We who investigate the Paul-Is-Dead phenomena frequently wonder if all of the Sgt. Pepper album's intentional clues have been found (there are many) or if there are more clues when one looks even deeper than before. I (and I can only speak for myself) also wonder if profound coincidences or somehow mystical synchronicities are a factor, as well.
Case in point. First, view this video of Faul telling us that one celebrity was left off of the Sgt. Pepper cover art, so first watch this...
O.K., so the guy who got left out and did not appear on the Sgt. Pepper cover was Leo Gorcey of The Bowery Boys movies. On screen, he was considered to be the leader of the gang. Originally, the Bowery Boys were a real gang of rough, tough, fighting firemen, about which the 2002 Scorsese movie Gangs of New York was made. The leader of the real, original gang was "Bill the Butcher." Those of us who study PID clues may raise an eyebrow considering the weird, recalled by the Capitol label in June 1966, 'Butcher Cover,' which was originally intended for the album Yesterday and Today. Bill the Butcher was shot dead, in a similar scenario as Rocky Raccoon, and his last words were, "Goodbye boys."
In 1945, Leo Gorcey, the star of a Hollywood movie series called Dead End Kids, demanded that the producer double his salary, which was refused. Gorcey quit the series and started a new one called, The Bowery Boys. One of the gang was played by Billy Benedict. In 1952, the Bowery Boys series movie release was Hold That Line in which Billy is replaced by Gil Stratton, who plays the role of 'Junior' (reminds me of the Faul song Junior's Farm). We've all heard the chant 'hold that line, block that kick' on The Beatles (the white album) in John Lennon's experimental Revolution 9.
It would be interesting, if one could find a copy of the Bowery Boys movie, Hold That Line, to see if its soundtrack contains the exact same chant, 'hold that line, block that kick' and if it could have been the actual source used as the sound sample mixed into Revolution 9.
Wikipedia has this plot summary for the Bowery Boys movie, Hold That Line...
The role of Sach is played by the actor Huntz Hall, who, in the 1930's, appeared in both the Broadway play and then the film version of Dead End. In 1943, he appeared in the film, Don't Kill Your Friends. He was arrested for marijuana possession in 1948. After Leo Gorcey and Huntz Hall split up when Gorcey left the Bowery Boys in 1956, they reunited in 1966 in the movie, Second Fiddle to a Steel Guitar.
About the production of Hold That Line, Wiki has this note...
Gil Stratton also had a part in The Wild One, in which the Lee Marvin character taunts the Marlon Brando character with the line, "the Beatles missed you."
A photo of Leo Gorcey was included in Peter Blake's original design for the Sgt. Pepper album cover, but was removed when Gorcey's agent demanded a fee for its use. Blake replaced it with a photo of Huntz Hall, who ended up representing the Bowery Boys on the Sgt. Pepper cover.
Hall replaced Gorcey.
One wonders what the significance of all this is, if any, but a question does come to my mind --- could the original Paul have demanded more money, like double what he was getting in 1966, and did he threaten to quit The Beatles unless he received that much more money, and could it be that he was subsequently shot dead and replaced? Faul plays the role of Paul at the going rate, but later laments 'You never give me your money, you only give me your funny paper.'
Gorcey demanded double his money, which was denied him, thus ending Dead End Kids and he went on to demand money from the Beatles, but that time, he was replaced. The amount he wanted, some say $5,000 and others say it was only $400 was a small sum indeed for the wealth of EMI, so I doubt Faul's explanation, 'he wanted money, so screw him.' I think it was something symbolic. Gorcey demanded money, so he was out and Huntz Hall replaced him. The demand for money resulted in a replacement. Was that the symbolism intended?
How deep does the rabbit hole go and is it made of intentional clues, strange coincidences, mystical synchronicities, or all three? How many odd connections remain undiscovered?
Case in point. First, view this video of Faul telling us that one celebrity was left off of the Sgt. Pepper cover art, so first watch this...
O.K., so the guy who got left out and did not appear on the Sgt. Pepper cover was Leo Gorcey of The Bowery Boys movies. On screen, he was considered to be the leader of the gang. Originally, the Bowery Boys were a real gang of rough, tough, fighting firemen, about which the 2002 Scorsese movie Gangs of New York was made. The leader of the real, original gang was "Bill the Butcher." Those of us who study PID clues may raise an eyebrow considering the weird, recalled by the Capitol label in June 1966, 'Butcher Cover,' which was originally intended for the album Yesterday and Today. Bill the Butcher was shot dead, in a similar scenario as Rocky Raccoon, and his last words were, "Goodbye boys."
In 1945, Leo Gorcey, the star of a Hollywood movie series called Dead End Kids, demanded that the producer double his salary, which was refused. Gorcey quit the series and started a new one called, The Bowery Boys. One of the gang was played by Billy Benedict. In 1952, the Bowery Boys series movie release was Hold That Line in which Billy is replaced by Gil Stratton, who plays the role of 'Junior' (reminds me of the Faul song Junior's Farm). We've all heard the chant 'hold that line, block that kick' on The Beatles (the white album) in John Lennon's experimental Revolution 9.
It would be interesting, if one could find a copy of the Bowery Boys movie, Hold That Line, to see if its soundtrack contains the exact same chant, 'hold that line, block that kick' and if it could have been the actual source used as the sound sample mixed into Revolution 9.
Wikipedia has this plot summary for the Bowery Boys movie, Hold That Line...
The members of the local university's trust make a wager that anyone can succeed in college if just given the chance. They enlist the boys to attend the university to prove the theory. While the boys do not become academic scholars, Sach invents a "vitamin" drink that makes him invincible. They all join the football team and Sach becomes the star player, leading them to the big championship game. A local gambler sees an opportunity to make some money and he kidnaps Sach to prevent him from playing. Slip and the rest of the gang rescue Sach and return him to the game. Sach is out of "vitamins", so Slip plans a ruse on the playing field that distracts the other team and allows him to score the winning touchdown. Afterward, Sach cannot reproduce his "vitamin" formula, but he produces a new concoction that allows him to fly.
The role of Sach is played by the actor Huntz Hall, who, in the 1930's, appeared in both the Broadway play and then the film version of Dead End. In 1943, he appeared in the film, Don't Kill Your Friends. He was arrested for marijuana possession in 1948. After Leo Gorcey and Huntz Hall split up when Gorcey left the Bowery Boys in 1956, they reunited in 1966 in the movie, Second Fiddle to a Steel Guitar.
About the production of Hold That Line, Wiki has this note...
This is the first appearance of Gil Stratton, Jr. as a member of the gang, replacing William Benedict. Stratton was unhappy as a Bowery Boy, and he tried to keep himself as inconspicuous in the films as possible; he often gave his dialogue to Leo Gorcey or Huntz Hall.
Gil Stratton also had a part in The Wild One, in which the Lee Marvin character taunts the Marlon Brando character with the line, "the Beatles missed you."
A photo of Leo Gorcey was included in Peter Blake's original design for the Sgt. Pepper album cover, but was removed when Gorcey's agent demanded a fee for its use. Blake replaced it with a photo of Huntz Hall, who ended up representing the Bowery Boys on the Sgt. Pepper cover.
Hall replaced Gorcey.
One wonders what the significance of all this is, if any, but a question does come to my mind --- could the original Paul have demanded more money, like double what he was getting in 1966, and did he threaten to quit The Beatles unless he received that much more money, and could it be that he was subsequently shot dead and replaced? Faul plays the role of Paul at the going rate, but later laments 'You never give me your money, you only give me your funny paper.'
Gorcey demanded double his money, which was denied him, thus ending Dead End Kids and he went on to demand money from the Beatles, but that time, he was replaced. The amount he wanted, some say $5,000 and others say it was only $400 was a small sum indeed for the wealth of EMI, so I doubt Faul's explanation, 'he wanted money, so screw him.' I think it was something symbolic. Gorcey demanded money, so he was out and Huntz Hall replaced him. The demand for money resulted in a replacement. Was that the symbolism intended?
How deep does the rabbit hole go and is it made of intentional clues, strange coincidences, mystical synchronicities, or all three? How many odd connections remain undiscovered?
---###---
Is it even true that Gorcey wanted money for his photo to be on the Sgt. Pepper cover? Faul (and Apple) have a way of making up stories. It's possible that Gorcey was like everyone else and didn't demand a fee, but the reason he was 'replaced' by Blake was to make replacement symbology that resulted in the myth about Gorcey wanting money, or perhaps they never even contacted Gorcey and Hall was the choice for the cover all along, then Faul lies about it in order to get across the 'replacement meme' into the public consciousness. He wanted money, so screw him, we replaced him. Is it that meme they wanted in the myth and legend as a reference to the real Paul demanding double his money and getting replaced? One can never trust the memories and recollections of Faul because most of it is B.S. and he tells these stories for occult purposes.
ReplyDeleteI honestly can't believe that Paul asked for more money, so that's why he was murdered. Because, Paul was not simply replaced--he was plotted against for a long time prior to his 'execution'. To me, from what I've learned of the N.W.O. people, the so-called 'elite', they are occultists/Satanists, who believe they are superior to mere human beings. They believe they possess the blood of Christ in their very veins, which they believe entitles them to literally 'rule the world'. They also hate 'mere mortals', like us, and like Paul, John, George and Ringo. We don't posses the blood of Jesus Christ in our veins, so we don't count for anything in their eyes. Or 'eye'. Since, it's satan's 'eye' that they refer to every time they turn around: The "eye in the sky", the "all seeing eye", etc.
ReplyDeleteThey are following a well-laid-out plan by the one whom they worship. People who spot the spiritual connection in all of this are spot on. Because, due to the complexity of what's taking place, no 'mere mortal' could ever keep track of it all, and pull it all off. They have to have the help they receive from their fallen spiritual counterparts. Without that help, they could never succeed in even conceiving of such intricate plans, including plans to replace any and all human beings that get in their way. I believe Paul stood in their way, and that's why they plotted against him.
That's why exposing the 'whom' behind what happened to Paul is not as vital right now, as exposing the 'what' that happened to him, and also the 'why' of it all. Those 'elites' use surrogates to carry out their dirty deeds, thus leaving their own hands to appear 'lily white', clean and untarnished, to the rest of the world. Inside, they are filthy, ravening wolves.
We might disagree on some small-to-large points, as to where Paul was betrayed, then killed, and as to exactly when it took place. But, on all the rest of it we are in sync completely. I believe, too, that the Lord was behind the apparent prophetic words found on the reversal of "Yellow Submarine", as originally recorded by Paul, John, George and Ringo, that contains what sounds just like what was occurring at the murder scene, when they killed Paul. I believe, even though no one even realized what was on the reversal of that song, the very fact that it was there, it helped to prepare Paul spiritually, for what was going to happen to him. When he dreamed the tune to "Yesterday", then eventually wrote it's words, you could see in his face and eyes, that he picked up on the warning being given to him from God, not from the evil ones involved. By the time they recorded the song, "We Can Work It Out", you can see in Paul's face the calmness, sweetness and gentleness that had come from him working it all out within himself, as he prepared himself to face it all. I think he must have finally realized that there was no getting around what was coming at him like a runaway New Jersey transit train, so the Lord helped him prepare spiritually.
God bless you, and never be discouraged. God willing, we'll work it out by the time all is said and done. It's not those who fear God that need to be concerned, it's those who believe, arrogantly, that they're the next-best thing to God, who do. :)
Paul wasn't materialistic to begin with, and he at least once says that they were making a ridiculous amount of money (paraphrasing); he even, in his '64 interview, said he'd be happy to retire in a couple of years. Unlike, obviously, Faul, out of whose cold dead hands someone will one day have to pry that guitar.
ReplyDeleteYou're so right. It was in the interview Paul did with David Frost in 1964 during which he told Frost that he thought 2 more years of touring would 'be about right', and after that he said he thought he'd like to retire, which elicited a laugh from Frost, who obviously thought having Paul retire at 24 yrs. old was pretty funny to think about. Paul told him he thought he'd like to "write songs for other people", and he said he thought that would be wonderful, and a completely different experience from the way he was writing the songs at that point, for the Beatles, with John, George and Ringo.
DeleteI am now believing that 'f'aul probably won't be allowed to retire until he's finished his usefulness to those behind all of the "skull duggery", since it really does appear that they are using him for all they can get out of him, monetarily. Talk about a 'cash cow'--that's 'f'aul trading on Paul's reputation, name, and talent, only 'f'aul doesn't have that level of talent of his own, which is sorrowfully reflected in the work he's turned out over the decades. What tipped me off to the fact that Frost was aware of what was taking place can be found in his other interview with "Sir Paul", while 'f'aul's first wife was still alive. Anyone with an ounce of sense would have realized he was interviewing a fraud posing as Paul. Yet Frost never bats an eyelash over it, and treats 'f'aul as though he really is Paul!
So, that's what I check for now--those who claim to have known Paul and especially those who claim to have been close to him before 1966, yet who never seem to notice that Paul is now not whom they are dealing with, as though nothing has changed but his age. It's pathetic! I read an account from a woman who claimed to have had an affair with Paul while they were both still teenagers, and that she said she had a miscarriage before they had a chance to get married. She claimed they broke up not long after the Beatles became so popular, and that she had been a friend of Cynthia Lennon's. That's all well and good, right up to where she claims she went to see 'Paul' in Canada where he was doing a show, and she decided their past romance really was ancient history once she'd spoken with him. Unfortunately, she spoke with 'f'aul, so it's no wonder she realized the light had gone out on that torch she'd carried for Paul--yet, she never said a word in the article about the fact that it hadn't been Paul to whom she'd spoken that evening!
It was the same way with Frost. How in the world could both of them speak with 'f'aul and never once recognize that they were being scammed by an imposter?! It's totally ridiculous! That ugly plot put into motion by those in the N.W.O., to exchange the real for the fake, where celebrities are concerned, might have elements of it that can be found in old movies, no question about that in my mind, but it no longer boggles my mind, after I realized how that can be--it's the dark spirit connection between them and the fallen ones that's behind the 'who,when,what & why'. Anyway, what they are being fed by those same fallen spirits is not only the way to implement the scheme set forth by those dead[ly] dark spirits, it's the wholesale lies concerning their own futures--because, they haven't any future with those creatures, and those same dark spirits will see to it that, once their usefulness to them is finished, they will be, too. Going to God and repenting is their only hope, and they only have until they breathe their last to make it happen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4tItQYu1Hs
ReplyDeleteThank you for posting this! Listen to how Real JPM sounds -- and then listen to "Faul." NO similarity. Faul, to me, sounds Scottish, and not Liverpudlian or Merseyside at all. Anyone else? In the last Plastic Macca post, Tina has a video where "Faul" talks about the making of the Sgt. Pepper album cover and it sounds nothing like the REAL JPM in this youtube link. Thank you to Anonymous for this post, and always, Thank you to Tina for your work. God Bless, and keep going.
DeleteThat's our Paul! And he's adorable. But I sometimes wonder what it was about the Beatles that made them such a phenomenon. There were tons of "Mersey Beat" bands at the time. Granted, they slogged away at it longer than most and were thus more polished, but why did the world go absolutely crazy over them? Their success was almost supernatural. Any thoughts?
DeleteThe best era for music why did they have to wreck it.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geFglXSMZMc
"could the original Paul have demanded more money, like double what he was getting in 1966, and did he threaten to quit The Beatles unless he received that much more money, and could it be that he was subsequently shot dead and replaced?"
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't be a bit surprised. Almost everything in our world seems to be about money and power. Paul being the de facto leader and most talented of the band would definitely be in a position to demand more money. Maybe he was trying to gain more control and ownership over his music as well. Like Prince did before he "died".
So, you believe he was murdered over money? They began to plan out his murder a long time before he began asking for a raise? They had to plan it since they needed a permanent 'stand-in', that could help them cover the fact that they'd killed him due to him wanting that raise in pay, so they were so clairvoyant they knew he would ask for more money years in advance. Is that the way you see things as having happened?
DeleteThey had a stand in for Paul. He and Faul were being flipped in and out of performances since around 64. The ED Sullivan performance in Miami was Faul not Paul. Yet Paul reappears after that. This has already been noted on this site (by me), check the videos for yourself. Ousting Paul if he wanted rights to all the music or more control is in the realm of possibilities. I have no evidence he was murdered but I do have evidence Paul and Faul were being switched in and out of performances and I have evidence Paul vanished for good from the Band after The US West Coast performance.
DeleteThe Beatles exit the plane at San Francisco Airport on August 29, 1966 for their last US tour concert. See if you can spot the imposter. Hint he's the only one in the band without sunglasses :}
Deletehttps://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/01/d0/1d/01d01d8b1cee98dc33544b64913e59c3.jpg
I have a hard time believing they were switched in and out up to two years before. Why would Paul go along with this? I think those of us who are trying to help others see the light have to take care not to make these theories too "out there"; we just come off as nuts when we talk about an army of fake Pauls during the touring years or the whole band being killed and replaced...
DeleteI agree with annon. I believe they have switched Pauls all along. I don't think its too far out there.
DeleteEveryone knows British Intelligence loved twins/doubles. Just like we all know the Beatles under the control of intelligence.
As a matter of fact I think the original Paul has popped up after 1966. Particularly in the Let It Be and Don't Let Me Down videos.
I haven't come across any explanation of what the Beatles may have been signaling on the cover of "Help!"--whether or not the semaphore signals given may have meant anything, or were merely random configurations only, meant for effect and nothing more. So, I decided to try and see if they really may have been giving a signal of some sort, and I first checked to find out which alphabet letters they all represented:
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_semaphore
As I see things:
George is signaling either an "N" or, if his arms were only a bit tired which is why they seemed to dip down a bit, it could represent the letter "R", instead.
Ringo's signal is the very last one, and it's meaning is "Annul; Cancel; Disregard last message"
John's signal signifies a "U"
Paul's signifies the letter "J"
Those letters didn't appear to form any sort of word I could find that might point to some hidden meaning, so I took it all to the International Code meanings behind the various flags:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Code_of_Signals
However, since the International Code shows only specific flags, the only way I could find to make use of it was to take each semaphore flag letter shown by the Beatles and see if the International Code could show any meaning at all to the way the Beatles were signaling. Here's what I came up with:
George's configuration, if it's an "N", would stand for "Negative"--also, "N" stands for "November"[A=Alpha; B=Bravo etc.]
If George is signaling an "R", the letter stands for "Romeo".
Ringo's semaphore signal which means "Cancel; etc." has no International Code equivalent.
John's signal is a "U", which means "Uniform" as well as "You are running into danger"
Paul's signal is a "J", and the International Code says it means, "I am on fire and have dangerous cargo onboard; Stay clear of me!"
That's the way they were standing on this particular version of the "Help!" movie poster only:
http://nortonsafe.search.ask.com/search?q=Beatles+Help%21+movie+poster&chn=1000&doi=2016-09-01&geo=US&guid=B584C631-52AA-4B5E-A545-0B30C228D62A&locale=en_US&o=APN11912&prt=NS&ver=22&ctype=pictures&tpr=2&ts=1475478151598
Placed altogether, in sequence found on that movie poster, it might mean something like this:
{George}Romeo, {Ringo}Cancel!, {John}You are running into danger!; {Paul}"I am on fire!....Keep well clear of me!"
I don't know about anyone else, but just thinking that they may have meant it all to signal something even close to that makes me want to cry, especially since no one even noticed, or thought there was anything serious going on in their lives.
:(
Off topic - are these the same person. Note the ears and chin. 8 years of aging takes it's toll but to change the ears and chin, I don't know.
ReplyDeletehttps://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ct0IPlEUsAA2K9e.jpg
Paperback Writer - Recorded Aug 29,1966 during the Beatles last concert at Candlestick Park in San Francisco with Faul as the lead.
ReplyDeleteFaul destroys this song, note the absense of a strong bass guitar as well. After this concert the Beatles announced they were done touring.
Also most of the Beatles live concert vids that appeared on youtube last year and prevuisly have been pulled. The PTB know people have been taking a hard look at PID, they don't like snoops.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBUbLf-IjgM
nailed it.
DeleteThe proof is in the pudding so the record is being scrubbed. tragedy upon tragedy. Its all so very 1984 and Brave New World.
The newest season of Portlandia is even dropping themes/suggestions that the "story" is whatever/however the programmers "write" it. So what if we have no accurate record of our personal histories!
The millennials are taking the soma and strolling into the trance willingly and blindly. Just go along to get along! WTF is wrong with you?! Rebellion is so 1968, dude!
We'll soon see just how dangerous and unfashionable rebels are with the new Star Wars out in Dec.
What is PTB? I've never believed that Faul made a public appearance before late '66, but am willing to take a second look at it.
DeletePTB = powers that be.
DeleteIt's not about 'second look' since there is no footage of Candlestick. Its about discerning the voice.
I was dubious at first, but if you close your eyes and really listen, the Candlestick Park recordings are not the voice of JPM. Strangely, shockingly, it sounds like...the lead singer of Wings, pre-Wings! trying very hard to sound like smoothie Paul in the between-song banter, exaggerated scouser accent and all. He totally botches Nowhere Man and--of all things--Yesterday. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuyaB0f3rVE
Ever wonder why everything the BEatles did was meticulously documented yet footage of that concert is non-existent?
In that youtube link someone posted above, it's confusing because the creator of that vid has still photos of the real JPM interspersed throughout the audio recording of the show.
That's why I say listen w/eyes closed.
The live footage of them disembarking at the beginning does happen to show one of the first appearances of Faul-- semi-hiding behind a camera and flashing that squinty-eyed wide grin to make his cheeks look chubby.
Having them all not being present in Candlestick Park for that last concert does fit a certain time-line idea, but I've taken a good, hard look at photos of them all from that concert, and I have to disagree that Paul was not there. But, then, I also disagree with the idea that so many "Pauls" were present in various videos, pictures and even during concerts. There is one video of Paul singing "Yesterday" that is clearly of him, yet someone has tampered with that video to make him look quite a bit different. So, I know that even videos are being changed to disguise his appearance, as well as audio recordings are being changed to hide his true voice. It's alarming to realize to what lengths they are going, to rid as much of this world of the genuine JPM as is possible. Trying to protect the well-crafted lies they've constructed around him/his name/his talent, etc.
DeletePertaining to whether Paul was present at the Candlestick Park concert in August, 1966, I went to view that video again, that has been provided here is this thread, but I'll re-post it:
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBUbLf-IjgM
Please go and review the stills provided, and I think you will see that he really was there. The reason is that they provide one particular photo in which you can see Paulie's teeth--that's the key here--the fake Paul, 'f'aul, has quite a different dental configuration--Paulie's mouth was smaller, so his teeth were a bit crooked--personally, I love that and it added a bit of personal character to him that I adored--but, 'f'aul's teeth were noticeably straighter, because, of course, his talent is smaller, but his mouth is quite a bit BIGGER than Paulie's. Please check out that one photo in which Paul is singing with George at the mic during the concert, and you will see that it's him--the real Paul.
"Where two or more are gathered..." pt 1
ReplyDeleteRe: why Paul? Why was Paul singled out to be taken out?
I've thought about this for a couple of years now. This theory comes out of observing hours of film clips, footage and interviews on youtube dating back to the very early years of the Beatles--pre-Sullivan, Cavern years to '66.
I don't see evidence that Paul was any more or less a rebel than his partner John, nor was he particularly money or power hungry. Ambitious, yes. A clear-headed, forward-thinking genius? YES.
Which brings us to the heart (and soul) of the matter. Paul and John--both Rebels indeed--were also a united front, a force to be reckoned with.
Following the death of Stuart Sutcliffe, Paul became John's best mate, confidant, musical counterpoint and, I believe, soulmate.(*see footnote)
Backing up a bit to the early Hamburg-era Beatles, I do believe they had been scouted and ear-marked--being monitored and tracked. In fact, they were encouraged (herded) to take the Hamburg gig(s) because of how easy it was for the agents to keep close tabs on them. They lived, worked, ate, slept...together, day in, day out. Can you imagine how easy it would be for these young test subjects to be influenced, molded and handled under such circumstances? At the same time it was a big fraternal ritual/rite-of-passage for them too, complete with drugs, sex and entanglements with the law.
Again, John and Stu were complimentary counterparts; a force to be reckoned with--especially as the over-arching agenda was concerned. We all know how powerful a relationship can become when galvanized by passion and creativity. Here was a potent albeit volatile mix of poetry, art, raw energy, rebellion, and spiritual vision...X2!
I believe Stuart was poisoned by a spiked drink. Probably some sort of toxin that caused slow hemorrhaging in the brain, killing him slowly. One of the urban legends (planted story) chalked it up to his getting beat up in a back alley brawl. Another version of the story has John hitting him.
This would heap guilt, shame and blame onto an already suffering John once Stu met his demise. This is a common tool of trauma based mind control. The whole Beatles backstory is rife with examples of it.
It also appears that Ringo was set up to be the sleeper-handler for the remainder of their career. I think he genuinely fell in love with his "brothers" though. It appears that he continues to handle Faul. There are lots of instances of this strained dynamic back when they first launched their coded Las Vegas show LOVE. It was also apparent during Ringo's RnR Hall of Fame induction ceremony.
It has also become clear that Faul is obviously a good 5 years older than Ringo, but back to the pre-'66 Beatles...
Paul refused to go along with the NWO agenda pushing, among other things, LSD; he was personally anti-drug use and purportedly refised to try the hard stuff even with two lovely women (sirens) trying to coerce him into it. At heart, he was a "nice boy. Whereas making an LSD-promoting video was practically Faul's first assignment. That's the most popular theory and the one to which I subsribe. I see him as a martyr for good in an evil world.
DeleteI agree. But a big part of it was permanently destroying the Lennon-McCartney magic. In taking out Paul they traumatized and altered John in the process. It brought the surviving 3 (and everyone in their sphere) under their control, also making them more suggestable to comply with the mind-ALTERING drug agenda. By '67 the beatles revolved around Faul. As celebrities the original 3 were not very high functioning at that point. Hence, "welcome the Rolling Stones". This is also when the Grateful Dead were officially appointed the pied pipers of drug culture, custom tailored for multiple generations of hippie lemmings.
DeleteYes; I can see that angle, too. Enter John's "handler" (Oh, no!)...
Delete“where two or more are gathered…” pt 2
ReplyDeleteYou can look up hours of gorgeous b&w film including interviews, tv shows, random footage where one thing is evident-- the brotherly bond between John and Paul-- palpable, deep, and brotherly, almost telepathic...supernatural. In films like the Maysel brothers (The Beatles First US visit) it isn't as apparent because by that point they were on auto-pilot, with all four of them representing distinct energies, separate archetypes, within a highly balanced dynamic, while being slickly micro-managed by Brian, Mal, and Neil. By the time of Ed Sullivan, John and Paul had been bandmates for 7 years!
Their tight bond is really highlighted on the Blu-ray videos that came out last year.
By the time We Can Work It Out came out, the powers that be had a clear picture of John and Paul's unprecedented prowess as songwriters, musicians, charismatic figures and partners.
A couple of sweet examples of their platonic love can be seen in the BBC Lennon/McCartney tv special that featured them hosting other artists playing their music. The other one is the Shakespeare skit from a Midsummer Night's Dream. Then there is that rather infamous though brief footage of John showing intense concern at a sick Paul's near-fainting episode. The list goes on and on.
It would be a good idea to save this stuff on personal files since it's all disappearing and/or being altered rapidly. History is being manipulated and rewritten right under our noses. All of these priceless slices of early Beatles history--full of subtlety and nuance are slipping away before our eyes.
It's like they're erasing the particularly tender, funny, spiritual bits--the "inside story"!
What we're left with is the controlled, sanitized, flat, safe, Americanized version of the Fab Four in the form of this recent slick but shallow Eight Days a Week. "Let's remember the lads as hardworking, bigger-than-life icons" ...pretty, and one-dimensional and forever trapped in a whitewashed timewarp--
An era, we're told, whose sole purpose appears to be a mere launching pad, preparing the former fabs to conquer the world in completely different ways. Harmony and heart-songs were replaced with the Wizard of Oz-like bait and switch of the NEW "Beatles". Mission accomplished.
They succeeded in splitting up the heart and the soul of the original Beatles. They ripped apart the greatest song writing team in history. The bookends of the story. The yin (Paul) and the Yang (John).
They know all about spiritual alchemy and the power of Two. Can anyone honestly say they see the chemistry and magnetism of the original Paul and John evident as well in the Sgt Pepper era Beatles?
Just to drive the point home, they named a Polish pope after Them! Hhmm, let's imbue this unknown stranger/puppet with some irresistible mojo...JOHN/PAUL !!!
*(I do NOT mean this in a sexual way. Not that it matters, but although they probably shared women and "experiences", I'm not suggesting that they were a couple, as some have maintained.)
Wonderfully well said, "Where two or more are gathered", and I couldn't agree more with your assessment of it all, especially your comments on Paul and John, and their brotherly love for one another. I'm just recently trying to delve into it all, and you're so right--someone is removing many of the videos [pre-1967], as well as remastering the songs, setting them at a higher hertz, which is causing distortion of their voices, probably to disguise Paul's real voice. I noticed on the "Help!" album available on YouTube, that someone has totally removed the Lennon song, "It's Only Love", and has sped Paul's song, "I've Just Seen A Face", so that his voice is completely unrecognizable. When the channel owner was asked why the whole album was not on the channel, she said if she tried to place the entire album on there, that YouTube would pull it off.
DeleteSo, "'f'aul and co." are truly hard at work trying to hide all of the truth, and reality of the Beatles, turning their representation into, as you said, 'one-dimensional' and 'whitewashed' entities, leaving very little to no trace of the original men who were the Beatles.
In the song Terry Knight wrote shortly after meeting the 'new' Paul in London, he asked "Saint Paul" if he'd really spoken to "Judas". The historical Judas was a member of the Lord's inner circle known as His disciples. So, I think Knight had been told by Paul about someone in their inner circle who might turn out to be untrustworthy. After what John said on the Dick Cavett show back in the early '70's, about how "Starr spelled backwards is RAT!", I wondered if he didn't see Ringo as been a part of the one[s] who betrayed Paul. However, the more I looked into things, the less I could see that Ringo could have been, thanks to his genuine affection and love for the other 3 Beatles. If John thought Ringo was somehow involved though, on any level at all, that might explain his saying what he did to Cavett about his name. I think that, eventually, John must have realized Ringo's genuine loyalty and love for them, but the fact that he may have started out believing otherwise can easily be understood. John had just lost yet another brother to that bunch, and it showed in the way he changed so drastically seemingly overnight. And, I think he was literally driven to try and expose those involved, and to try and find a way to expose what had happened to Paul.
"Romeo...Cancel!...You are running into danger!...I am on fire--Keep well clear of me!"
I dig your analysis of HELP! There's no way it was simply random. And even if your assessment is off, it was certainly an S.O.S. of sorts.
DeleteThank you for saying that, Anonymous 10/6/16. It had always bothered me that they appeared to be signalling something, but what?! It's heartbreaking to me, since they knew there was danger, but they were surrounded, and if they tried to say anything openly I'm sure they faced even more dire consequences they knew they already did. Trying to signal in that way may have been the only way they could think of to get around their 'handlers', who obviously were occult practitioners, and part of the rotten cabal of the New world Order, that, right now, is planning to control the internet, and each of the world governments. It's all horrible, and those poor boys stood right in the middle of it, unbeknownst to them at first. Once they realized what was going on, it was already way late in the game, and proved too late for Paulie. It makes me cry to think about it.
DeleteA few more Photos of Faul arriving in San Francisco Airport on August 29, 1966 for their last US tour concert. Grab them while you can these will disappear too.
ReplyDeletehttp://cdn.abclocal.go.com/content/kgo/images/cms/AP660829055.jpg
http://www.mam-e.it/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/beatles-1.jpg
http://ww3.hdnux.com/photos/10/13/20/2143254/7/920x920.jpg
Comparison of Paul vs Faul taken from the last American Tour
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTPO5YZKyg96sHEZcfiD-ZUEJDO3e80UGUggC_h0a4FtUYp25mMjw
Not sure if death was involved but for sure The replacement of Paul with Faul happened here in America during the final tour
http://plasticmacca.blogspot.com/2009/12/was-paul-mccartney-replaced-in-august.html
Thank you for those links--I'm having to use my husband's computer until my new one gets here tomorrow, and for some reason I can't make his computer capture those links so I can just transfer them into the URL area, and typing them in myself has led to the inevitable mistakes/typos, etc., as well as the fact that I was only able to get one typed in well enough to go to the page--the second link down--but, I was surprised to realize that you believe the man in that picture is 'f'aul and not Paul, yet I looked at it and saw Paul, himself. Why do you believe that's not Paul getting off that plane? I admit that, at that camera angle, he looks so much like actor Hugh Grant when Grant was Paul's age, but other than that I see Paul, himself.
DeleteI also just typed in "The Beatles 1966 San Francisco" and looked at the pictures provided by the search engine, and, so far I can't see what others seem to see, that 'f'aul, or fake Pauls, are present in many of them. Maybe I'm not understanding what to actually look for, though.
Anonymous. I opened those pics and have to agree with you; doesn't look like Paul, and even the hair whorl is wrong. How weird! Tina?
DeleteAnd there's George--gazing knowingly and rather pensively at the camera from behind sunglasses: "hello person from the future. Have you figured it out yet?"
DeleteIf it's his hair that doesn't seem quite right for it to be Paul's hair, check out John's hair as it's blowing in the wind--his hair doesn't look right either, yet I'm pretty sure that is actually John--same for Ringo's hair. Paul's hair looks shinier out in that California sun, and I am impressed that Paul braved that bright sunlight without sunglasses--I was born there, and grew up there, and that sun is enough to blind you if you aren't used to it. However, notice how his hair is helping to shade his eyes--I was amazed at that--it places his eyes in shade. I love that hair, and it really came in handy as they got off that plane!
DeleteAnd, look closely at his eyes--the way they slant slightly at the outer corners, especially his left eye. It's not looking straight at his handsome face, but at his eyes, that helps me to tell if it's Paul or someone else--they might be capable of almost duplicating that adorable face, or some look-alike might have it to some extent, but what's important to me is looking at those eyes--and, the kindness obviously present in his face, overall.
I couldn't agree more, Christie. The eyes are the window to the soul -- esp. in Paul's case. But apparently we see that more clearly than some (many).
DeleteHi Anonymous 10/11/16--and, yes, I agree with both things you said--I wish I could elaborate on how it makes me feel to look into his eyes in this particular photo of him, but I really think there just is no way to describe it that wouldn't make me sound totally ridiculous, especially at my age! :)
DeleteThough it has nothing to do with the original article, this thread has turned into a great discussion :)
ReplyDeleteI agree with you--it definitely has! :)
DeleteThe "hold that line" sample was from a sound effects album...I remember loaning it from the local library...
ReplyDeletehttps://www.discogs.com/release/2513971
There were other samples in the set that were used in the White Album