As you can see - there are 5 floors above them. picture 003: The Blue Album Shot, numbered pillars, highlighted floors. The depth of field in this shot in better, so you can see that there are still... whaaaat?? thats right - FIVE floors above them picture 004: just for good measure, here's the Please Please Me shot. Again, there are FIVE floors above them. But don't take it from me - make your own comparisons, you'll see I'm not wrong. Conclusion? They were on the same floor for each of these pictures.. so what was the point in the video?? ...you know what really grinds my gears..? EDIT: The picture below [~1:10 on RA55] is taken from a Beatle bootleg. I'm not sure which one yet, but I've definitely seen it before at bootlegzone.com. I'll let you all know when I find it...
|
|
|
Post by The Deceptionist on Sept 24, 2007 20:15:23 GMT -5
I think Freud would have had a field day analyzing me lol. You see candle, I see mammoth appendage... what is wrong with me? Does anyone see the significance of them being shot on two different levels yet? Also, I'm pretty sure I've seen the two Images combined in that way on the cover of a bootleg.. anyone know which one off the top of their heads?
|
|
|
Post by The Deceptionist on Sept 24, 2007 19:56:38 GMT -5
jarv's picture...great find btw. ...is it from the 'Love' graphics...? Welcome Horseloverphat, my first reaction was the image resembled Bast standing before a blue 'candle'? or something other. Excuse my dirty mind but could this represent a god of fertility?
|
|
|
Post by The Deceptionist on Sept 24, 2007 19:54:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by The Deceptionist on Sept 13, 2007 8:30:34 GMT -5
i still reckon old Jim McCartney could have been into the O.T.O. and all that
|
|
|
Post by The Deceptionist on Sept 11, 2007 19:56:04 GMT -5
looks to me like it says "WILLIAM M. SHEPHERD"
|
|
|
Post by The Deceptionist on Sept 9, 2007 9:59:19 GMT -5
they've changed the sgt pepper cover?
I thought it was just the david letterman drum
|
|
|
Post by The Deceptionist on Aug 26, 2007 19:45:36 GMT -5
I believe what is being said is: "Put it backwards." reeeally? i dunno.. I've been playing it backwards, forwards - inside out - half speed, double speed... It still doesn't sound like 'put it backwards' to me.. I still think - 'b-b-b-baphomet' ... I don't know - its late
|
|
|
Post by The Deceptionist on Aug 26, 2007 18:39:23 GMT -5
hm.. play the Love version of Lady Madonna backwards..?
has anyone else tried this yet? I can't seem to glean anything from it..
Also, does anyone else hear John saying 'baphomet' in the intro- right after George Martin's 'have you heard it backwards?' - or is it just me?
It seems IAAP has looped that particular phrase quite a few times over the rest of the intro. Another case of 'is it a clue or am I just reading what isn't there into his artistic license?'
|
|
|
Post by The Deceptionist on Aug 22, 2007 11:36:07 GMT -5
The Deceptionist, are you paying attention to JoJo's posts at all? The drum on the Larry King Live show has the same typeface used in the video. Therefore, the 2007 version of the Sgt. Pepper drum has new lettering. What? I didn't dispute that. I'm just saying that its a little suspect when he shows us 'the original' and the 'new version' - and the very portion of lettering that he asks us to inspect on his 'original' isn't actually the same as THE original. The looking glass message has always been 1 or 2mm away from BIE.. this new version isn't going to alter that. What is his point?
|
|
|
Post by The Deceptionist on Aug 22, 2007 10:46:29 GMT -5
Here is the comparison from RA#47P for those who can't or haven't seen the clip: why do i get the feeling there's some misdirection at work here? and here, too.... in this video [48] he goes to great lengths to point out the difference this new lettering will make... The above picture [with the date 1967 below it] is NOT the original Pepper drum, in so much as it is a doctored picture or something along those lines. GET OUT YOUR LP COVERS, KIDS ;D Now look at IAAP's 1967 'R'.. where does that tail on the top left come from??? the only real difference made with this new lettering is that the A isnt so much of an arrow ^ ... The 'R' on the ACTUAL Pepper sleeve is near enough identical to the one shown above [with 2007 below it]. [Alternate Sgt Pepper Cover Thread] invanddis.proboards29.com/index.cgi?board=pidpix&action=display&thread=1187035574and.. where [or why] did he get this doctored pepper drum? is the question we should be asking.. and why go to such trouble to point out differences that aren't really there?
|
|
|
Post by The Deceptionist on Aug 2, 2007 9:27:31 GMT -5
Eh.....what version? Clearly you can't put a timestamp on the vinyl version, so you must use one of the CD versions, and my CD rip of the song has it at seven minutes and two seconds, i.e. six minutes and sixty-two seconds. My Blue Album and Past Masters II versions are both listed as 07:08 long - not sure if thats inclusive of the two second silence that a lot of CD tracks have added; Windows Media Player, iTunes and Winamp all list it as 07:08; I imported it into Adobe Audition to uber-amplify the last two seconds and the fade-out does indeed go to silence at precisely 07:06.. or 06:66 ... freaky
|
|
|
Post by The Deceptionist on Jul 30, 2007 5:21:26 GMT -5
...This is why I like to run with the theory that Bill is really Paul's "other" brother, from a previous relationship of his father's. Who better to play the role of a famous McCartney than another McCartney? his brother from another mother, so to speak?
|
|
|
Post by The Deceptionist on Jul 30, 2007 0:27:13 GMT -5
Fred LaBour was the guy who came up with the name William Campbell for his campus paper the Michigan Daily. He later admitted to having fabricated a number of PID clues in the early days. www.recmusicbeatles.com/public/files/faqs/pid.html"...J. Gray was the literary editor of The Michigan Daily, student newspaper at the U. of Michigan. Leslie Wayne was its arts editor, and one Fred LaBour was an arts reviewer. Ms. Wayne assigned a review of the Beatles' recently released "Abbey Road" LP to LaBour, who serendipitously listened to Russell Gibb's radio show the Sunday afternoon wherein the "clues" were jocularly announced. LaBour was inspired to write his own article, based on "clues" from Gibb and some invented ones of his own. The Michigan Daily published it under the title "McCartney Dead; New Evidence Brought To Light". Editor Gray and author LaBour assumed it was obvious that their work was a joke. The rest of the world took it seriously. Gray reports that he and LaBour received phone calls from media representatives worldwide, and playing along, LaBour insisted on the veracity of his information. Gray says that LaBour's article was reprinted in an anthology of student writings, and that LaBour was even flown to Los Angeles for a television interview. (LaBour, BTW, became a musician and toured in the seventies with Dickie Lee, whose fame was based on death-themes too---"Patches" and "Laurie"---and eventually played guitar for Riders In The Sky). A followup article, printed in J. Gray's underground journal "Big Fat Magazine", gives the date of Russ Gibb's broadcast (12 October 1969), the date of Fred LaBour's tongue-in-cheek response (14 October 1969), and even details some of the clues invented by LaBour---the invention of William Campbell, Paul's "look-alike" (LaBour originally wanted to call him Glenn Campbell but thought that would be too obvious); the statement that a walrus was a Greek symbol for a corpse (this seemingly derived from the Harper/Ulviden clue that the walrus was a Scandinavian or American Indian sign of death!). Gray is certain that LaBour got his idea for the "Paul Is Dead" hoax from Russ Gibb's show. However, both Gibb and LaBour are probably responsible for the inclusion of "clues" from the Abbey Road LP, which had just been released in the U.S. Before Gibb's radio show, no Abbey Road LP clues existed, of course. And before Tim Harper's article, it appears that the hoax, if it existed at all, was spread by word of mouth at campus parties during the first week of classes that semester..."
|
|
|
Post by The Deceptionist on Jul 29, 2007 23:48:29 GMT -5
It seems unlikely that this woman would yell "Hello Billy" to Paul and have it go to broadcast, and yes, it was clearly addressed to the man standing, with the "two brats". well.. thats one charge of misinformation i can add to iamaphoney's impressively small rap-sheet - but to be fair if you compare that to Fred LaBour he's pretty much a saint
|
|
|
Post by The Deceptionist on Jul 29, 2007 23:20:12 GMT -5
did anyone else notice the old woman subtitled as saying 'Hello Billy' at 1:24 doesn't seem to be saying anything even remotely similar? www.veoh.com/videos/v280632Rr5DSdSQThe part in the video that is shown in RA is at 1:19 The "Hello Billy" is at 1:32 (just the facts) ok, so looking at the original clip it seems to me as though the guy Paul is saying '...saw a couple of your brats the other evening..' to is the one that 'Hello, Billy' was directed at - and not from 'Mildred' but from the woman sat opposite Paul, front-right, who greets 'Billy' with 'Hello Billy, are you going to sit here?' and then a kiss. However, this is not raw footage ie the visuals have been spliced together and then the soundtrack edited over that, so 'Hello, Billy' could come from anywhere for any reason that the editor's thought necessary. As the 'Hello Billy' occurs over two clips it seems as though it could just have been used to bridge an uneasy-sounding section perhaps to mask the edit. Even if 'Hello Billy' wasn't directed at the standing man, seeing as Paul is already sat down it doesn't make sense that it should be directed at him either. Also, in the RA version the visuals are further altered and a few seconds of crucial audio are missed out - the trailing end of 'sit here...' is crossfaded out adding to the ambiguity of what she might be saying. The introduction between the standing man and the woman in the front-right is also missed out. There are plenty of brilliant gems in the RA series, but I'm not buying this clip at all.
|
|
|
Post by The Deceptionist on Jul 29, 2007 22:01:35 GMT -5
did anyone else notice the old woman subtitled as saying 'Hello Billy' at 1:24 doesn't seem to be saying anything even remotely similar?
|
|
|
Post by The Deceptionist on Apr 11, 2008 7:12:30 GMT -5
i think its more frustration than surprise EB lol ... something in the vein of 'why did i bother.. im going back to bed'
|
|
|
Post by The Deceptionist on Apr 12, 2008 20:29:44 GMT -5
Right now my jaws quite swollen.. so if i had a trilby and some specs i could probably pull off Ronnie Barker lol - actually come to think of it, my jawline's quite reminiscent of Mal Evans at the moment.. bloody wisdom teeth
|
|
|
Post by The Deceptionist on Apr 12, 2008 20:17:40 GMT -5
Yeah, from the Frost Report I believe! so i guess that would make you john cleese, me ronnie barker, and mike ronnie corbett lol
|
|
|
Post by The Deceptionist on Apr 12, 2008 20:12:12 GMT -5
what was the sketch show that had john cleese and the two ronnies on it?
"i look up to him because he is much bigger than me..."
for some reason that just flashed through my mind lol
|
|