|
|
Post by tinyelvis on Aug 21, 2003 4:38:00 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by tinyelvis on Aug 21, 2003 4:50:41 GMT
oh ok..just read FAQ. well this tale refers to George so George couldn't have been the author. Also, this is hearsay.
not evidence. not believable. nice imagination tho.
|
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Aug 21, 2003 5:15:55 GMT
Note to Bearer and Sun King -- you need to put a reference to the third-person question in the 60IF FAQ, ro even better -- PROVIDE A MORE DIRECT TRANSLATION.
|
|
|
|
Post by Forum Manager on Aug 21, 2003 5:28:43 GMT
SK and PB can work on the more direct translation. ill add the third person question to the FAQ
|
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Aug 21, 2003 10:47:32 GMT
Sorry Friends,
I had clear and strict directions.
"60IF" couldn't be modified starting from 8th December 2002.
It will remain "as is" until it will be on the Internet.
Sun King
|
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Aug 21, 2003 13:35:56 GMT
SK - Haven't you already said you've modified it?
re: "until" -- there's some preposition misusage/language barrier thing going on here.
Can Bearer modify the English translation without changing the Italian source text?
It seems beyond silly that you can post messages here but cannot alter the 60IF webpage to say the same thing.
At some point you will need to go back to whoever it is you're getting permission from and deal with these problems.
Bearer -- PLease post some thoughts on this.
|
|
|
|
Post by FatherMackenzie on Aug 22, 2003 8:52:44 GMT
SK, at this point to everyone other than you, the document is technically and legally just hearsay. Please don't get me wrong - I don't intend for that to demean the document; however, it IS legally (and logically) just hearsay.
Just to play devil's advocate:
Suppose I told you that I have a very close friend here on Long Island who has a notarized, signed letter from John Lennon, which was given to him in 1977, to be delivered to "Rolling Stone" magazine in the event of his untimely death.
My friend is an accountant who worked for a lawyer named Eli G., from whom he received the letter. I've seen the letter, and it is assuredly authentic. Eli G. died in 1979, and he passed the letter on to my friend once he was diagnosed with inoperable cancer. This was supposedly ok'ed with John himself.
Anyway, the letter states that John had come to full knowledge of a plan hatched against him by George, Ringo, and Allan Klein due to John's lack of willful participation in their mutual fight against Paul's lawsuits in 1970 and 1971. These lawsuits by Paul essentially invalidated the Beatles' last signed contract, which would have given the other three and Klein an equal share of Paul's post-Beatle earnings through 1977. Ringo and Paul felt betrayed by John, as the idea to challenge and counter-sue paul was originally his idea. They then enlisted the cooperation of Klein, who had vested interests and connections to some sleazy, underworld individuals through his various criminal activity, for which he ultimately served a prison sentence.
In the letter, John admits "backing out on the boys," claiming that after some soul-searching, he came to realize that their actions were vindictive towards Paul ("We were being right bastards, come to think of it, me mostly."), whom he claims to have loved more than "anyone but Sean." He claims that his biggest regret in life up to that point had been allowing his relationship with Paul to be destroyed by his own "petty insecurities about the writing" and the "greed and envy of others."
He states that he was threatened by both Goerge and Ringo independently in August and October of 1974 respectively. George specifically said that "You've hurt us more than Paul ever could! Because of you, he was ALLOWED to hurt us, John! F--- off and watch your back! Hare Krishna," before walking out of Twickenham in a huff.
Also according to John, Ringo told him by phone, "You're a dead man, John! Just see once we get the dagger out our backs! You KNEW we had nothing, especially me! YOU were the f------ one who said Paul was our "ticket to ride," clever boy!"
It was due to these warnings and a subsequent run-in with a "fan" near Central Park in November of 1974 that led to John's "retirement."
My friend NEVER submitted the letter out of fear for his own life and fear of having his life invaded family-wise. I'll post a transcript of the letter soon.
See?
Some discrepancies I'd appreciate being cleared up from of your other statements:
(...possible contradiction...)
(...implied contradiction...)
(...possible contradiction...)
(...major contradiction...)
(...this is a major potential discrepancy that MUST be explained...)
SK, PLEASE respond to these discrepancies, as there are some (many?) of us who are indeed open-minded about this topic. But, at this point, the entire concept of the document could simply be a fabrication.
We've already lost Eggman, and I think others might follow his lead if nothing more substantiated comes to light about the document.
|
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Aug 22, 2003 9:09:36 GMT
Before receiving "60IF" I DID know NOTHING about Beatles story.
I never mind it.
What discrepancies?
Possibly problems with my english? (I'm not of english language)
All the animations were made by me under "60IF" directions.
That document NOT.
I've received only ONE clever statement against "60IF"
and NOT in this forum.
"My" truth is in the comparisons.
Like you all I don't know if "60IF" is ALL true or not yet.
Simply , eh?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rojopa on Aug 22, 2003 13:55:15 GMT
I agree with S.K. the truth is in the comparisons. Faul is not Paul! That's it.
|
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Aug 22, 2003 14:04:07 GMT
I agree with S.K. the truth is in the comparisons. Faul is not Paul! That's it. ..and "Frian" was NOT Brian! Thank You My Friend! |
|
|
|
Post by Eggman on Aug 22, 2003 14:09:22 GMT
And I'm Eggman again!!!! ;D ;D ;D  |
|
|
|
Post by PaulBearer on Aug 22, 2003 16:15:38 GMT
And Eggman is not a Legman? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Eggman on Aug 22, 2003 18:03:07 GMT
;D ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Aug 22, 2003 23:38:30 GMT
 I'm with S.K. Faul is not Paul. It's quite obvious. All we need is love & THE TRUTH !!! Chris 
|
|
|
|
Post by FatherMackenzie on Aug 23, 2003 0:15:18 GMT
That's fine, but you say that you have done no modifying of the original material (contradicted by yourself in another post).
Plus, the biggie is that, what you are now saying is that the document came with instructions about doing the photo comparisons. However, you also stated in a separate post that "a doctor" gave you the idea to do the comparisons.
I'm confused: which is it?
You also claim that you have published the entire document - yet, you have also claimed that their are "10,000" pictures...
I really do not mean this to sound accusatory, but I'm a "research-hound" by nature, and I've been trained to approach inquiries in a certain manner.
The bottom line is that if you can't produce primary sources for what you claim to be the "60IF" document, then from a legal, a logical, and an academic point of view, it is inadmissable (as hearsay) to any inquiry about its veracity.
If the document does not truly exist, then I aver that promotion of it undermines the more valid and "provable" approaches to explaining PID that DO exist (forensics, etc.)
That is, professing its veracity could work against us. In the absence of proof.
Peace
|
|
|
|
Post by FatherMackenzie on Aug 23, 2003 0:22:43 GMT
This statement has nothing to do with the post I made above it.
"60IF" and PID are mutually exclusive ideas...that is, one need not be true for the other to be, in a way - Paul can be dead without the document being real.
To me, the truth is more important than any one individual's "claim to fame" about some unverifiable document.
If Paul IS dead, that fact is more important than SK or "60IF" or you or me...
Guys and gals, I'm just trying to help.
As a professional engineer, ex-musician, ex-teacher and part-time law student, I do know enough about reactions to primary vs. secondary source material, chain of evidence, and cross-examination techniques.
Together, we can anticipate and strategize against the arguments to come from authorities, Faul, etc.......we need to present a provable, air-tight case.
Peace
|
|
|
|
Post by pennylane on Aug 23, 2003 0:27:31 GMT
i think the evidence speaks for itself. one may not be able to stand on its own but when you combine the two sun kings and uberkinders i think its overwhelming or at the very least beyond a reasonable doubt.
and in answer to someone elses post eariler, putting 10,000 pictures on a website is just ludicrus, i think what sun king is providing us with is the main points and the most compelling.
|
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Aug 23, 2003 0:38:13 GMT
That's fine, but you say that you have done no modifying of the original material (contradicted by yourself in another post). Just improving some animation not changing the text. I remember you (once time again) the animations were made by me. No contradiction I said not "instructions" but "directions" E.g. one direction was that the photo of Bill before plastic surgery was that on the "White Album Poster" MIRROR PRINTED Hmmmh do you know I've opened another site for that porpouse? space.virgilio.it/james_paul_mccartney@virgilio.it/index.htmlWith many "hidden" pages only for this forum members...please see ALL my previous posts... 60IF does truly exist Peace |
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Aug 24, 2003 12:51:46 GMT
This statement has nothing to do with the post I made above it. "60IF" and PID are mutually exclusive ideas...that is, one need not be true for the other to be, in a way - Paul can be dead without the document being real. To me, the truth is more important than any one individual's "claim to fame" about some unverifiable document. If Paul IS dead, that fact is more important than SK or "60IF" or you or me... Guys and gals, I'm just trying to help. As a professional engineer, ex-musician, ex-teacher and part-time law student, I do know enough about reactions to primary vs. secondary source material, chain of evidence, and cross-examination techniques. Together, we can anticipate and strategize against the arguments to come from authorities, Faul, etc.......we need to present a provable, air-tight case. Peace Sorry I haven't seen before this post. I have to say: [glow=red,2,300]PERFECT![/glow] |
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Aug 24, 2003 13:30:20 GMT
;D ;D ;D I AGREE100% with Father MacKenzie !!! Perfect !!! All we need is love & THE TRUTH !!! Chris ;D
|
|
I'm with S.K. Faul is not Paul. It's quite obvious. 