|
Post by 65if2007 on Mar 4, 2012 0:58:33 GMT -5
Rotten Apple 76 is one of my favorites, but what is the guy saying at 1:51 - 1:53?
Can anyone hear it or figure it out? I can't.
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Mar 1, 2012 23:06:41 GMT -5
hey, that's BONUS points for using a iaap registered Charity® game piece, right? magiK with O.K. reflections lol lol I remember when you were leaving for the quest, 65IF. I dropped you a note concerning taking with you survival supplies, as we were all concerned for your safety. Turned out all you had to do was waddle over and grab the suitcase, right? lol Ha ha. Look at that record company logo. "Packman with a "k". My waddling days ended in mid-2007. Before February 2007, I was inclined to pretty much eat and drink whatever I wanted -- then in February of that year, diabetes struck, and I had to lose the gut that I had been carrying around or face premature death/disability. I wasn't exactly a triathlete in late March 2008 -- sheesh, almost four years ago! -- nor am I one today, but I could/can maneuver a lot better without the extra 25-30 pounds that I managed to chase away in 2007. What's that, the equivalent of two bowling balls? So I could move around all right -- no waddling necessary. I probably wouldn't have undertaken the great phoney chase in my waddling days. Yes, I appreciated the concern for my safety, and I remember the advice about the emergency supplies, but I had my cell phone and this wasn't an isolated area -- cars passing by on the road and a number of residences overlooking the area. You can see this on the RA videos. I wasn't seriously worried about hunger or thirst -- as I said at the time though, if I'd heard a single hiss or rattle, I'd have gotten out of Dodge. Snakes were my biggest worry. The briefcase wasn't that easy to find though -- from RA 101 I could determine the general area but not the exact location so there was some hit-and-miss searching over a fairly wide area. Again, not something that I would have undertaken in my "waddling" era. And of course, after almost four years, I still have a 3-word request that I would like to deliver to Iamaphoney:
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Feb 29, 2012 21:48:30 GMT -5
Oh, I don't know, Letter B. Is there anything new to be said about Mal's briefcase contents at this late date?
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Feb 23, 2012 22:25:07 GMT -5
In the sky, with diamonds. It's a cover picture for Rolling Stone of Sir Paul McCartney blowing a kazoo. Though the glassy-eyed expression could easily lead to the impression that he's holding something else up to his lips.
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Feb 13, 2012 13:57:13 GMT -5
Whatever. At least I got the grail out of it. I'm done. Sorry it didn't work out. Better luck next time, I guess. A GRAIL? You got a GRAIL out of it? You're lucky. All I ever got out of it was a stupid briefcase containing a weird video and other worthless junk.
|
|
|
Fary?
Feb 9, 2012 23:37:46 GMT -5
Post by 65if2007 on Feb 9, 2012 23:37:46 GMT -5
Yeah. It's the same kid.
A lot of this stuff has to do with photographic quality and production, which is also something to keep in mind when comparing "Pauls".
Anyway, why would the Illuminati -- or whoever are the powers-that-be -- want to substitute an infant?
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Feb 7, 2012 0:45:57 GMT -5
OK really, that's out of the past that!
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Feb 6, 2012 22:29:52 GMT -5
Before I start, I've come under the belief recently that Paul didn't die, but for whatever reason, occasionally switched places with a double. Moving on, I'm wandering whether Paul or Bill married Linda. In this video, it is who I believe to be Paul talking about Linda having the baby, and staying in the hospital with her. However, in the new IAAP video, where DJ Roby Yonge talks about PID, he says that the "other McCartney" was hanging out with Linda, and it was his girlfriend. So who married who? Am I just getting them mixed up here? It's possible that it's really Bill in the video I posted, but judging by the facial shape and personality, it seems to be Paul. Any ideas? Well, I couldn't answer your question as phrased, but this is definitely a younger version of the same man who married Nancy Shevell last December.
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Jan 28, 2012 15:31:06 GMT -5
Jeez, why does he keep DOING this? And it isn't even just that he's referring to Paul McCartney in 3rd person again, but by saying "a 24 year old me", he's using 1966 as a point of reference.
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Jan 17, 2012 1:13:50 GMT -5
Iamaphoney indicates that this is the time, and I think he is right. I think a book will be released later this year which will raise many eyebrows, and then that film the Faul of Paul comes out in November with the same message, forcing Faul to organise a press conference, in which he comes clean. The elite's agenda this year is fear, this will make people's heads spin. They then top that event with a fake (Project Bluebeam) or real alien invasion in December. Keith Moon apparently said Faul was an alien, maybe he is, lol. Just my take on what seems most likely anyway. He knows his time is up and he's looking forward to it:Paul McCartney – (I Want To) Come Home (2010)For so long I was out in the cold, And I taught myself to believe every story I told. It was fun hanging onto the moon, heading into the sun; But it's been too long, Now I want to come home. Came so close to the edge of defeat, But I made my way in the shade keeping out of the heat. It was fun shooting out at the stars, looking into the sun; But it's been too long, Now I want to come home. Home, where there's nothing but sweet surrender, To the memories from afar. Home, to the place where the truth lies waiting, We remember who we are. For too long I was out on my own, Everyday I spent trying to prove I could make it alone. It was fun hanging onto the moon, heading into the sun; But it's been too long, Now I want to come home, Home. For so long I was out in the cold, But I taught myself to believe every story I told. It was fun hanging onto the moon, heading into the sun; But it's been too long, Now I want to come home. Yeah, it's been too long, And now I want to come home. Been too long, Now I want to come home. OK, I'll bite. I won't ask who the "elites" are. I won't ask if they have names, faces, etc. I won't bite down quite THAT hard. I just have one question: how could they arrange a "real" alien invasion?
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Jan 12, 2012 15:01:16 GMT -5
\ I don't see the image that you're talking about in "You've Got to Hide Your Love Away". Well, yeah. That's not "You've Got to Hide Your Love Away"; that's "You're Gonna Lose That Girl". Again, the presence of McCartney in one location playing bass and in another location playing the piano at the same time has been explained as an overdub.
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Jan 11, 2012 22:57:23 GMT -5
I had noticed a strange thing in HELP. I don't know if it was discussed in this forum, but I've read it other ones, during the scene where they were in the studio recording "You're Gonna Lose That Girl", it shows Paul playing by George, and in the distance a somewhat blurred "Paul" figure playing piano. Later, during the scene with "You've Got To Hide Your Love Away", a quick shot away from John shows a "Faul". I've freeze framed it and looked at that several different occasions because I didn't want to let my mind play tricks on me. But it clearly wasn't the real Paul's face. There had been talk about a Faul being seen during the '66 tour...like one where they were coming out of a plane and "Paul" was wearing a striped shirt, the face didn't look like the real Paul's. If he had some serious health issues, they most likely did have an imposter. While it may have been the real Paul in the recordings, for the appearances, they could have very well used a different man. On another forum, I recall viewing pics people have posted that were supposed to be the real Paul, and some appeared different, some excused away the discrepancies to "photo tampering". While that may be evident in later materials released of the "Beatles", to make it look as though "Bill/Faul" was the real Paul...but I think there was a span of time even a fake Lennon was used, because I've seen some pics possibly 65/early 66 of "Lennon/Mc Cartney" and the Lennon nose appeared to be straight without his "nosetip" that pointed down. I don't have the capacity to scan pics, and it may very well be, that the comps I'm referring to were on the "Paul Is dead Miss him..." site and alot of that material was lost. As "big" as the entity of the Beatles were during the 60's, it would not be a stretch to have had several sets of them out there because of the high demand of public appearances. Some people have a difficult time accepting that Paul was replaced....but even more difficulty thinking the other Beatles were either replaced, or had several doubles out there over the course of time. For whatever it is worth, the shadowy presence of Paul at the piano during "You're Going to Lose that Girl" (while he's otherwise playing bass and singing with George) has been explained as an overdub. I don't see the image that you're talking about in "You've Got to Hide Your Love Away".
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Jan 7, 2012 15:37:54 GMT -5
Arguing for/against the thread topic For: 1) Although Youtube hosts masses of unauthorized Beatles/McCartney material, something as organised (and downright subversive) as iaap would have been taken down pronto if there wasn't some kind of link to Paul. And that Paul wouldn't be aware of iaap is highly unlikely, impossible even. This is to me the most important clue to a connection. 2) What iaap has done is very ambitious and very clever. The countless hours of hard work, not to mention all the money spent, point to something bigger than stupid Pid/Crowley theories, it points to a conclusion of some sort. As the conclusion cannot be that Paul actually died and was replaced (* see below), it could mean that some Pid clues really were planted by the Beatles. And it could also mean that there really is some hidden secret in all of this. 3) The Heather Mills interview where she alluded to some hideous betrayal by Paul (non-sexual) is disturbing and convincing. 4) The Love/Code business. Couldn't have been done by anyone outside the inner circle and also shows an understanding of - and interest in - planting clues. *) Even if Paul called a press conference today stating he was fake replacement, who just happened to look exactly like the real Paul, had his exact mannerisms and voice and was a virtuouso musician/composer, I still wouldn't believe it. Because it's bullshit. The notion seems extremely unlikely and counterintuitive and also counter-common sense, but then again, there's always: mag.wired.it/rivista/storie/chiedi-chi-era-quel-beatle.htmlPerhaps there is a revelation out there of some sort that doesn't necessarily involve the death and/or replacement of the original JPM. People get a million themes from Iamaphoney/Rotten Apple. I don't know if it's due to their hyperactive imaginations or to Iamaphoney's. I get two/three themes: 1a) Paul McCartney died in an automobile accident on October 3, 1966 and was replaced by a double; 1b) The double later went to Nairobi, accompanied by Mal Evans, where he underwent a trepanation procedure that caused the soul of the original Paul McCartney to become embedded in his own body/psyche. It's not clear -- under this scenario -- whether Iamaphoney is saying that this transmigration really happened or whether he is just saying that it happened as far as the participants were concerned; and 2) Both before and after this event, the Beatles or someone directing the Beatles were using the music for dark occultist purposes -- the incident of October 3, 1966 accelerating the process. The thing is that each of these storylines runs on its own track and you don't have to believe one to believe the others. You don't have to believe in a McCartney death/replacement to believe that clues were dropped to that effect; you don't have to believe in a McCartney death/replacement to suppose that the Beatles had an interest in trepanation or to suppose that they had an interest in the occult and that these interests influenced their music as a group and -- after the break-up -- individually. Standing on its own without PID, the trepanation/occult storylines are fascinating enough, though the Wired Italia article still interests me. As for the Iamaphoney organization's ties to the McCartney organization, I have somewhat of a middle ground feeling there as well. I don't think it's necessarily true that this could never happen without the knowledge/approval of McCartney and his organization. I imagine that they have other concerns/interests and I doubt that they monitor everything that is broadcast on YouTube. But there might be some surreptitious contribution by a rogue McCartney insider. There are some eery phoney-like elements to the most recent release of Band on the Run.
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Dec 30, 2011 22:43:23 GMT -5
Ok I'm pretty much convinced IAAP IS Paul now. In the video below, there are what I would consider to be very sensitive documents regarding Linda McCartney's primary physicians and treatment center of choice. I recognize the letter head as being the Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center's slogan. I can't make out all the words, but it seems to have something to do with that matter. Pause at 1:01 to see the document. All the rare albums, old magazine articles, even pages of lyrics written by the Beatles themselves ...I can see someone possibly getting their hands on; but sensitive medical documents? I don't think so. Stuff like that would never be up for any type of auction (or at least I would hope not). Verdict: IAAP is Paul/Billy himself, or works one on one with him. 1) Why would McCartney himself participate in a series of videos that portrays him in such a negative light? 2) As Jojo says, the "sensitive medical document" was actually something used at a press conference and therefore not "sensitive" at all.
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Dec 22, 2011 0:08:44 GMT -5
'Twere to consider too curiously to consider so. You raise an interesting point about spots on a face being used as a form of ID, but that sort of thing can be disturbed by photo editing and by other changes brought about as a result of age. I'm not sure that you have found "matches", and in any event, there are also dissimilarities between the spots on the faces in the photos that you have submitted for comparison. The fact is that photo comparisons have been used by partisans on both sides to make their respective points, and I have come to reject all such comparisons -- or, at least, to take them with more than a grain of salt -- simply because partisans on both sides see what they want to see and the photo comparisons cancel one another out. And nobody on this forum or any competing forum is an expert on facial identification comparison. Everyone who talks about it talks about it as a partisan layperson. I had come to reject PID/PWR as an interesting but baseless hoax and was on the verge of tuning out altogether before the below-linked biometric comparison was published in a major tech magazine in Italy in mid-2009. This particular comparison deserves more respect than anything that a layperson posts in a forum since the comparison is apparently being made by people who do have the right to call themselves biometrics experts. invanddis.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=5735It's been posted on this particular forum since mid-2009, and if you'd been prudent, you'd have done a little more checking before running off your mouth about "weirdos". Ever since the publication of this article, I have been back on the fence, and I am disappointed that no other biometric experts have followed up on it. It's hard to get an exact read on the article though, unless one is fluent in Italian, which I'm not, but you can get the gist of it anyway. No mention of spots on the faces of the the subject comparisons, though you'd think that those might be identifying markers, as well. But I'm not a biometrics expert either.
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Dec 19, 2011 22:41:09 GMT -5
At last? Hasn't the truth been coming out since 1966 or so (at the very least) ? Very well then, an iamaphoneywannabe. Or 'iwannabeaphoney' for short, perhaps? Making videos that make iamaphoney's look like Cecil B. DeMille by comparison. I mean, "AVeryGoodDouble"?! Everybody knows it's: "Justagood-uh-Replica" ! But let's not rush to judgement, eh? We'll see how this progresses. Or not. The phrase "A Very Good Double" is taken from the Letterman interview. And it's OK to rush to judgment. What the videomaker did was to take John Lennon's recorded interview with Jann Wenner of Rolling Stone concerning the death of Brian Epstein and manipulate it. "After Brian died" is altered to become "After Paul died". You can even hear the jump in the tape where "Brian" becomes "Paul".
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Nov 25, 2011 1:40:16 GMT -5
Jim Marrs will be talking about the Kennedy assassination tonight on the Jeff Rense show at 12 AM Eastern time. He knows the topic through and through, so it should be a good listen. Click the link here to listen: www.renseradio.com/listenlive.htmRight, right. This is the guy who says that JFK was killed because he knew too much about UFO's.
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Nov 23, 2011 16:22:52 GMT -5
According to the CIA, this was Oswald in Mexico City in the Fall of 1963. For reference. As the guy on top was not the Oswald known to have been on the 6th floor of the TSBD on November 22, 1963, it's a non-issue.
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Nov 23, 2011 16:19:31 GMT -5
Mark Lane was on Coast to Coast last night. Th interview begins at 11:30. What? Mark Lane is still with us? Pushing his Communist bullshit? In 48 years, he hasn't yet died mysteriously? It's a goddamn shame, actually.
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Nov 22, 2011 4:01:24 GMT -5
John Fitzgerald Kennedy, the thirty-fifth President of the United States, was assassinated at 12:30 p.m. Central Standard Time on Friday, November 22, 1963, in Dealey Plaza, Dallas, Texas. Kennedy was fatally shot while traveling with his wife Jacqueline, Texas governor John Connally, and the latter's wife, Nellie, in a Presidential motorcade. The Byrds - He Was A Friend Of Mine (Alternate Version) www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2_V4XxvI2EIt was unspeakably terrifying news when we heard it. Like many my age, I was in school, and our teacher was called to the door. He came back after some whispering, and told us what had happened. As it happened, an ambulance was passing at that moment, sirens wailing. Time has moved on, but the wailing has never stopped. No one who lived through it believes the bullshit story about Lee Harvey Oswald. Everyone knows who did it. Speak for yourself. Don't use phrases like "no one believes" and "everyone knows" -- because that's bullshit. As a matter of fact, there are many people who "believe" things that you don't believe and who are confident that what you and "everyone" know just isn't true. JFK was a liberal and a Democrat -- worse, I can say of no man. He also was a spoiled brat whose daddy bought him the White House as a tinker toy to play with. His death is only lionized BECAUSE he was a liberal and a Democrat. It's used as a bloody shirt -- which, of course, is what you are doing. "Evil right-wingers killed JFK. Avenge him by voting Democrat. Let's keep Obama in office for life." That's boob bait for the suckers. The people who lionize JFK's death, by and large, wouldn't have given two bowel movements if Ronald Reagan had died on the operating table -- or George Wallace, for that matter. Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin -- almost surely the lone assassin, if not necessarily the lone gunman, and he was a dedicated Marxist-Leninist. As for the CIA, they couldn't even come up with a plausible means of doing away with Castro -- and yet, they're supposed to have killed JFK -- and, I suppose, Paul McCartney -- without a hitch. The author Charles McCarry says that he never met a single Republican or a single assassin while he was at the Agency. It's a damn shame too because this country would be a lot better off if it WERE governed by right-wing oligarchs who snuffed out leftist hegemony. But in the real world, the far left has taken over the news media; it's taken over academia; and it's taken over popular culture; and now it's taking over the streets. We're being civil-righted and free-speeched and multicultured and toleranced to death.
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Nov 15, 2011 0:22:19 GMT -5
"Brian Epstein's policy - em - on that was - uh - pay them...pay them..."
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Nov 12, 2011 2:44:12 GMT -5
Actually, he put a number of "new" videos up on his publicly accessible YouTube page.
But just about all of them are really old videos that he had already posted to his vimeo page and charged some of us a nominal amount for (what we were told) was exclusive access to.
Iamaphoney, you trickster. Taking $10 out of my pocket -- when -- as it turns out --- I could have had it all for free if I'd only waited about a year.
RA 87 0 -- the one with Mike McGear on the Mike Douglas Show -- is brand new though. It needs some of that choir sound though. I just dote on that AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Nov 12, 2011 2:01:59 GMT -5
After a long silence (I'm not counting the songs on the Right Album), Moses comes down from the mountaintop and speaks again.
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Nov 9, 2011 0:21:54 GMT -5
And in any event -- even if you want to argue that Beatles = Quarrymen = already set-up affair -- the fact is that he says in this clip that he didn't know how to set up a band and had never done it before.
That's still puzzling in light of the fact that the historical Paul McCartney was instrumental in getting George Harrison to join and in the making and breaking of Pete Best and his substitution by Ringo Starr. He had certainly "done it before".
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Nov 9, 2011 0:12:36 GMT -5
Nobody was really sure if he was from the House of Paul.
|
|