|
|
Post by vOOdOOgurU on Sept 24, 2013 15:06:44 GMT -5
THE FAMILY WAY varesevintage.wordpress.com/2011/06/15/paul-mccartney-the-family-way-soundtrack/The Family Way is the 1967 soundtrack composed by Paul McCartney, and performed by The George Martin Orchestra. This recording is sometimes considered to be the first Beatles solo album. The Family Way is a 1966 British comedy-drama film staring John Mills and Hayley Mills. The original 1967 soundtrack recording to The Family Way begins with McCartney’s theme, “Love in the Open Air,” and contains twelve more (untitled) score cues suited to the onscreen action. For his composition, McCartney was initially inspired by the sound of brass bands, familiar to his childhood in the North of England. The very rare original recording of Paul McCartney’s first solo venture, The Family Way sound track was composed in 1966 and performed by The George Martin Orchestra. The soundtrack is mastered from the original first generation stereo master tapes, and features a special bonus track “Theme From The Family Way,” in stereo for the first time ever! It was issued as a single under the name The Tudor Minstrels. Under George Martin’s direction, the score was recorded at CTS Studios in November 1966. This is the first time this Paul McCartney soundtrack will be officially released on CD. Paul spoke of his initial foray into composing for film to the NME: “It was most unglamorous really. I rang our NEMS office and said I would like to write a film theme, not a score, just a theme. John was away filming [How I Won The War] so I had time to do it.” The Beatles’ producer, George Martin, was key to the project and assumed a familiar role, as Paul told the Sunday Times: “He is the interpreter I play themes and chords on piano or guitar, he gets it down on paper. I talk about the idea I have for instrumentation. Then he works out the arrangement. I tried to learn music once with a fellow who’s a great teacher. But it got too much like homework. I have some block about seeing it in little black dots on paper. It’s like Braille to me.” To begin, Paul composed 15 seconds of the opening theme and played it on piano to Martin, who transcribed the notes and arranged the melody, merging a church organ, brass band, string quartet and percussion. It was more than a fortnight later (with Martin back from a cruise to New York aboard the Queen Mary, and McCartney having returned from an extended holiday through France, Spain and Africa) that the duo regrouped to complete the requisite love theme for the film, as Martin recounted for the NME: “I told Paul, and he said he’d compose something. I waited but nothing materialized, and finally I had to go round to Paul’s house and literally stand there until he’d composed something. John was visiting and advised a bit, but Paul created the tune and played it to me on guitar.” Again, Martin took away the melody, this time arranging it for woodwind and strings. Five sessions at CTS Studios followed, spread over the course of three days and nights, all in the midst of recording The Beatles’ “Strawberry Fields Forever.” In the end, the music was completed only two weeks before the film’s Sunday night premiere in London’s Warner Theatre on December 18th, leaving the editors little time to complete the soundtrack. The Daily Mirror reported Martin as having told the Boulting brothers: “If it sounds as if it was done in a hurry, it’s because it was done in a hurry.” Decca Records (U.K.) purchased the musical rights to the film, and although George Martin had been led to believe that only a soundtrack album would be issued, a single by “The Tudor Minstrels” (the soundtrack’s session musicians, so named after the Boulting brothers’ production company, Tudor Films) was scheduled for release on December 15th to tie in with the film’s premiere. This would seem to have been of little consequence, except that Martin had plans to issue his own single on the E.M.I.-affiliated United Artists label. In order to level the playing field, Decca’s release was put back for a week, while Martin prepared his recording. And so on December 6th, before a Beatles’ session for another McCartney original, “When I’m Sixty-Four” (which Martin had also scored), George made tape copies of a handful of cues from the just-finished film soundtrack to assist in preparing the arrangements for his own orchestra. In between Beatles’ sessions for “Strawberry Fields Forever” and “When I’m Sixty-Four,” Martin found time to prepare his score, and in a three-hour session at E.M.I. on the morning of December 15th, recorded, mixed and mastered both sides of the single. Both discs (each coupling “Love In The Open Air” with “Theme From The Family Way”) were released on December 23rd, and failed to make any impression on the charts in the weeks that followed. Having witnessed Britain’s lack of response to George Martin’s wistful treatment of “Love In The Open Air,” United Artists in America requested a more up-tempo, beat group sound for their forthcoming single. Martin dutifully re-arranged the theme, and recorded the re-make at E.M.I. over three days in early February 1967. Coupled with a new B-Side, “Bahama Sound” (a Martin composition unrelated to the film), the American United Artists single also went unnoticed. Meanwhile, Decca’s U.S. counterpart, London Records (the American Decca Records having established itself as an independent label in 1942), left The Tudor Minstrels’ disc unchanged, with their efforts mirrored by its lack of chart success. As for the soundtrack album, Decca issued the disc (in both mono and stereo) on January 6th, 1967, but, despite the prominent position of Paul’s name on the cover, sales of the album fell short, and the disc failed to make an appearance in the British album charts. When issued in the States by London on June 12th (with revised artwork), the American release followed suit and did not chart. All 24 of the McCartney/Martin musical cues appearing in the film were bundled into 13 tracks on the soundtrack album, with six of the tracks banding together a number of shorter musical cues. There is reason behind the cryptic cue IDs, as they roughly correlate to the film reel on which each cue appears, and the sequence of the cue on that reel. (For those keeping track, there are a few gaps in the sequencing: there is no Cue 2M2 or 2M3, film reels 3 and 9 contained no musical cues, and Cue 6M1 is the brief appearance of the theme music from the television drama, Coronation Street.) And so, nearly 45 years after the soundtrack was recorded, this is the first compact disc release to feature the original 1/4″ stereo master tapes. Also included is a previously unreleased stereo mix of ‘Theme From The Family Way,‘ the B-Side to both the British and American singles by The Tudor Minstrels. |
|
|
|
Post by vOOdOOgurU on Sept 24, 2013 15:27:30 GMT -5
Okay so ------ that brings you to the 19th November, 1966. A fortnight is two weeks / 14 days. This is more though. So let's say they got together on the 20th November, or the 21st. The original, let's hear what you got Paul, wow 15 seconds, occurs at least 2 weeks before. 19 - 14 = 5. So let's say the 5th November as a mean date. But it's more than a fortnight, so lets say McCartney first got wind of the project in late October, early November. But he's gone by the 6th. He had time because Lennon was in Spain. Why such a hurry then to get out before he comes back then! Anyway. The 30th thru 2nd are unaccounted for, but mixing and release of the Christmas Record was finished by the 2nd. The 6th finds them recording When I'm Sixty Four and their radio Christmas messages. The 8th December finds them working again on Strawberry Fields Forever and When I'm Sixty Four. McCartney did two sessions that day, one on his own for Sixty Four, and then returning with the other three for Fields. 9th December finds the release of A Collection of Beatles Oldies. And work again on Strawberry. So let's clean that up: November 30th - December 2nd - no entries, but the Christmas Record is worked on. December 6th - When I'm Sixty Four / Christmas Messages December 8th - Strawberry Fields Forever / When I'm Sixty Four. For McCartney this almost equates to a 12 hour working day these two sessions. December 9th - Strawberry Fields Forever. Five sessions at CTS Studios followed, spread over the course of three days and nights, all in the midst of recording The Beatles’ “Strawberry Fields Forever.” In the end, the music was completed only two weeks before the film’s Sunday night premiere in London’s Warner Theatre on December 18thThe film premiered on the 18th December, 1966. The music was completed only two weeks before it was shown to the public. Two weeks is 14 days. 18 - 14 = December 4th 1966. It took them 3 days and nights to finish the recording over five sessions. This is to be completed by the 4th December 1966. Well, they weren't working on Strawberry between the 30th November and December 8th. So that's just trying to make it into this great race against time and look how wonderful it came out amongst all this activity. But they ARE working on The Christmas album, and When I'm Sixty Four. George Martin's all instrumental LP "The Beatles Girls" is released on the 28th November, 1966 in the USA. When did he find time for that?  He's just back from holiday as well, but of course, he's had the summer of 1966 to do such a thing. I see no mention anywhere of recordings at CTS studios over a 3 day period, consisting of 5 sessions. Strawberry was NOT being worked on at the same time, and for this soundtrack to be finished two weeks before the premiere, it needs to be composed, scored, recorded, mixed ALL BY THE 4TH DECEMBER 1966. But I can find head nor tail of when Paul McCartney & George Martin got together between the 20th November 1966 and the 4th December 1966, with the story they're telling of how quickly things were put together. Well yeah! So quick it seems you didn't even do it, it was that quick! |
|
|
|
Post by vOOdOOgurU on Sept 24, 2013 15:37:51 GMT -5
This whole paragraph bothers the hell out of me. Especially with the DECEMBER 4th cut-off date for this entire soundtrack to be assembled. McCartney gave him 15 seconds of material before both left on holiday. Martin goes off and does who knows what with that 15 seconds. They reconvene after holidays and McCartney still has nothing. So Martin makes him write something, and gets John to kick him if he doesn't come up with it quick (just joking). Then it's off to CTS studios for three days and nights ....................................... WHEN??? When they were doing the Christmas Album? It has to be done before the 4th ....
I swear. This is the stuff of fantasy.
|
|
|
|
Post by vOOdOOgurU on Sept 24, 2013 15:40:13 GMT -5
Yea baby.  |
|
|
|
Post by vOOdOOgurU on Sept 24, 2013 15:56:23 GMT -5
All the while during this crazy November you have this: Nov 13, 1966 Sunday The front page of the `Sunday Telegraph' reports that two of the Beatles have approached Allen Klein through a third party. Klein, in London, did not announce the story himself or made himself available for comment. Brian dismisses the story as ridiculous. George and Ringo are said to be disturbed by the report; John, annoyed about the suggestion of their being disenchanted with Brian. Paul is abroad and cannot be reached for comment. When were any of these three around throughout September/October/early November 1966 for this to have occurred? Sep 14, 1966 Wednesday George and Pattie fly to India, on vacation. They're back by the 22nd October Sep 18, 1966 Sunday John (and Cynthia) go to Spain to begin filming How I Won the War. They're back by the 6th November. By the 9th October he was joined by Ringo Starr. The only person in London to be contacting Allen Klein or any third party is Paul McCartney. Unless George and John are telephoning eachother from Spain and India saying, hey, lets get Allen Klein when we get back home. Let's ask Ringo if he shows up either here or there. We can call the Klein article spin for spin's sake. He announced in June 1966 he would have them by the end of the year. End of the year starts showing up, you have two Beatles approaching him. Two Beatles have been out of country since September. By the time the article prints, 3 Beatles are back in England and one's gone. Who are these two Beatles then. And when did they do it. Let's see what the Daily Mirror had to say on the 14th November 1966, and the mysterious Third Man! thirdman.bmp (209.79 KB) |
|
|
|
Post by cherilyn7 on Sept 24, 2013 16:35:37 GMT -5
Paul is interviewed in this months copy of Mojo magazine in which he claims he is 5'10" with hazel eyes and that he is/was as tall as John. As people tend to lose an inch or so in height with age it is possible that Paul is now 5'10" not 5'11" as he was as a young man; however, it is obvious when studying the photographic evidence that their are disparities with the height of the person known as Paul McCartney. In many photos Paul (doubles et al) has bare feet. However, if John and George were 5'11" and in many photos Paul looks a lot taller (though in fan mags etc it was stated he was 5'11") it appears he was easily 6'2" when younger. |
|
|
|
Post by vOOdOOgurU on Sept 24, 2013 16:58:35 GMT -5
Paul is interviewed in this months copy of Mojo magazine in which he claims he is 5'10" with hazel eyes and that he is/was as tall as John. As people tend to lose an inch or so in height with age it is possible that Paul is now 5'10" not 5'11" as he was as a young man; however, it is obvious when studying the photographic evidence that their are disparities with the height of the person known as Paul McCartney. In many photos Paul (doubles et al) has bare feet. However, if John and George were 5'11" and in many photos Paul looks a lot taller (though in fan mags etc it was stated he was 5'11") it appears he was easily 6'2" when younger. I would say of the three, if they're all supposed to be 5'11" Paul is taller of the three. Then George, then John. In that many millimetres of 5ft 11 that one can be. John most always looks just slightly shorter than George. It's those fluctuations between Paul & George that concern me in pieces like "Height Ashbury" because it's just WRONG what the photographs are showing you. Paul McCartney is up and down in height that only him in high heels would account for on most occasions. |
|
|
|
Post by cherilyn7 on Sept 24, 2013 17:10:02 GMT -5
Did Paul McCartney attend his friend Tara Browne's funeral? Though only a few months earlier he had attended Tara's 21st birthday party in Luggala, Ireland. However, it seems that with all this facial hair becoming proliferous on the Beatles; and various comings and goings plus relationship changes starting in this period too; also John started wearing the granny glasses after playing the bespectacled Private Gripweed in "How I Won The War" (apparently not widely distributed). If you study the pictures of the time, it certainly appears we are looking at different individuals from pre 1966.
|
|
|
|
Post by vOOdOOgurU on Sept 24, 2013 17:19:35 GMT -5
Did Paul McCartney attend his friend Tara Browne's funeral? Though only a few months earlier he had attended Tara's 21st birthday party in Luggala, Ireland. However, it seems that with all this facial hair becoming proliferous on the Beatles; and various comings and goings plus relationship changes starting in this period too; also John started wearing the granny glasses after playing the bespectacled Private Gripweed in "How I Won The War" (apparently not widely distributed). If you study the pictures of the time, it certainly appears we are looking at different individuals from pre 1966. Haven't found a single thing stating any Beatle attended Browne's funeral, let alone McCartney. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2013 19:17:51 GMT -5
Also interesting that her last name is Mills.  Last summer somebody was on here mentioning that there is evidence that Heather Mills' father was associated with cloning research near Brecon Beacons. You should see Crispian Mills's (Hayley's son) "A Fantastic Fear of Everything" a tale of abandoned children in LILY'S laundrette, where one grows up to be a serial killer through this abandonment. It stars Simon Pegg. It also mentions Dr. Hawley Harvey Crippen (September 11, 1862 – November 23, 1910), usually known as Dr. Crippen. When his name came up it just reminds me of that International Times advertisement looking by a Black Magic director whatever, who lived around that same area as Crippen did. VERY interesting film. When I saw the LILY and the subject matter I thought .... HMMMMMMM.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2013 19:28:44 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2013 19:32:31 GMT -5
 lol  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2013 20:09:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by beacon on Sept 25, 2013 3:41:16 GMT -5
This whole paragraph bothers the hell out of me. Especially with the DECEMBER 4th cut-off date for this entire soundtrack to be assembled. McCartney gave him 15 seconds of material before both left on holiday. Martin goes off and does who knows what with that 15 seconds. They reconvene after holidays and McCartney still has nothing. So Martin makes him write something, and gets John to kick him if he doesn't come up with it quick (just joking). Then it's off to CTS studios for three days and nights ....................................... WHEN??? When they were doing the Christmas Album? It has to be done before the 4th .... I swear. This is the stuff of fantasy. It is always nice to stir a little hornet's nest; and this has certainly done that! This the NME article I referred to yesterday.  I hadn't really ever given this much thought, but, my gut tells me that George Martin did all the work and they simply used McCartney's name to sell it. You are right though, as usual, things don't quite add up! |
|
|
|
Post by beacon on Sept 25, 2013 3:46:43 GMT -5
All the while during this crazy November you have this: Nov 13, 1966 Sunday The front page of the `Sunday Telegraph' reports that two of the Beatles have approached Allen Klein through a third party. Klein, in London, did not announce the story himself or made himself available for comment. Brian dismisses the story as ridiculous. George and Ringo are said to be disturbed by the report; John, annoyed about the suggestion of their being disenchanted with Brian. Paul is abroad and cannot be reached for comment. When were any of these three around throughout September/October/early November 1966 for this to have occurred? Sep 14, 1966 Wednesday George and Pattie fly to India, on vacation. They're back by the 22nd October Sep 18, 1966 Sunday John (and Cynthia) go to Spain to begin filming How I Won the War. They're back by the 6th November. By the 9th October he was joined by Ringo Starr. The only person in London to be contacting Allen Klein or any third party is Paul McCartney. Unless George and John are telephoning eachother from Spain and India saying, hey, lets get Allen Klein when we get back home. Let's ask Ringo if he shows up either here or there. We can call the Klein article spin for spin's sake. He announced in June 1966 he would have them by the end of the year. End of the year starts showing up, you have two Beatles approaching him. Two Beatles have been out of country since September. By the time the article prints, 3 Beatles are back in England and one's gone. Who are these two Beatles then. And when did they do it. Let's see what the Daily Mirror had to say on the 14th November 1966, and the mysterious Third Man! View AttachmentI would imagine this is Klein being mischevious, though if there is a third man, my money would be on Neil Aspinall. |
|
|
|
Post by beacon on Sept 25, 2013 5:36:17 GMT -5
Interesting that The Family Way stars Hayley Mills, who is most well-known for her role in Disney's Parent Trap, about identical cousins. Also interesting that her last name is Mills. Last summer somebody was on here mentioning that there is evidence that Heather Mills' father was associated with cloning research near Brecon Beacons. You should see Crispian Mills's (Hayley's son) "A Fantastic Fear of Everything" a tale of abandoned children in LILY'S laundrette, where one grows up to be a serial killer through this abandonment. It stars Simon Pegg. It also mentions Dr. Hawley Harvey Crippen (September 11, 1862 – November 23, 1910), usually known as Dr. Crippen. When his name came up it just reminds me of that International Times advertisement looking by a Black Magic director whatever, who lived around that same area as Crippen did. VERY interesting film. When I saw the LILY and the subject matter I thought .... HMMMMMMM. Interesting. I have neither seen the film nor did I know about the John Mills thing. I will do some reasearch. i did know about Crispian Mills though, as he was in a modestly popular band back in the 90's called Kula Shaker who had a lot of eastern references in their songs and lyrics. Interestingly Crispian's father is Roy Boulting who, with his twin brother, directed The Family Way. Small World! |
|
|
|
Post by beacon on Sept 25, 2013 7:48:32 GMT -5
You should see Crispian Mills's (Hayley's son) "A Fantastic Fear of Everything" a tale of abandoned children in LILY'S laundrette, where one grows up to be a serial killer through this abandonment. It stars Simon Pegg. It also mentions Dr. Hawley Harvey Crippen (September 11, 1862 – November 23, 1910), usually known as Dr. Crippen. When his name came up it just reminds me of that International Times advertisement looking by a Black Magic director whatever, who lived around that same area as Crippen did. VERY interesting film. When I saw the LILY and the subject matter I thought .... HMMMMMMM. Interesting. I have neither seen the film nor did I know about the John Mills thing. I will do some reasearch. i did know about Crispian Mills though, as he was in a modestly popular band back in the 90's called Kula Shaker who had a lot of eastern references in their songs and lyrics. Interestingly Crispian's father is Roy Boulting who, with his twin brother, directed The Family Way. Small World! Ah, Heather Mills father not Hayley Mills father, forgive the confusion! |
|
|
|
Post by NothingIsReal1985 on Sept 25, 2013 11:42:07 GMT -5
We are all on a journey here: see how Jimmy Nichol looks and acts as part of the group? Thanks for that picture NothingisReal1985; I'm convinced there was a plan to replace Ringo but the problem with Jimmy: he did not look like Ringo and also if George was putting his foot down it could have been easier to say ok Ringo stays then replace him anyway with a lookalike who then grew a moustache. Also, as you pointed out, Ringo has been seen since the 'seventies with a beard (to disguise weak chin) and dark shades. The lips are thinner than the original Ringo and other differences, together with his divorce from Maureen and subsequent marriage to actress Barbara. I guess we see differently on who's cuter; I think Ringo is, though. Have a bit of a weakness for him. All of The Beatles had great smiles, but he had the prettiest, straight pearly-white teeth (in spite of him being a smoker). I also loved his huge, pretty, expressive droopy blue eyes and strong Jewish features. But after '66 he -- along with the rest of The Featles The Beatles -- just wasn't cute anymore. And I agree... the lips ARE thinner. Someone could interject and say, "Well, it's due to age; there's less collagen in the lips, as well as the skin, so that's why they're thinner." But the truth is that they've been that way since the '70s and he was still fairly young then (in his 30's). But back in the '60s Ringo has had full, thick, crusty, bee-stung kissable lips. Also notice his (left) eyebrow, and how they're filled in in the before photos: BEFORE (1963 and 1964, in "A Hard Day's Night"):
  AFTER:      I also wanna add that today's "Ringo" Fingo(s)/Fringo(s) has more crooked lower teeth, whereas yesterday's Ringo had straight lower teeth.  I remember reading something over @ The Vigilant Citizen in the comments section [concerning the topic of Miley Cyrus and the slutty, sleazy nastiness she engaged in with Robin Thicke, and older married man at the 2013 MTV Video Music Awards (VMAs)] about sunglasses and how they're related to the Illuminati, which is why Fingo(s)/Fringo(s) "Ringo" wears them all the time. Here are the quotes:Now I know why -- at least part of the reason -- he does this. Found it out last night on said site. As for Maureen... couldn't STAND her. Would rather elaborate later on; just ain't up to it now. But all I'll say is both her and Yoko would make the ideal roommates.  |
|
|
|
Post by NothingIsReal1985 on Sept 25, 2013 13:32:46 GMT -5
Personally I do not give credence to the Lennon was replaced theory. He was into acid and other drugs and trippers do not tend to eat much unlike stoners who get the munchies more regularly. John and George both took LSD far more than the other two and I think the lifestyle shows on their prematurely aged faces ~ and George always looked rather old even when he was only 21. Admittedly Paul, John and George looked more like men in their 30s after 1966~67 but in the case of John and George it seems their lifestyle of little sleep, speed when they were teenagers to keep them playing endlessly in Hamburg, poor diet in Germany and then on the road etc etc plus the later experimentation with heavy drugs made them look older. In Paul`s case there are other factors that seem to come into play but I think the very unhealthy lifestyles of the Beatles prematurely aged two of them. Ringo always looked a bit old anyway and those kinds of people don`t tend to look much older as they do age. No everyone agrees with my assessment of John's '66 replacement ( à la JPM), and that's okay; I accept that others won't see eye-to-eye with my (world)views, so I won't force my beliefs on others. That wouldn't pan out, anyhow. But all I know is that The Beatles just weren't the same (in many ways) by the end of '66 going into '67 and so on. To me their marked change in appearance just can NOT be explained drugs, alcohol, lack of sleep, poor diet & nutrition, weight gain &/or loss, aging (whether it's a natural process or premature), being sex slaves/toys for dirty, fat, ugly, old gross men, and other (unhealthy lifestyles) ways people live life on the fast lane. That said, it just seems like folks making excuses for their tremendous change(s) [post '66] are just grasping at straws, making excuses (for them) and in denial. |
|
|
|
Post by NothingIsReal1985 on Sept 25, 2013 13:37:37 GMT -5
ticket2ride you need to do your homework. Everything changed with John too after 1966. People don't change looks and personality in such a short time. I strongly agree; just read my above post. |
|
|
|
Post by NothingIsReal1985 on Sept 25, 2013 13:51:17 GMT -5
Sorry you've been ill NothingisReal1985; great research with those pics. Can you compare any circa 1962 as that was a time when there appears to be 2 people as Paul. Though this thread is old, it seems to have only found photographs that confirm that Paul was A) one height during a set time period, and B) another height during another time period. It fits within the 1942 - 1966 / 1966 - present myth format. It hasn't gone and found the pictures that entirely conflict with the photographs that showed you a Paul that went up and down in height quite suddenly, and ... well ... impossibly. Thanks, Cherilyn. I appreciate it. Aunt Flo has gone back home now (LOL) and I'm feeling much better now.  I've been gone a while, but I'm fine now and ready to continue my exposé(s) [delivering & serving more steamy, piping-hot tasty tea, Lol] concerning the replacement of not just JPM, but John, George & Ringo as well. I'll be over here more often, if my personal life doesn't interfere too much. The things I've posted in this thread so far are only the tip of the iceberg. You haven't even heard the HALF. I ALWAYS knew something was off with The Featles The Beatles post '66, but didn't know what it was until recently. Moreover, just when I thought I knew it all I go over to the Fab Four (Dozen) boards and discover some things that changed my views some more concerning the cloning &/or impostor replacement(s) even further. This stuff not only involves The Beatles themselves, but the people within their circle. If you wanna know more right away, then go over to the boards to find out -- with an open mind, of course -- what I'm talking about. But if you'd rather be kept on the edge of your seat(s) and would better understand things (mainly, the truth) if they unfolded slowly, then stay tuned to/on this thread. This things I found out over on said board were quite shocking, but at the same time weren't. At first finding out about JPM's demise some time between August and November of '66 and spilling my findings (as well as seeing what others thought, whether here or on TKIN & Doppels board) here was all there was to it; but it's now snowballed (for me) into not just being about him [being impostor-replaced and/or cloned, etc.] particularly, but about the rest of The Beatles and others close to them (like their wives), as well as other stars/celebrities. But more on that later. I found the above image over at DeviantArt. It pretty mocks/takes pot shots at the PID rumour or "theory" more like TRUTH that's been going around for a while now. Sad, really.  I just don't understand how anyone could take lightly the fact that there was a cold-blooded murder and subsequent (criminal) cover-up [and impostor-replacement] concerning JPM all those years ago. Faul must have some sort of spell on the masses concerning his TRUE identity, let alone what REALLY happened to Paul back in '66. This drawing -- as well as all of the clues included in Featle Beatle songs, album covers/art, photo-shoots/sessions, etc. from '67 & later, in addition to everything else [whether images, ideas, ideals, symbolism, worldview(s), etc.] you see in the Illuminati-controlled mainstream mass media -- demonstrates how much our culture worships, glorifies & glamorizes DEATH.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2013 14:14:24 GMT -5
Turn me on, Dead Man. lol |
|
|
|
Post by NothingIsReal1985 on Sept 25, 2013 14:34:47 GMT -5
ticket2ride you need to do your homework. Everything changed with John too after 1966. People don't change looks and personality in such a short time. You`re welcome to your opinion but I`ve done enough homework on the Beatles and other musical artists to conclude that while the doppelganger/replacement/clone theories are interesting, few of the famous people cited as having been replaced have actually been replaced. Once people go down the track of pursuing this as hard, undeniable truth, then the lists get longer and the assertions get more insistent while in fact there is little in hard proof except for photos in most cases. The internet has a way of running with ideas and promoting them as undeniable truth. I do not believe for one minute that artists such as Christine Aguilera, Britney Spears, Beyonce, Jay Z etc were replaced. The insistence on that idea as fact fails to accept that these people were never anything but manufactured celebrities as in Aguilera, Britney and Beyonce. They didn`t have to be replaced because they were never original artists with ideas that challenged any norms. They were manufactured singers who had their songs ghostwritten and still mostly do, and promoted tired old ideas of so called sexiness and simply rehashed the idea that women have to flash just about everything if they want to make popular music. Jay Z was never a force for good who was supposedly replaced. He has always been a selfish scumbag who has a talent for parasitising others` experiences and resources and using them up to make his way through the music biz. After screwing over those who got him into the music biz, he proceeded to latch onto talent such as Kanye West to make him relevant these days. His prominence now is easy to understand ~ just do some research on how the monopolisation of the music industry has reached its peak over the past 7 yrs or so. New talent only gets accepted if they are prepared to be yes men and women, in some cases in a variation on the old Hollywood casting couch. New talent also gets signed and forced to sit out while jaded and increasingly unoriginal established artists like Beyonce and Jay Z monopolize because they have no true competition. Aguilera, Britney, Miley Cyrus et al do reflect the nastiness of the Disney machine. They were all child stars there and research does indicate there is an ugly programming of celebrities that goes on in the entertainment industry. John Lennon took acid continuously over a period of years and then took heroin with Yoko. There are credible witnesses to the fact that both were hooked on it together. She wasn't a Svengali keeping a John double hooked while she was clean.  If you go to this two blogs ( The Judiciary Report and Aisha, as well as Google and other search engines) you won't have to search far and wide to find out that Jay-Z & his phony-as-a-$3-bill wife, Beyoncé have been sued for copyright infringement and racketeering so many times it's not even funny. The Jamaican lady [Aisha, who owns the TJR and "Aisha" blogs] knows by personal experience that the aforementioned sickos, Jay-Z & Beyoncé -- along with Madonna 's tired, old, wrinkled, wannabe-young, untalented, sneaky, sleazy nasty @$$ and Rihanna (I have WAY more talent in my pinkie toenail tahn she does her entire body, BTW) -- are VERY much capable of doing mess like this. These people have spent their whole careers not only being fake, looking fake, getting plastic/cosmetic surgery [which makes people look WORSE rather than better, BTW], doing foul things & stepping on others (like others have got NO kind of feelings) to get to the top, being manufactured so-called "artists" [and I use that term VERY lightly] and doing the Illuminati's bidding, but also copying (and pasting to themselves, lol) the work, images, fashion, hairstyles/hairdos, outfits, symbols, ideals, beliefs and ideas that does NOT belong to them, but to others and passing them off as being their own (Faul, anyone?), the originators be damned. The last time I checked that's stealing and that's just down, out & right WRONG. The Bible says (as one of the Ten Commandments) "Thou shalt not steal". 'Nuff said. But of course, with them being Freemasons (since the females can't be Masons, they're a part of the Eastern Star division of this sick, demonic, satanic cult), not to mention being deeply into the occult and having a large amount of clout (money & power) and favour with the Illuminati elite/international banking cartel, they've manage to get protection from any kind of prosecution, reprisal and public backlash for their thievery of the other original artists -- the ones who were TRUE artists, mind them -- material(s). If they face any humiliation for slipping up -- however & whatever THAT is -- it's only brief or it's quickly stamped out by the mainstream mass media. Furthermore being publicly humiliating is just another step up higher up in the level of initiation in Freemasonry [like what happened several years ago at the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards in regards to Taylor Swift, Beyoncé , Kanye West & Lady GaGa. It looks as though Satan/the Devil and his crowd awards those handsomely (with the shallow things of this transient, sin-cursed world) that agree to do his/their bidding. But under ONE condition; you have to sell your soul, being indebted to him/them, and remember that the Devil always (comes back) to collect his debts. When you dance to the music, you must pay the piper afterwards. Do the crime, then you must do the time. But here's the Catch-22; he/they NEVER reveals what awaits those who serve him after this life is over (or after they die), though. Oh, and BTW... Yoko let it slip that Fohn Fennon "John Lennon" had several doubles, and I must admit that it doesn't sound that far-fetched to me. Matter of fact, it makes perfect sense, already knowing about not only JPM's demise back in '66, but of the rest of the Fab Four around that same time. Not only that folks can't agree on how Fohn Fennon "John Lennon" met back in October of '66, when Yoko Ono is still very much alive and can confirm &/or deny what the actual account was. There's a lot of holes in that story, as well as many others. |
|
|
|
Post by NothingIsReal1985 on Sept 25, 2013 14:44:16 GMT -5
We are all on a journey here: see how Jimmy Nichol looks and acts as part of the group? Thanks for that picture NothingisReal1985; I'm convinced there was a plan to replace Ringo but the problem with Jimmy: he did not look like Ringo and also if George was putting his foot down it could have been easier to say ok Ringo stays then replace him anyway with a lookalike who then grew a moustache. Also, as you pointed out, Ringo has been seen since the 'seventies with a beard (to disguise weak chin) and dark shades. The lips are thinner than the original Ringo and other differences, together with his divorce from Maureen and subsequent marriage to actress Barbara. I guess we see differently on who's cuter; I think Ringo is, though. Have a bit of a weakness for him. All of The Beatles had great smiles, but he had the prettiest, straight pearly-white teeth (in spite of him being a smoker). I also loved his huge, pretty, expressive droopy blue eyes and strong Jewish features. But after '66 he -- along with the rest of The Featles The Beatles -- just wasn't cute anymore. And I agree... the lips ARE thinner. Someone could interject and say, "Well, it's due to age; there's less collagen in the lips, as well as the skin, so that's why they're thinner." But the truth is that they've been that way since the '70s and he was still fairly young then (in his 30's). But back in the '60s Ringo has had full, thick, crusty, bee-stung kissable lips. Also notice his (left) eyebrow, and how they're filled in in the before photos: BEFORE (1963 and 1964, in "A Hard Day's Night"):
AFTER:
I also wanna add that today's "Ringo" Fingo(s)/Fringo(s) has more crooked lower teeth, whereas yesterday's Ringo had straight lower teeth. On top of that today's "Ringo(s)" have rounder eyes. I remember reading something over @ The Vigilant Citizen in the comments section [concerning the topic of Miley Cyrus and the slutty, sleazy nastiness she engaged in with Robin Thicke, and older married man at the 2013 MTV Video Music Awards (VMAs)] about sunglasses and how they're related to the Illuminati, which is why Fingo(s)/Fringo(s) "Ringo" wears them all the time. Here are the quotes:Now I know why -- at least part of the reason -- he does this. Found it out last night on said site. As for Maureen... couldn't STAND her. Would rather elaborate later on; just ain't up to it now. But all I'll say is both her and Yoko would make the ideal roommates. |
|
|
|
Post by NothingIsReal1985 on Sept 25, 2013 14:48:59 GMT -5
Personally I do not give credence to the Lennon was replaced theory. He was into acid and other drugs and trippers do not tend to eat much unlike stoners who get the munchies more regularly. John and George both took LSD far more than the other two and I think the lifestyle shows on their prematurely aged faces ~ and George always looked rather old even when he was only 21. Admittedly Paul, John and George looked more like men in their 30s after 1966~67 but in the case of John and George it seems their lifestyle of little sleep, speed when they were teenagers to keep them playing endlessly in Hamburg, poor diet in Germany and then on the road etc etc plus the later experimentation with heavy drugs made them look older. In Paul`s case there are other factors that seem to come into play but I think the very unhealthy lifestyles of the Beatles prematurely aged two of them. Ringo always looked a bit old anyway and those kinds of people don`t tend to look much older as they do age. Not everyone agrees with my assessment of John's '66 replacement ( à la JPM, George & Ringo), and that's okay; I accept that others won't see eye-to-eye with my (world)views concerning this and I won't force my beliefs on others. That wouldn't pan out, anyhow. But all I know is that The Beatles just were never the same (in many ways) by the end of '66 going into '67 and so on. To me their marked change in appearance just can NOT be explained away as being due to drugs, alcohol, lack of sleep, poor diet & nutrition, weight gain &/or loss, aging (whether it's a natural process or premature), being sex slaves/toys for dirty, fat, ugly, old gross men, and other (unhealthy lifestyles) ways people live life on the fast lane. That said, it just seems like folks making excuses for their tremendous change(s) [post '66] are just grasping at straws and in denial as to the possibilities concerning the demise (of ALL of the original members of The Beatles) by the end of '66, unfortunately. |
|
He's just back from holiday as well, but of course, he's had the summer of 1966 to do such a thing. 
I've been gone a while, but I'm fine now and ready to continue my exposé(s) [delivering & serving more steamy, piping-hot tasty tea, Lol] concerning the replacement of not just JPM, but John, George & Ringo as well. I'll be over here more often, if my personal life doesn't interfere too much. The things I've posted in this thread so far are only the tip of the iceberg. You haven't even heard the HALF. 
I just don't understand how anyone could take lightly the fact that there was a cold-blooded murder and subsequent (criminal) cover-up [and impostor-replacement] concerning JPM all those years ago. Faul must have some sort of spell on the masses concerning his TRUE identity, let alone what REALLY happened to Paul back in '66. This drawing -- as well as all of the clues included in