|
Post by iwilliam on Jan 27, 2013 18:15:09 GMT -5
D'ough?
|
|
|
Post by iwilliam on Jan 27, 2013 18:09:33 GMT -5
Ah, I see what happened.... the forum lopped the end off the URL, so when I clicked it took me somewhere else.
|
|
|
Post by iwilliam on Jan 27, 2013 18:08:49 GMT -5
Not sure what happened to that link, but it lead me to some weird page that seemed unrelated. I stupidly didn't even think to check wayback.... maybe because I haven't had a lot of recent luck with them. This time is no different. I got an archive of the notwithoutmustard page, but it appears to be an ad, for a book being sold. Archives for the pdf files lead to nothing, sadly. web.archive.org/web/20090228080336/http://www.notwithoutmustard.com/Thanks for trying.
|
|
|
Post by iwilliam on Jan 27, 2013 18:01:21 GMT -5
Nice. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by iwilliam on Jan 27, 2013 17:58:37 GMT -5
An afterthought-- if we are seeing a representation of the Tarot here in some form....
I pointed out that a deck of playing cards mirrors the minor arcana of the Tarot, minus 4 cards (four less court cards in a deck of playing cards-- one for each suit.)
Perhaps these extra four are somehow significant. And if we have representations of 4 "suits" and 4 beatles (hey... aren't the wax beatles represented wearing "suits?") then perhaps each beatle stands for one "suit." If that's the case, which is which?
Oh, and I forgot to mention that I also independently came up with the "Boaz and Jachin" connection, myself... I even mentioned it in another thread here....not that, that necessarily lends it any more legitimacy.... but kind of interesting....
|
|
|
Post by iwilliam on Jan 27, 2013 17:52:17 GMT -5
--2--One of the things that increases chances of validity for me, is an observation I made as this went along: Paul is holding a "Cor Anglais" Unless my etymology is totally out of whack, I believe this could be read as "heart English" or "English Heart." In such a case, even the instrument he holds, is giving us a clue as to the interpretation of this. And am I the only one who finds Paul's smile here to be very Mona Lisa? Very.... "do you want to know a secret?" I feel like the info in the Alice Statues thread may be important as well. It is obvious that references to Alice are "peppered," forgive the pun, all over their albums. I mean "looking glass TIES" ("ties" being another word for "connections." It is spelled out for us. Likewise with the hearts and clubs as two suits from a deck of playing cards. Four suits in total, of course. And many of us are well aware that a deck of playing cards mirrors the "minor arcana" of the tarot (minus 4 court cards). My question here would be-- what represents the Spades and the diamonds? Well... we do have a kind of diamond on the cover, when mirrored. Spades? Anyone know what the symbol for "sergeant" is? upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/US_Army_WWII_SGT.svgUnless you're a "master" sergeant, which is this: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/US_Army_WWII_MSGT.svgAnd yes, I realize these are US symbols, and this is a british band... but hey, they were really an international band... and besides, Paul is wearing an "OPP" patch, which is canadian. (You down with OPP? Sorry... couldn't help myself...) Looks a bit like a spade, to me. For those who want the correspondences to the tarot deck, it goes like this: Pentacles (aka disks, coins) = Diamonds Wands (aka rods, staves) = Clubs Cups = Hearts Swords = Spades For what it's worth, I did some googling and found another site talking about a Beatles relation to the Tarot. In this case, the author is comparing each of the Beatles to a card of the Major Arcana. www.theosophical.org/publications/quest-magazine/1490Ringo = Star George = Hermit Paul = Fool John = Magician / Magus All Together (now) = The World And this cute little site actually created a tarot deck, from Beatles images: beatlestarot.wordpress.com/Another one-- In one of his first posts, Jarface mentions this: Not to point out what may be obvious to some, but while this certainly fits "Getting Better" I find it is even better fit (sonically) by the end of "Hey Jude." Not only is that more sharply rising, but it ends in a very clear and high pitched "Bwaaaaaah!" (one of my favorite moments in all of music) And one final question I'm left with-- if all of this is symbolic, and a game, involving word-play, etc.... is Paul's obviously (and some would say drastically) changing appearance over the years purely coincidental? I think that would be hard for a lot of people to believe. Or might it have been done, to hype the "Paul is Dead" thing, which then leads us back to examining clues and looking for connections? Just a thought.... PS-- Jarface... did you really name your son Maxwell Sterling? For real? Awesome.
|
|
|
Post by iwilliam on Jan 27, 2013 17:51:09 GMT -5
1st-- Some thoughts on this thread and its presentation. An analysis of the analysis, if you will. 2nd-- A couple observations of my own. --1--This is one of the most brilliant things I've read in a while. Particularly the initial presentation by Jarface. Pure genius. And not only do I think this thread should be added to the "Best of NIR" thread (along with the "Alice Statues" thread, which IMO is related) but I am starting to form the opinion that these two threads may truly hold the "real" key to the Sgt Pepper / PID / PWR (etc) mystery. I don't think either solves it completely... but this feels like it's very much on the right trail for me.
For reference, The Alice Statues thread: invanddis.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2821&page=1
I have to confess that I wish this thread had remained as coherent, lucid, and easy-to-follow as it began. The first 3-4 pages contained some very well thought-out speculation which was presented in a manner anyone could understand, even reading this thread with little prior knowledge of Beatles / PID. This is the hallmark of "good writing."
I understand that it's not always that black and white with some of the PID / PWR crowd. Many of you/us seem to love mystery and riddles, and feel that part of the fun or learning-value of the experience lies in the discovery. And I may agree to a certain extent. But as JoJo pointed out early in the thread (in response to a question by Jarface) many of us don't feel the fun or value to be lost in having things explained to us in a hold-my-hand-and-guide-me A leads to B leads to C type manner.
We have what I feel to be a few truly great minds in this thread. People not only unusually well-versed in Beatles material (including solo stuff) but also symbology and the esoteric / occult. People who can "connect some pretty diverse dots," so to speak. However, it is my feeling that some of these truly bright minds don't realize that not everyone is like them. Given 100 years and even more clues, not everyone (not MANY, I would even venture) would be able to come to the same conclusions as you. If that were the case, this 40+ year old mystery could have been cracked ages ago. Hell, some people even won't get it when you hold their hand and walk them through it.... like the member earlier in the thread (p 3-5 maybe?) who accused Jarface's original post of being cryptic, when he laid it all out very clearly, IMO.
As such, I am of the opinion that some of these random clue posts... where someone puts up a couple pictures, a snippet of song, and expects someone else to understand, are really only for the benefit of the authors themselves, and maybe one or two other gifted members. And please understand that this commentary is coming from someone who is not only an avid reader, but has put in some semi-serious amateur study of the occult, esoteric, and symbology for over 15 years. So If I'm not going to get the hints... I'm afraid a lot of people will not be helped by this. (Then again, I am sometimes shit at riddles.)
Another minor issue I have is that I think some of the tangenting really takes away from and clouds threads like this. There were a couple really awesome posts made in this thread, by other members (not OP-- Jarface) which while along similar lines, were not the same point, and really could / should have been started as new threads. When you combine cryptic posts and clues with people hinting at completely different points, it becomes even more muddied and tough to unravel.
Further, I am having a bit of a hard time determining which points are more likely to be "legitimate" and which are just fanciful observations made for their own sake. What I mean by that is this-- maybe the entire point of the pepper puzzle was to get people thinking. To make people explore philosophical, symbological, esoteric, occult topics. Maybe it was even meant to illustrate that in life there is not one true path or one right interpretation to anything. Maybe that's the real message. But if not... or rather, regardless of if it is.... this thread begins with the suggestion that there were clues purposely planted by The Beatles, and that each of the characters on the cover was a carefully chosen and carefully placed hint, picked for its symbological and possibly word-play value. If this is truly the case, that means that each one should have a definitive meaning.
If you've studied stuff like Kabalah and associations with the sephirot and the tree of life, Crowley, etc.. (which it's clear some of you have) then you are well aware that one can draw connections from anything, to anything, almost endlessly, around and around. And unless the Beatles are Omnipotent, Omniscient God-like beings this is obvious not what they did. I suppose it is possible each symbol/clue on the album cover (each pic or prop) may have 2 or 3 layers of meaning... but even that seems a bit of a stretch... as composing a coherent narrative (or even set of puns) using only one meaning per symbol would be a great and genius feat, in a case like this. Setting them all up for more than 2 or 3 layers of meaning each, would be beyond spectacular.
That said, i can't help but wonder if some of the speculations are a bit over-reaching. Or as another member put it:
Which I sort of agree with.
On the other hand, I sort of disagree with his next line:
While he's got a fair point, in my mind, some of the connections Jarface drew were solid. Which brings me to my next point....
|
|
|
Post by iwilliam on Jan 27, 2013 13:58:25 GMT -5
Let me ask you this; if somebody put together a well-written book on the Beatles being robot aliens, would you read it? Is it too esoteric? Too fringe? If it was truly well thought-out, laid out, thoroughly explained (with at least somewhat reasonable corroboration) then sure, I'd be willing to take a look. Given my present financial situation, I'd be admittedly reluctant to drop much money on such a thing, unless it was an amazing theory, and/or had some pretty rave reviews.
|
|
|
Post by iwilliam on Jan 27, 2013 13:53:31 GMT -5
Well, that was a quick preliminary defeat.
looking for the "bug7baconinthepan.pdf" file, the ONLY result returned is this website. I'm afraid "falseprophet" is very poorly named, as this is one of the most common titles in the known universe. Returns many, many, MANY not even vaguely related results.
Rather annoying, as I would imagine someone around here is bound to have retained a copy of this.
Oh well. I'll have another sift through the "false prophet" results later, but I don't have much hope for this one. Again, a shame as the little blurb makes it seem interesting.....
|
|
|
Post by iwilliam on Jan 27, 2013 13:42:45 GMT -5
The website seems to be down now. Anyone know if these can be found elsewhere? Apparently the answer is either "no," or "i don't care," or some combination thereof. Shame, really, as this looks interesting. I'll dust off my black-belt and see if I can get anywhere practicing my "google fu."
|
|
|
Post by iwilliam on Jan 26, 2013 21:18:34 GMT -5
Thanks for your take on things. I do really hope someone has a different opinion though (about other halfway decent sources existing). Though I admit that the reason I'm asking is my lack of coming up with much, myself, heh. I assume (unfairly or not) that you made the comment about not dismissing what might seem to be "crazy" theories in response to my comment about TKIN. To clarify: When I first heard about the PID phenomenon, many many years ago, my initial reaction was something akin to scoffing laughter. I'm sure many highly rational people react similarly. I believe my initial introduction was as a kid, reading about "backmasking" phenomenon. And since most (non-christian) studies of "backmasking" are often written from a highly skeptical point of view, I think I may have even been "primed" for disbelief. After looking into the issue on my own, I started to change my tune. It soon became clear to me that there was something to this stuff. Some real basis, whatever might be behind it. I have entertained the idea that Paul may have died and been replaced. I entertained the idea such a think might not necessitate the original's death. I've speculated about 2 pauls existing, switching off.... I've even entertained the idea that one or more of the other Beatles may have been replaced. I've entertained the notion that they may have been agents of social change sponsored by Tavistock, or something similar... And I most definitely have entertained the notion that this might be Occult, death- and-rebirth symbolism, etc. (One of the reasons I've been drawn to Pepper Code...) I actually think there are some things that make that idea highly plausible. Though i don't think this idea has to be the totality of the phenomenon, but could be "part of" the plot. That being said, however, I have seen people make some claims which I find to be ridiculous. And truly worthy of ridicule, even. If it's a far-out theory with no proof either way... I'd be more likely to ignore it than anything. But I've heard people make speculations based on the thinnest, and dumbest of evidence. "Well you see... Phil Ackrill starts with a 'p' and so does 'paul' and then 'MAC'cartney and 'ACK'rill sound kinda alike... thus, i am certain they are one and the same." I jest.. and I don't mean to dismiss theories regarding Ackrill either. That was purely illustrative. You want an example of the kind of stuff I find over-the-top? The best example I can think of off the top of my head is not a PID site, but it does relate to replacements/doubles. www.wellaware1.com/He/she seems to think anyone who looks remotely alike is a double. Robert Blake and Pope Benedict XVI are the same person, according to this site. (I'll admit a couple of the pic comparisons on that one are eerily similar.) However for another one, Jay Carney = Kevin Bacon (they look NOTHING alike... unless you're legally half-blind, have your glasses of, are squinting, and on some pretty awesome drugs.) Nelson Mandella is Morgan Freeman, of course. (Hey, at least those two look somewhat alike) Henry Winkler (the Fonz) is Sirhan Sirhan, the assassin. Alice Cooper is Steve Carell. Tina Fey is Sarah Palin and both also just happen to be characters played by a woman named "Jennifer Greenberg Sexton" who happens to play many many different roles. According to him, one actor will tend to play tons of roles. Pretty much anyone who looks remotely alike, or even not, from what I've seen. Busy folks, apparently. That sort of stuff, IMO, is pretty damn far over the top.
|
|
|
Post by iwilliam on Jan 26, 2013 18:03:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by iwilliam on Jan 26, 2013 17:53:33 GMT -5
I've recently done a bit of searching, and I'm looking for some opinions. Regarding books (Website discussion is below): What are the best books on the topic of PID / PWR that you've come across? I've seen a handful of them out there-- some looking more thorough and/or credible than others. Before I drop some cash on something, opinions from those who have looked would be nice. The 2 most common / popular ones seem to be: "Turn Me On, Dead Man" by Andru J. Reeve and "The Walrus Was Paul." by R. Gary Patterson. I should add those seem to be two of the most common printed books. There seem to be a few more e-book format only books floating around out there. I read through a good bit of "Turn Me On..." on google preview, and it does look to contain a lot of good (and somewhat obscure) info, despite being written from what seems to be a skeptic's prospective. I'm thinking of grabbing an e-copy for my kindle. Likewise, for e-books, "The Sgt. Pepper Code" has caught my attention more than a couple times, and I wouldn't mind checking that one out either. Opinions from anyone, would be greatly welcomed and appreciated. Regarding websites.... that one seems a bit trickier. This is actually just about the best PID site/forum I've come across. It's members are super knowledgeable, and it is certainly one of the most active. Not to mention that we seem to have a considerably smaller percentage of the "fringe" theorists and straight-up crazies here. lol However, having other resources doesn't hurt, either. Next to this one, pid.hoop.la seems to have some good stuff. Likewise the Plastic Macca blog /forum run by the same person. There is, of course the IAAP blog for some lesser-known info and weird connections... TKIN... well... they do have some good stuff there... but also seemingly a lot of "Sir Paul is really an alien robot from the future and SO IS EVERYONE ELSE!" type stuff. lol The "Rigorous Intuition" forum (strange, but cool place) has one rather long thread about the PID phenomenon, which was a good read. I'll see if I can supply a link later. And also, the David Icke forum, has a VERY LONG thread about PID. Found here: www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8100So what are your recommendations for other decent sources for PID /PWR related info?
|
|
|
Post by iwilliam on Jan 25, 2013 15:57:05 GMT -5
Is that what "Live and Let Die" is about? Was Paul wearing some hokey disguise doing espionage of some sort when he died? (It was a fake mustache.) Was he 'found out' wearing some ridiculous outfit? What a novel and interesting speculation. Is this your own or did you read it somewhere else? It actually isn't half-bad, in a purely logical but highly speculative manner. I'm sure you realize that professions which by their nature involve foreign travel, are fertile recruiting grounds for intelligence agents. Celebrities, reporters, etc etc... Very interesting......
|
|
|
Post by iwilliam on Jan 25, 2013 15:46:36 GMT -5
I'm confused. Did you leave, but came back again the following day? I didn't really leave. You really are quite the strange and enigmatic creature, Eye. I also think you're one of the most interesting members / posters I've read, in this whole PID thing. I just wish you would explain your ideas a little more thoroughly sometimes. I have sometimes wondered if you were purposely trying to be vague, mysterious, and enigmatic.... or if rather it's that you have this vast depository of knowledge in your head (which you clearly do) and easily see connections between certain things, and so you assume that others must be able to see the same connections and draw the same conclusions as you when presented with the facts (which I'm not sure is the case, for most of us.) I've wrestled with this one and still can't decide, though lately I tend to lean toward the former. Hopefully you don't stay away too long.
|
|
|
Post by iwilliam on Jan 24, 2013 19:38:15 GMT -5
Oh, I meant to add:
Over the years I've flip-flopped a bit as to whether I think Paul actually died or not. I have entertained the theory that maybe he was just replaced, for some reason. Maybe he got tired of all the touring and the limelight (a surprisingly large number of super-stars do). Maybe he had a breakdown, or something else happened which would have inhibited his successfully going on.
One thing I am certain of, is that SOMETHING went on.... even if that "something" was only a very long-running gag pulled on the fans. I really hope McCartney doesn't have to die (whether for the first or second time... heh) in order for us to finally find out. However, I think if one has studied this as much as I have, it would be near impossible to think that there wasn't SOMETHING to all this.
And on that note, if it were simply a "joke," I'd have thought Sir Paul would have let the fans in on it by now-- even if all the speculation does lead to more chatter and thus increased popularity... though admittedly that last bit could be strong motivation for an aging musician to keep his mouth shut. On the other hand... I don't think Sir Paul is about to starve any time soon....
|
|
|
Post by iwilliam on Jan 24, 2013 19:29:24 GMT -5
Wow-- I'm really glad I found this thread. A couple really great, interesting points.
The reflection in the piano thing does stick out as being a little odd. Given the number of times McCartney has used mirror images in his artwork, I can't help but wonder if this was done on purpose.
Regarding the interview, I agree that the guy being interviewed looks a bit less like the "later era" McCartney I am used to seeing, and somehow a bit more like "early era" (pre 1966) mccartney.
Pause the vid at about 2:45 and have a good look at that smile, those teeth.
Very interesting....
|
|
|
Post by iwilliam on Jan 24, 2013 19:02:14 GMT -5
First time I saw this I nearly shat myself laughing.
Sheer Awesomeness.
|
|
|
Post by iwilliam on Dec 11, 2012 23:41:25 GMT -5
if you ask me, i don't think THIS "Martin" looks like the same guy we see in early vids.. Has HE been replaced already? Really, WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE? Best. Comment. Ever. lol I had to log in just to say that. (I also agree he looks different)
|
|
|
Post by iwilliam on Nov 20, 2012 13:09:28 GMT -5
Copied from The Sgt Pepper Code: - Let us next consider the very end of the album and a phenomenon for which the Beatles have become synonymous; backwards messages: The Beatles have long been fascinated by including backwards recordings into their work. This began in 1965 with the inclusion of some backwards guitar in their track ‘Rain’. By the time of Sgt Pepper the band had experimented considerably with these procedures and a backwards message was included at the very end of the LP. Immediately after the song ‘A Day in the Life’ comes a curious little repeated vocal segment which says "It really can’t be any other way". When played backwards this message becomes "I’ll fuck you like you Superman".
Paul McCartney told his biographer Barry Miles that in the summer of 1967 a group of kids came up to him complaining about a lewd message hidden in it when played backwards. He told them, "You're wrong, it's actually just 'It really couldn't be any other'". He took them to his house to play the record backwards to them, and it turned out that the passage sounded to him very much like "We'll fuck you like Superman". McCartney recounted to Miles that "we had certainly had not intended to do that but probably when you turn anything backwards it sounds like something ... if you look hard enough you can make something out of anything".
I'm not so sure I believe him that this was accidental. As I mentioned in another thread, paul seemed to have a habit of dropping all sorts of clues and then denying them. I think I remember a clip of audio, I forget where from, one of the beatles talking about how it took them the whole evening to get that inner groove thing right. Why do you suppose that is? It's a very short clip. And a looped one, at that. The part that loops is what... 3 to 5 seconds of audio, looped and looped? These were pretty competent musicians, and I recall one of their extended crew commenting on how the beatles were some of the FASTEST artists they had ever worked with, in terms of writing / recording. Why would it take such competent musicians all night to create 3-5 seconds of audio looped on itself repeatedly? I think it took them all night because they were trying to perfect something which would be perfectly audible both ways. And they succeeded. To a degree. it is true that most people can hear the words in this on their own, with no assistance. On the other hand, you usually get one of a few different phrases, each with very different meaning. Another thought I had is that paul denied the "fuck you like superman" thing because that's not what they're saying. Not that there is NO clue there, but it doesn't say that, so best to just write it off as "probably when you turn anything backwards it sounds like something ... if you look hard enough you can make something out of anything." I never could hear the "fuck you" bit until it was pointed out to me. I always heard it the other way... (and I have a DIRTY mind lol)
|
|
|
Post by iwilliam on Nov 20, 2012 12:57:14 GMT -5
B- As I said, I do agree that this article seems to be written in a tongue-in-cheek kind of manner. But I get the same..."cheeky" kind of vibe from a lot of the clue material. And as I'm about to mention in another thread, it seems like Paul's game has always been to drop weird clues and then deny deny deny.
You say he would certainly never deny being alive?
I'm pretty sure you've seen this, or at least clips from it. Maybe you just forgot it:
Leterman says something about the double theory, to which Mccartney (at 1:43) replies, pointing at himself "well, this is him." (meaning the double) Yes, his tongue seems to be firmly in cheek the whole time... but he is tongue-in-cheek admitting his death, which is really quite similar when you think about it, to tongue-in-cheek denials that you're alive, based around the same rumor.
I really want to read this full article. Maybe there is a clue buried somewhere in there. Some pun intended.
Beacon: I read through the site and it seems like they have an East and West side of the cemetery. If he is buried in the East you could find him on your own (although there is still an entrance fee.) The west side is supposedly open by guided tour only. From what I gather there are older graves in the west (though reading between the lines it seems like maybe some modern ones?) and I think they said there are more "famous" people in the east.
Not sure how well off anyone else is, but that 40 pound to have them locate a grave seems steep. For this price they will give you an inscription as well, if there is one. If I had the extra I would totally do it, as a ha-ha. And were I in london, I'd be at this place in a heartbeat (as the admittance is a good deal more reasonable than 40 pounds, and I enjoy strolls through old cemeteries-- I'm odd like that)
|
|
|
Post by iwilliam on Nov 19, 2012 23:49:18 GMT -5
Look at the date: Friday, Oct. 31, 1969 It was Halloween. The article must have been some kind of joke. Obviously he wouldn't deny he was alive! Yes, just like he wouldn't put a bunch of clues on albums indicating that he's dead. But some people seem to think this is what happened. I did observe the date. And I'm sure this was meant as a joke of some kind. Probably the same kind of joke as album clues, I would suspect. And I find the fact that Highgate cemetery is mentioned in this article to be rather odd in conjunction with the person who claimed their uncle buried the real paul there. Could that be some serious PID fanatic who was aware of this article, making a claim about his uncle the gravedigger? Maybe. What I'll say to that is that I've read A LOT of PID stuff and I've never heard of this article. Apparently it is mentioned in a book which REFUTES the PID thing.... beyond that, searching for it specifically turns up little. So if that comment from TKIN or wherever is just a hoax, it was made by a serious PID'er with a long memory. Not sure I can see this all as purely coincidental.
|
|
|
Post by iwilliam on Nov 19, 2012 21:41:27 GMT -5
I think i may have stumbled upon an interesting connection. Bear with me a moment. I was reading a thread on another forum, TKIN, when i saw a post which said this: Read more: 60if.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=document&action=display&thread=1020#ixzz2Cj5RuFtDNow, i read somewhere else that the cemetery in quesiton is Highgate Cemetery. Here is a link to their website: www.highgate-cemetery.orgIf you look through the site you can see on the FAQ page that a number of famous people are buried here. This cemetery is, of course, near "Crouch End." You can go through the cemetery, but they charge admittance. Now, trying to find what information I could, I did a bunch of googling. One such search was for "Highgate Cemetery london beatles mccartney" Which actually gave a few relevant results. One of them was from Time Magazine's website. I was given a snippet of the beginning of an article (I do not have a subscription, so I can't see the whole thing). This article is dated Friday, Oct. 31, 1969. Here is what I was able to see... and if you haven't seen what I'm about to reprint, hold on to your seats: That is all I can see without a subscription. I tried to search for this article elsewhere using relevant samples of text with no luck. Someone please tell me you have a subscription to time, or otherwise know more about this article. Read more: www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,839108,00.html#ixzz2Cj6gbSka The google search also gave me this bit of text: Resurrection ceremony? With Paul? At the Cemetery someone is alleging the real Paul was buried in? WTF? More info here would be awesome.
|
|
|
Post by iwilliam on Nov 19, 2012 17:57:51 GMT -5
I'm very curious about this clue. I don't know why, but it feels very important to the puzzle. Thinking about it, I've had a few thoughts, and I'd like to hear some feedback on them. Of course you all know what I mean. At the end of Sgt Pepper we have that weird little snippet of looped, strange speech which sounds like "Never could be any other way," or some say "Never could SEE any other way,"
When reversed, it sounds very much like he is saying "We'll all be magick supermen." This is currently one of the most popular theories on what is being said. I have also heard "Will paul be magick superman," and some weird thing about fucking like superman (dirty mind, much?)
Now, what I'd like to point out:
1- If you listen VERY carefully, it almost sounds (when reversed) like the sentence begins with a quick "when." "When we'll all be magick supermen."
2- We'll sounds very much like "will," This might be important -- especially if you ascribe to the IAAP, crowley take on things, as "will" is an important part of being a "magick superman."
"Love is the law, love under will," etc.
"Magick is the art and science of causing a change in conformity with the magician's will using means not currently understood by science."
3- Assuming my transcription is so far correct, when played forward to backwards, this actually could read like one long sentence:
"Never could see / be any other way, when we'll all be magick supermen."
4- Also maybe worthy of noting-- the word "all" sounds very much like the word "I'll"
"When will(ed) I'll be magick supermen?"
5- Listen EVEN MORE carefully. Right before the quick "when" at the beginning, there is ANOTHER noise or word. This one I"m having a hard time making out. Might just be a noise. "aaah" or something. But i wonder if there is any significance.
6- What if the first short word I'm hearing is not "when" but "ONE"
"One will all be magick supermen?"
7- I saw someone in another forum say "We're ordinary supermen," and it does kind of almost sound like "ordinary"
Just looking for fresh perspective on this thing. I'll update if any more insights come to me.
|
|
|
Post by iwilliam on Nov 10, 2012 21:05:35 GMT -5
A cool song, to be sure, but not a revelation, unless there's something deep and subliminal in there.
I think I'm going to do the only sane thing I can do, which is go back to pretending I never heard of this guy. I guess if he actually ever does release anything revelatory I'll hear of it back in the "real" world where conversations are linear and make sense.
*shrug*
|
|