|
Post by Fwings on Dec 6, 2003 6:57:32 GMT
I agree about the "5" clues, but I don't think they mean that Paul is/was alive. In the grand scheme of it all, there were five Beatles, and as Sun King said, clues like "4 or 5 magicians" probably refer to the continued use of JP's voice.
It's more applicable if he was dead, especially since they interchangably used "3" just as much.
|
|
|
Post by Scatterdome on Dec 10, 2003 18:57:22 GMT
Another detail just noticed: there are five flower arrangements on the Sgt. Pepper’s cover! Also, the word “BEATLES” is bookended by the “5” on the left and what looks like a pool of blood below the crashing car on the right. One might interpret this as the left flower arrangement representing the truth and the righthand one representing the intentionally planted wild goose chase of the “Paul Is Dead” clues. My view is that misleading clueseekers into the notion that Paul died, while providing other clues pointing to 5 Beatles, was a necessary part of the big lesson/analogy they were trying to teach with the Faul plan: one must see through a lot of intentionally planted smoke-and-mirrors to figure out the existence of the Illuminati, and one must see through a lot of intentionally planted smoke-and-mirrors to figure this mystery out! While intentional "Paul Is Dead" clues abound, many of the other clues are really just “Faul is not Paul” clues, and the two most prominently visible clues, placed appropriately on the outside and inside covers of their first two Faul albums, right out in the open, are the ones that point to 5 Beatles! Don’t forget, Wings, that the full sentence of the “4 or 5 magicians” clue is: Away in the sky, beyond the clouds, live 4 or 5 Magicians. LIVE. Present tense. 5 living Beatles about to take you on a Magical Mystery Tour…. Of course, part of the Beatles’ genius was the wealth of lyrics and artwork that were poetic enough to allow multiple interpretations. It’s all art; in the end, interpretations of clues can only be expressed as opinions rather than fact. hmmmmmm....maybe it could be but i'm thinking the magicians really represent the controllers.why the emphasis on astromony? why portrayed as slightly mad? I think astronomy plays a big role in this. The magicians were incredibly busy with their stars and charts, while the bus is tooling around the countryside. I think you’re right that astronomy plays a role. But I don’t think the Beatles had controllers. Nobody controlled the Beatles; they had the Illuminati outsmarted at every turn! At the top of the world in the public eye, they had truth on their side; the Illuminati are powerful, but not as powerful as they would like those who discover them to think. They have their limits too; the kind of limits created by dependence on secrecy and deception. On that note, I must mention a concept introduced to me by reading David Icke. Whenever one discovers two opposing explanations for something floating around in the media, the best way to figure out which one is closer to the truth is to ask: what version of events would the Illuminati want me to believe? The truth is almost always contained in the other version. This only works for those who have a good grasp of their motives, whether from personal experience or from being educated by brilliant authors such as Icke, Jim Marrs and William Cooper; it should be applied vigorously to anyone’s posts here. On that note, from anyone reading this who 1) have read any of the above-mentioned authors, or other authors exploring the same “theory,” 2) are not afraid of revealing their understanding of the Illuminati on the internet, and 3) have read the most recent revisions of both the 60IF document and my alternate theory (updated just today), I ask: If the Illuminati do indeed operate as described by authors exploring the specific Illuminati "theory" to which I refer, which version of events would the Illuminati want you to believe?
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Dec 10, 2003 21:45:22 GMT
I have read all of those authors. In fact, I had a long conversation or two with Marrs, whom I now consider a friend, just a few weeks ago. We discussed the Illuminati and related topics at length. I laid out some of the evidence that Paul is dead.
If the Illuminati do indeed operate as described by authors exploring the specific Illuminati "theory" to which I refer, which version of events would the Illuminati want you to believe?
Uh, that would be version where they didn't ritualistically slay James Paul McCartney, terrorize the Beatles into staying in the fold, and hoodwink the globe with one of their mechanical clones for 37+ years. That's been the official story of the controlled media since 1966. Or did you not notice that?
Whenever one discovers two opposing explanations for something floating around in the media, the best way to figure out which one is closer to the truth is to ask: what version of events would the Illuminati want me to believe?
Your attempt to juxtapose your theory versus Paul's death in 1966 is silly. Your idea is not "floating around the media." It's in your posts on this message board.
And additionally, you're implying that Lennon was using Illuminati mind-control tactics in order to lead people into false beliefs. You can hear in Strawberry Fields the desperation he felt at no one understanding that Paul is dead. You can see the despair in his face in the photo at the airport in Paris and how traumatized he still was at the Pepper shoot months later. This is all just a hand-wave on your part in a weak attempt to explain away the DEATH messages.
Nobody controlled the Beatles; they had the Illuminati outsmarted at every turn!
If you've seriously studied the Illuminati, you would know that THE BANKERS ARE THE ILLUMINATI. Lennon married a woman from an Illuminati family who manipulated his music for years and ultimately was complicit in his death. This is not outsmarting the Illuminati at every turn.
Your theory just has too many holes. The Beatles did not have the leverage to, for example, get access to above-top-secret plastic surgery from intelligence agencies (controlled by the Illuminati) in order to fight the Illuminati. Your theory does not explain Frian, either. Or 3 BEATLES on the back of Abbey Road or on Ringo's drum.
This construct of yours seems to arise from your need to validate your beliefs that:
1. Faul's first two solo albums were some kind of masterpieces that could not have been produced without James Paul McCartney's direct involvement.
2. The Beatles were so great, were some kind of supermen; and that no one could have ever held them in check or have any leverage over them at any time, ever.
and
3. That you have a singular, unique insight into the minds of these supermen and only you, James Prange, have found the truth.
I'm sorry, but none of this is really the case.
That said, I will certainly take another look at Yellow Submarine when I get a chance. As with all post-66 BEATLES material, it will certainly have clues; and it is not impossible that John, George or Faul's input included ideas of an occult nature.
|
|
|
Post by Scatterdome on Dec 12, 2003 5:20:25 GMT
I have read all of those authors. In fact, I had a long conversation or two with Marrs, whom I now consider a friend, just a few weeks ago. We discussed the Illuminati and related topics at length. I laid out some of the evidence that Paul is dead. Yeah, right… and just yesterday I met Elvis at the mall. We talked at length and I filled him in on my theory, and we are now best friends. If the Illuminati do indeed operate as described by authors exploring the specific Illuminati "theory" to which I refer, which version of events would the Illuminati want you to believe? Uh, that would be version where they didn't ritualistically slay James Paul McCartney, terrorize the Beatles into staying in the fold, and hoodwink the globe with one of their mechanical clones for 37+ years. That's been the official story of the controlled media since 1966. Or did you not notice that? Apparently, you did not get the context in which I was applying that general concept. Of course the Illuminati want to keep the switch under wraps, or else it would’ve come out in the mass media long ago. If they had their way, everyone in the world would believe that Faul was Paul until the end of time. But they are certainly smart enough to know that the truth of the switch would eventually come out in the underground, with the internet becoming more and more widely available to the masses. They would have known it was only a matter of time before someone assembled and posted photo comparisons on the internet. Given that, it would be in their best interests to attempt to plant misinformation at the heart of the first public internet gathering of people who are already aware that there are 2 Pauls—in this case, this forum is the heart. They would have had a whole storyline specially prepared for the “Beatles Cult,” ready to be attached to the forensic evidence with the intent of confusing researchers and delaying the globally significant revelations that would result from an underground gathering of hard-core Beatles fans getting to the bottom of the truth. Right now, on this forum, which has been up for many months, there are currently only two thoroughly detailed possible storylines posted to try to explain the switch, and they are completely different from each other: the 60IF document and my theory. That makes these two storylines the top two suspects for the version the Illuminati would want the “Beatles Cult” to believe. So, to clarify what I was actually asking: Between the 60IF document and my theory, under the assumption that both seem to offer plausible explanations, which is the version that the Illuminati would want us (meaning members and guests of this forum) to believe? And additionally, you're implying that Lennon was using Illuminati mind-control tactics in order to lead people into false beliefs. Once again, no-- as I’ve been saying all along, he (and the other Beatles) used Illuminati-style tactics in their Faul plan with the noble intention of creating an analogy of the Illuminati’s behavior so that when the world eventually decoded the Beatles mystery, which their intentional placement of numerous clues shows is what they wanted to eventually happen, the masses would now have the language to decode the Illuminati’s symbols and techniques of deception, thus leading to the mass exposure of their regime. Thus, the end result of decoding the Beatles’ Faul mystery would be, when everything eventually comes to light, the furthest thing possible from “leading people into false beliefs.” You can hear in Strawberry Fields the desperation he felt at no one understanding that Paul is dead. You can see the despair in his face in the photo at the airport in Paris and how traumatized he still was at the Pepper shoot months later. That is just interpretation and opinion— none of us could really know what was going through John’s head without actually being him. This is all just a hand-wave on your part in a weak attempt to explain away the DEATH messages. As I’ve said before, I think that giving us a whole layer of death messages was a necessary part of giving the mystery enough layers to reflect similar Illuminati behavior and provide a proper analogy. Also, plenty of the clues are just “Faul is not Paul” clues, and clues leading to 5 living Beatles are featured on the two most prominent spots where “beginners” would look—the Sgt. Pepper’s outer cover and the MMT inside booklet. If you've seriously studied the Illuminati, you would know that THE BANKERS ARE THE ILLUMINATI. Of course I know that; as you know very well, as I have said many times that I look up to Icke, Marrs, Cooper and any other author on that track. Lennon married a woman from an Illuminati family who manipulated his music for years and ultimately was complicit in his death. This is not outsmarting the Illuminati at every turn. I understand that being from an Illuminati bloodline makes a person far more likely to be corrupted by the Illuminati, but it doesn’t mean that someone born into such a family will automatically follow in their parents’ footsteps. You can choose your friends, but you can’t choose your family. Maybe Yoko was evil, maybe she wasn’t. (And either way, it doesn’t affect my overall theory at all.) And what’s your proof that she was complicit in John’s death—the 60IF document? Don’t forget that any argument against my theory that is based on “But 60IF says this is what happened…” is automatically void, since the theory was designed as an alternative explanation to 60IF from the getgo. Your theory just has too many holes. If there are any major holes in my theory, then I invite you, and anyone else, to actually point one out. I am open to such a hole existing,as I have written so much so fast that I expect them to exist. But so far, those who have pointed out small holes in my theory-in-progress have actually ended up strengthening my overall theory after the appropriate modifications were made. The Beatles did not have the leverage to, for example, get access to above-top-secret plastic surgery from intelligence agencies (controlled by the Illuminati) in order to fight the Illuminati. So you’re saying the richest and most famous rock band in the world simply could not have had access to the best plastic surgeons in the world, since the only ones good enough to have worked on Faul could only have been top-secret government surgeons? O-kay… If that’s the best “hole in my theory” you can find, you’re going to have to dig a little deeper, Total. You put so many words in my mouth, Total, that I am forced to split this post into two parts for an appropriate response. Look right below this post for Part II.
|
|
|
Post by Scatterdome on Dec 12, 2003 5:21:29 GMT
Your theory does not explain Frian, either. Yes, it does, as you know very well. It doesn’t go into much detail, but the basic idea is compatible with the overall jist of my theory. (New readers: see page 5 of my theory’s thread.) Or 3 BEATLES on the back of Abbey Road or on Ringo's drum. Once again, yes it does, as you know very well. My explanations for why they gave death clues are detailed extensively on this thread, my theory’s thread, other threads, and earlier in this post. This construct of yours seems to arise from your need to validate your beliefs that: 1. Faul's first two solo albums were some kind of masterpieces that could not have been produced without James Paul McCartney's direct involvement. I have never said that. First of all, as I have written extensively, I think that Ram and Band On The Run, which are the second and fifth “McCartney” albums, are masterpieces. And I never said that they could not have been produced without James Paul’s direct involvement but I have said that to my ears, there is an unbroken evolution of James Paul’s distinct songwriting, bass playing and arrangements from Please Please Me through Band On The Run.—and yes, possibly even continuing from there starting with the first Klaatu album. As my theory extensively details, there are reasons why of the first five McCartney albums, James Paul would have allowed more creative input from Faul and others such as Denny Laine on the first, third and fourth “solo” album, but would have had good reason to dominate the proceedings on Ram and Band On The Run in particular, based on the timeline. 2. The Beatles were so great, were some kind of supermen; and that no one could have ever held them in check or have any leverage over them at any time, ever. I have never said that the Illuminati could not have held them in check, I have only said that I don’t think that is what happened. To me, the idea that the Beatles created such a love-filled, psychedelic, counterculture, world-changing body of work after Revolver because the Illuminati forced them to do so is inherently ridiculous and illogical. The Beatles’ work after ’66, and all the music it inspired, did more damage to the Illuminati agenda than any previous musicians before or since. And yes, I do think the Beatles were “some kind of supermen,” although I’m speaking metaphorically and not literally of course. 3. That you have a singular, unique insight into the minds of these supermen… Oh, but I do have a unique insight. Not only have I been a Beatles-influenced songwriter for over ten years, but my worldview and spiritual beliefs happen to be virtually identical to John Lennon, partly because that’s the kind of person I’ve always been, and partly because I have studied and looked up to him and the Beatles since early childhood. Also, like the Beatles, I have a good understanding of the Illuminati’s role in this world, as evidenced by my constant references to David Icke and similar authors. (On that note, I only expect people familiar with those authors’ “theories” to take my posts seriously anyway.) As a result, I have recognized that the quickest way to get to the bottom of any global mystery is to speculate on how the Illuminati fit into the story. Therefore, I am better equipped to attempt to get inside both the Beatles’ heads and the Illuminati’s heads than the majority of the most frequent posters here, most of who have never written a song in their lives and/or are devout Christians. If this were a forum discussing the Loch Ness monster, wouldn’t any paleontologists, biologists or other dinosaur experts posting have unique insight into the subject matter at hand? It’s not outrageous to suggest that the best insights in this mystery would more often come from the posters who have the most in common with the Beatles, especially the ones who fit the qualifications I listed above. That is why, for example, I give more weight to Ian Singleton’s posts than many of the regulars, even though I don’t always agree with his opinions—he, too, largely fits the “qualifications” I listed in the beginning of this paragraph. (Don’t anyone take offense… I’m not saying that the Christian and non-musical members of this forum aren’t valuable or haven’t made many valuable contributions, but I am saying that it makes sense that posters who have more in common with the Beatles would be the most likely to make the greatest strides in figuring this thing out.) On that note, here is another link to my band’s homepage. I know I’m no Beatle, but once again I invite all readers to visit the page, read my bio, and listen to the tunes I have posted there to judge how much I have in common with the Beatles for themselves: www.scatterdome.com…and only you, James Prange, have found the truth. I'm sorry, but none of this is really the case. Maybe I have gotten pretty close to the truth with my theory. If the bulk of the arguments against my theory on this forum are going to entirely depend on putting words in my mouth, taking quotes from me out of context, and/or saying a variation of “but 60IF says this is what happened,” then that is just another sign that I am probably on the right track. More and more frequently, Total, you have been writing things that make it seem like you either 1) haven’t read my theory, 2) have forgotten many details I have written, or 3) are deliberately putting words in my mouth. If you don’t like these accusations and you’re not willing to change your username to “Total Misinformation,” then I suggest you try a little harder to get your facts straight and put a little more thought into your posts. We have serious research to do here and your lies, whether intentional or just the result of not fully reading the posts which you seem to find so ridiculous, are just slowing things down.
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Dec 12, 2003 7:33:07 GMT
1. I am working on an anti-Illuminati project. Jim Marrs contributed some time to the project. Hopefully it will be released by the middle of next year.
2. Plastic surgery on the scale and skill of FAUL's was classified in 1966. The Beatles could not have bought those services; they were the private doman of the cryptocracy.
3. As for disinformation, you may remember the conspirators first out put out a disinfo story back in 1969 with the "William Campbell" garbage. That was put out to muddy the information independent researchers were developing at the time. "60IF," whatever its ultimate provenance, was not put out in response to "Scatterdome."
4. Frian and "3" still make no sense under your little theory, no matter how much you insist otherwise.
5. I can see you've not studied Lennon's death. There are plenty of links and information on this forum. To boil down the answer to your question: A. The official story of his death is bullshit. B. Yoko, an eyewitness, backs the bullshit story. C. Therefore, she is complicit.
6. I acknowledge mistating which two of Faul's albums you thought were James Paul's genius. My points still hold otherwise.
7. Especially the third.
Megalomaniac much?
8. Anyway, the Illuminati angle is a valid one. I did appreciate your call on the Rosicrucians and Red Rose Speedway. I even concede that by the time they did whatever work they did on the Yellow Submarine movie, Lennon or Harrison could have heard of the word "Illuminati." As they, Lennon particularly, searched for answers to Paul's death in the free time they had now that they wasn't touring, he may have run across the term and some rudimentary information. As I said, I'll reevaluate the film.
9. I've been holding off on pointing out the holes in your theory because I just knew there would be this kind of response.
As I'm repeating myself ALREADY in this post. . . Let it just be noted that I'll continue to scan your threads to read and perhaps develop some of the occultic-type connections you may bring forward. I don't intend to repeatedly point out the holes in your larger theory as you're clearly too delusional at this point to process the information rationally. I wish you luck in getting beyond that.
|
|
|
Post by Scatterdome on Dec 15, 2003 19:39:48 GMT
1. I am working on an anti-Illuminati project. Jim Marrs contributed some time to the project. Hopefully it will be released by the middle of next year. So you apparently forgot to mention that you're actually working with Jim Marrs in your previous post? I suppose next you'll be telling us that you and Marrs are also working on a full-length feature film about PID with Oliver Stone. The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it, right, Total? I find it hard to believe that an author of Jim Marrs' caliber would choose to work with another conspiracy writer who debunks opposing theories using techniques such as 1) putting words in the mouth of the opposing theory's author, 2) parroting unsubstantiated rumours, and 3) presenting opinion as fact, and then has the audacity to write that he has "disproven" or "pointed out a hole in" the opposing theory, counting on the less research-oriented readers to be too entertained and reassured by the colorful insults directed at the other author to notice that the debunking is virtually substance-free. I ask any Marrs readers here to cross-examine 60IF and my theory closely, with all unprovable claims of "inside knowledge"removed from both, and to see which one clicks more with human nature, known facts, basic logic, and Marrs' theories. I ask noone to believe any claims I can't prove, but to use their own minds to decide if my conclusions make sense in the light of what is provable. Total, can you ask the same of your readers? 2. Plastic surgery on the scale and skill of FAUL's was classified in 1966. The Beatles could not have bought those services; they were the private doman of the cryptocracy. How can you state with such assurance that the Beatles could not have bought those services? No matter what you may have read on the subject, this is statement that is absolutely unprovable. There are forces organized against the Illuminati whose intelligence and esoteric knowledge are equal to the Illuminati's, believe it or not-- if the Beatles' money and global fame weren't enough to draw plastic surgeons who were ahead of their time out of the woodwork, then perhaps their friendships and acquaintances with like-minded counterculture leaders of the day could have led to valuable connections from the "alternative medicine" underground. Who's to say either way? Furthermore, I never said the plastic surgery services were necessarily found by the Beatles or their inner circle anyway. So even if your statement actually is true, it does not at all conflict with my theory, which details possible reasons why Illuminati-owned EMI would have agreed to the Beatles' proposal to replace Paul with Faul from the getgo, and therefore would have been willing and able to actually supply the surgeons. Rather than waste time and space re-stating those particular details, I ask any readers to just read my posts on the subject, which is discussed on this thread, my theory's thread, and others where I've posted. 3. As for disinformation, you may remember the conspirators first out put out a disinfo story back in 1969 with the "William Campbell" garbage. That was put out to muddy the information independent researchers were developing at the time. Of course. "William" was accurate, "Campbell" was not. Half truth, half lies. Happens all the time... a modus operandi with which you are familiar? One modern technique the Illuminati use to accomplish this end is to send agents onto conspiracy messageboards such as this, who 1) gain the trust of the members and guests of the messageboard by mainly posting accurate, eloquent statements that reveal a genuine understanding of the real Illuminati conspiracy (while offering no new information), and then 2) offer "new information" that consists of unsubstantiated rumours, designed to throw off the investigation in the most important subject areas. Many readers then accept the "new information" as fact, having been won over by the agent's other, accurate posts. An ancient technique updated for modern times. However, posters fitting this description are often not even consciously working for the Illuminati. Overzealous conspiracy theorists (meaning those who have trouble differentiating between the real conspiracy and misinformation planted by the Illuminati) sometimes accomplish this same end, even when their heart is in the right place. "60IF," whatever its ultimate provenance, was not put out in response to "Scatterdome." Correct. "Insiders at EMI" gave the 60IF document to Sun King (as he said on the thread "Clues > Okay") to attach to the forensic evidence on the occasion of the internet debut of the forensic evidence. (to read discussion of this, link to "Clues > Okay," page 5, here: 60if.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=60ifclues&thread=1066387943&action=display&start=60I didn't arrive here with my alternate theory until early September, and my theory was a response I felt necessary to keep people's minds open here, since it seemed like there weren't any alternate theories posted here when there should have been, considering that the forensic evidence is hard evidence while the 60IF document, a story of unknown origin, is not. 4. Frian and "3" still make no sense under your little theory, no matter how much you insist otherwise. This is just your opinion (or seems to be), not a fact-based hole in my theory. You may not agree with my interpretations on these two points, but you must admit that my interpretations of "3" and Frian's existence are compatible with my "little" theory, whether or not you think the overall theory is plausible. Once again, memory limitations require that I split this response into two posts...
|
|
|
Post by Scatterdome on Dec 15, 2003 19:40:49 GMT
5. I can see you've not studied Lennon's death. There are plenty of links and information on this forum. To boil down the answer to your question: A. The official story of his death is bullsh*t. B. Yoko, an eyewitness, backs the bullsh*t story. C. Therefore, she is complicit. I may not have studied the assassination as extensively as you, but I will offer this: I agree that the official story of his death is bullsh*t-- meaning that Mark David Chapman was not a "lone nut" acting alone, but another classic mind-controlled assassin sent by the Illuminati. One effective way to distract novice conspiracy researchers from this, if it's the truth, would be to put into circulation the idea that it was another person who killed him altogether. I was not convinced by the "evidence" you presented pointing to a different killer. If Yoko, as an eyewitness, backs the story that it was Chapman who killed John, it does not mean that she is backing the bullsh*t story that he was a lone nut acting alone. She is only backing a bullsh*t story if it really was someone else who killed John. On that note, my overall theory is not affected by whether or not Yoko was evil anyway. 6. I acknowledge mistating which two of Faul's albums you thought were James Paul's genius. My points still hold otherwise. You know you mistated more than that. The bulk of your post was based on putting words in my mouth. 7. Especially the third. Megalomaniac much? 8. Anyway, the Illuminati angle is a valid one. I did appreciate your call on the Rosicrucians and Red Rose Speedway. I even concede that by the time they did whatever work they did on the Yellow Submarine movie, Lennon or Harrison could have heard of the word "Illuminati." As they, Lennon particularly, searched for answers to Paul's death in the free time they had now that they wasn't touring, he may have run across the term and some rudimentary information. As I said, I'll reevaluate the film. I'm happy to help with any genuine leads, but at this point I'm half-expecting you to end up using this information to conclude that John, George and Ringo accepted an invitation to join the Church Of Satan (or something similar) after all. 9. I've been holding off on pointing out the holes in your theory because I just knew there would be this kind of response. "This kind of response?" "Pointing out holes in my theory?" After a post like that, I felt I had no choice but to respond to it sentence by sentence, since some readers tend to assume that members who have stayed on long enough to contribute as many posts as you would not stoop to posting such a shameless, substance-free debunking. And as for pointing out holes-- others have done that, resulting in modifications to the theory, but when all is said as done, so far you have only offered disagreements based on opinion, unsubstantiated rumours and the twisting of my words. As I'm repeating myself ALREADY in this post. . . Let it just be noted that I'll continue to scan your threads to read and perhaps develop some of the occultic-type connections you may bring forward. I don't intend to repeatedly point out the holes in your larger theory as you're clearly too delusional at this point to process the information rationally. I wish you luck in getting beyond that. Interesting that David Icke has often been called "delusional" by debunkers. The longer I stay on this forum, the more I feel a kinship with that guy... Of your unprovable claims, I tend to believe the following statement is far more likely to be true than your claim that you are working with Jim Marrs, based on the contents of your posts on this thread, which seem to reveal an emotional aversion to my theory: Well, I can trace my bloodlines back to the British royalty depicted in Braveheart. . . People from Illuminati bloodlines tend to be too proud of their heritage to hide it, no matter how dark the family history is, and realize that most people do not recognize this as a red flag... Ancient enmities are passed down through bloodlines (which particular factions or individuals may be very concerned with) and are acted out, maybe consciously, maybe unconsciously. Key players may come back to perform similar roles for each restaging of the play One more thought for this post: While the Illuminati want the masses to be oblivious to their existence, at the same time they want conspiracy theorists who know about them to think there is no hope in fighting them-- they would want that "fringe" crowd to think that the Illuminati already have complete control over this planet, and that anyone who becomes famous must be permanently working for them one way or another. It is in this mentality that they place their symbols in the most visible of places... As for the Beatles "Cult," well, the last thing the Illuminati want for the Beatles is for them to be forever revered and imitated as positive, incorruptible role-models who communicated timeless messages that could potentially free mankind from the global establishment's mind control. So, Total, considering these factors, I am asking you (and anyone else who wants to chip in) for the third time, since you haven't yet answered: Between the 60IF document and my theory, if both are considered plausible, which is the version of events that seems more like the version that the Illuminati would want the members and guests of this forum to believe?
|
|
|
Post by hipmama1970 on Dec 21, 2003 3:33:27 GMT
2. Plastic surgery on the scale and skill of FAUL's was classified in 1966. The Beatles could not have bought those services; they were the private doman of the cryptocracy. I'm not trying to jump in on either side of this debate here, as you are both far more knowledgeable than I. But, I did want to point out that plastic surgery was very sophisticated at the time, due to many surgeons' experience repairing the gory wounds from WWI, WWII and the Korean War. So, the question is whether that sophistication was available to the public, and I find no evidence suggesting that it was locked up after being used so extensively on the battlefield. In fact, many doctors who worked on the battlefield were surgeons before the war and then eventually went back to their surgical practices during peacetime. In other words, they took all of their expertise with them and used it on the paying public, and to educate other surgeons. To believe that these surgeons didn't use their knowledge in their private practices, you would have to assume that A. Each and every battlefield doctor, from every army involved, worldwide, agreed to preserve this information for the sole use of a shadow organization, and not even one of them breathed a word of it or fudged on his oath in order to have a "jump" on his competitors who honored the agreement, or B. None of them survived the war(s), or they all for some other reason didn't re-enter civilian society, which we know isn't true. This really has no relevance on whether the "cryptocracy" was involved in Faul's surgery, this procedure could well have been performed by surgeons on the payroll of the conspirators, and it would have behooved them to do it this way. I'm just saying that it didn't have to be performed by members of a secret society, it could also have been done in the "civilian" world as well. Even so, that mere fact that Paul/Faul had surgeries still points toward a switch having taken place, as there's no reason to believe Paul would have surgery to look more like "himself." So, as I said, I'm not really making a point that hurts or supports either side of this argument, I just wanted to make a clarification. I find these debates and the search for the truth to be very interesting and stimulating, keep it up!
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Dec 23, 2003 0:09:37 GMT
Many references tell that the surgical operations were made in France (Paris?) The coverage is ABSOLUTELY done (and guaranted) by the intelligence.
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Dec 23, 2003 5:14:02 GMT
Hipmama, can you actually name someone in private prqactice offering plastic surgery of the same sophistication Faul underwent in the late 1960s?
|
|
|
Post by hipmama1970 on Dec 23, 2003 5:40:28 GMT
Hipmama, can you actually name someone in private prqactice offering plastic surgery of the same sophistication Faul underwent in the late 1960s? No, I can't personally name someone. Can you personally put me in touch with a plastic surgeon who was operating at that time who saw evidence of this kind of complete information coverup? Or even a board certified plastic surgeon who will comment on the alleged surgeries Faul underwent at the time and say that he/she wouldn't have considered such a thing possible? This is a history of plastic surgery from the website of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, however which is detailed in the advances made over the last century in technique and sophistication. www.plasticsurgery.org/History.cfm Since the ASPS hasn't weighed in on either side of PID argument, we can assume they are neutral and aren't trying to hide anything. Please note that they don't make any sort of mention of a wide scale brain drain in plastic surgery as every single plastic surgeon in the world comes under the domination of a secret shadow government. I am looking at Uberkinder's site, specifically the plastic surgery and scars page, uberkinder.5u.com/paul/fc6.html and I am not seeing anything there that wouldn't have been possible given the state of the art at the time. Some silicone, possibly some jaw work, a lot of skin manipulation, all of these were possible by then. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this doesn't mean that Paul is Dead and Faul has taken his place with the aid of a great deal of plastic surgery. I'm also not saying that you aren't completely free to take the next step, which is that his procedures were performed by a member of the "cryptocracy." I'm just saying that the evidence, while not ruling that possibility out, also doesn't DEMAND that we come to that conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Dec 23, 2003 7:42:00 GMT
ASPS . . . aren't trying to hide anything. The various medical cartels such as AMA and ASPS, etc. were founded by Rockefeller money specifically to hide knowledge. Please note that they don't make any sort of mention of a wide scale brain drain in plastic surgery as every single plastic surgeon in the world comes under the domination of a secret shadow government.It just talks about how plastic surgery technology was developed in the military. The military and intelligence agencies are always developing technologies and holding them secret beyond what is released to the public. This applies no less to plastic srugery, a key espionage technology. There can be no "brain drain" from the public domain if the brains weren't there in first place. It's fair to say that covert technology is at the very very least 10 years ahead of publicly available technology in just about every field the cryptocracy has an interest in. I am looking at Uberkinder's site, specifically the plastic surgery and scars page, uberkinder.5u.com/paul/fc6.html and I am not seeing anything there that wouldn't have been possible given the state of the art at the time. Some silicone, possibly some jaw work, a lot of skin manipulation, all of these were possible by then.At the level of sophistication and rate of healing between several surgeries as displayed on FAUL? We're not talking about patch jobs on gaping shrapnel wounds here. Forget doctors. Surely some of the fabulously wealthy Hollywood crowd must have been getting this kind of facial surgery in the 1960s if it was as available as you contend. The Uberkinder page you link also gets into "lip lift" surgery. I just did a search of the MEDLINE database from 1966 to 1981 for "lip lift." Only one result: 1. Rozner L. Isaacs GW. Lip lifting. [Journal Article] British Journal of Plastic Surgery. 34(4):481-4, 1981 Oct. UI: 7296156 There were only four matches for 1982-86. FAUL had his lip lift surgery in either 1967 or 1968, before the Hey Jude performance. A bit of an "early adopter," eh? I'm just saying that the evidence, while not ruling that possibility out, also doesn't DEMAND that we come to that conclusion. You need to reexamine this position.
|
|
|
Post by hipmama1970 on Dec 24, 2003 2:39:53 GMT
ASPS . . . aren't trying to hide anything. The various medical cartels such as AMA and ASPS, etc. were founded by Rockefeller money specifically to hide knowledge. I can't speak to this. You may have this one if you wish. Then you will be able to show documentation of when all of these procedures were declassified and made available to a grateful public. It should have been big news at the time. Patch jobs on shrapnel wounds are extremely sophisticated. The battlefield facilities are generally suboptimal, and the docs aren't working with a pampered person who is just in for the day to tune up their face, who are otherwise well-nourished and well-rested, etc. Not to mention that fact that their patients generally present with missing skin and bone and the beginnings of systemic sepsis. This is still merely the manipulation of skin. Plastic surgeons have been doing the far more involved cleft lip/palate repair since before the '60s. Yes, there were scars after such a procedure, but according to the evidence presented here Faul also has scars which are cited as proof that a procedure was performed. The same doctors who restored faces with huge gaps in the middle of them should have easily been able to perform a surgery that merely required the removal of a a small football shaped piece of skin from above the upper lip or below the nose. (Paraphrasing Uberkinder here.) There are many reasons this procedure might not have been listed in Medline other than "it just didn't exist." It may have been known by a different name at the time, it may not have been very common, it may have just been considered part of another cluster of surgeries, etc. I don't see a need to as of yet.
|
|
|
Post by gm1276 on Dec 24, 2003 2:56:16 GMT
just ignore him, hippiemama...he's a dickhead who thinks he can prove things without presenting evidence. ::)And that's another thing....does anyone here realize the burden of proof is on YOU?!?!?! Last time I checked, the world ain't callin' him "Faul."
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Dec 24, 2003 7:46:38 GMT
documentation of when all of these procedures were declassified and made available
Who said anything about public declassification? If they want the technology to pass into general use, it is usually handed over to R&D labs at favored defense contractors. You need to do more reading on this issue.
And there are also situations -- probably more often the case in plastic surgery than, say, spacecraft -- where doctors outside the veil of intelligence simply develop the same techniques themselves at a later date.
The same doctors who restored faces with huge gaps in the middle of them should have easily been able to perform a surgery that merely required the removal of a a small football shaped piece of skin from above the upper lip or below the nose.
Yes, the same . . . MILITARY . . . doctors would have been "able." (Remember however, the issue is not ability so much as knowledge here.)
So, yes, military doctors performing on a military intelligence agent (FAUL) a surgical procedure that wouldn't appear in the published literature for 13 years. That is what was going with FAUL's liplift.
|
|
|
Post by hipmama1970 on Dec 24, 2003 16:35:35 GMT
Yes, the same . . . MILITARY . . . doctors would have been "able." (Remember however, the issue is not ability so much as knowledge here.) So, yes, military doctors performing on a military intelligence agent (FAUL) a surgical procedure that wouldn't appear in the published literature for 13 years. That is what was going with FAUL's liplift. But, but remember these doctors (and not just American or Allied surgeons, but those found worldwide) didn't always stay in the military (and therefore under military control) after their stints on the battlefield. Yes, military service can be a 20+ year career, but it can also be as short as two years. At the time Faul would have had these surgeries, the armistice had been signed in the Korean War for over 10 years. A great deal of the doctors involved in Korea, not to mention WWI and WWII would have long left the military and been in their private practices at that point. Remember, many of the battlefield docs were surgeons in private practice before the war and served their countries then went back in to private practice with the skills and experience they learned there. Even if they were educated and trained by the military, they still hadn't signed their lives away and would be eligible to return to civilian life after their service was completed. Again, you're not making a cogent argument here that proves that this knowledge or ability was held captive by any organization.
|
|
|
Post by hipmama1970 on Dec 24, 2003 16:49:57 GMT
And that's another thing....does anyone here realize the burden of proof is on YOU?!?!?! Last time I checked, the world ain't callin' him "Faul." This is specifically why I think that each and every point given here as "proof" that PID should be able to withstand scrutiny.
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Dec 24, 2003 19:45:58 GMT
Any work done by "ex" military docs for an intelligence project would have been just as classified. Many people will have 'civilian' jobs while they do extensive covert work. Cf. Drs. Ewen Cameron and Louis Jolyn West (psychiatry) in the US.
Any doctor performing lip lifts would have wanted to publish about this new surgery. That's professional juice right there, to publish the first study on a new procedure. It means more prestige and more money. He would and could not publish, of course, if he was doing these surgeries in a classified environment. Since nothing was published on the procedure until 1981, Occam's Razor tells us that the leading doctors performing the surgery in 1967/68 were therefore doing it sub rosa.
|
|
|
Post by hipmama1970 on Dec 26, 2003 5:32:42 GMT
Any doctor performing lip lifts would have wanted to publish about this new surgery. That's professional juice right there, to publish the first study on a new procedure. It means more prestige and more money. He would and could not publish, of course, if he was doing these surgeries in a classified environment. Since nothing was published on the procedure until 1981, Occam's Razor tells us that the leading doctors performing the surgery in 1967/68 were therefore doing it sub rosa. You know what, TotalInformation, you are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! In fact, I see no evidence anywhere in the journals I've checked that a procedure called a "lip lift" was ever done by a method "wherein a small football shaped piece of skin is removed from either just above the upper lip, or just below the nose." Or one that would leave a scar like the one Faul has on his upper lip. All of the "lip lift" surgery information I've seen are of procedures done in a completely different way. If the surgery described above were the First Class procedure only known by the "cryptocracy," at some point it should be described in the journals when it became available to the doctors (because, Occam's Razor tells us they would want to publish such a marvelous procedure as it would be the state of the art at the time). So, even if it were later than 1978/68, there should be some evidence of this particular method when, as you say, it was passed through R&D to the civilian world. But, while there are several surgeries listed historically as "lip lifting" or "lip augmentation," none is performed the way Faul's was supposed to have been done, and none leaves a scar like the one supposedly seen on Faul. Unless we can find some information that shows that this method was ever used, we will have to re-evaluate whether Faul had it. If he didn't have it (because no one did) it begs the question of how much of the information we're seeing in this argument is just wishful thinking...
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Dec 28, 2003 7:50:31 GMT
as you say, it was passed through R&D to the civilian world
You really need to work on your reading comprehension.
|
|
|
Post by hipmama1970 on Dec 28, 2003 8:18:21 GMT
Is this the only point you can make for this last post?
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Dec 28, 2003 8:27:59 GMT
I think Total was saying that just because we are told they didn't have a certain technology doesn't mean that it was true. Or, just because it isn't ,mentioned, either.......the covert military world may always be keeping their best, newest cutting edge stuff a secret. We won't find journalistic evidence of hidden technologies when no journalism evidence exists to support it.
A thing can exist in this world without there being any journalistic artifacts to prove it.
Supression of information is as old as the hills.
|
|
|
Post by hipmama1970 on Dec 28, 2003 8:39:08 GMT
Any doctor performing lip lifts would have wanted to publish about this new surgery. That's professional juice right there, to publish the first study on a new procedure. It means more prestige and more money. He would and could not publish, of course, if he was doing these surgeries in a classified environment. Since nothing was published on the procedure until 1981, Occam's Razor tells us that the leading doctors performing the surgery in 1967/68 were therefore doing it sub rosa. But, TI took the lack of information of this procedure during the time frame he was interested in as being proof that it only existed within the "cryptocracy." His point was that it only became known to the general public much later. His proof given was that it wasn't written about until the 80's. However, the procedure outlined isn't the same method. When faced with finding evidence that such a procedure ever existed, however, his only retort is to question my ability to comprehend what I'm reading. In other words, he's run out of steam and has resorted to trying to change the focus of the debate. Until there is solid, historical proof that this procedure, as described here and leaving a scar as seen on Faul's face is unearthed, there is nothing else to add.
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Dec 28, 2003 9:01:08 GMT
Well, OK, I see what you are saying, I see that now.
It is frustrating trying to grapple with issues without documentation. Personal gut feelings for me would be that, yes, Total's point is well indicated, if we see a certain surgery implied from our pix etc, we are apt to assume that there MUST have been this kind of surgery. I tend to think he is probably correct.
But, again, gut feelings and assumptions are inadequate, and invalid as imperical proofs. Well, they are no proof at all. Perhaps somewhere there are journals, or a few credible surgeons or surgical researchers who know.
But I bet there are few who would, or could, tell.
And proving it exists doesn't prove a connection to our subject here.
Dogs have it so easy. They don't do photo comparisons, or voice spectragraphs(sp.?) or fingerprints, iris scans, blood tests, DNA samples, or dental records. They just sniff.
Which goes to imply (if not prove), that in some ways, SORT OF, dogs ARE a little smarter than humans. And the thing of it is, they can't even read.
|
|