It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Paul McCartney died in 1966 - replaced by Billy Shepherd

page: 121
33
<< 118  119  120    122  123  124 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

His left eyebrow sure looks funny ^ & the ears seem to be set at a different angle. Paul was really cute, but he did have Dumbo ears :-P lol


[edit on 7-9-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]


Other unfounded opinions. Quite boring, what's sad is that someone who is new to this ridiculous hoax could even believe her.
Paul McCartney still had his Dumbo ears after 1966.
These videos are from the 1984 movie "Give My Regards to Broad Street".

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Not only Paul McCartney's protruding ears are identical but even the way he is singing these Beatles' songs (all previous to his supposed "death") is the same as always.




posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 03:09 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki
What I inferred is that they all look different.
John in particular (besides 'Paul')....
if they could get one, why not the lot? (waits for the flames) but we still are not sure about much of the technology they had back then...

But yeah, John looks well different too...


The comparison photo showing The Beatles young and then later is most disquieting. Prior to this posting I had been compelled by an array of presumptions to consider it likely that Paul had been replaced. However it appears in the later photo that John's eyes are slightly closer together, but more alarmingly the curvature of the bone structure behind his eyebrows is quite different. It is this structural feature and not his diversionary tactic of wearing round spectacles that makes him look squirrelly rather than with the brow of a Night Templar (please forgive the poetic license).

Other differences between the photographed Beatles at first glance can attributed to drug induced and rock band lifestyle accelerated ageing, lighting and camera lenses, etc. We can discard the interpretation of them having undergone plastic surgery for aesthetic reasons, given that they for the most part look quite rough around the edges and, personal taste aside, considerably less attractive in their 'ever so slightly older' appearance.

This does not mean that these are not real snd substantial contrasted differences, but that a case must be made based on further data. Also, this only points to the possibility that one or several doubles were used in a given photo, not guaranteeing that this wasn't a single occasion instance. A body of photographic documentation from different time periods would need to be gathered and analysed for each of them to indicate otherwise.

One virtue of this thread, and the celebrity cult following which the Beatles inspired, is that there is both a great deal of information available (presumably once one has sifted through greater yet layers of disinformation) as well as a sincere motivation among fans and the general public to demystify what has come to be a major popular icon of several generations and possibly the first in the realm of music to thus extend its influence beyond cultural barriers.

The PID (Paul Is Dead) movement, or investigative inquiry if you will, may be revealing the tip of the iceberg:

There are parties, clubs, groups, elites - call them as you wish - who may find great benefit in influencing people's hearts, minds and souls. The above linked article to the CIA and the Mob's association in controlling the music business is revealing, and from insight based upon personal experience in the field it is confirmed by my observations.

These agencies or gangs operate the business upon instructions beyond their own organisations, for purposes in which they only partially partake. For them it is just a business, be it spying or looting. For the powers that be the stakes are higher and integrated to overall objectives of social control through media, the arts and culture.

Considerable expense and investment is extended to chosen artists, both directly through promotion as well as indirectly through media exposure. Furthermore, programming receptiveness is instrumented through lyrics, artificial harmonics, voice enhancing, rhythm machines, sound processing and reverse wording to name a few. The stakes are not strictly commercial, although profit is certainly welcome. They are Orwellian.

In more recent years talent has become a threat to this system, giving the individual artist the possibility of having credibility on their own merit. They rather promote relatively talentless people who become entirely dependent on the 'machine' to pursue their ongoing lives.

It is usual for theaters to have an understudy for lead roles, in case the 'Star' is incapacitated or absent for unknown reasons. Given the magnitude of their role as Super Stars, it is not surprising that such a precaution may have been extended to famous artists upon which entire industries are dependent. Furthermore, having a double lurking in the background eagerly awaiting their turn in the spotlight will tend to keep the meek obedient.

This can explain why artists are carefully handpicked, sometimes on dubious criteria. This serves several purposes.

The untalented have few if any prospects of a brilliant future, making them more vulnerable to the lure of guaranteed fame and riches. But the untalented also have a unique feature which makes them especially attractive to today's more sophisticated media and culture feed trough. They are often commonplace and lack character and individuality. This is sometimes misinterpreted as a plebiscite of the ordinary public wishing to have idols which look, talk and act like them. But democratization of media appeal through TV ratings and record sales is most probably not the reason that the truly talented artists, actors and musicians face greater difficulty in succeeding.

By virtue of having less character and genuine expression, the untalented have a most valuable quality. Just like today's fashion or photography models who are used as blank supports for makeup and hairdos as well as as coat hangers, todays artists have increasingly become bland cardboard characters which teams of professionals emboss with treasures of prefabricated gimmicks having more to do with production technology than with art.

This makes them far easier to replace than a Paul James McCartney, for example. They couldn't even try with someone like Jimmy Hendrix. But more mundane characters which seem more like your next door neighbor or someone at the office party? Now you're talking. Illuminati groups are crafty (having mastered quite a number of crafts in their endeavors) and they learn from their messy mistakes.

It is therefore plausible to consider that as a matter of policy, to avoid the disruption of continuity in the cultural feed, that they don't just start over with new people but vastly prefer to continue the cultural fabrication (or destruction) process under the same guise, retaining acquired minds and souls without losing a glitch of their undivided attention. A double is easier and cheaper than the alternative.

60if.proboards.com...

* Note: The above is strictly a personal analysis presented for skeptical consideration by any who wish to further explore the topic.

[edit on 8-9-2009 by Getsmart]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki
reply to post by kshaund
 


Much as I am tempted by this, philosophically I can't bring myself to do it. I'll take the good with the bad.


[edit on 7-9-2009 by aorAki]

@ Ethera: geez, so they were ALL replaced??!!!
[edit on 7-9-2009 by aorAki]




Well you've got more patience than me and I consider myself a fairly patient person but one with not a lot of time to continually weed through post after post allowed by the PTB here - I too wrestled with the philosophical of being open to hear all sides, but there comes a point when the 'noise' or 'interference' gets too distracting to the topic and tuning it out (ignore) has made this thread, for me, much more pleasant to read.

I'm too old for two year old arguments (yes he is, no he isn't) and find it too difficult to just visually skip the posts in case there is a tidbit in there somewhere - but just like the heckler in the audience spoiling it for the rest, I opted to use the ignore button for the first time in this forum so I can sit back and just enjoy the discussion.

The Mods said to hit the "alert" button on any posts that violate the ATS rules but my preference is the ignore button. Yep, I like the ignore button a lot!!!


Thanks everyone for the contributions to this discussion - as I've said before, I don't have a lot to contribute, but I do follow it with great interest.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Link to Dick Cavett interview with George Harrison...

www.youtube.com...

watch at about 1:00 thru 1:28

also interesting at 5:44 thru 5:58

He doesn't really reveal anything and he makes it sound like he's joking, but he sort of hints that there is much more to the Beatles story than is known by the public.

Kind of tantalizing.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Originally posted by Ethera

If I am following you properly, what you are saying is due to different techniques and base pictures utilized, the consolidation may not match others which were altered, explaining the differences in the alleged Fauls.

That's possible. More amalgamations:




Ethera, don't worry if you're having trouble following faulcon logic -- most of us gave up trying do that a long time ago.


Heaven knows what it is she's trying to say by showing these two pics.
The one labelled "untampered" is the one that was published!
The one labelled "tampered" was created for a bootleg album -- so what, there are no rules for bootleggers.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Getsmart

Originally posted by kshaund
Reading this thread became much more pleasant with pm on ignore - saves time and prevents distraction from otherwise really interesting discussion...

I wish to thank you kshaund, and also indirectly PMExplorer thus be heightened by a thread with no dissenting opinions.



How dare you insinuate that I am a troll, you obviously don't comprehend what that term refers to as if you did you'd be ignoring a lot of users
who you count as being on your side.

Another one running scared from the truth.


"The axe he is grinding from my thread experience..."


Glad to be of service!

The only thing I'm irritated by is lies, of which the whole premise of Paul being dead / replaced is a massive one which faulcon and co. continue to try and prove in vain. Over a hundred pages on here and god knows how many on other sites and still not one iota of concrete evidence to support this theory. Just the repetition of edited images of Paul from different periods of life which purport to show anomalies and facial discrepancies etc and completely unrealistic notions which are pulled from the air are then used to explain anything which might cause the claim to fall flat on it's face.

The truth is Paul McCartney did not die, was not replaced and continues to perform and enthrall audiences all over the world as a performer to this day. That's the truth, but feel free to click ignore if you find that too difficult to understand or believe.

[edit on 8-9-2009 by pmexplorer]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by switching yard
Link to Dick Cavett interview with George Harrison...
www.youtube.com...

SwitchingYard,

Thanks for that most interesting link. that early 70's talk show appearance was new to me and with today's hindsight it is highly disturbing.

He seems very uncomfortable, as if struck by stage fright from the audience and cameras, hardly likely for someone with over a decade of media frenzy experience. He the goes on to say that he can't remember anything about The Beatles days! This is implausible to say the least, if it is indeed George Harrison.

Extensive drug use would not only erase memories but in so doing would make him utterly socially disfunctional as a result. His relative poise despite the stage fright and his studied responses show this not to be the case. On the other hand, memory loss or partial amnesia is quite practical to avoid being confronted with touchy questions which might reveal identity fraud.

At the onset of the interview, Dick Cavett makes an odd statement referring to The Beatles as "your former organization", hardly an artistic term which makes one consider what he actually knew of their network of connections at the time.

Mentioning even in jest that there were 10 (the second plus the eight others), then replying to Dick Cavett's question "were there that many" he retorts "Didn't you hear of the 18th Beatle?"

He also seemed unusually detached and distant when he said "They just sent four dummies out there". Although the interviewer alluded to four fake Beatles arriving on the US Continent, George (Feorge?) didn't reminisce one iota about such a significant turning point in each of their lives. He was not referring to arriving at a geographical destination, because it would have been HERE and not THERE given that he was sitting in a TV studio in the USA. It was most likely a rhetorical remark ironically alluding to Beatles being "dummies" (the British connotation being akin to a Punch & Judy puppet) "sent out there" [into the public] (my edit).

George explains that he was eager to be free from The Beatles, presumably for artistic reasons. His leave the past alone 'Future Orientation' is quite convenient for those with little genuine contact with an assumed past of such worldwide media exposure. This interview brings me to believe, to my regret, that he is not George but Feorge, wanting to reap some belated rewards for a grueling role carried forth in the limelight.

After Paul's replacement, considering the replacement of another Beatles seems more preposterous yet! Why not all of them, why not all musicians and actors too while you're at it?

After links to Travolta and Elvis, there's an interpretation by more cynical theorists who think these replacements are intentionally done without much care for details, considering the sheeple too stupid to know the difference and too conditioned to question a spoon fed reality.

Tommy Sands replacing Sylvester Stallone:
1966.proboards.com...

and:
60if.proboards.com...

Barbara Luna replacing Faye Dunaway:
60if.proboards.com...

There are numerous other examples out there, but not to befuddle the issue, these illustrate an ongoing process of deceit by the powers that be on the masses. What is useful to envision is the likelihood that media corporations (governing elite, secret societies, Illuminati, cabal, Big Brother) are attached to filling any void that might be created by the absence - or untimely demise - of Stars. And it is probably also a countermeasure for any revelations regarding the motives and events leading to their 'disappearance' they are replaced with phantoms who eliminate any inquiry into associated events:

What would keep other Stars in line with your demands better than telling them that they could just as easily be replaced as Stallone or Faye? The glaring proof that they can pull it off, be sloppy about it, and get away with it, must send chills up their back and ensure silent obedience. Ties to the Mob, the CIA and occult groups heighten the threat.

To quote a poster in that last linked thread:

"Maybe there wasn't any NEED to replace Faye Dunaway in particular, per se...., but the media is the main motor behind forming peoples' perceptions. This is why, for example, you see Jurassic Park introduce the idea of cloning, just before the the science community officially announces that they have achieved this feat in reality.

Movies, music, literary works, etc. are all unleashed upon us in advance of upcoming reality. In ancient times, people resorted to oracles with magic mirrors for revelation. This era's method of preparing ignorant minds of what is to come is through our media. Not only that, the media is used to put us into the different moods the world elite want us to be in.

It's no coincidence that once NWA, the Geto Boys, etc started gangster rap, an entire new subculture was created. Not just a musical subculture, a sociological one. Young men started selling crack, started dressing gangsta-style, using the "language" associated with this very very SUB culture...

... I think there's a widespread plan in place to just throw everyone off-kilter, psychologically. Showing us faces that don't match names. A power challenging our intellect. This power is challenging our ability to believe what we see! It shows us things that do not make sense, yet ordering us to accept the untrue versions they present to us as reality.

Information is released that completely disproves the official version of things, yet we are still expected to "believe" their stories, just because the powers-that-be are not acknowledging the facts, the truth.

That - in the end - is what the desired effect is. Corruption. But corruption by one's own hand. This is not about replacing Faye Dunaway, in particular. The desired effect, I believe, is for us to intentionally lie to ourselves. Even on the subconcious level.

To be guilty of self-deception. If we choose to believe the lies, rather than face the facts as they are known, then we are also liars. And as far as "who owns the media?" That's not the point. The point is that whatever unseen powers guide and control world events also guide and control the media."



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
This is a video of George and John at John's home. Early in the clip George refers to 'Beatle Bill' in a derogatory way and from there they go on to mention 'Beatle Ed'.

Whatever the truth of the matter, 'Beatle Bill' seems to be the commonly used term for Paul (or Faul).

Warning for language towards the end of the clip just after John has finished singing.


www.youtube.com...



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Getsmart

The comparison photo showing The Beatles young and then later is most disquieting. Prior to this posting I had been compelled by an array of presumptions to consider it likely that Paul had been replaced. However it appears in the later photo that John's eyes are slightly closer together, but more alarmingly the curvature of the bone structure behind his eyebrows is quite different. It is this structural feature and not his diversionary tactic of wearing round spectacles that makes him look squirrelly rather than with the brow of a Night Templar (please forgive the poetic license).















We can discard the interpretation of them having undergone plastic surgery for aesthetic reasons, given that they for the most part look quite rough around the edges and, personal taste aside, considerably less attractive in their 'ever so slightly older' appearance.







The PID (Paul Is Dead) movement, or investigative inquiry if you will, may be revealing the tip of the iceberg:

There are parties, clubs, groups, elites - call them as you wish - who may find great benefit in influencing people's hearts, minds and souls. The above linked article to the CIA and the Mob's association in controlling the music business is revealing, and from insight based upon personal experience in the field it is confirmed by my observations.

I think your article was removed. Would you repost it? Also, would you share more of your personal experiences?


These agencies or gangs operate the business upon instructions beyond their own organisations, for purposes in which they only partially partake. For them it is just a business, be it spying or looting. For the powers that be the stakes are higher and integrated to overall objectives of social control through media, the arts and culture.

Absolutely. I've no doubt the Illuminati is implicated in this. I do think social control is at the heart of it.


In more recent years talent has become a threat to this system, giving the individual artist the possibility of having credibility on their own merit. They rather promote relatively talentless people who become entirely dependent on the 'machine' to pursue their ongoing lives.

I hadn't considered that before. I knew they would extinguish a "light," but I didn't realize that talent in and of itself could be a threat. Interesting.


It is usual for theaters to have an understudy for lead roles, in case the 'Star' is incapacitated or absent for unknown reasons. Given the magnitude of their role as Super Stars, it is not surprising that such a precaution may have been extended to famous artists upon which entire industries are dependent. Furthermore, having a double lurking in the background eagerly awaiting their turn in the spotlight will tend to keep the meek obedient.

I knew that Faul had been prepared for a while, waiting in the Wings, but I didn't think of him as an "understudy" before. That could very well be...


By virtue of having less character and genuine expression, the untalented have a most valuable quality. Just like today's fashion or photography models who are used as blank supports for makeup and hairdos as well as as coat hangers, todays artists have increasingly become bland cardboard characters which teams of professionals emboss with treasures of prefabricated gimmicks having more to do with production technology than with art.

That just made me think of "Dollhouse."


... Eliza Dushku plays a young woman called Echo, a member of a group of people known as "Actives" or "Dolls". The Dolls are people whose personalities and existence in the world have been wiped clean to be imprinted with any number of new personas. Contents of an imprint may include semantic memory, muscle memory, skills, and language, as appropriate for different assignments (referred to as "engagements"). A new persona can be an amalgam of several real people, and the end result necessarily incorporates both strengths and flaws from the template personalities. The Actives are then hired out for particular jobs, which can be anything from committing a crime to enacting a fantasy to performing the occasional good deed. On engagements, Actives are monitored internally (and remotely) by Handlers. In between engagements they are mind-wiped into a child-like state and live in a futuristic dorm/laboratory, a hidden facility nicknamed "The Dollhouse". The Dollhouse is located somewhere in Los Angeles and is a subsidiary of a mysterious research group known as the Rossum Corporation...

en.wikipedia.org...(TV_series)



It is therefore plausible to consider that as a matter of policy, to avoid the disruption of continuity in the cultural feed, that they don't just start over with new people but vastly prefer to continue the cultural fabrication (or destruction) process under the same guise, retaining acquired minds and souls without losing a glitch of their undivided attention. A double is easier and cheaper than the alternative.

Plus, they want to capitalize on the original's popularity. For ex, Paul was a trend-setter - people would follow "his" lead.


[edit on 8-9-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by berenike
This is a video of George and John at John's home. Early in the clip George refers to 'Beatle Bill' in a derogatory way and from there they go on to mention 'Beatle Ed'.

Whatever the truth of the matter, 'Beatle Bill' seems to be the commonly used term for Paul (or Faul).

Warning for language towards the end of the clip just after John has finished singing.


www.youtube.com...

_javascript:icon('
')


Wanted to clear that up:


He is saying "Beatle Phil" and is directing that sentence to PHIL Spector who sits (clearly) visible on the opposite side of the table!

Although there are circulating different cuts of that video clip. In one of them Iamaphoney overdubbed the "PHIL" to make sound more like "BILL". He also recut the video to take that out of context.


Anyway, Faulcons new "JOHN WAS REPLACED" thing is hilarious!




posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by switching yard
Link to Dick Cavett interview with George Harrison...

www.youtube.com...

George made at least 2 references to Big Brother. The 2nd one on the 2nd part at



At 4:40, Dick Cavett talks about the Beatles' huge influence & how it might have influenced people to take drugs. George said after "Paul" said he took '___', the "whole world went crazy."




[edit on 8-9-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Getsmart
He the goes on to say that he can't remember anything about The Beatles days! This is implausible to say the least, if it is indeed George Harrison.

Right. Would somebody really "forget" doing huge world tours & making movies? I doubt it.


On the other hand, memory loss or partial amnesia is quite practical to avoid being confronted with touchy questions which might reveal identity fraud.

Might be a way to avoid little slip-ups like the Beatles were "a set up affair" when he joined - lol.


At the onset of the interview, Dick Cavett makes an odd statement referring to The Beatles as "your former organization"

Telling. The Beatles weren't just a band - they were a corporation.


Mentioning even in jest that there were 10 (the second plus the eight others), then replying to Dick Cavett's question "were there that many" he retorts "Didn't you hear of the 18th Beatle?"

And he said it was the truth. Of course, people interpreted it as a joke.


He also seemed unusually detached and distant when he said "They just sent four dummies out there". Although the interviewer alluded to four fake Beatles arriving on the US Continent, George (Feorge?) didn't reminisce one iota about such a significant turning point in each of their lives. He was not referring to arriving at a geographical destination, because it would have been HERE and not THERE given that he was sitting in a TV studio in the USA. It was most likely a rhetorical remark ironically alluding to Beatles being "dummies" (the British connotation being akin to a Punch & Judy puppet) "sent out there" [into the public] (my edit).

Yes, odd. So, maybe they weren't "dummies" in the sense of "dumb," but in the sense of puppets?


This interview brings me to believe, to my regret, that he is not George but Feorge, wanting to reap some belated rewards for a grueling role carried forth in the limelight.





... there's an interpretation by more cynical theorists who think these replacements are intentionally done without much care for details, considering the sheeple too stupid to know the difference and too conditioned to question a spoon fed reality.

Well, if people aren't aware that it happens, they won't be looking out for it.


these illustrate an ongoing process of deceit by the powers that be on the masses. What is useful to envision is the likelihood that media corporations (governing elite, secret societies, Illuminati, cabal, Big Brother) are attached to filling any void that might be created by the absence - or untimely demise - of Stars. And it is probably also a countermeasure for any revelations regarding the motives and events leading to their 'disappearance' they are replaced with phantoms who eliminate any inquiry into associated events:

If there's no body, there's no official crime, & no investigation. Paul McCartney, for ex, is still officially "with us," even though he isn't.


What would keep other Stars in line with your demands better than telling them that they could just as easily be replaced as Stallone or Faye? The glaring proof that they can pull it off, be sloppy about it, and get away with it, must send chills up their back and ensure silent obedience. Ties to the Mob, the CIA and occult groups heighten the threat.

No joke. They've already proven they can do it & that practically no one will catch on. It must be chilling indeed - & enough to keep most people in line.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by diabolo1
 


Forgvie me for not recognising Phil Spectre with his wig on


Any idea who Beatle Ed might be?



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob



At 4:40, Dick Cavett talks about the Beatles' huge influence & how it might have influenced people to take drugs. George said after "Paul" said he took '___', the "whole world went crazy."



George was clearly talking about the reaction by the british media to Paul's
answer when questioned about taking it.

Faulcon yet again trying to misdirect others with her take on these videos.

So the pid believers think Paul was killed off because he wouldn't support this '''___' agenda''right? (correct me if I'm wrong)

Yet his replacement who you would presume would be briefed to push it and influence the young people, gets the chance to push this drug and well doesn't bother his behind?

There is one well documented brief interview where he is directly questioned about '___' and he explains it and plays it down completely.

After that where is this concerted campaign by this world famous pop star to please his 'masters' eh?


Is this video proof of anything? No it's not.

Next.





[edit on 8-9-2009 by pmexplorer]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by berenike
reply to post by diabolo1
 


Forgvie me for not recognising Phil Spectre with his wig on


Any idea who Beatle Ed might be?






I think John is refferring to George. I think he (at one time) points over to George while saying "Beatle Ed". He is also refering to Yoko as "Beatle-wife" i think! Whatever it is, he is just joking around!



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki
I wasn't meaning that you said that...sorry if it came across that way.
What I inferred is that they all look different.
John in particular (besides 'Paul')....
if they could get one, why not the lot? (waits for the flames) but we still are not sure about much of the technology they had back then...

But yeah, John looks well different too...


[edit on 7-9-2009 by aorAki]


I will apologize as well if I came across bluntly.


I have asked the same questions you have put forth and agree with your points regarding John's appearance change. If you look closely at Ringo and George, you will see they changed as well. It could be plastic surgery. Vanity and celebrities? Of course not.
John Lennon was known as a mouthy man, a non conformist to a fault. I can't see him going along with someone who was supposedly a good friend being either murdered or forced out, then a replacement brought in. If John did leave the clues, which fans found, wouldn't those who were a part of the alleged scheme have punished him or were others in the group, if the replacement theory is true, have suffered the same fate?



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
I think your article was removed. Would you repost it? Also, would you share more of your personal experiences?

Hi Falcon,

In those days I had dealings with people and places where these people performed in Europe. Quite a few were Mafia run including when Jim Morrison departed. Back then, the music and nightclub scene in Europe was for the most part mob controlled, in places speaking Sicilian helped, if you get the gist.

Saw enough to get out and stay away, something which others less fortunate failed to do. Quite a price to pay for fame and misfortune. Today things have been dissimulated in a more sophisticated corporate veil, but the underpinnings are much the same if more rationalized and more callous even than before.

The article to which I was referring was one which you posted on page 117 by Alexander Constantine. His observations are astute and worth considering with the utmost seriousness. I thank you for that link, he was courageous to publish this information for our benefit at great risk for his personal safety.

By the way, regarding one of my previous posts casting doubts on the real identity of various Beatles including John, the photos you posted of John from different time periods didn't seem to have the same odd eyebrow ridge characteristics as that one photo in question, meaning that without further corroborating data that assumption was probably erroneous unless you have other clues which I failed to discern.

Berenike linked to a Youtube video showing John in his kitchen speaking presumably to George Harrison (Feorge seen on the Dick Cavett show?) seemingly referring to him as Beatle Ed. Could this be a clue to his true identity? John does accurately refer to Beatle Bill whom we might consider to be Faul.

[edit on 8-9-2009 by Getsmart]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Getsmart

Saw enough to get out and stay away, something which others less fortunate failed to do. Quite a price to pay for fame and misfortune. Today things have been dissimulated in a more sophisticated corporate veil, but the underpinnings are much the same if more rationalized and more callous even than before.

Do you have an opinion as to one hit wonders? It has been speculated that a performer initially does well, starts thinking he can call the shots, i.e., sign on with a new label if s/he wants, only to find that all the labels are basically owned by the same people. So, s/he disappears from the scene. Any thoughts?


By the way, regarding one of my previous posts casting doubts on the real identity of various Beatles including John, the photos you posted of John from different time periods didn't seem to have the same odd eyebrow ridge characteristics as that one photo in question, meaning that without further corroborating data that assumption was probably erroneous unless you have other clues which I failed to discern.

There is one pic (the link to external image one) that shows his eyes as blue. John's nose also looks more "pinched" & "beaky" in some pictures than others. I don't know for sure whether any of the other Beatles were permanently replaced, but I'm reasonably certain there were stand-ins at certain points. I don't want anyone's head to explode by going into more possible replacements :-P


Berenike linked to a Youtube video showing John in his kitchen speaking presumably to George Harrison (Feorge seen on the Dick Cavett show?) seemingly referring to him as Beatle Ed. Could this be a clue to his true identity? John does accurately refer to Beatle Bill whom we might consider to be Faul.

That's possible. I always thought that they said "Beatles Ed" as a cover for having said "Beatle Bill."


[edit on 8-9-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 05:45 PM
link   
Hi Falcon,

I will do my best to reply to your questions.


Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
Do you have an opinion as to one hit wonders? It has been speculated that a performer initially does well, starts thinking he can call the shots, i.e., sign on with a new label if s/he wants, only to find that all the labels are basically owned by the same people. So, s/he disappears from the scene. Any thoughts?


Gifted artists present an array of risks for an industry bent on warping people's minds and conditioning their behavior.

They are hard to manage because they are creative and often dedicated to their art. They thus have a form of artistic integrity and will hesitate to if not flat out refuse to compromise their art for commercial or propaganda motives.

Artists tend to also be difficult to discipline due to the dominance of right brain functions which enable creation but reduce subservience to materialistic constraints, making them harder to manipulate.

Given that they are creative they are often progressive, meaning less reliant on established norms of conservative society which their 'handlers' might be trying to promulgate or instigate. This places them at the antithesis of a mission of mind control 'Big Brother style'.

Seeking to change labels has been, each time I've seen it occur, mainly motivated to get away from the mobster types which they were associated with in order to get that first hit recorded. The prevailing mindset is diametrically opposed to artistic creativity, focusing on bookings, sales and publicity at the expense of artistic quality. Once an artist realizes that it is a no-win situation within a totally controlled industry, either they pull out, are blackballed, or both. Usually it doesn't get too extreme at this stage, at least it didn't seem to in the old days.


There is one pic (the link to external image one) that shows his eyes as blue. John's nose also looks more "pinched" & "beaky" in some pictures than others. I don't know for sure whether any of the other Beatles were permanently replaced, but I'm reasonably certain there were stand-ins at certain points. I don't want anyone's head to explode by going into more possible replacements :-P


There was likely some meddling with John, but on my LCD screen that external link photo shows John's eyes to be light brown, although his blue shirt tends to give a bluish impression. Eye color is something which can be somewhat changing in different lighting and unless blatantly different cannot be relied upon as a sole clue for identification. Bone structure would come first, head shape and size, body morphology, main features, etc. Early doubles failed to perfectly copy ears which are the closest thing on a face to a finger print. They were a dead giveaway to Hitler's doubles but techniques have since been perfected.



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 118  119  120    122  123  124 >>

log in

join