PID - Motivations for the Murder of Paul McCartney

Originally posted by someotherguy

LOL, back to photo comps are we?

Of course he's going to look different if you catch him in the middle of forming a word -- everyone does.

If you're going to do photo comps, then at least find some pics with similar expressions, like these:

If you are going to post photo-comps, at least don't post PIA doctored ones.

Here's a nice photo-comp showing the blatant & unmistakeable difference in EYE COLOR between Paul & Faul that the PIA'ers simply refuse to acknowledge:



Don't it make Paul's brown eyes *green*

Why are you posting here, anyway, Seaofgreen? I believe you - as a PIA'er - were disinvited by the OP at the very beginning of the thread.

Interesting story about fan looking for media and/or other people who were present at Beatles "junior press conference for kids" at Warwick Hotel NYC seven days before Candlestick... (see story: Beatles Fan Searching For 1966 Interview Footage)...

www.beatlesnews.com...

This is a week before, as my theory goes, a Beatles replacements cover band played Candlestick Park. So here is my question: were these the real Beatles at the Warwick or the replacements?

The reason I'm curious about this is that the thing it has in common with the Candlestick Park event is a lack of film and photos, plus the "strange" thing about not being able to locate others who were there, although I don't know how anyone could go about finding other people who were there.

What I'm getting at is that I think some of these events were very staged and helped smooth over the transition from the real ones to the fake ones. Was there some kind of film and photo blackout of some of these staged events? You could have operatives pretending to be "the press" and their film/photos turned over to the agency or you could have agents snapping away with flash bulbs but no film in the camera. I know it sounds weird, but it is possible to stage a 'press' event that is nothing but a gathering of intelligence operatives pretending to be the press.

That L.A. interview is amazing... Faul trying to cover his face with his hand almost the whole time and the banter about whether all the reporters are legit or just observers or just "would-be reporters". Hmmmm.

Originally posted by someotherguy
Why are you posting here, anyway, Seaofgreen? I believe you - as a PIA'er - were disinvited by the OP at the very beginning of the thread.

As OP this is something which I can definitely confirm. This thread is NOT for disclaiming the assassination and replacement of James Paul McCartney. It is for the investigation into his murder and complicit replacement.


I shall add something which you may all know but of which I was not aware. That the original bass player of The Beatles before Paul, Stuart Sutcliffe who quit the group in 1961 after falling in love in Hamburg, is alleged to have died at age 21 of an improbable brain hemorrhage the day before the band returned to Hamburg on April 11, 1962.


The more you look, the more dead Beatles keep popping up. Today we know a lot more about CIA assassinations and replacements, and also that MI-5 and other similar agencies do likewise. That the original ones were eliminated at different times appears to be factual, and it is therefore logical that a number of their replacements have been disposed of likewise.


The actor replacing Paul is a sufficiently poor match to create a heaving reaction once one learns to trust one's eyes, ears and gut. His case is a flagrant test of just how poorly they can perform and still get away with it. Apparently, between disinfo shills and those in denial, it is not such a difficult task.


GS

Originally posted by Getsmart



I shall add something which you may all know but of which I was not aware. That the original bass player of The Beatles before Paul, Stuart Sutcliffe who quit the group in 1961 after falling in love in Hamburg, is alleged to have died at age 21 of an improbable brain hemorrhage the day before the band returned to Hamburg on April 11, 1962.

Hiya, this lurker is still here and enjoying this thread. There seems to be some interesting work being done. Keep it up!

Regarding the above quote, I'm curious as to why you say" improbable" regarding his brain haemorrhage.
I went to school with a girl who died of a brain haemorrhage at age 16, with no apparent warning.


There appears to be so much obfuscation surrounding Paul/Faul that getting to the bottom is going to be difficult, but rising up to the surface even more so, it would seem.
Good luck!

The story about Stu Sutcliffe in one of the Beatles books was that they got in a fight & he got kicked in the head by someone who was wearing a steel-toed boot. The author speculated that that might have caused the aneurism or whatever it was that killed him about a year later, as I remember it...

[edit on 7-4-2010 by someotherguy]

Parallel to the one black carnation clue...

In the film LET IT BE, Lennon is seen playing his Epiphone Casino guitar, which has four knobs for volume and tone connected to the two pickups.

One of the knobs is black while the other knobs are the original gold tone knobs that came with the guitar.

When asked why the one black knob in an interview (sorry, I don't have the exact quote) Lennon said that one knob broke (highly unlikely, ask any guitar player) and the local guitar shop at the time only had black ones, so he stuck a black one on and just never got around to replacing it with the correct gold tone knob.

Doesn't this excuse remind you of Sir saying that the reason he had on a black carnation is because that's the only color they had left when it came to pinning one on him.

These excuses are laughable. This is the most famous and presumably most powerful act in show business at that time. They want us to believe no other carnation was available for the slickest, obviously art directed scene in MMT? They want us to believe Lennon could not get another knob to match his other volume/tone knobs on what was at that time the most famous electric guitar in the world? I don't think these incidents were accidents, as the Beatles and their cadre have characterized them.

Something's up with the symbolism of 4 items, one of them out of the 4 is black.

IMHO, these examples are of some kind of symbolism that means something to those in the know, possibly a secret society and are clues to something sinister. Just my opinion.

New -

paul is dead - the rotten apple 79



paul is dead - the rotten apple 80



Edit: The story about the carnation is BS, IMO. Pretty much everything in the "official" story is to be questioned, as far as I'm concerned.

[edit on 10-4-2010 by someotherguy]

All one has to do is think about this question...

Does anybody anywhere for any reason request a carnation dyed black? It has to be "died" to get it to be black.

The fact that a black carnation was available means that it was especially prepared that way for the film shoot. Go to any florist and ask for a black carnation. They will have an impossible time finding one and will say it has to be especially dyed that way and will take time and preparation before it is ready to use.

Just common sense observation.

The carnation scene in Magical Mystery Tour...

The black one is dyed.

Dye = Die

His is dyed = He Dies

He Dies on drumhead on Sgt Pepper cover seen with mirror.

His is Dyed/Died.

The black tone control knob on Lennon's Epiphone Casino guitar when the other three remained original gold. Lennon had sanded the finish off of this guitar down to the bare wood, which you can plainly see in LET IT BE. The REPLACED knob is in place of a knob that was broken in a naked setting.

Secret society symbolism? This is getting eerie.

I don't know if this little piece of information is of any use, but the Vatican has just 'forgiven' the Beatles:

www.dailymail.co.uk...

In a front-page article, it said: 'It's true they took drugs, lived life to excess because of their success, even said they were bigger than Jesus and put out mysterious messages, that were possibly even Satanic.

[edit on 11-4-2010 by berenike]

Good find, berenike!

The following article makes mention of the Beatles' utopia.

www.worldmag.com...

This is what I've been saying... the controlling powers (whomever they were and we have a pretty good guess: Tavistock and their lot) wanted to push the idea of a world utopia.

This is what H.G. Wells, Aldous and Julian Huxley, and other suspected members of secret societies were mad about... whether utopia could be created on this planet. In Brave New World, Huxley made the point that a submissive and pliable populace could be maintained chemically with drugs.

Interestingly (to me, anyway) Sir Francis Bacon was extremely interested in this same subject of utopia. He wrote a book about it which was truncated by the middle and end of it gone missing (not accidentally missing in my view, but stolen and suppressed). Why is Bacon important when examining the mystery of The/the Beatles? Because Bacon used a cipher to camouflage the true story of what really happened to him. The world was not supposed to decipher the Bacon code until long after his death, which was exactly what came to pass. The Beatles (because of obvious clues) must have created a cipher, as well, and also intended to go undiscovered for perhaps centuries. I think now is the time to decipher the enigma, what they or someone put in their works.

The most world renown works in the entire history of England are the following... the "Shakespeare" works written by Bacon, the King James Version of the Holy Bible partially written and edited by Bacon, and the works of The Beatles. What do Bacon and The Beatles have in common? Treacherous, sinister deeds done against them and the resulting ciphers. That's the connection I'm making, but you can toss right into that the concept of Utopia.

[edit on 11-4-2010 by switching yard]

[edit on 11-4-2010 by switching yard]

[edit on 11-4-2010 by switching yard]

This is what I've been saying... the controlling powers (whomever they were and we have a pretty good guess: Tavistock and their lot) wanted to push the idea of a world utopia.

This is what H.G. Wells, Aldous and Julian Huxley, and other suspected members of secret societies were mad about... whether utopia could be created on this planet. In Brave New World, Huxley made the point that a submissive and pliable populace could be maintained chemically with drugs.

That totally resonates w/ my theory that TPTB wanted to use the Beatles to push a drug agenda.

Agents for change: Beatles, '___', & social-engineering

The article says:

...Thus ended the most influential rock band of all time, and with it their utopia.
As early as 1966, the Fab Four began serving up an "all-you-need-is-love" utopia...
The utopia accelerated with the success of the 1967 album Sergeant Pepper and the summer of "love" that followed in its spell. Fueled by drugs, seemingly endless injections of cash, and a gauzy belief in the inherent goodness of man, the Beatles became as cartoonish as their garish counterparts in the movie Yellow Submarine...

No one was saved
It was 40 years ago today that the Beatles' 'utopia' officially fell apart | Matt Ristuccia
www.worldmag.com...

Wow. That's a lot of "utopias" in such a short segment.

Please tell us more about this Bacon - utopia - Beatles connection!


[edit on 12-4-2010 by someotherguy]

Today, we find out that psychiatrists are experimenting with psychedelics again...

www.msnbc.msn.com...

Here's the whole point of this resurgence in interest in psychedelics... the Huxley brothers put forward the idea that the entire population of Earth could be put on a regimen of psychoactive chemicals that would make everyone feel happy regardless of their actual hardships.

O.K., so you can have poor class, lower middle class, workers toiling away (wage slaves) and all you have to do is provide a daily dose of certain chemicals and the workers will be so happy with their condition that they will literally whistle while they work. So, the key to utopia for people who should be in a mental/emotional/physical agony is simply drug them. This is why TPTB flooded the western world with '___' and marijuana and advertised these drugs by way of testimonials from the Beatles.

Subservient workers, happy with their miserable condition, drugged and controlled. I believe the Nazis were keen on this idea, as well. I believe they used strong amphetamines for their front line SS fighters. There are accounts from G.I.s in WWII of SS tank commanders literally frothing at the mouth, vacant stares, and shooting/killing indiscriminately in a a weird, "happy' rage as on drugs. I believe it was proven that some of these SS guys were going four or five days straight with no sleep, acting like robotic killing machines and seemingly 'happy' about it all. If captured, these SS guys had to come down off whatever drug was supplied to them.

Sorry, I digressed a bit. I think TPTB manufactured and distributed vast amounts of '___' and wanted to see what affect it would have on the youths of the UK and USA. As soon as it was publicized that the Beatles endorsed '___', hey just by 'coincidence' (I think not) '___' was widely available to high school and college kids. I know this for a fact because I lived through it. It wasn't like 'Paul' said he tried '___' and found it beneficial and then no one else had access, no, in fact everyone had easy access.

The idea of drugs making people feel happy and content enough to slave away is still with us in the form of anti-depressants. The SSRIs are a pretty wicked class of drugs when you consider that side effects include suicide and mass murder.

They are still tinkering with developing drugs to pacify people. Their vision of utopia is kind of like everyone is on Ecstasy all the time, they love each other, love the fact that they are living in wage slave conditions, love the government, love the police, love, love, love (which is "All You Need").

Fascinating about the utopia/drugs. I want to write a blog post on it.

BTW, there have been some interesting developments at the David MI-cke forum. If someone thinks there is nothing to PID, then they should ask why people are being threatened & harassed, & why someone is trying to hijack my account there. We are getting to some people.

PIA Disinfo Agent Extraordinaire: Light_man/Dakudo

It's getting a little difficult for me to discern what all is being revealed in the Rotten Apple series. Anyone have any comments or a breakdown of the main revelations in Rotten Apple 79 & 80? They're so dense with information, I almost need someone to break it down for me.

For example, what is that shape they zoom into above the street on the Abbey Road cover. Is there a person watching from above? I don't get what is being shown there.

The Rotten Apple series... just the very existence of it tells me that someone is trying to get word out. These videos are well produced, like someone is really putting a lot of effort into them. I need a sort of recap of what the series is saying.

I get that "Bill" is Faul and there's ample evidence presented of a coverup. I know I'm missing some key points because some of it just flashes past me.

I feel like watching the whole Rotten Apple series all over again to see what I may have missed.

[edit on 12-4-2010 by switching yard]

I think it was Paul's face in the tree on Abbey Road. That may have been a planted clue - or maybe the tree just looked like Paul. I am pretty convinced IAAP is an insider b/c of how well they're produced, but mainly b/c of the access he has to all those documents. You almost have to watch the videos constantly hitting the pause button. I did that, but some things flashed too quickly to capture. I did catch one that was supposedly from John to George Martin & someone else about how he had written "Please Please Me" alone - remember?

[edit on 12-4-2010 by someotherguy]

What did Jimmy McCulloch know?

He was in the band Wings until he and Joe English quit Wings for reasons unknown. Then a couple of years later, Jimmy McCulloch was found dead from "a heroin overdose".

This from Wiki...

"McCulloch died from a heroin overdose in 1979 in his flat in Maida Vale, West London. He was 26. Previously, he had composed the anti-drug song, "Medicine Jar", on the Wings album Venus and Mars, and the similar "Wino Junko", on Wings at the Speed of Sound."

Well, I for one, do not buy the official line that he and others (in the know) overdosed. You know, TPTB want us to think Marilyn O.D.'d but I think she was murdered. Same with a lot of the rock icon "drug" deaths, including Brian Epstein. Very convenient, when they want to bump off someone who knows too much! Oh sorry, he O.D.'d.
I don't buy it.

I think McCulloch and Joe English quit Wings for a reason that hasn't been made public. I think Jimmy McCulloch knew something, perhaps had some kind of evidence of something, or perhaps was blabbing to friends and family the truth about a closely guarded secret. The other factor or possibility is revenge. If a "star" has a big enough ego, he might say "nobody walks out on me, nobody", but I suspect it was the sad fact that McCulloch simply knew too much and was silenced forever... precisely what Heather Mills was concerned about, so she went on TV and made it more difficult to be knocked off by saying she feared for her safety because "certain parties" could kill. Everyone knew "certain parties" consist of Sir and his minions. I think Heather is a pretty sharp cookie who knows the score.

CONFUSION ABOUT THE NOTE!

I paused during Rotten Apple 79 on the letter from John to George Martin. At first glance, I thought John meant that he wrote the song "Please, Please Me". I don't think that's shocking, I mean it's entirely possible Lennon wrote that song and they just stuck Paul's name on it because they had set up the songwriting partnership. If that is true, that Lennon wrote the song "Please, Please Me" in its entirety, why would he feel so strongly about reminding George Martin of that? Did George Martin say in an interview or book that Paul wrote half of "Please, Please Me" and that annoyed John who wrote Martin to correct him?

Then it hit me.

Maybe John's not talking about just the song. Maybe he's referring to the whole album! Obviously, Lennon didn't write the songs on the album that The Beatles did cover versions of ("A Taste Of Honey", for example) and granted he didn't mean that. So what is he saying to George Martin?

One of the conclusions I can reach is that Lennon is saying he wrote all the songs that were not cover versions of Bachrach, Carole King and so forth. So, what does that mean? Buckle your seatbelts, because I think Lennon may be saying he wrote "I Saw Her Standing There", "Misery", "Ask Me Why", "Please, Please Me", "Love Me Do", "P.S. I Love You", "Do You Want To Know A Secret", and "There's A Place". All the songs that weren't covers.

If Lennon wrote the album "alone", it means that the songs popularly attributed to Paul (like "I Saw Her Standing There" which Sir performs as his own) were not written by Paul, but by John and this fact was covered up.

The giveaway is that John says the recording sequence was just as he had intended. He must mean the sequence of songs on the album.

Is Lennon saying he wrote the whole album... alone? Very perplexing.

If that is really the case, was Original Paul a songwriter at all? Just keeping an open mind here.

I'm not saying (yet) that I believe Original Paul didn't write any songs, but that note from Lennon to George Martin opens up a big can of worms. If Lennon is saying he wrote the album Please, Please Me alone then we have no choice but to question the authorship of Paul on all the other Beatles albums.

According to our conspiracy theory we have going on, Original Paul did not write any new songs after 1966. What if it turns out he never wrote any at all?

Imagine Lennon gets in a fight with Stu and accidentally kills him with Paul as a witness. Lennon makes a deal with Paul that they will share songwriting credits equally, which will mean that Paul gets more money than he would have as merely a bass player and singer. What if Pete Best witnessed this deal being made but Pete didn't necessarily witness the manslaughter of Stu. Let's say (just imagining) Pete wanted a piece of the hush money action, as well. They sacked Pete but did manage to pay him off eventually to keep him quiet.

I do know that quite a few ardent PID theorists believe that Original Paul was a genius songwriter. This is part of the magic of The Beatles, right? Genius songwriter meets another genius songwriter sort of by coincidence and they team up. That's the big legend. Then lo and behold, Harrison turns out to be another genius songwriter ("Here Comes The Sun" and "Something").

Could it be that there was only one genius songwriter... Lennon... and the others were just fine singers and musicians? I know I'll catch a lot of flak for suggesting that!

Also, why did Lennon put the word "Remember" in quotation marks? There seems to be some kind of clue in the fact that he used quotation marks. Hmmmm.

I'm thinking he put the word "Remember" in quotation marks because he is referring to his song entitled "Remember" on the Janov primal scream album Plastic Ono Band.





[edit on 13-4-2010 by switching yard]

"I do know that quite a few ardent PID theorists believe that Original Paul was a genius songwriter."

I am one of those! I think Paul was the musical genius & John was the wordsmith - that was why they split credit on the songs b/c one did the music, the other wrote the lyrics. I think George was a talented song-writer in his own write (ha ha). But I also think all the original Beatles were switched out by Sgt. Pepper, which ushered in the new group. I think they used the songs the original Beatles had written, sung, or laid down tracks for. JMO, but I know what I like, & I love the pre-Sgt. Pepper songs a lot. Something definitely changed after Revolver.

[edit on 14-4-2010 by someotherguy]