|
|
Post by faulconandsnowjob on Aug 28, 2008 15:41:10 GMT -5
Yup -- the London Tube bombing was on 7/7, and the bus blew up in..........wait for it.......................Tavistock Square.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/uk....tml/default.stmWow! Is that a hint at Tavistock Institute involvement...? Thank you for that information! :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by paulumbo on Aug 28, 2008 17:19:23 GMT -5
I listened to cuts from CHAOS AND CREATION on youtube, and although Paul McCartney may still be alive (we don't know at this point), I think those songs are very BILL, a 63-year old Bill. One example I'd quote is a line from "Anyway": "Only love is strong enough to take it on the chin." That doesn't sound like something Paul would have written at 23. Eyesbleed and Doc, can you explain why you think the songs are JPMish?
|
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Aug 28, 2008 20:51:08 GMT -5
I listened to cuts from CHAOS AND CREATION on youtube, and although Paul McCartney may still be alive (we don't know at this point), I think those songs are very BILL, a 63-year old Bill. One example I'd quote is a line from "Anyway": "Only love is strong enough to take it on the chin." That doesn't sound like something Paul would have written at 23. Eyesbleed and Doc, can you explain why you think the songs are JPMish? As soon as I saw a pre-release, I felt there was something goin' on. The name Chaos & Creation In The Back Yard with a pic of a young JPM in the backyard on the cover. Then you look at the cd & see the double sig.... 1 sig.. 2 Pauls.... amazing piece of art. But then the music itself did not disappoint my expectations. Most of the music is in a league all it's own..... the quality & depth of the music is head & shoulders over any other Bill release. To me, this cd stands out like a sore thumb, completely superior to any other McCartney cd. Some of the lyrics also sound like they are coming from a person leading a secret-behind-the-walls life. I don't have time to go into specifics.... I'm talking about the album as a whole. I think there are probably a couple of Bill songs on C&C, but he had a very special ghost writer to help fill out the cd, is what I'm sayin..... just my personal opinion. "Anyway" is definanly a Bill song.... I agree. I usually skip that song... it doesn't fit the rest of the album to me. The only track I don't like on C&C. So disagree all y'all want, but I'll hear JPM every time I play this cd. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Aug 28, 2008 23:31:08 GMT -5
I listened to cuts from CHAOS AND CREATION on youtube, and although Paul McCartney may still be alive (we don't know at this point), I think those songs are very BILL, a 63-year old Bill. One example I'd quote is a line from "Anyway": "Only love is strong enough to take it on the chin." That doesn't sound like something Paul would have written at 23. Eyesbleed and Doc, can you explain why you think the songs are JPMish? As soon as I saw a pre-release, I felt there was something goin' on. The name Chaos & Creation In The Back Yard with a pic of a young JPM in the backyard on the cover. Then you look at the cd & see the double sig.... 1 sig.. 2 Pauls.... amazing piece of art. But then the music itself did not disappoint my expectations. Most of the music is in a league all it's own..... the quality & depth of the music is head & shoulders over any other Bill release. To me, this cd stands out like a sore thumb, completely superior to any other McCartney cd. Some of the lyrics also sound like they are coming from a person leading a secret-behind-the-walls life. I don't have time to go into specifics.... I'm talking about the album as a whole. I think there are probably a couple of Bill songs on C&C, but he had a very special ghost writer to help fill out the cd, is what I'm sayin..... just my personal opinion. "Anyway" is definanly a Bill song.... I agree. I usually skip that song... it doesn't fit the rest of the album to me. The only track I don't like on C&C. So disagree all y'all want, but I'll hear JPM every time I play this cd. ;D I agree that that lyric fits William better. Certain songs favor Paul more; certain once William. It's seems crazy to say, but it has a collaborative feel to me, as if Paul were there on the writing stages, or if he was being channeled in a way. Fine Line has a lot of Paul in it, Follow Me as well. I have to get my C&C CD back out again, it's been a while. I am not saying that Bill wasn't a part of the creative process. He was there 100% of the time. I just "feel" like Paul was around, in spirit, at least. |
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Aug 28, 2008 23:33:09 GMT -5
Chaos and Creation was like many of FAUL's albums. His more talented collaborator - in this case, Nigel Goodrich - wrote more than half of the music, and FAUL wrote most all of the lyrics...
|
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Aug 29, 2008 21:12:09 GMT -5
No doubt that Chaos and Creation has a different sound than Faul's previous albums. Although, some of the songs are similar to those on Flaming Pie. I just don't see the JPM influence, though, on this recording. The voice sounds like Faul all the way...with the exception of a few chorus lines in At The Mercy. The lyrics seem mostly about Faul and him dealing with being the replacement of Paul McCartney. He seems sad and lost to be honest. That's what I glean from C & C.
|
|
|
|
Post by jpmtruthcanuck on Jan 18, 2013 12:54:13 GMT -5
It's been hard for me coming to grips with PWR... I'm still researching and trying to find answers. Much as I don't want to accept this, so far, I am at:
1. Paul was replaced in the 'faul' of 1966. Not only does he look different from then on, but the youtube interview with George Harrison referring to him as 'Faul' is hard to dispute.
2. I'm torn between Paul dying (all the Beatles clues), or his having a permanent disability because of a car crash (clue in Jane Asher book). I feel it's more than Paul simply leaving the band because he had enough.
3. Between Sept 1966 and Dec 1966, I find it hard to believe they could have located 'Faul' and readied him to replace Paul. This had to have been in the works earlier, which makes me wonder if it was a deliberate act against Paul.
4. I haven't reconciled yet under why the Beatles continued to work as a group with a replacement. (threat? their idea to keep the band going?)
5. My theory is changeable based on further investigation, but this is how I feel today.
|
|
|
|
Post by iameye on Jan 18, 2013 19:49:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by B on Jan 18, 2013 20:20:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by B on Jan 18, 2013 21:14:55 GMT -5
He used to be cruel to his woman; he beat her and kept her apart from the things that she loved. Man, he was mean! But he was changing his scene, and he's doing the best that he can. Practically a saint these days, ya know. ---------------------------------I wonder if the dancers knew they were in a temple. Ballroom Dance - Tale As Old As Time (what's that eye see?) imagine www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rNcBlHr6qEPerhaps they should have: aren't temples usually above the eyes?  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_(anatomy)"The word "temple" as used in anatomy has a separate etymology from the word temple, meaning "place of worship". Both come from Latin, but the word for the place of worship comes from templum, whereas the word for the part of the head comes from Vulgar Latin tempula, modified from tempora, plural form ("both temples") of tempus, a word that meant both "time" and the part of the head. Due to the common source with the word for time, the adjective for both is "temporal" (both "pertaining to time" and "pertaining to the anatomical temple"). time travel: The Brain & Pineal Gland Of The Orion Constellation [1080p] www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5Hu-8jUNYU9:50 - 9:54 "This area is conscious. It's a big brain sitting out there!" 10:00 - "And apparently it is coming out of everybody's collective unconscious..." Is the pineal gland a "Tiny Dancer"? Tiny Dancer Lyrics HQ .www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATBAv0QNn2w |
|
|
|
Post by iameye on Jan 18, 2013 22:26:03 GMT -5
[quote author=letterb1 board=general thread=4934 post=101745 time=1358561695 Ballroom Dance - Tale As Old As Time (what's that eye see?) imagine www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rNcBlHr6qEPerhaps they should have: aren't temples usually above the eyes?  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_(anatomy)"The word "temple" as used in anatomy has a separate etymology from the word temple, meaning "place of worship". Both come from Latin, but the word for the place of worship comes from templum, whereas the word for the part of the head comes from Vulgar Latin tempula, modified from tempora, plural form ("both temples") of www.amaluxherbal.com/bmysticism/christian_kabbalah_the_seven_primordial_spirits_of_god_the_wars_of_jehovah.htmcolor]. Due to the common source with the word for time, the adjective for both is "temporal" (both "pertaining to time" and "pertaining to the anatomical temple").
time travel:
T[1080p]
www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5Hu-8jUNYU
[/quote] comes from templum, whereas the word for the part of the head comes from Vulgar Latin tempula, modified from tempora, plural form ("both temples") of www.amaluxherbal.com/bmysticism/christian_kabbalah_the_seven_primordial_spirits_of_god_the_wars_of_jehovah.htmcolor]. Due to the common source with the word for time, the adjective for both is "temporal" (both "pertaining to time" and "pertaining to the anatomical temple").
right |
|
|
|
Post by iameye on Jan 18, 2013 22:34:10 GMT -5
---------------------------------I wonder if the dancers knew they were in a temple. Ballroom Dance - Tale As Old As Time (what's that eye see?) imagine www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rNcBlHr6qEPerhaps they should have: aren't temples usually above the eyes? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_(anatomy)"The word "temple" as used in anatomy has a separate etymology from the word temple, meaning "place of worship". Both come from Latin, but the word for the place of worship comes from templum, whereas the word for the part of the head comes from Vulgar Latin tempula, modified from tempora, plural form ("both temples") of tempus, a word that meant both "time" and the part of the head. Due to the common source with the word for time, the adjective for both is "temporal" (both "pertaining to time" and "pertaining to the anatomical temple"). time travel: The Brain & Pineal Gland Of The Orion Constellation [1080p] www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5Hu-8jUNYU
9:50 - 9:54 "This area is conscious. It's a big brain sitting out there!"
10:00 - "And apparently it is coming out of everybody's collective unconscious..."Is the pineal gland a "Tiny Dancer"? Tiny Dancer Lyrics HQ .www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATBAv0QNn2w ;D |
|
|
|
Post by vOOdOOgurU on Jan 19, 2013 2:59:57 GMT -5
It's been hard for me coming to grips with PWR... I'm still researching and trying to find answers. Much as I don't want to accept this, so far, I am at: 3. Between Sept 1966 and Dec 1966, I find it hard to believe they could have located 'Faul' and readied him to replace Paul. This had to have been in the works earlier, which makes me wonder if it was a deliberate act against Paul. 4. I haven't reconciled yet under why the Beatles continued to work as a group with a replacement. (threat? their idea to keep the band going?) . 3 & 4. There is something in 3 that I'm starting to lean towards. I don't want to, but it's leaning in this direction. Something happens after "Yesterday". Maybe he became unbearable to work with? Norman Smith openly said that Harrison could do no right in McCartney's eyes around this time (65 Rubber Soul to Revolver era) Lennon was a notoriously jealous, and well, sometimes violent man. That's not enough to say he's able to commit an act so heinous. But ... something is leaning me in that direction. Is it possible? I don't know. But the more I read, and look, it keeps popping up. Pressure to replace? To keep mouths shut about a true crime? The means to cover it up, but not the lack of conscience to shut mouths about it? Someone else here said about McCartney not playing with the agenda. Which would be CIA/LSD/Mind Control agendas. Again, the more I read, it is undeniable that that is there. It plays so heavy on the events of the 60's, that if you were to ignore it, would be to deny the decade ever happened at all. When you look into the projects Paperclip, Artichoke, Bluebird, MK ULTRA, and then think about what happened in the 60's ... I can't even tell you if we're all mind controlled now it's that bad. It wasn't George or John that advertised LSD. They wrote the trippy tunes. They got weirder and weirder to that Beatlemaniac fanbase. But you cannot find an interview where they ever extolled LSD's virtues. What did they promote? Transcendental Meditation. At every opportunity they could. Their music may have said we're dropping tons of the lysergic. But when they spoke, they advertised all natural, expand your consciousness meditation. It's Paul that advertised the virtues of LSD. He laid the responsibility down to the press about spreading the story - with a microphone stuck in his face, and cameras on him. He advertised it in a magazine and told of LSD's potential and what could be done with it if we only tapped into that portion of the brain LSD helped reveal. He then serves on the board of directors for the Monterey Pop Festival, where a ton of different types of LSD were dispersed on a mass scale. Orange Sunshine. Monterey Purple to name a few. Was it a concert. Or was it an huge experiment. Hmmm. I lean towards the experiment. To Beatlemaniacs who still had Paul the hitmaker, Paul the charming song, Paul the singalong and dance man, to admit he was taking LSD, and still appeared semi-normal (compared to his bandmates) just makes him the CIA's LSD Poster Boy. He is the perfect advertisement for a youth culture baffled by the changes witnessed in a band that seemingly started off innocent, and turned into moustache wearing , Indian influenced, Tibetan Book of the Dead quoting bohemians. He was the perfect advertisement for LSD's good for ya kids!!! Look what it did for me! I got Sgt Pepper out of it. If he was even taking it by that point. At the time of the television interview, he'd only taken it 4 times. How many times had George & John taken it by that point? Who's counting? But they took it alot. George slightly less than John, by John's admission. But he stated George was only slightly less cracked than he was. Point is, both George & John shut their mouths about LSD usage. This is not in anyone's agenda to disperse a drug that had been in development in secret labs and testing facilities for the better part of 20 years previous. And very operational within the context of mind control and psychological warfare strategies. So getting a Paul replacement, he of the charm and good looks and affability with the chart buying pop market to advertise, seems a far better thing to do than rely on these two "what you don't see you don't know types". But then you get Yoko Ono in the picture. And if she's not a minder / handler, I don't know what is. There is so much dodgy about her and her appearance in Beatles Land, and her behaviour in certain circumstances, just screams Mind Control/CIA. That there are many telling a story about 9th November, 1966 cannot be ignored either. Every piece of documented literature states Lennon could not have gone to her exhibition the night before it opened, because that would make it November 7th. It opened on the 8th, and was still being set up at 3am before it's 2pm grand opening. And the only visitor before its opening that the International Times felt worthy of mention was Roman Polanski. Which does not make sense. Not with Indica and MAD Ltd. who were all chums with Paul McCartney. That makes no sense at all. They're searching for funding, they associate themselves with a Beatle, and realise that any association with a Beatle is going to bring people to their shop, their gallery, their agenda. So why not mention Lennon appearing there as well? Especially if Lennon(as he says) was informed of the echibition a week before it opened. Well, he was in Spain the week before it opened. So who informed him? Was it that big a deal? Who was it that did it? John Dunbar (most probably) - Paul McCartney? If it's Dunbar, I already start looking at his dad who served as a cultural attache in Moscow during the tail end of WWII and was kicked out of Germany when Hitler came to power. That's some street cred right there! He also did some Foreign Office work down in Mexico and the Caribbean when he couldn't find work as a film director, which he was. And right there I say, when you can't find work in film, you all of a sudden become attached to the Ministry of Information, and later moved to the Foreign Office as deputy head of the inter-allied information office in Mexico and the Caribbean??? Really??? I guess that comes from marrying the daughter of very elite Russian émigrés in Mexico. Connections. Peter Asher's father Dr.Richard Asher. Again, this guy's history speaks of something that could involve mind control, Tavistock, experimental drug experiments. I'm still trying to find out what experimental drug gave Alma Cogan stomach cancer. Very hard to find the name of that. But then Jack Ruby swore he was injected with cancer while in jail. Go figure. I don't want to lean towards Macca Kill Plot by the others. And judging by the cover of Revolver, maybe Ringo wasn't too hip to the idea. But John and George were onboard. Okay back to Jack Parsons, L.Ron Hubbard, Robert Oppenheimer and Babalon Working for me! Thanks for your time  |
|
|
|
Post by vOOdOOgurU on Jan 19, 2013 3:15:22 GMT -5
apologies i think fast sometimes:
There is nothing saying that the second Paul did not in fact get WORSE in the studio with the other 3. Nothing. In fact this seems to be the case. So replacing an already hard to deal with Paul with one worse to deal with makes no sense.
Embodying or making this second Paul THINK he's Paul is well within those experiments of MK-ULTRA/Paperclip/etc. All of those. It can be done. You've seen it done. You've got Oswald/Sirhan/Chapman/Hinkman that shows you it can be done. 9/11 is this principle on even a grander, scarier scale (and in truth this is the event that says to me we are well and truly f......d, because any voice of reason that says LOOK, this has been staged, is not listened to. When it should. It's very clear it was staged. On a grand scale. On a scale that says there is only worse to come. )
Why I believe the second Paul was convinced, but not entirely successful is not in his obvious physical appearance differences, or mannerisms. It's his playing style. Paul McCartney went from being the most professional. barely look at my instrument when playing, look the audience directly in the eyes whenever possible, to a I have no audience watching me now, I must look whenever I can at the neck of the instrument, even on songs I played for 4 years straight night after night musician. I have NEVER seen a musician change their entire playing style that abruptly or significantly. Not Hendrix in the 3 years he had to show us his playing style. Not Entwistle in the 40 years he had to look completely bored while playing. Not Geddy Lee in 30 years, no matter if the song was 3 minutes or 18 minutes long. Not Robert Fripp who refuses to get out of his chair for 40 years. The only factor I see contributing to a musician completely changing the way they play that instrument, which is just as much down to looking and moving around,as it is technique (which is personal) is age.
And Paul McCartney was only 24 when he had this complete change around to a playing style that was consistent from the first films of them playing in the Cavern, right up until 1966.
So how could Paul No.2 retain the bossiness and need for perfection, only increased from Paul No.1, making the decision to get rid of him seem not all that sensible in the end? Well, if you knew they had gotten rid of the other one, and the only thing shutting their mouths about it was you, you could pretty much do anything. Couldn't you. You're the thing that keeps them all from paying for a crime committed that they seemingly got away with. If you blow the cover, everyone goes down. And the cover is a remarkable story that would expose a lot of people, especially those who did experiments with LSD and such. Those people, who do have an agenda, and do convince people that they're assassins, and possibly musicians. It's Manchurian Candidate with a band.
|
|
|
|
Post by vOOdOOgurU on Jan 19, 2013 3:32:58 GMT -5
And he's been programmed. Bossiness/Control Freak has been put into his behaviour codes. As the people that placed him in this band, you know that they have to be kept in line. They can say this, or say that whenever they like, but to all that view this band from the outside, nothing has changed. All is the same. It's still the same 4 people. So they can bleat and yell all they want backwards and forwards about Paul being dead. Because the person we've programmed to believe he's Paul McCartney, is pulling it off just fine and no one seems to notice.
Bossiness would be put into his programming, as would the perfectionism. That it was only worse in Version 2.0 just speaks of making sure these people stayed on track, and kept their mouths shut. Not because they would be replaced as well. But simply because to open their mouths would bring a whole heap of hurt on them if they thought of truly doing it.
|
|
|
|
Post by vOOdOOgurU on Jan 19, 2013 3:37:04 GMT -5
And you can SEE that message coming through loud and clear by the amount of people that started dropping like flies in Beatle Land after September 1966. Suicides, Car Accidents, Being Thrown off Roofs. You know. Accidents. There's a very high amount of people doing that after September 1966. Too many in fact. Let alone having Mal Evans killed by the very same investigating officer on the Sirhan Sirhan case, just before he's about to release his book and recollections. That was awfully CONVENIENT.
It's getting rid of the people who know there's a Paul No.2. In ways we probably can't guess right now. But it's getting rid of those who are too risky to keep around. Too unstable. Too reckless with their mouths. Keep the 3 Beatles intact, because that keeps the whole operation together. But start getting rid of the people around them less important and unnecessary to keep around.
|
|
|
|
Post by vOOdOOgurU on Jan 19, 2013 3:39:03 GMT -5
SCENARIO no 2 is they were all controlled eventually. Starting with that dentist who liked to put LSD in tea.
|
|
|
|
Post by iameye on Jan 19, 2013 8:15:35 GMT -5
[quote author=voodooguru board=general thread=4934 post=101762 time=1358584743]SCENARIO no 2 is they were all controlled eventually. Starting with that dentist who liked to put LSD in tea. [/quote][/color]
That sounds most plausible.
|
|
|
|
Post by vOOdOOgurU on Jan 19, 2013 11:35:25 GMT -5
[quote author=voodooguru board=general thread=4934 post=101762 time=1358584743 ]SCENARIO no 2 is they were all controlled eventually. Starting with that dentist who liked to put LSD in tea. [/color] That sounds most plausible. [/quote] It's a start |
|
|
|
Post by hotman637 on Jan 19, 2013 13:08:41 GMT -5
You mention Geddy Lee, John Entwistle and Brian Eno not changing their style. Of course thier have been others that HAVE changed their style,Eric Clapton,John Lennon,Keith Richards,Jimmy Page and others. I think all those guys were replaced. My question is was Pete Townsend replaced? I still cannot tell. Any ideas?
|
|
|
|
Post by vOOdOOgurU on Jan 19, 2013 13:38:30 GMT -5
You mention Geddy Lee, John Entwistle and Brian Eno not changing their style. Of course thier have been others that HAVE changed their style,Eric Clapton,John Lennon,Keith Richards,Jimmy Page and others. I think all those guys were replaced. My question is was Pete Townsend replaced? I still cannot tell. Any ideas? What I note with Keith Richards is a massive change in his appearance in 1967. Like he went dark. That could be heroin. That could be seeing something maybe he didn't want to see. He just looks ... haunted. That's a word that comes to mind.He just does not look the same man as he did. As far as playing styles with those others, it must be noted that Lennon with his knees slightly bent part crouch playing style remained from Beatlemania onwards. But to be honest, I'd have to look at those other players. Clapton tends to close his eyes and make his back appear like it can't move, but kind of lightly circles with the instrument. I'd have to watch him over the years. To me that change in McCartney is so abrupt, it makes no sense for him to do it in the circumstance. It's like he's learning how to play the instrument all over again. And he plays like this to the present day. Looking at chords for Yesterday that A. He does not play the same as he did in 1965. B. Has to look at particular chord changes, whereas before he'd only look at one particular chord change, all other times his eyes were straight towards the audience. C. Even on very simple songs, he still can't look away from where his fingers are on the fretboard. If you watch him doing a song like "I Saw Her Standing There" there's a LOT of stuff going on in that song. I've only seen him look intermittently from 1962 - 1966 at where he was, and sometimes you'd get the feeling he didn't actually have to. Because he'd run through a certain section without a glance, but when going back to it again, he might take a quick look. All while singing lead. Same on songs he did harmonies on. The guy knew that instrument so well and where he was, he did not have to look. The new Paul, has to. It's one of the hugest differences I see in "1 and 2". It honestly looks like he's just learning how to play the songs for the third or fourth time and still isn't quite sure where he's meant to go. |
|
|
|
Post by B on Jan 19, 2013 15:56:32 GMT -5
My question is was Pete Townsend replaced? I still cannot tell. Absolutely not. |
|
|
|
Post by iameye on Jan 19, 2013 20:26:46 GMT -5
[/color] That sounds most plausible. [/quote] It's a start [/quote] Starting with that dentist who liked to put LSD in tea. |
|
|
|
Post by multiverser on Jan 20, 2013 9:49:38 GMT -5
I've been studying the PID topic for several years. faulconandsnowjob knows me as the avatar 'switching yard' on a very lengthy ATS thread some time ago.
For many years, I studied the JFK assassination and came to the conclusion that the Oswald 'family' was completely manufactured with intelligence agents playing all the roles. Same with the other key figures like Ruby. I concluded that they were all agent actors playing a scripted story for the press and public. I've come to the same conclusion about The Beatles.
My current thinking on The Beatles is that they were found, 'bought off', captured very early on before they became famous and then made pawns in an extremely manipulated game of mass mind control experimentation scripted in an architecturally meticulous way by Tavistock/CIA. I think multiple doubles were used from early on. I do not think this is as simple as Original Paul replaced by one Faul. That's too simplistic, in my opinion.
I believe that any 'official story' or 'history' of The Beatles is mostly fiction. Manufactured by intelligence agencies. It also seems quite apparent that one or more occult secret societies were and still are involved.
So yeah, multiple doubles from early on in their fame, multiple doubles in the New Beatles who appeared on the scene late 1966, early 1967, and officially introduced on the SGT PEPPER album.
The whole story is probably very sad and sick. It started with four very talented young guys and when they were found and bought the rest of the story was and is pure manipulation by intelligence agencies and secret societies. Saturn Death Cult? London Hellfire Club? Not sure what demented and evil occult covens were and are still involved. But whoever and whatever's behind the whole thing has been sanctioned by England's Royal Family. They endorsed the program twice by doing the MBE thing and then finally making Faul a Sir. I believe there is also a connection to some kind of secret Sir Francis Bacon cult. Bacon wrote the Shakespeare works and edited/wrote The King James Bible.
It would surprise me very much if the truth ever comes out. And how could we trust it even if it does come out? The closer you look at this and the more you think you are putting pieces together like Sherlock Holmes, the more it splinters and shatters into more pieces to try and fit together.
Also, I'm pretty sure that in the last 40 years or so, all Beatles images and films have been manipulated to try and fool the public so badly that photo evidence is hard to trust.
At this point in my research, I can't give you a plot line and say 'this is my theory' because I think the truth would truly blow all our minds and sorry but I don't think any of us are really close to being able to lay out a plot line or theory that fits everything we suspect or know.
Sorry. It's way, way too complicated.
|
|
|
|
Post by vOOdOOgurU on Jan 21, 2013 3:38:47 GMT -5
agree with multiverser on a lot of points.
No matter what angle I approach PID, certain things keep popping up over and over again. Names. Organisations. People. You go in through this angle -- OH there's that name again. You approach from another angle -- OH! Go figure that, they also .....
Tavistock history places Please Please Me in its accomplishments, in 1960. Maybe they just like The Beatles. Maybe they just came up with the song a couple years before it was released. Who knows right now.
My current "investigations" are Babalon Working, Liber 729, The RFK Assassination, the mythology of Osiris, Alex Sanders, projects Artichoke, Paperclip, MK-Ultra, Andrija Puharich, The Esalen Institute, The JFK Assassination, the 1967 Fascist turn of Greece, French & British Heraldry, John Dee, amongst a myriad of other things, hoping "one day" to tie them all together. Or at least come close.
|
|
