clarekuehn
Hard Day's Night
Yes he died. Yes 1 man replaced him. Yes that was it. Yes wasn't so well done. Yes big implications.
Posts: 46
|
Post by clarekuehn on Jul 19, 2014 22:59:31 GMT -5
I find it interesting that people say one thing for years and years and then when that thing is refuted instead of admiting that I may have a good point they all of a sudden CHANGE THEIR STORY! For example Christians have said for THOUSANDS of years that God is a man. When I say "God is a woman" they all of a sudden say "God is neither man nor woman, God is spirit"! I NEVER remember a Christian saying it before and they ALWAYS referred to God as a "he". It is the same with the Zapruder film. People have used that film has evidence for all sorts of theories over the years and that is fine because it is a good piece of evidence in my opinion. Then I mention that I think it shows "Jackie did it" and all of a sudden the entire video has been faked! if it was faked then it cannot prove Jackie did NOT do it! Hi. God or goddess or all-is-love-and-creation ... I am fine with your deity comment. Let's turn it to a woman for a while, so that we can really flesh out that idea to contrast with the Man and Spirit-only versions. Of course you are right the Zapruder film as a fake does not exactly disprove your case, but: a) it is the film alone which was used to implicate Jackie -- though yes, there are things which can derive from the film which are mentioned by witnesses or can be reasonably assumed to be details they'd miss and which fit the general lines of reasoning b) no witnesses concur and they do indicate quite the timeline in full, if we discount where the film radically disagrees (and if we're careful in other ways about the witnesses). Best wishes.
|
|
clarekuehn
Hard Day's Night
Yes he died. Yes 1 man replaced him. Yes that was it. Yes wasn't so well done. Yes big implications.
Posts: 46
|
Post by clarekuehn on Jul 19, 2014 23:04:40 GMT -5
Clare said: Eek! Hey: There is one Linda. Where on earth have PID people gone so off the rails? Sorry, but really: not only does it SEEM odd; it's untenable. Sometimes Linda, who was a bit of a player and surly, like Sir Paul, was effusive and loving, like him, too. They have their moods. I think she was very happy but slightly abashed on the wedding day. Nothing odd. Moving on ... ************************************************************************************************ Where did the idea come from to have Linda in Wings? She could neither sing, play an instrument or have any on stage presence. She often seemed to be "spaced out" in photos, however, some pictures show her with no make up (the eau naturelle look) and other times she wore make up but in some pictures she seems to have very thin legs and knock knees; other times she has more shapely legs. She must have been very pushy to arrive in the UK from America unknown and find herself in the centre of the social whirl of the top musicians of the era (taking the cover photos for "Electric Ladyland" too). Also, the suicide of her first husband, Melville See after her death. Why did Faul adopt her daughter Heather when she had a father living? I think he loved Linda (but I also get the impression from his controlling side and from some things Iamaphoney did, especially in the private video section of his Cloud site, that he may have abused her at times). I agree she had a spaced-out and sometimes unwell aspect; I think she was not emotionally completely stable, especially around him and the power around him both as a Beatle and -- if he was abusive as well -- as an abuser. Certainly he drank a lot; they both did a lot of drugs (especially weed and hash, and he LSD for a while). People's aspect (legs, etc.), changes with their emotional wellness as well as their eating and carousing, over time. Sometimes good lighting and bad lighting and angles do have some exaggerating effect, too. She is she, however in all other ways. He wanted his partner, woman, sidekick (all of these things) to be in his dream, his band, with him, etc., live his life with him. It's not all bad, but it is kind of bad in some ways. He adopted her child so they could raise a complete family for her, not formally separate the child and act formally as if he didn't care about it. It was a good thing to do in that way. Yes, she was pushy, had a high (and power-brokering) sexuality to "determine to get Paul"; but I have no problem with her being sexual -- as such -- and recognize some people would never meet or sleep with a powerful person without pushing their way into their life. C'est la vie, sometimes.
|
|
clarekuehn
Hard Day's Night
Yes he died. Yes 1 man replaced him. Yes that was it. Yes wasn't so well done. Yes big implications.
Posts: 46
|
Post by clarekuehn on Jul 20, 2014 18:28:31 GMT -5
I should add about the "Harvey and Lee" thesis for Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO), a.k.a. "Alek K. Hidell", because someone asked me in a private message: I am very familiar with the thesis. It seems to be whittleable as follows: there were some people impersonating LHO near the end, to give people the idea for later witness statements that an LHO was making a ruckus, was unstable, etc. -- and the Life "Backyard Photo" crap used a Dallas policeman (we know who it was) for the chin and parts of the body. LHO photos were also doctored with his wife and so on, seemingly because he was unavailable for good pics, being mostly on operations (including this one: doctormarysmonkey.com/index.htmHe remains the only person, so to speak, whose tax forms (W-4 and W-2 forms) have been not found, and whose other tax forms are doctored. This does not mean there were two of "him", but it does mean they couldn't allow his actual whereabouts and accounts receivable to be known. Here is a summary, though it uses the "Lee and Harvey" thesis as its backdrop. www.mindserpent.com/American_History/books/Armstrong/Taxfraud/taxfraud.htmHere is Judyth's good summary of part of the way the "Harvey and Lee" thesis goes wrong, though it is based on attempts to hide and doctor Lee's photos, signature, whereabouts documents (such as tax forms), etc. The simpler (though still complex) explanation of ongoing operations and a later coverup for the JFK death operation itself, is quite sufficient. judythbaker.blogspot.ca/2010/03/measuring-up-lee-and-harvey-photo.htmlHere is info on the Backyard Photo fiasco: www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/19/framing-the-patsy-the-case-of-lee-harvey-oswald
|
|
clarekuehn
Hard Day's Night
Yes he died. Yes 1 man replaced him. Yes that was it. Yes wasn't so well done. Yes big implications.
Posts: 46
|
Post by clarekuehn on Jul 20, 2014 18:37:48 GMT -5
About Sir Paul and his family (also because this was asked in a private message): Some pics were doctored (not Photoshop, of course), some not. Usually a few promo pics might be doctored for Sir Paul if he needed to be looking a bit more like Paul. Really, after time, he did NOT need to look much like Paul. And about Brian Epstein, who, I think, was blackballed into proposing a new Paul initially (though everyone may have been scared in their own right that continuing without Paul was impossible for them and for the public): Brian was embezzling; he was syphoning to the Cambridge 5 (Rothschilds affiliates) to find speculative tax havens (especially through Lord Goodman, it seems, and others at the Welsh elite Portmeirion region, and through other such friends of Bertrand Russell, whose relative's estate is what the Tavistock Institute is named after). Aside: note that Bertrand himself had a very mixed attitude toward public good. Brian was also gay at a time when it needed protection. He died for all of this combined with the Paul death coverup, it seems. All pill bottles were full with caps on and only a 1/2 bottle of wine was drunk, with no signs of vomit, etc., mentioned by the one observer, other than the policeman who initially went into the room with this observer, a friend of Brian (I forget the name -- I could look it up -- he wrote a book mentioning this scene and his feelings about it). So when Paul died, I'm sure intel came to Brian to offer the idea but that someone said, "Do it." It's not a normal thing to think of, to do a replacement, even if he was not blackballed into it. It was done quickly. It would require intel help forever to some degree anyway as well. Cultic and intelligence infiltration elements are all around Sir Paul's interests (high-up interest in Crowley, OTO, etc.) and some of his later behaviour suggests a double life as a spook-cult affiliate as well as, er, an actual double. RIP to all the people who lived and died with this stuff in their lives.
|
|
|
Post by beacon on Jul 21, 2014 7:32:15 GMT -5
Brian was embezzling; he was syphoning to the Cambridge 5 (Rothschilds affiliates) to find speculative tax havens (especially through Lord Goodman, it seems, and others at the Welsh elite Portmeirion region, and through other such friends of Bertrand Russell, whose relative's estate is what the Tavistock Institute is named after). Aside: note that Bertrand himself had a very mixed attitude toward public good. Clare, when you mention the Cambridge 5 are you referring to the spy ring of Philby, Maclean, Burgess, Blunt, and the rumoured fifth member, Victor Rothschild? If so I would be very interested in knowing more and about what evidence you may have. I have come across a link from Dr Stephen Ward - of Profumo scandal - to Brian, albeit an extremely tentative one, and from there one can link back to certainly Anthony Blunt and loosely to Tavistock. Ward can also be linked back to Dr Richard Asher which, in turn, links back to Paul. You can read my blog article here. It may also be possible to establish a link back to Brian and the Castle Bank and Trust in the Bahamas which was established by the CIA. I would be very interested to hear what more you can add to this trail.
|
|
|
Post by hotman637 on Jul 21, 2014 10:49:23 GMT -5
Hotman637, I must say I had never heard that theory before until you mentioned it! I thought from old footage of interviews with Zapruder, that he did look as though he had been told what to say. Am I the only one who has always felt that the "hoarding" or "sign post" in front of him was blocking out something to stop us seeing what really happened?! It seems that the main shot happened as the car passed that point. The "first shot" is not a gunshot at all but Jackie stabbed him with poison! The assassination was on November 22 that last day of Scorpio and Scorpio rules sex death and spiders. Jackie kills JFK the same way a Black Widow kills her mate after sex (they supposedly had sex on the plane before the assassination). When she stabs him NOBODY reacts (except Connally) and JFK reaches for his throat because he cannot breath. Nobody is looking anywhere because there was NO gunshot. He reaches for his neck and Jackie CALMLY reaches over and pulls down his arm and with TOTAL CONCENTRATION (and the limo slows to an almost COMPLETE STOP) she sticks the gun under his jaw and BLOWS THE SIDE of his head off. It was a shotgun divorce! People say there are no witnessess but their were MANY strange deaths and coverups that have been mentioned by many reaserchers no matter what the theory is. And Jackie was perfectly capable of doing it (although it could have been a double and probably mind conrol). She could ride a horse and shoot a gun. After the asassination RFK spent a lot of time watching her and helping her "get over her grief". Then five years later she marries Aristole Onassis (a guy many people did not like) on an island named "Skorpios". She did not like the Whitehouse and she always needed more money. In other words she did not act like some who was "innocent".
|
|
|
Post by hotman637 on Jul 21, 2014 12:11:26 GMT -5
I find it interesting that people say one thing for years and years and then when that thing is refuted instead of admiting that I may have a good point they all of a sudden CHANGE THEIR STORY! For example Christians have said for THOUSANDS of years that God is a man. When I say "God is a woman" they all of a sudden say "God is neither man nor woman, God is spirit"! I NEVER remember a Christian saying it before and they ALWAYS referred to God as a "he". It is the same with the Zapruder film. People have used that film has evidence for all sorts of theories over the years and that is fine because it is a good piece of evidence in my opinion. Then I mention that I think it shows "Jackie did it" and all of a sudden the entire video has been faked! if it was faked then it cannot prove Jackie did NOT do it! Hi. God or goddess or all-is-love-and-creation ... I am fine with your deity comment. Let's turn it to a woman for a while, so that we can really flesh out that idea to contrast with the Man and Spirit-only versions. Of course you are right the Zapruder film as a fake does not exactly disprove your case, but: a) it is the film alone which was used to implicate Jackie -- though yes, there are things which can derive from the film which are mentioned by witnesses or can be reasonably assumed to be details they'd miss and which fit the general lines of reasoning b) no witnesses concur and they do indicate quite the timeline in full, if we discount where the film radically disagrees (and if we're careful in other ways about the witnesses). Best wishes. The thing is we can SEE right NOW if God is a man or a woman or a "it" by looking at the universe that he-she-it created. If a man created the universe it would look like a sports bar or Afghanistan. If "it" created the universe it would look like a metaphysical book store. But because it looks like Afghanistan AND a metaphysical book store it MUST be created by a woman. ONLY a woman can "give birth" to Afghanistan and a metaphysical book store. She created both. Men TRY to run things and we get HELL (Afghanistan).
|
|
clarekuehn
Hard Day's Night
Yes he died. Yes 1 man replaced him. Yes that was it. Yes wasn't so well done. Yes big implications.
Posts: 46
|
Post by clarekuehn on Jul 21, 2014 20:39:41 GMT -5
It might be worth posting some q's from a private chat, name withheld.
"Is this why The Beatles were said to be virtually bankrupt by 1966? [In reference to my comment that Epstein was linked to Lord Goldman and Portmeirion, Wales crowds, who reportedly got him to embezzle to make good in tax havens. I bet they then took much of it.]
Do you mean Epstein had to agree to what happened to Paul?
There is a theory that they were groomed by the Frankfurt School during their time in Hamburg. How could they have thought that by playing in grotty bars in the red light district that they could ever become big stars? Something else had to come into play. Also, there seems to have been a connection between Ringo joining the group and their rise to stardom. Just on the cusp, Pete Best being swopped for Richie Starkey, though Pete Best was a better drummer and better looking. Also, part of the mystery is Rory Storm (Alan Caldwell)and his death with his mother in 1972."
My reply:
-- Pete Best is nice but, in the emotional sense, he's a nice doofus guy. He's not as hardwired to be witty, fun as the others, or emotionally astute. Ringo has some of these qualities, though he hangs back in times of trouble. Pete was also less experienced as Ringo on the drums at the time.
-- Ringo is a far better drummer than most out there: he plays perfectly to the song, for the song and little more.
George wanted Ringo.
-- I know little of what happened re. Rory & his mother.
-- The Frankfurt School & Cambridge 5 are very connected. But when these 4 unknowns (later with Ringo instead) were in a low part of town with the mob running the joints they worked at, is not where the FS/C5 could have gotten involved in the story.
When getting quite famous, the Beatles, with cultic intel would be wanting a part in it all. That would be when the money men got involved w/ Epstein (there is lots of suggestion of this part), and, it seems, around then, some people started grooming their spook-intel-cultist-musician, Sir Paul.
-- No, I am not saying Epstein would know or approve of what happened to Paul, but happened to the Paul figure as a continued idea: a double, a new bandmate.
Not that Eppie knew of what happened to Paul, but that it was prob. orig. thru Eppie that intel-cultists worked their pushy suggestions in, about getting a double.
However, maybe Eppie supposed it was murder.
Epstein was already somewhat compromised, I think. Not that he liked these ideas or necessarily suspected murder, but if I'm right, it was through him that intel elements got the idea out to the rest, maybe even proposing the switch as permanent but the lie as temporary?
I think, right now, that if course Epstein would have to push this idea initially, or approve it somewhat, to run by John in the shock for all of them, including Epstein. He was the only one in charge of affairs in London, when the death happened -- with George effectively on his way within days, to India and Ringo not the leader type. John and Neil Aspinall were in Germany, preparing for the movie, "How I Won the War," which would be mostly filmed in Spain.
That is the likely timeline, it seems to me.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Bearer on Jul 21, 2014 22:12:02 GMT -5
OT: God is BOTH male and female. The proof of this is because His creation is a reflection of His glory and He created both male and female. The reason we refer to God as "He" is the peculiarities of our language - there is no common term for both male & female. Discuss this on a new thread (not here): invanddis.proboards.com/thread/7731/gods-gender
|
|
|
Post by hotman637 on Jul 22, 2014 12:24:15 GMT -5
OT: God is BOTH male and female. The proof of this is because His creation is a reflection of His glory and He created both male and female. The reason we refer to God as "He" is the peculiarities of our language - there is no common term for both male & female. This gets back to the question "if God is both male and female, WHAT IS ALL THE FIGHTING ABOUT!". In other words if God is this perfect, holy being, that knows everything, and is both man and woman then why would "it' be this angry, jealous, destructive ("it" destroyed the world!) in the Old Testament then become loving and giving when "it" has a son in the New Testament? Look up with question on the internet and you get a long THEOLOGICAL argument that STILL does not make sense! This is NOT a theological question (it is a question of what makes sense). It has been asked forever and the ONLY answer that makes sense is God is a woman and SHE created the universe out of VANITY! She is fighting with the Devil (who is a man) about SEX, MONEY and KIDS the same thing ALL man and woman fight about! When you make God into some sort of "man/woman" you make a perverted "god" that makes a perverted religion (like the Cathlolic Church). For God so LOVED the world SHE gave birth to HER only begotten son! See, that MAKES SENSE!
|
|
|
Post by cherilyn7 on Jul 22, 2014 14:58:28 GMT -5
It is probably not the right thread for this discussion: or indeed, to bring religion into this topic, except as regards the ritual aspect/Satanic worship/sects that have been historically involved in the entertainment industry. Going too far off on a tangent does not help the research on Paul/Beatles.
|
|
|
Post by hotman637 on Jul 22, 2014 17:23:06 GMT -5
It is probably not the right thread for this discussion: or indeed, to bring religion into this topic, except as regards the ritual aspect/Satanic worship/sects that have been historically involved in the entertainment industry. Going too far off on a tangent does not help the research on Paul/Beatles. If we make "Satanic worship" an exception the question is "what is Satanic worship?" For a long time I tried to answer that question with little success and nobody seemed to know the answer. Because I realised that Jackie killed JFK that led to understanding God was a WOMAN then Satan MUST be a man. If Satan is a man then "Satanic worship" is worshipping God as a man. With that definition MOST religions are "Satanic worship". Ironic.
|
|
|
Post by cherilyn7 on Jul 22, 2014 17:41:25 GMT -5
Yes. But that is a different topic than being discussed on this thread. No offence meant.
|
|
iameye
Electric Arguments
Posts: 1,119
|
Post by iameye on Jul 23, 2014 0:08:31 GMT -5
OT: God is BOTH male and female. The proof of this is because His creation is a reflection of His glory and He created both male and female. The reason we refer to God as "He" is the peculiarities of our language - there is no common term for both male & female. This gets back to the question "if God is both male and female, WHAT IS ALL THE FIGHTING ABOUT!". In other words if God is this perfect, holy being, that knows everything, and is both man and woman then why would "it' be this angry, jealous, destructive ("it" destroyed the world!) in the Old Testament then become loving and giving when "it" has a son in the New Testament? Look up with question on the internet and you get a long THEOLOGICAL argument that STILL does not make sense! This is NOT a theological question (it is a question of what makes sense). It has been asked forever and the ONLY answer that makes sense is God is a woman and SHE created the universe out of VANITY! She is fighting with the Devil (who is a man) about SEX, MONEY and KIDS the same thing ALL man and woman fight about! When you make God into some sort of "man/woman" you make a perverted "god" that makes a perverted religion (like the Cathlolic Church). For God so LOVED the world SHE gave birth to HER only begotten son! See, that MAKES SENSE! For God SO LOVED the world, She came down from heaven upon the Earth Herself.
|
|
|
Post by hotman637 on Jul 23, 2014 1:18:17 GMT -5
Yes. But that is a different topic than being discussed on this thread. No offence meant. I have asked the question MANY times, what do MANY (not just mine) of these posts have to do with PID? Still waiting for an answer.
|
|
|
Post by beatlas231 on Jul 23, 2014 2:18:04 GMT -5
This gets back to the question "if God is both male and female, WHAT IS ALL THE FIGHTING ABOUT!". In other words if God is this perfect, holy being, that knows everything, and is both man and woman then why would "it' be this angry, jealous, destructive ("it" destroyed the world!) in the Old Testament then become loving and giving when "it" has a son in the New Testament? Look up with question on the internet and you get a long THEOLOGICAL argument that STILL does not make sense! This is NOT a theological question (it is a question of what makes sense). It has been asked forever and the ONLY answer that makes sense is God is a woman and SHE created the universe out of VANITY! She is fighting with the Devil (who is a man) about SEX, MONEY and KIDS the same thing ALL man and woman fight about! When you make God into some sort of "man/woman" you make a perverted "god" that makes a perverted religion (like the Cathlolic Church). For God so LOVED the world SHE gave birth to HER only begotten son! See, that MAKES SENSE! For God SO LOVED the world, She came down from heaven upon the Earth Herself.
I'm so tired I haven't slept a week I'm so tired My mind is on the brink Lucy I Love You P.S. Happy Birthday
|
|
|
Post by beatlas231 on Jul 23, 2014 2:24:23 GMT -5
Yes. But that is a different topic than being discussed on this thread. No offence meant. I have asked the question MANY times, what do MANY (not just mine) of these posts have to do with PID? Still waiting for an answer. Well, I mean... It's not like this forum was created for PID or anything like that... Knock knock Who's there? Over Over Who? Over Here Over Where? This Is Not Here Well then who is this? Who Knows EYE Knows! lol
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2014 9:12:05 GMT -5
For God SO LOVED the world, She came down from heaven upon the Earth Herself.
I'm so tired I haven't slept a week I'm so tired My mind is on the brink Lucy I Love You P.S. Happy Birthday It's your birthday too, yeah! lol
|
|
|
Post by cherilyn7 on Jul 23, 2014 18:28:56 GMT -5
Why does it have to be so big?
Start a thread of your own for this stuff, no one knows what it's about anyway!
This forum is about the theory of Paul being replaced. Not a pair of plimsolls or red wellingtons.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Bearer on Jul 23, 2014 21:53:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mystery tour on Jul 25, 2014 23:46:43 GMT -5
"Paul's name is unmentioned otherwise as being anywhere specific, until Kenya trip period. We have one mention of a Paul in attendance at an avant-garde music event a little while after the death, but this mention is either a complete cover story, or the beginnings of weaving in Sir Paul's behaviour into the story."
It's nice to see the board back on track. Thank you and welcome, Clare. It might be hard to find at this point but in early 1970s articles about Syd Barrett and Pink Floyd, one or two mentioned that "McCartney showed up, dressed as an arab", and "McCartney was there, his head wrapped as an arab". This would have been at the UFO shows in late '66/early '67, I believe. Will try to find and link at a later time.
Thanks MT
|
|
|
Post by beacon on Jul 26, 2014 4:56:36 GMT -5
"Paul's name is unmentioned otherwise as being anywhere specific, until Kenya trip period. We have one mention of a Paul in attendance at an avant-garde music event a little while after the death, but this mention is either a complete cover story, or the beginnings of weaving in Sir Paul's behaviour into the story." It's nice to see the board back on track. Thank you and welcome, Clare. It might be hard to find at this point but in early 1970s articles about Syd Barrett and Pink Floyd, one or two mentioned that "McCartney showed up, dressed as an arab", and "McCartney was there, his head wrapped as an arab". This would have been at the UFO shows in late '66/early '67, I believe. Will try to find and link at a later time. Thanks MT It was the International Times launch party that McCartney attended dressed as an arab. Also in attendance was Yoko Ono - even though, at this stage, she claims to have never heard of the Beatles!
|
|
clarekuehn
Hard Day's Night
Yes he died. Yes 1 man replaced him. Yes that was it. Yes wasn't so well done. Yes big implications.
Posts: 46
|
Post by clarekuehn on Jul 26, 2014 21:31:35 GMT -5
"Paul's name is unmentioned otherwise as being anywhere specific, until Kenya trip period. We have one mention of a Paul in attendance at an avant-garde music event a little while after the death, but this mention is either a complete cover story, or the beginnings of weaving in Sir Paul's behaviour into the story." It's nice to see the board back on track. Thank you and welcome, Clare. It might be hard to find at this point but in early 1970s articles about Syd Barrett and Pink Floyd, one or two mentioned that "McCartney showed up, dressed as an arab", and "McCartney was there, his head wrapped as an arab". This would have been at the UFO shows in late '66/early '67, I believe. Will try to find and link at a later time. Thanks MT It was the International Times launch party that McCartney attended dressed as an arab. Also in attendance was Yoko Ono - even though, at this stage, she claims to have never heard of the Beatles!
IT launch should be from April 1966. I meant something from Sept. It's mentioned on one of the Beatles history sites, beatlesbible.com, I think. Yes, Ono knew Sir P before & seemingly John & Paul. Well, Sir P says by accident in 2004 on radio (Howard Stern) that Yoko came to his house asking for Beatles original song page & he sent her to John. Is it Sir P or Paul? Likely Sir P himself. However, it does mean he and at least John knew each other. -- By the way, in this line of reasoning we can also wonder if the Paul "dressed as an Arab" was actually Sir P already mimicking his desired target. Just wondering. No way to know right now.
|
|
Will
Hard Day's Night
Posts: 80
|
Post by Will on Jul 27, 2014 16:00:39 GMT -5
It was the International Times launch party that McCartney attended dressed as an arab. Also in attendance was Yoko Ono - even though, at this stage, she claims to have never heard of the Beatles!
IT launch should be from April 1966. I meant something from Sept. It's mentioned on one of the Beatles history sites, beatlesbible.com, I think. Yes, Ono knew Sir P before & seemingly John & Paul. Well, Sir P says by accident in 2004 on radio (Howard Stern) that Yoko came to his house asking for Beatles original song page & he sent her to John. Is it Sir P or Paul? Likely Sir P himself. However, it does mean he and at least John knew each other. -- By the way, in this line of reasoning we can also wonder if the Paul "dressed as an Arab" was actually Sir P already mimicking his desired target. Just wondering. No way to know right now. Its on Page 14 of the October 31st 1966 issue of IT, the date of the launch party was October 15th 1966 as mentioned twice in Volume 1 Issue 1 of IT. www.internationaltimes.it/archive/index.php?year=1966&volume=IT-Volume-1&issue=2&item=IT_1966-10-31_B-IT-Volume-1_Iss-2_014
|
|
clarekuehn
Hard Day's Night
Yes he died. Yes 1 man replaced him. Yes that was it. Yes wasn't so well done. Yes big implications.
Posts: 46
|
Post by clarekuehn on Jul 27, 2014 23:47:01 GMT -5
But wasn't 1st issue of IT in apr. 66? Maybe it was just the newsletter before that. Thanks. So it was Sir P dressed up ... very clever.
|
|