That's an idea Perplexed.
But doesn't it seem like the Beatles had various buttons custom-made every so often? I believe they did this to convey messages that they didn't want to talk about out loud.
The company that used to make their buttons was called guess what?
Anabis. A play on the name Anubis, Egyptian god of death?
The replacement saga is so much more than just a "replacement." It was magic. It was almost like a miraculous illusion that only a group of the greatest magicians would even attempt.
It was an audio and video illusion that the globalists created. Maybe we were taken down a notch or two on the human value scale by subconciously allowing ourselves to believe the lie.
If we choose to lie, or choose to accept lies rather than seek or spread the truth, are we guilty of wrongdoing? Maybe.
No one knows for sure to what extent the Creator examines our motives or intentions.
If there was the idea somewhere in your mind that there was deception afoot, even on the subconcious level, and you chose to disregard or ignore it due to not going against the world are you then "of" the world?
If you choose to go along with the world's official view of things rather than acknowledge the truths and facts that have been uncovered, for the sake of not "complicating" your daily life, are you then now a part of the problem? I think so.
Anyway, just some thoughts. Thanks Perplexed, by the way, for the kind words re my posts on the other thread. Appreciated!
That has skirted the edges of my mind, yes. The thing is, how many issues are there? How many does one come to consider before you lose your mind, lose your credibility, or, ugh, lose it all? Especially when any support you might offer someone when you suggest, for example, maybe Sylvie Vartan was replaced. You share a comparison or two, and the standard reaction is that she got older and you're hallucinating, or inventing things in your mind.
Then they tell you that you have a neurotic fixation, or a mild, beginner case of schizophrenia, (or worse!) or mid-life crisis, or paranoid delusions, or you're in love, or it's repressed Oedipal jealousy, or whatever, you get it?
Years ago, somebody put something (unbeknownst to me at the time) in my Kool-Aid that made me see and hear all kinds of weird stuff until the sun came up. Some friend, huh? Anyway, I get what THAT kind of experience is. But I am not living in that state. [God help the people who are.]
Harping on anything strange that you can't make believable to anyone else just makes you look like a nut-case; and makes the point you are trumping all the more ridiculous to the average Joe. Nutcases may even be right sometimes, but the negative perceptions they(I?) generate undermine their testimony.
Plus, it becomes a thing of is it just interesting information, or am I making value judgements? Have I not considered the motivations involved?
The conclusions we often reach here are tentative, and subjective. Facts are impossible to nail down because of the nature of the survey. And, the typical mode of presentation.
I have known a couple of folks who went on to do TV shows and movies, etc., and not like, "I knew you when, baby", sleaze, but frankly, all that supermarket magazine stuff is fluff and filler and written to sell mags.
I read about a friend or two and thought--Whoa! That's an embellishment if evah I hoid one!" I mea, they were noce people and I have nothing bad to say. But, the flow of the litle PR blurbs was enhanced. That's been true from the get-go of entertainment rags. Everybody knows it.
Celebrity books are also written to sell books and to be beneficial to the subject. Who would write "I am a Big Fat Movie Star, but Frankly, I Really Suck."
So, you know, a ot of our speculation is hingeing upon dubious elements.
The complete truth is known somewhere, and certainly by God. Cover-ups are as ancient as the heiroglyphs.
Am I defending "the lies", in general?
No. But I don't want to inadvertantly promote a few lies (or many) in my quest to know more. I doubt I will truly ever know more about most of these clandestined topics. Things like this seem to be so well covered.
I will say, the fact that certain information does seem to be well controlled, even buried, does signal to me, and maybe everyone else, that somebody knew that most people wouldn't like what they found out---ergo----something was done wrong.
Why hide perfect behaviour? Human nature is to send a trumpet ahead to herald the glory of good works.
The part one covers is the part that may look too skeezy to show. Mix in some good people with altruistic hearts who become imprisoned in an alleged scheme, and you have an even harder nut-case to crack.
I will say this, whether Brian Epstein was alive thru Aug 22, 1967, or he secretely passed away 11 months prior, his presence and relationship to the Beatles seems sketchy, and undersupported in film clips, etc. Actually, he seems to be a token figure in everything I've seen. He hardly seems, from all I have had to view about the Beatles, to be any more than like "Charley" or "Charley's Angels".......a person everyone refers to a lot, but is seldom (or never) seen in action. Mal Evans has more palpable, extant footage and photographic presence in all that I have seen. Does that make any sense?
The loyal "assistant" turns up in films, videos, home movies, and hundred of publicity shots. The aggressive, hard working, driven, egoistic (I didn't say egotistical) manager, who must have wanted his share of the limelight, appears now and then as a bit extra. From an intuituve standpoint, that just feels wrong to me. It's just that, and hear me when I say that it's not to most people, average people noticeable, because they could care less and would never scrutinize this stuff like we have (maybe we are around the bend...)--but to me, or us, it's like doing a documentary about the greatest football team ever and barely mentioning the head coach.......It's like the movie "To Sir with Love", and leaving out Sidney Poitier. Somethings been left out, and you feel it, if you are following the story.
Actually, the whole thing is that way to some degree. And for all of those nagging questions, the standard answer, and the most accepted one is, drugs, which, for better or for worse, is an indicated factor in all this. That is a satisfactory tie-together for nearly everybody. That seems like something that they would want to hide, to cover-up. But, no, the 'drugs' thing seems to have been touted as freely as how many Beatle songs went to number one. Know what I mean? I think EMI in most cases would rather have distanced themselved from ANY association of illicit drugs. I wager that early on, a "drug scandel" might have got the Fab Four fired, or at least, seriously reprimanded.......just a thought. But, we see interviews lauding the virtues of hemp and LSD. I am no Goody-goody, OK, so I am not pouncing on those interviews. It's just that they seem antithetical to the Beatle image and EMI's policy prior to their airing.
But, I ramble.
Thinks for the heads up, madtitan125, you have forced me to think. Which, as we claim around here, is one of the perks of hangin' with the crew.
FYLVIE
FYLVIE
FYLVIE
FYLVIE
FYLVIE
FYLVIE
