Well, I’m glad that that discussion petered out, because I think it is a moot point whether or not plastic surgery of the kind used to transform Faul was available only to the Illuminati in ’66. Under my theory, Illuminati-owned EMI originally agreed to the switch because they thought that the Beatles didn’t want people to know that an impostor was standing in for Paul, meaning the Illuminati initially thought they could use the switch as something to expose the Beatles and ruin their career in a Milli Vanilli-style character-assasination scandal at the time of their choice. But the Illuminati missed their chance; it was when
Sgt. Pepper’s came out that they would have realized what the Beatles were
really up to; they were creating an analogy that would give the masses the language to decode the Illuminati’s own clues… see my theory’s thread for my full explanation.
Here’s the link to my theory once again:
60if.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=paul&action=display&thread=1063219993So under my theory, when the Beatles first conceived the Faul plan, the Illuminati would have been more than happy to provide plastic surgeons for Faul, as the Beatles had deceived
them about their true motives.
So now that that’s cleared up, I will now share something I recently noticed that ties heavily into the discussions in the earlier pages of this thread:
==============================================================
I’ve noticed a strange trend in the 2 strongest “5 Beatles” clues—they’re being de-emphasized in reprintings, and I’m guessing this is not a coincidence.
To see what I mean, check out what’s ended up on the internet for one example. Go to any internet search engine and search under “images” using the keywords “Beatles Sgt. Pepper’s.” You’ll see that in the majority of images of the album cover that have ended up on the internet, the left side of the cover is cut off just enough where the flowers that spell “5” are only partially visible. Isn’t this a strange anomaly— that the
majority of readily-available images circulating in the media of THE MOST FAMOUS ALBUM COVER OF ALL TIME actually cut off part of the famously detailed image!?! How did this happen?
Another blatant example of cutting off the “5” is in the book
The Walrus Was Paul by R. Gary Patterson, which is the most readily-available book published on the “PID” theory. This book attaches a “death” angle to every single “Paul is not Faul” clue, ignores all of the clues that I have since pointed out as potential “5 Beatles” clues, and overall displays a one-sided bias towards there being only two possible explanations for the whole mystery: that either there is no Faul and the whole thing was an intentional hoax by the Beatles, or that Faul was drafted in because Paul had actually died. Here is that book’s image of the
Sgt. Pepper’s cover, slightly off-center due to my homemade scan of the book:
www.scatterdome.com/images/beatles%20sgt%20pepper%20reduced.JPG [/img]
The left edge is cut off, while the right edge remains intact. Certainly no one reading
this book will notice the “5” if they only use the graphic provided as a visual reference. The image section of the book also shows the original (vinyl) back of the Abbey Road cover, and states (as if it’s a fact) that the series of dots before the word “Beatles” resembles a numeral “3.” But I think that a vast majority of people viewing the dots with an unbiased eye will see a “5,”
especially when factoring in the sun/shadow shading on the dots, which lead one’s eyes to see a “5” first. And this is the book anyone researching “PID” is most likely to buy!
While cutting off the left edge of the
Sgt. Pepper cover will definitely reduce the number of people researching this in noticing the “5,” at least anyone owning the album, even on CD, can still see the “5” on the copy they own.
But a more severe changing of a “5 Beatles” clue has occurred on the back of the
Abbey Road cover. Meaning, it’s there on the original vinyl back cover, but on the CD reissue, it is cut off!
Which is why I didn’t notice that a clue is there until now. (See how effective cutting off the “5” is? The fact that I didn’t notice the “5” on the back of
Abbey Road until now is one example of a researcher taking much longer to notice a “5” in the clues because the image seen by the researcher has been edited from the original image.)
On the left is the original vinyl version of the back of
Abbey Road; on the right is the CD version:
(The vinyl image is a little crooked because I scanned it from a book myself, unable to find the image on the internet.)
It appears
someone wants anyone researching “PID” to focus on the “death” clues and completely miss any “5 Beatles” clues.
Blue meanies, perhaps?