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: 53
22
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by switching yard
From THE PRIVATE JOHN LENNON: The Untold Story From His Sister, by Julia Baird. paperback edition

Control Agent Yoko Ono...

page 253

"I didn't get invited to (John's) funeral. Jackie (John's other sister) didn't get invited to the funeral. No one in John's English family, apart from Julian, was invited to the funeral. We were not contacted or informed of anything. I felt there was no way I could phone Yoko, after she made it so clear before that our calls weren't welcome."

"Of course there wasn't a funeral, as such. We now know that John was cremated in secret the day after he died and his ashes were returned to Yoko in a jar. But we didn't know that then."

----------

Yoko always seemed to shut out John's English family. She controlled any access to "John Lennon" Why is that? Well, perhaps she didn't want the stand-in's cover blown by the real Lennon's English family because there was bound to be a moment of realization if they ever had a long chat with him or spent time in person with him. Yoko was shielding the impostor from those who could best tell the difference. If any of them came to NYC for a funeral, they might ask too many questions or want to know things that Yoko didn't want them to find out. Cremating the body straight away reminds me of the WTC Towers' steel being shipped off to a smelter to destroy evidence. I wonder if NYPD or the morgue got prints from the body before it was cremated. If they did, then obviously they could be compared with young John's.

More on the story coming up in posts. Julia Baird, I think, knows the basic charade, but cannot speak out for her own safety, but she has included some tidbits in her book that are meant to give us a kind of coded message of "things were not normal" --- if you understand.



Hi Switching Yard and thanks for bringing us back ON TOPIC. What this is about is really sticking to INVESTIGATING PAUL'S MURDER and not exploring the actions and behaviors of those trying to derail our efforts.


The subject of John's handler is important because it reveals much about the nature of the Cointelpro action plan regarding how they 'handle' people working in the Cultural Media, this being true in any given number of domains. In Science it is done through 'Mentoring' and Peer Review committees, in Education it is done by coercing all educators and teachers to obey the system constraints of a rigid program, in the movies it is done through Agents or the Media organizations themselves favoring those who best lend themselves to be tools, destroying the career or impostor replacing those who rebel, in Music by the actual contrived design and creation or substantial modifications brought to 'bands' or 'groups' and their material made to coincide with the prevailing Agenda.


I also find the issue of Yoko Ono as one which is even more interesting because it points out that while the structured organized promotion process of the industry operates its own control over original artists, that handlers are used possibly more often to 'manage' replacement Impostors just as Linda Eastman was used to 'handle' Paul's replacement FAUL. This is for any number of reasons, including the useful and often employed method of serving as a pretext for shutting out those familiar who might blow the whistle, also discrediting their potential testimony as a vindictive reaction to having been shunned. Handlers are also used to create a diversion whenever the Impostor makes a slip or behaves out of character with their role, the field agent calling away attention from the incident or otherwise making the change in the Star appear due to their own initiative or overreaching influence.


Yoko Ono has revealed by slips of the tongue that there were several Johns and that the one who was gunned down at the Dakota building was one of the nice ones. Aside from being of a well known Illuminati family, coincidentally just like Linda Eastman, she also has served to steal the real John Lennon's royalties and cash flows for the controlling organization. I also think that she served as a pretext for the rift between The Beatles at a time where the bevy of Impostors was getting difficult to manage in the context of the late sixties thunder about Paul's death and mounting suspicions regarding the authenticity of the other members of the Beatles being methodically concealed from public view with long hair, beards and enveloping psychedelic garb shown in controlled photo sessions, while putting an end to their public appearances.


That Ringo was replaced before the movie HELP cannot be contested by anyone with eyes to see. The height discrepancy is greater yet between Ringo and Fingo that that between Paul and Faul. However given that he was an averagely talented sidekick of The Beatles there was less of a reference shift making it less notorious or highly contested that he was not the same person. The Movie HELP! may also well have served to test the public's reaction for Impostor detection, the ensuing replacement of the other members of the Beatles getting the Green Light once this had been pulled off successfully.


Paul, John and George having sufficient pretty boy sex appeal to serve as useful lightning rods for public scrutiny. However, this very appeal they had makes their own replacement all the more obvious, the date of their respective replacement coinciding exactly with the date of their distinctive and permanent loss of sex appeal. They still both had it during their 1966 Munich Concert, losing it shortly thereafter. I wonder even if there wasn't a very good FAUL #1 readied for replacement at the same time that John was replaced by a very good FOHN #1 impostor?


This would explain that while he still looked plausible like Paul he no longer acted like Paul. Then something appears to have happened to this credible FAUL #1 who had to be replaced on the cuff prior to the Los Angeles concert where FAUL #2 appeared in public view. If this was the case then we can well understand the need for highly dedicated Illuminati handlers used as spouses or other intimate persons in a Celebrity Impostor's entourage. If for no other reason than to serve as an early warning system when the impostor is getting wet feet.


So thanks Switching Yard for posting this testimony about how Yoko Ono served to distance John's friends form John's impostor. Such a presence can be found in many instances of Celebrity Impostor replacements with the position of choice being that of Spouse so that an innocent "real spouse" won't go "Heather Mills" on them by getting too close to the truth, and so that nobody can argue their handler's legitimacy in taking over much of the Celebrity's life choices and orientations, which coincidentally happen to rejoin the Illuminati mind control agenda. Maids, butlers, secretaries, personal assistants, hairdressers are also used as alternative constant companions operating invisibly in the direct domestic and/or professional environment of their entrusted impostor actor, attracting little more attention than a piece of furniture as one of the 'little people' we wish we could do without. Only those in the closest intimacy of the impostor report the undue influence and strange and unexplainable power exerted by such persons on the alleged celebrity.


Handlers are therefore an excellent clue to follow in the investigation of Replaced Celebrities in the Entertainment Industries. Also they might serve to provide a link to those who are running the Celebrity Replacement program, and this could be why some of them have been silenced, causing us to wonder about the motives of the latest Star Whacker shooting in Beverly Hills of a major Hollywood Studio publicist who possibly knew too much and had loose lips?


GS
edit on 7-12-2010 by Getsmart because: of a text correction.




posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   




Funny how some people are so easily fooled by a change of haircut.

'Investigating' a 'murder' that never even happened.

Oh, dear...
edit on 7-12-2010 by Dakudo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   

For Those With Face Blindness:






edit on 7-12-2010 by Dakudo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Getsmart
In case you didn't notice, and I'd like to deliver this message with FLOWERS please, this thread is NOT NOT NOT about debating whether Paul is Dead or Alive. It is to investigate his murder. If you think he is alive, more power to you, but please do so elsewhere, such as in a thread where this is the topic. Here you are OFF TOPIC.


What murder? You have NO murder to investigate. My claim is no more off topic than yours.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Once you supply some real evidence PM is dead you might be on to something, but you have nothing to investigate because there is no evidence other than doctored pics and your delusional rantings about the Illuminati.

Every piece of 'evidence' you offer can be explained in another way. That is not evidence. For something to be evidence it has to be perfectly clear what it represents, and when offered to a jury it must actually prove something. Show them your doctored pics, they'd just laugh at you.

It makes no difference if we're talking the murder of Macca, or the theft of a doughnut.


MODS, please remind posters here that if they are not present in this thread to investigate Paul's murder, then to please post irrelevant and OFF TOPIC comments in a more appropriate place. Their OFF TOPIC posting is preventing the constructive discussion of an important crime investigation as well as our efforts to get to the bottom of a very central conspiracy. Thanks for helping ensure that ATS continues to provide a place to INVESTIGATE.


If the mods do that your thread will be closed because you have ALL made off-topic posts according to your 'rules'.

Fingo? You really are just making crap up for a laugh ain't ya?
edit on 7-12-2010 by Wally Hope because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 08:40 PM
link   
I would like to thank aorAki for hanging in as a truly unbiased observer and I would love more postings because I appreciate aorAki's point of view on things. I believe that my research is in a big way inspired by something aorAki said many posts ago, that something is up with this topic and although we can't quite nail it down yet --- something is up with this whole "mystery clues" thing and that if, in fact, any one or more than one Beatle did in fact die or somehow become removed from the limelight and was or were replaced by stand ins, then that would explain some of the bizarre inconsistencies and anomalies in Beatles history. Yes, I do very much agree with aorAki that something is up with Beatles history (even if we are not sure what).

Secondly, I would like to say that Getsmart's points about the "matrix" in recent posts are right on, in my opinion. I just couldn't agree more and I think Getsmart has very accurate insight into the cloak and dagger aspects of the manipulations of popular culture to brainwash, no less, the unsuspecting public at large, worldwide. It is increasingly looking like, to me, that the world has been scammed by the Beatles' lore and legend (lies). There are so many things that do not ring true or even make any sense about the Beatles' story that I must continue being part of this investigation and continue looking for the real clues to what happened.

I am a Beatles fan. As much or more so than any of the PIA posters. That is the stone cold truth and that is why I want to know what really happened. I think the real Beatles were somehow hijacked and we have all been scammed. I have been looking closely at the "John Lennon" replacement thing lately, because there are so many anomalies and problematic twists in the public story as well as severe problems surrounding the public story of his assassination. Things do not add up right and point to conspiracy. The English family of John Lennon, the real one, the original one, were effectively blocked from contact with the person who claimed to be "John Lennon." This is not, not, not normal behavior. Look at everything really objectively and you'll see there's tons of stuff which is just NOT normal behavior in the whole post-1966 Beatles' story. Sure, at the time we thought 'Oh, they're just so progressive and surreal artists' and so forth, but I am now wising up to... we were scammed.

Now a word about someotherguy... courage, unwavering determination to get to the bottom of the real story, to find whatever truths can be gleaned from every shred of photographic and forensic studies, to stand up to the intimidators... someotherguy is tremendously respected by those of us who realize "something is up with this topic" and all the research and work done by someotherguy inspires us to carry on and contribute to the quest for the truth, the real truth that Heather Mills knows, Julia Baird knows, and probably many others still alive know or suspect. My hat's off to someotherguy and I would really like to hear the latest radio interview although it has, as far as I can see, strangely not appeared as accessible in the archives of that online radio station.

At work today, I heard a couple of people laughing about and putting down "all those goofy conspiracy theorists who claim there was some kind of grassy knoll thing when Kennedy was shot, what morons!" I was in shock listening to the naivete of these people. To me, it's common knowledge JFK was hit by a triangulation of fire by professional hit men in various sniper locations, none of which was LHO. I am shocked that anyone still believes the official story. At this time, most people around the world believe the Beatles' official story. I do not. I believe the real story has not been told. We are working on shedding some light on the darkness. We don't have all the answers, but we are on the trail. In my lifetime, there have been numerous Black Ops and I am not, for one minute, swallowing the official story about post-1966 Beatles. I do still enjoy the music, but it has all but been proven that the way the original John & Paul worked was to keep massive and prolific notebooks filled with song fragments. These could have very easily have been stolen by the perpetrators of the conspiracy.

I remain totally convinced that the PID folks make much more sense than the PIA trash we've seen deployed on this and other threads with the obvious (possibly professional) intent to disrupt and interfere. They have quite a dubious history of crashing threads. I have said this before and I will say it again... real Paul McCartney fans would either NOT be interested in sabotaging this thread or would be intrigued, as I am, in finding out the truth. When I got into this, I was ready to bash the PID theorists. Then, I quickly saw that the PID folks are more intelligent and have more circumstantial evidence going for them, as well as a serious Italian forensic study that concludes WITHOUT A DOUBT that there has been one and maybe more replacement(s) masquerading in public as Paul.

Further Julia Baird posts coming soon.
edit on 7-12-2010 by switching yard because: fix spelling

edit on 7-12-2010 by switching yard because: to add



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by switching yard
The English family of John Lennon, the real one, the original one, were effectively blocked from contact with the person who claimed to be "John Lennon." This is not, not, not normal behavior. Look at everything really objectively and you'll see there's tons of stuff which is just NOT normal behavior in the whole post-1966 Beatles' story.


That's your trouble - you don't take your own advice and look at these things "objectively" at all. You see something that looks a bit odd, and then just concoct bizarre theories and twist facts to support your conspiracy view.

So John Lennon's family were "blocked" from contact with him. If you really did look at things objectively, you would consider varies possibilities for this. Such as Yoko was jealous and possesive, for example.

But you don't. Everything you "see" is evidence that John was replaced or Paul was replaced etc. It's absurd reasoning - not "objective" in any shape or form.

So far, you have not established one shred of credible evidence to support your claims. All you can do is interpret facts and occurrences in a way which suits your own biased view and then claim it as "evidence" of a conspiracy.

Sorry pal - you're just fooling yourself. It's not evidence. it's just wishful thinking and wild imagining. Nothing more.


Now a word about someotherguy... courage, unwavering determination to get to the bottom of the real story, to find whatever truths can be gleaned from every shred of photographic and forensic studies,


LOL. "Truths" such as Paul didn't have freckles?



Exposed as a lie:







"Truths" such as 'Faul' is taller than Paul?



Exposed as a lie:

That comp is nothing more than an attempt to fool people by deliberately using a photo taken from below - which gives a false impression of relative heights - and comparing it to a photo taken at a completely different angle and height.

Use a photo where the heights and angles are similar, and someotherguy's claim is exposed as fraudulent:



"Truths" such as Paul had brown eyes?

Exposed as a lie:



"Truths" such as posting a pathetic, laughably stuPID comp where 'Faul' is puffing out his lips as 'evidence' that the lips are "different":



LOL!

Yeah - someotherguy is a fine example of honesty and truth!


Her lies and disinformation have long been exposed - yet you hold her up as some vessel of purity and enlightenment.

Dear, oh dear. Get a grip man. Wake up from your fantasy world where everything someotherguy says is true. Open your eyes.


Then, I quickly saw that the PID folks are more intelligent







as well as a serious Italian forensic study that concludes WITHOUT A DOUBT that there has been one and maybe more replacement(s) masquerading in public as Paul.


Complete lie. They did not conclude anything "without a doubt".

Let's expose your misinformation:


en.wikipedia.org...

And neither was it a "serious forensic study". It wasn't peer reviewed, they used photos from the internet - not originals and the article appeared in Wired magazine for heaven's sake - not Forensic Science Magazine!



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   
I don't think it's true that Yoko kept John from his family.

John was never that close to his family to begin with. He had a bad childhood with feeling of not being loved. Usually, as is the case with John, that causes people to be more close to friends, and other relationships, than with family members.

I heard John was not easily effected by others emotions, that also comes from a lack of close emotional support as a child. A lot of people become detached from their emotional feelings for others and they become indifferent.

Just because he expressed feelings of love and peace in his songs it doesn't mean that was his actual personality.
What he was doing was subconsciously trying to hide, or change, his true emotional state of mind.

He was violent and nasty at times. He believed he was responsible for Stuart Sutcliffe's death as he had kicked him in the head during a fight. He also thought he had killed a German seaman he mugged in Hamburg. He beat Cynthia and neglected his kids. He was angry and insecure.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Paul was not killed, he had a car accident!!!
Argh, you make me nervous!



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Julia Baird's book, paperback edition

page 256

"We had been living in the Cathedral cloister for eighteen months, when, on the fifth anniversary of John's death, the BBC put out a program to commemorate his life. Although I wasn't too keen on watching it, I thought that Nicolas and Sara (John Lennon's nephew and niece), now fifteen and fourteen years old, needed to see it. I knew that their friends would probably watch it, with their parents, and that it would be talked about in school.

The program was horrendous. My mother (John Lennon's mother) was portrayed as a disastrous, uncaring and ineffectual parent. Mendips (John's childhood home) had three flying ducks on the wall. A dark-haired Cynthia married John wearing a headscarf tied under her chin, and there was not even one mention of Julian. I could hardly watch the rest of the program, I was so upset at the appalling misrepresentation. Right at the end, there was a short interview with Yoko, sitting on a sofa, in New York, with Sean. She said how pleased she was with the program and that it was a good way for Sean to learn about his father and his father's family. Suffice it to say that Jackie (John's other sister) and I weren't mentioned at all. I don't know who supplied the information, but the result was nonsense.

I telephoned the BBC the next day and was told that John didn't have any sisters. Liela (John's aunt) decided to write directly to ten-year-old Sean, with a more accurate version of John's early life, so that Sean would indeed know about his father, from his father's own family. Liela told him about his grandmother, our Mummy.

'I think I ended up writing him about four letters,' she told me. 'Unfortunately, there was absolutely no reply. I wonder whether he ever even got them. Personally, I think there's somebody in New York who would be happier if Sean didn't really know about his father's family. If that's so, then all right. There's nothing more I can do about it.'

---------

So this brings up a few questions. The BBC didn't have a clue about John Lennon's early life? Or did they purposely broadcast propaganda? I vote for the latter. Why smear John's English family? What kind of influence did Yoko have on the production? Why the gatekeeping, the blocking of communications between John's English family and Sean? Why did the powers that be, Yoko and whomever else, put out derogatory propaganda and to what end? One may suspect that these powerful forces behind the scenes did not want John's English family to start asking pointed questions for fear they would demand answers and figure out that the "John Lennon" in NYC was not original John.

Yes, this is a conspiracy theory on a conspiracy theory website. If anyone has no stomach for conspiracy theories, the person should cease and desist visiting this thread. The game plan of the PID detractors remains the same --- ridicule PID researchers and flood the thread with flashing trash to confuse anyone dropping in for a peek at this topic. We are very well aware that the PIA side wish to crash this thread. They are using their usual tactics to disrupt serious inquiry. We can expect more PIA trash to flood this thread because that's what they specialize in doing.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Paul was replaced because he had a car accident.
However, it is highly unlikely that any other member was replaced. Don't go over the top.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by switching yard
Julia Baird's book, paperback edition

page 256

"We had been living in the Cathedral cloister for eighteen months, when, on the fifth anniversary of John's death, the BBC put out a program to commemorate his life. Although I wasn't too keen on watching it, I thought that Nicolas and Sara (John Lennon's nephew and niece), now fifteen and fourteen years old, needed to see it. I knew that their friends would probably watch it, with their parents, and that it would be talked about in school.

The program was horrendous. My mother (John Lennon's mother) was portrayed as a disastrous, uncaring and ineffectual parent. Mendips (John's childhood home) had three flying ducks on the wall. A dark-haired Cynthia married John wearing a headscarf tied under her chin, and there was not even one mention of Julian. I could hardly watch the rest of the program, I was so upset at the appalling misrepresentation. Right at the end, there was a short interview with Yoko, sitting on a sofa, in New York, with Sean. She said how pleased she was with the program and that it was a good way for Sean to learn about his father and his father's family. Suffice it to say that Jackie (John's other sister) and I weren't mentioned at all. I don't know who supplied the information, but the result was nonsense.

I telephoned the BBC the next day and was told that John didn't have any sisters. Liela (John's aunt) decided to write directly to ten-year-old Sean, with a more accurate version of John's early life, so that Sean would indeed know about his father, from his father's own family. Liela told him about his grandmother, our Mummy.

'I think I ended up writing him about four letters,' she told me. 'Unfortunately, there was absolutely no reply. I wonder whether he ever even got them. Personally, I think there's somebody in New York who would be happier if Sean didn't really know about his father's family. If that's so, then all right. There's nothing more I can do about it.'

---------

So this brings up a few questions. The BBC didn't have a clue about John Lennon's early life? Or did they purposely broadcast propaganda? I vote for the latter. Why smear John's English family? What kind of influence did Yoko have on the production? Why the gatekeeping, the blocking of communications between John's English family and Sean? Why did the powers that be, Yoko and whomever else, put out derogatory propaganda and to what end? One may suspect that these powerful forces behind the scenes did not want John's English family to start asking pointed questions for fear they would demand answers and figure out that the "John Lennon" in NYC was not original John.


And what on earth has John Lennon got to do with Paul McCartney's alleged 'murder'?

Completely off topic.

I fully expect getsmart to remind YOU of the thread title - ah, but hang on you're a PIDer so different 'rules' apply, don't they?


Yes, this is a conspiracy theory on a conspiracy theory website. If anyone has no stomach for conspiracy theories, the person should cease and desist visiting this thread.


Not every conspiracy has foundation in fact, however. What do you want to see at ATS - everybody agreeing like sheep that every conspiracy theory out there is absolutely true?

Get real man.


The game plan of the PID detractors remains the same --- ridicule PID researchers


And you PIDers don't ridicule and insult PIAers? Getsmart even insulted the MODS about a week ago.


and flood the thread with flashing trash to confuse anyone dropping in for a peek at this topic.


LOL. So a flashing gif 'confuses' people? Er, how exactly? Have you ever watched a film? That's a lot of still pictures stuck together - like a gif.

Do we see people running out of movie theatres in a panic after getting all 'confused' watching a film?


We are very well aware that the PIA side wish to crash this thread.


More lies.


They are using their usual tactics to disrupt serious inquiry.


What serious enquiry? Can you provide a link - I'd like to read it please.


We can expect more PIA trash to flood this thread because that's what they specialize in doing.


The only "trash" that gets threads locked is from PIDers. On the Is Paul Dead Or Alive? thread at Icke, getsmart and someotherguy (amongst other PIDers) constantly trolled the thread callling PIAers "agents" - despite the MODS warnings.

In the end, the MODS had enough of their nonsense and closed the thread:


From the 'what the hell happened to faul?' thread on Icke.

So, next time you falsely accuse PIAers of trying to get threads shut down, remember - your lies are easily exposed.

This is a PUBLIC forum. We are just as entitled to post as you. If you want a forum where PIA posts are not tolerated, why aren't you posting about this at PID MISS HIM?

To constantly cry and whinge that only PIDers post here and that you are being stopped from 'investigating' - while you fail to take advantage of a forum where PIAers are banned - is just plain silly.

You can 'investigate' to your heart's content there - yet you fail to do it.

That's a bit "odd", don't you think? It doesn't seem... you know..... 'quite right'. Doesn't make any sense.

Hmmmmm..... It must be a conspiracy!
edit on 8-12-2010 by Dakudo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Dakudo, hello!
Just because you believe that Paul was not replace doesn't mean it's a fact.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 09:03 PM
link   
More from Julia Baird's book. Relevance: the original Beatles' families were cut out and shut out from the truth by ruthless handlers and controllers.

page 257

"One day, towards the end of January 1986, I was preparing to collect David from school, when Uncle Norman (also John Lennon's uncle) arrived. We had seen him over Christmas and he had seemed fine then. He was clearly upset now. He gave me a letter to read, that he had received that morning. It was from a New York law firm acting for Yoko. It said she wanted to offer Norman the opportunity to buy the house he was living in (bought and given to original John's English family by "John Lennon"), "for a mutually agreed price and at mutually agreeable terms," before it was put on the open market. Yoko was doubtless unaware of the fact that Norman was on a pension and had no money. In the circumstances, the lawyer's offer may as well have been a notice to leave the property. He had been asked for a speedy response.

This was an enormous shock. Now for the first time we really understood that the house did not belong to us, but to Yoko. John had bought it through his company, Apple, which owned it, and the house had gone to Yoko after John's death. It seemed that John had not secured it for us, nor had he let Yoko know that he intended it for us."

Here's more...

"Following the nonsense (BBC) teledrama, I had to do something about the misrepresentation of John's story, my story, and Jackie's story, before I really did have a mental collapse. Our mother had been publicly mauled and no one had defended her. I was incensed at the injustice of it and it slowly dawned on me that I had to speak out. John, the eldest sibling, had gone. I was next in line. The history of my family was being reinvented and sent out across the globe and I had to put it right. I was naive enough to think that I could sort it out. I had no inkling that this distortion of the truth would become mainstream thinking or that Yoko would later insist that I had hardly known John and that he had hardly known his mother."

More...

"In May, 1990, Yoko came to the Pier Head in Liverpool to give her "Come Together" concert. She had sent cousin Michael enough tickets for all of us to attend, which I thought was kind. We saw fifteen-year-old Sean in the flesh for the very first time, singing and running up and down the stage. We would have loved to meet him, talk to him, and tell him about his family in England. We had gathered all our offspring together for the occasion --- the next generation of seven children, who ranged in age from fourteen to twenty. I'd like to have given him the booklet I'd made about his father ("John Lennon") and grandmother (John Lennon's mother). But the tickets we'd been sent had 'No Stage Access' stamped on them.

We left without meeting Yoko or Sean."

-------------------

I would theorize that this is not just a heartless Japanese woman who was rude to the family of her husband. I would theorize that she is and was a CIA asset, a controller, a handler. Events like the one described in Liverpool were staged to look like she cared about Liverpool.

Shakespeare wrote "something is rotten in Denmark" and of course, what he meant was that evil doings were afoot. Here, in Julia Baird's book, we see Yoko exposed. Would any woman mistreat her husbands relatives so? Perhaps if there was legitimate bad blood for a reason. In this case, there was no reason. Unless you consider that Yoko is a fraud, a control agent, and couldn't care less about original John's real family.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by imnessie
Dakudo, hello!
Just because you believe that Paul was not replace doesn't mean it's a fact.


What? Paul is alive. I saw him in person. I see him on TV. I know someone who grew up with Paul and states it's the same old Paul she knew as a kid. We are not the ones making accusations against people.

The people here are making accusations of fraud and murder. The burden of proof is on them.

And there is more to it than just believing he is is alive. We back it up with much research and evidence.

maccafunhouse.proboards.com...

And Dakudo is right. The "scientists" in that pop-culture magazine article never never never never ever stated that they had proved that Paul was replaced. They just said it might be the case based on the photograhps they looked at. Those photographs were taken from a PID website run by a guy who has been shown to stretch, flip and otherwise manipulate photos; they did not use originals. Their work did not appear in a science journal and it was not peer reviewed.
edit on 9-12-2010 by edmond dantes because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by imnessie
Dakudo, hello!
Just because you believe that Paul was not replace doesn't mean it's a fact.


Hello!

It is a fact unless it can be proven otherwise. So far, there has been no proof that Paul was replaced whatsoever.

Go figure.

All we see in this thread is long-winded, wild theories and biased interpretations of events that don't stack up to rational reasoning, aided and abetted by off topic ramblings about such things as Ringo's shoes and some dead dude from centuries ago.

And now we're being 'treated' to off topic, copyright infringing passages from some book about John Lennon.

edit on 9-12-2010 by Dakudo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by switching yard

I would theorize that this is not just a heartless Japanese woman who was rude to the family of her husband. I would theorize that she is and was a CIA asset, a controller, a handler. Events like the one described in Liverpool were staged to look like she cared about Liverpool.

Shakespeare wrote "something is rotten in Denmark" and of course, what he meant was that evil doings were afoot. Here, in Julia Baird's book, we see Yoko exposed. Would any woman mistreat her husbands relatives so? Perhaps if there was legitimate bad blood for a reason. In this case, there was no reason. Unless you consider that Yoko is a fraud, a control agent, and couldn't care less about original John's real family.


So this possibly racist rant accusing John's Japanese wife of being a CIA agent and a fraud is "on topic" dealing with the "murder" of Paul in 1966? At least we are posting about Paul McCartney and the so-called "evidence" of his "murder."



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by switching yard

I would theorize that this is not just a heartless Japanese woman who was rude to the family of her husband. I would theorize that she is and was a CIA asset, a controller, a handler.


Well why don't you actually show us some proof of this, then?

If this is an 'investigation', then you'll need more that 'I think this' statements based on nothing but speculation.

Real investigations rely on demonstrable facts, not wild, unsupported allegations.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmond dantes

Originally posted by switching yard

I would theorize that this is not just a heartless Japanese woman who was rude to the family of her husband. I would theorize that she is and was a CIA asset, a controller, a handler. Events like the one described in Liverpool were staged to look like she cared about Liverpool.

Shakespeare wrote "something is rotten in Denmark" and of course, what he meant was that evil doings were afoot. Here, in Julia Baird's book, we see Yoko exposed. Would any woman mistreat her husbands relatives so? Perhaps if there was legitimate bad blood for a reason. In this case, there was no reason. Unless you consider that Yoko is a fraud, a control agent, and couldn't care less about original John's real family.


So this possibly racist rant accusing John's Japanese wife of being a CIA agent and a fraud is "on topic" dealing with the "murder" of Paul in 1966? At least we are posting about Paul McCartney and the so-called "evidence" of his "murder."


Indeed. But it's OK to go wildly off topic if you are a PIDer, it seems.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   
There were several people that saw the car accident.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Double post.
edit on 9-12-2010 by imnessie because: Double post.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join