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.

 

PID - Motivations for the Murder of Paul McCartney

page: 40
22
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by switching yard
In the legend and lore, a two-person team from LIFE magazine drove up to the "McCartney" farm cottage in Scotland to verify whether "Paul" was alive or not.

As the story goes, they simply knocked on the door. A furious "Paul" came to the door with a bucket of "kitchen slop" which he hurled at the reporter and photographer. The team leaves the scene, then "Paul" changes his mind and chases them in his Range Rover. When he catches up, he apologizes, offers to do an interview and provide them with some of Linda's photos, and the LIFE team accepts under "Paul's" condition that they hand over to him the film they just shot of "angry Paul." Everyone agrees, goes back to the cottage for tea and biscuits and ample "proof" that Paul is not dead.

The story I heard was that the LIFE people came up to the farm, Martha the dog, started barking, & the irate Faulster came out threatening the reporters. Actually, IAAP showed video of his tantrum. Faul agreed to do the interview in return for the camera film. Just wondering how IAAP got it...

No idea how they knew where to find him, but it may have been thru the Beatles' press agent.



LIFE, controlled by the Luce family

Are you f-ing kidding me? Luce? As in Lucifer? How much more Illuminati could that possibly be?


The whole episode of LIFE paying a surprise visit to "Paul" and verifying him as the real Paul... well, it seems to me to have been made up. Of course, in the magazine it was made to look like a real story, but I think the entire episode was staged. More likely staged than not, in my opinion.

Could've been staged, but Faul definitely didn't look good getting all violent like that. Showed his true colors, IMO.


Why? Why would the most metropolitan, London pub crawling, art collecting, gregarious Beatle want to go do a Green Acres thing in rural Scotland in a primitive farm shed of a place?

I think the Faulster didn't want to be around people who had actually known Paul.

This lifted my spirits today!

Paul is Dead: New evidence based on computer enhanced forensic techniques
Eric Hufschmid
7 July 2010
erichufschmid.net...




posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 08:00 PM
link   
Cool blog post you've got there.

So here's the guy "Father Time" Luce who founded LIFE Magazine which apparently was a CIA front...

en.wikipedia.org...

The yarn told about LIFE journalists just going like on an unannounced safari for "Paul McCartney" and doing ambush journalism on a Beatle is ludicrous.

Seems to me a reporter could have just phoned his people in advance and asked for the interview. There shouldn't have been any need for an ambush.

The whole episode strikes me as being staged or concocted. The whole encounter was for stage managed propaganda, in my opinion.

Any of the one billion Beatle fans at that time wanting to meet Beatle Paul, all he or she has to do is just drive up to the house and knock on the door? Give me a break!



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by switching yard
Any of the one billion Beatle fans at that time wanting to meet Beatle Paul, all he or she has to do is just drive up to the house and knock on the door? Give me a break!



Well, don't forget Yoko just knocked on Faul's door, & he gave her John's (?) address! lol



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Yeah, I need to start making a Dubious Episodes List.

Things that are in the official story that go against common sense.

I don't believe the LIFE reporters and Sir produced the LIFE article in the serendipitous way they say. I don't believe Yoko just happened to meet Paul and John and oh, by the way, she didn't know what a Beatle was, never heard of 'em! LOL, what a howler that is. I don't believe Mal was in a maniacal mental state and the cops shot him because they thought he was a threat. Mal was actually a gentle giant who wouldn't harm anyone.

I've got to keep a list going of the lore and legend stories that do not add up to common sense or logic. A big part of the myth was that everything that happened was serendipity. My hunch is it was more the opposite. Very controlled situations that were made to look like they were spontaneous. This is part of the skill set of intelligence agencies.



[edit on 12-7-2010 by switching yard]



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 12:00 AM
link   
Switching Yard: Do you have a page number for this quote?

"The years 1966-67 were tremendous years of mental and physical change for the Beatles."

Cynthia Lennon, A TWIST OF LENNON

Do you have the publisher & the year, too? :-)



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Yeah, I've got it...

A TWIST OF LENNON by Cynthia Lennon

paperback edition

AVON BOOKS, a division of The Hearst Corporation, 959 Eighth Ave, New York, New York 10019

Copyright 1978 by Cynthia Twist
Published by arrangement with W. H. Allen & Co., Inc.
First Avon printing, January, 1980
Second Printing

page 145...

"The years 1966-67 were tremendous years of mental and physical change for the Beatles. 1965 had been packed with success following success. Sell-out tours across the world. The highly successful film Help! was premiered in London in the presence of Princess Margaret and was followed by a fantastic party where Maureen in her final days of pregnancy danced and gyrated the night through watched with great concern by all. It would have been an incredible occasion if she had given birth in the presence of H.R.H. Maureen was enjoying herself more than anyone else; it was her first baby and she was making the most of life while she could."

The preceding paragraph, to the one above, was strange, as well...

"On many other occasions, following a night out at the clubs, John and I would find ourselves carrying on the revelry in homes of people we didn't know, only to find that the lady of the house would set about seducing me and the husband would get to work on John. It was at this point that we would look at each other through our drunken stupor and very quickly take our leave. It appeared that we were very vulnerable to the opportunists and hangers-on of this world who wanted more than anything to jump on the band-wagon of success." (page 145, as well)



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 02:17 AM
link   
Cool, thanks!

It's time!




posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 02:30 AM
link   
MIKE DOWNEY, "She Led a Good Life, So Let It Be," Los Angeles Times, April 24, 1998 at p. 3:


"...For a few days now, I have been following this strange little saga of the death of Linda Eastman McCartney, photographer, animal rights activist, mother, musician's wife.

She died in Santa Barbara. No, she died in Tucson.

She was cremated in Arizona. No, she was cremated in England. No, both.

Day after day, a new development...

The musician's spokesman admits he "misled" everyone into believing that Santa Barbara is where it occurred. (We have another word for "misled" here in America. We call it "lied.")

Linda evidently died at a Tucson family ranch.

I respect Paul's plea for privacy. I was just curious, like a lot of people, why someone's place of death would be a secret, after the fact. Or how a terminally ill woman, cancer-riddled for years, could go horseback riding two days before her death..."



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Interesting new installment of the iamaphoney series. What are the main points of this one? The anagram is one theme, like you can make a word that reads the same forward or backward.

What's the significance of the phrase "it's time"?

The mysteries concerning Linda's death are kind of par for the course, as well. I think Sir has a security team who like for no one to know where or when something is happening and to that end, they leak false info. We, in the public, only know what we are told. If the official story is that she died of breast cancer, we just accept that because we have no evidence to the contrary, but what is real or an illusion, we can't say for sure.

I have been wondering for quite a while about the possibility of there having been a sequence of replacements, not just one replacement of Paul. They could switch them out every so many years. Perhaps there is some sort of witness protection plan that would serve as deep cover for previous replacements and/or their closest inner circle. The Sir of today, doesn't seem like the same guy who was in Wings or that period starting with the first solo album (the emptied bowl of cherries).

One really has to question everything that has been in mainstream media. For example, imagine an impersonator playing the role of "Lennon" and he was rigged with Hollywood special effects squibs. I know it is hard to imagine, but MDC could have shot blanks and the squibs were detonated, then agents in a fake patrol car and dressed as cops could have placed the "bloody" actor in the car and sped away. Next, there is a body switch before getting to the hospital emergency room. The corpse is someone else. The actor is then given a new identity and quietly fades into a witness protection plan never to be heard from again.

I know it is far fetched, but this is the kind of thing intelligence agencies can do, fake a murder or assassination.

Long story short, they could fake a death by cancer or anything else. Who knows, perhaps even the cancer death of "Harrison" was just made to seem like it was real. I don't know, but I am being open-minded. The forces behind all these Beatles mysteries are state-of-the-art intelligence agencies capable of incredible propaganda by way of illusions and false news stories. We shouldn't believe anything just at face value because certain "evidence" can't be trusted.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Oh, I know they can fake anything & make it seem real. I'm not under any illusions in that regard.

BTW, I heard that dreadful "Harrison" song, "Got My Mind Set on You" today. There's a part in it where he sings "It's going to take money, a whole lot of spending money to make things right." Um, yeah. George was very spiritual. I don't that was what he was about at all. JMO



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Some of George's songs in the solo years were irritating, others were beautiful. "Got My Mind Set On You" was one of the irritating ones, to me. Not one of my favorites. I did like the earlier "All Things Must Pass" album. Some good music in that one.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Having known Paul since childhood I know he is not dead.

The most troublesome Beatle was of course Lennon, he was anti establishment from the word go, his death imho is what should be looked into.

I will never understand this fixtation on ABT/BTS with paul McCartney he was never the radical.

There were bands out there the same time as the Beatles such as the Stones who did more to change young thinking.

Maybe Mick Jagger is a look alike??



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by dizzylizzy
Having known Paul since childhood I know he is not dead.

LOL that's funny. Not buying it.

Edit: Just going to add that, even granting that you knew Paul (which I highly doubt), you must not have known him very well to have failed to notice that he was replaced about 40 years ago. :bnghd:


[edit on 26-7-2010 by someotherguy]



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Just another reply to dizzylizzy...

I see the points you're making about Lennon being the radical and his death should be looked into. Actually, we in PID research are very interested in those dynamics, as well.

Speaking only for myself, obviously I can't say whether you knew Paul in his childhood or not. So my feeling is maybe you're being truthful about that. The way we suspect that the switch or replacement was done, it would have been difficult and challenging for anyone who knew the young Paul to have stepped up in public in 1967 to say "hold on, that's a different person, not him."

We think that the perpetrators made the replacement happen in a very slick way so that even those who knew the young Paul would have a hard time distinguishing by photos and films. Besides, everyone was conditioned at that time to believe all is well unless told by the media or the authorities that a crime was committed. In this case, there was no obvious red flag from the media or the British authorities that anything was amiss. So, you would have to be extra keen and brave to have spoken out about it even if you had suspected anything.

I would imagine there are quite a number of people still alive who knew the young Paul and who are convinced to this day that he did not die and was not replaced. Those of us in PID research who have examined a lot of material conclude that the present Sir Paul is not the original one. We realize that this is a very unpopular conclusion.

Speaking for only myself, I would dearly love to be proven wrong. I would be very happy if incontrovertible and untampered solid proof would emerge that would demonstrate without a doubt that the Sir Paul of today is one and the same guy from birth to the early Beatles on through to the present day. Unfortunately such proof has not been forthcoming and there is more circumstantial evidence and even a professional forensic study that tells us it is a different person posing as the original.

We have had seemingly professional detractors present blatantly tampered photos and trashy propaganda to try to intimidate us and attempt a "case closed" mentality for anyone looking at our threads. That only served to reinforce and strengthen our suspicions that there is some organized, clandestine group who desperately want this matter closed.

Bernard Fensterwald wrote an excellent book delving into the suspicious problems with the official stories surrounding the murder of "John Lennon." So yes, that's been looked into and we continue to look into that.

The "fixation" on the PID topic is simply that we have documented a fairly large volume of discrepancies that point to Paul having somehow died and been replaced by at least one impostor and maybe more. We won't let the case be closed because as far as we're concerned there are reasons to believe a crime was committed and an elaborate cover-up has been in operation since late 1966.

Why do I still care about the JFK assassination? Why isn't that one a "case closed" as a so-called author Gerald Posner was so eager to have people forget about? Because there is a mountain of evidence that the official story of the JFK hit has been a lie since day one. This is the kind of feeling PID researchers have about PID. We don't like it, but we know the truth is different from what is peddled as "reality" by the media and governments.

So yeah, I for one would love it if you can prove without a doubt that Sir is the real Paul. Just knowing the original when he was in childhood doesn't really count as proof. If you have never thought that a Beatle death and replacement was possible in late 1966 because you knew Paul when he was young and there was nothing in the media about a death in 1966, your mind is going to want to believe that the impostor of today is the same person as the young Paul you knew. Your mind will reject the differences and accept the person and the media as "real."

Just my opinion.



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 02:22 AM
link   
The media affirmatively assured people back in the fall of 1969 that Paul was "still with us." I guess whatever the controlled media says must be true. lol That guy whom they discovered living on that isolated farmhouse away from everyone who knew Paul is like the anti-Paul, as far as I'm concerned. He doesn't have looks, talent, charisma, or anything. He's just an arrogant fraud - & people are slowly starting to figure it out. It's only been 44 years, but I guess better late than never. :bash:



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 08:22 PM
link   
That's a good point, someotherguy, about the recluse "Paul" living in a primitive farm cottage in Scotland away from those who knew the Original. There are so many other things, too that don't make much sense unless our theories are correct. Just think about it. One of the world's greatest rock stars goes into hiding to play farmer. I can buy that famous people like their privacy, but it's hard to imagine Original Paul wanting to rough it on a farm like that. Just doesn't add up.

Edit to add: We, in Texas, howled with laughter when we saw videos of W on his "ranch" riding his pickup truck around talkin' about ranchin' and cuttin' brush and so forth. W grew up inside the beltway in D.C. in prep schools and went to Yale. Ranching? LOL ----- same thing with "Paul" in his farm cottage with his farm chores and such. You know, shearing the sheep and whatnot. LOL

[edit on 31-7-2010 by switching yard]

[edit on 31-7-2010 by switching yard]



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 08:34 PM
link   
There could have actually been some preparation for the plan of sending "Paul" to the isolated farm. Hmmm, "Mother Nature's Son" might have been done to prepare the public. People think, "Oh yeah, he's into nature. That's why he went to live in the country." See how that works? If they planned it in advance, they could have made it seem more plausible with pre-planting the farm attitude in the minds of the public. Just a thought.



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by switching yard
There could have actually been some preparation for the plan of sending "Paul" to the isolated farm. ... See how that works? If they planned it in advance, they could have made it seem more plausible with pre-planting the farm attitude in the minds of the public. Just a thought.


Interesting that you mention that. Remember the scene in Help where the Beatles are in disguise at the airport & they look remarkably like the later doubles? It has been suggested that that was actually an attempt to pre-condition people to see the later impostors as the originals.



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by switching yard
That's a good point, someotherguy, about the recluse "Paul" living in a primitive farm cottage in Scotland away from those who knew the Original.


I'm pretty suspicious now of people suddenly becoming recluses. It makes me think that they may have been replaCIAed & whoever was behind it is trying to get them away from people who knew them & could call BS. Howard Hughes comes to mind.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join