beacon
Contributor
http://beaconfilms2011.blogspot.com/
Posts: 79
|
Post by beacon on Sept 5, 2011 9:41:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Sun King™ on Sept 5, 2011 21:59:49 GMT
Very interesting. Here is a new clue for you all:
|
|
beacon
Contributor
http://beaconfilms2011.blogspot.com/
Posts: 79
|
Post by beacon on Sept 6, 2011 9:36:05 GMT
Fascinating, on two counts. Firstly, it looks like a George replacement on the album sleeve and secondly, who is the George look-a-like with Robert Fraser? I don't think it is George, Michael Cooper perhaps? I am convinced it was Fraser that initiated McCartney and the Beatles into the OTO and was responsible for the treasure trove that is the Sgt Pepper cover.
|
|
|
Post by Sun King™ on Sept 7, 2011 20:25:33 GMT
The man on "Oldies but Goldies" back cover IS the man with Robert Fraser on the picture before
|
|
beacon
Contributor
http://beaconfilms2011.blogspot.com/
Posts: 79
|
Post by beacon on Sept 8, 2011 14:32:09 GMT
So, any idea who the mystery man is?
|
|
|
Post by Sun King™ on Sept 10, 2011 22:16:44 GMT
So, any idea who the mystery man is? Actually I was waiting for the answer from you, beacon
|
|
beacon
Contributor
http://beaconfilms2011.blogspot.com/
Posts: 79
|
Post by beacon on Sept 11, 2011 15:06:08 GMT
I have to confess I don't know, however, there is definitely more than a passing resemblence to Barry Gibb. I know of no connection between Fraser and Gibb. It would be interesting though given the fact that Bee Gees manager Robert Stigwood wanted to buy the Beatles and NEMS from Brian Epstein to sign and that Stigwwod offered the Bee Gees to Epstein, also they starred in the Sgt Pepper movie and that our old friend, Billy Shepherd produced the Bee Gees. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by romanruins on Sept 11, 2011 18:45:24 GMT
Hello,
Check out Robin Gibb at Google Images.
Wikipedia "Bee Gees" page. In Oct.& Nov. 1966 the Bee Gees had their first Major success with the song "Spic and Specks" in Australia. The group decided to develop their careers back in England arriving in January or February 1967.
The above Disc Photo was on the back of the original Album cover released in December 1966 apparently. Thus that would not be Robin Gibb if true.
I can't resist saying the guy on the right (Being George) looks a lot like Tara Browne.
Cheers, Ruins
|
|
|
Post by seasaltcaramel on Oct 8, 2011 3:48:52 GMT
i think its funny, i posted on one of the other boards a few days ago:
"just because brian jones wears nazi regalia doesnt mean he was a member of the order of the trapezoid."
i was reading all of apollo's posts last night and the way he was saying that the solution is so obvious was inspiring. (although when he quotes the guy with his hand over pauls head that sometimes there is no solution you just have to deal with it")
the fraser link is great. That was the sort of thing i was expecting. But of course, people focus on the george double. There are hardly an views for the most important points. Like the motorway goes in the OPPOSITE direction "where were they really going?"
its funny i didnt even pick up on the george clue, but in my opinion that is the least important piece of this. We have plenty of evidence for doubles, what we dont have is the golden thread that ties them all together, what gives it all context.
Like the order of the trapezoid, for instance. If you dont know what that is i will give a bit of what i know:
when anton levay began giving his "lectures" the people that kept coming back were known as the council of 9, which was synonymous with the order of the trapezoid. In behold a pale horse (a questionable book if there ever was one) mentions that a group that wore nazi regalia was known as the order of the trapezoid. Which is why i took the photos of brian and anita in that nazi photo, and the kenneth anger clips as a nod to the order.
Kenneth was one of the original members of the council of 9. But when levay started the church of satan, anger split. At least, he split from the day to day affairs of the church. It was around this time he moved into a house in the haight. It was a little while after he moved in that bobby beausoleil became his lover and/or roommate.
In the helter skelter book there are some some curious pieces of information as well. One being the leather shop in SF and it being the headquarters of "the process" in california. But again, aside from a few sentences in highly questionable books, what other proof is there?
In the book according to the rolling stones (the "autobiography" of the stones) mick mentions how when they were busted fraser has heroin in his pocket and this stunned everyone. They had never seen it. Again, is this the truth or is it fiction. Which brings up a valid point, are all these biographies pure fantasy? If so, then what is the purpose of buying them? Quoting them? And if that is the case, than what do we have, because its just as easy to lie to a biographer (probably more difficult in fact) as it is to lie to an interviewer. Which would mean we are the only one that can puzzle the truth together.
At this point it is unimaginable to think there is no truth in any of this. Meaning there is little chance only part of this is true. It would mean the airplane, the dead, the velvet underground, the soft machine, the pink floyd, the stones, the beatles, csny, the doors (basically every band involved with acid) were involved in this.
Its obvious that paul mccartney isnt dead. It requires believing absurd things like john lennon was paul mccartney. The sort of thing only an acid head could accept, because after all i am he as you are he and we are all together...
It would seem more likely that this sort of secret would have come out because it would require 100s of people who have nothing to gain from keeping silent. And maybe im among the faithless, but the argument for paul being dead comes off as trite, supported by ideas that have been propagated by people that dont really like mccartney and so all sorts of nasty things can be assumed by others that dont really like mccartney or even the beatles... But then you have the other side as well... You have the people that do like the beatles but they also are interested in the occult (like me...) who would like to make the argument that the beatles were also into the occult. (not like me) not passively interested either, but that they were initiated into the oto. Personally i cant imagine (...) john lennon getting into the thing. And paul? Come on...
On the other hand, when i look at pepper i think "these guys are so strung out...". Like the acid things been going on for a few years and they are getting (or have been) interested in the ufo thing, the occult thing.
I mean, what does beacon actually know about the oto? I've been studying the occult for a while now. What exactl is "the hidden temple of the west"? It sure sounds mysterious and like it isnt total bullshit, but is that the "solution"?
Either way, im glad a video is out referencing the sgt pepper/masonic connection. It was my opinion that they were doing what gangs do, taking the symbolism of their "rivals" and defacing it. Of course that suggests they were anti-masonic, or taking the piss out of masonry. Which isnt really my point. Not to mention the oto is a "masonic" organization, the first degress is equivalent to the 9th in traditional masonry.
Like i said the fraser link to the occult needs to be examined. The IT using the oz writing is a good start. The beatles having similar "concept of freedom" sure suggests a lot. The apollo connections as well. Im not a skeptic when it comes to this, but the facts are too scattered. For the solution to be easily understood it has to be concrete. No just for people who read the books religiously and know when a clue is or is not relevant.
For instance: hurricane fighter plane - red krayola "on the shelf i have six buckets and they are for you theyre full of little that we can do." hearing that and taking it to mean mayo thompson knew about john's magic shelf and mortar and pestle. Or knowing roky erickson played organ on that song and what he has to say about ufos
|
|
|
Post by seasaltcaramel on Oct 8, 2011 4:08:56 GMT
i love it when a mammoth hour + post gets cut off. And im at work. So i will just summarize:
beacon good work. Not much fluff, (fludd...) but i know enough about the rosicrucians to know that the image of the college had no place, unless you want to really get into the bacon/shapkespeare thing. Even then, crowley was about as far removed from the begnign brothers as a magician could be. Dont defame the rosicrucians (a group which, by the way, existed for a year, maybe two, in the early 1600s. They were destroyed when the elector was destroyed. Unless you want to talk about how people believed they existed and thats an influence of its own... Which is plausible, but has nothing to do with this. I suggest "the rosicrucian enlightenment" - a good book).
Anyway i finished the last post like this:
where i work we sell lottery tickets. No 9? "strike it witch". A clue, or a consciousness...
My guess it has more to do with a consciousness as opposed to some all encompassing conspiracy. Some of this stuff cant be denied, stick with those points. And for god's sake, leave the rosicrucians out of it.
(also i live on 6 lower beacon street so i thought the synch was nice...)
|
|
beacon
Contributor
http://beaconfilms2011.blogspot.com/
Posts: 79
|
Post by beacon on Nov 1, 2011 11:54:42 GMT
Hi seasaltcaramel, I am glad you enjoyed my efforts and I thought such a lengthy discourse deserved a response. I am not suggesting that I know all the answers or that I have access to a stash of long forgotten documents, manuscripts or even a deathbed confession. My work is an attempt to understand the meaning of the wealth of clues that the Beatles, or someone else, saw fit to include within their recorded material and record sleeves. I have followed with avid interest the whole PID saga for a number of years through the plethora of websites and blogs and videos on this subject. It is by far, for me, the most fantastic story and I wish in some ways it were true. I should state from the off though, that through these years of research, my own conclusion is that McCartney did not die in 1966, not in the physical sense anyway, but something was, for certain happening. The Pepper cover does, in my opinion, contain so many clues, is so suggestive of deeper, hidden meanings that the standard explanation that the Beatles just wanted a cover showing some people that they admired, has to be just the starting point. The eleven masons, the three (Shirley) temples, (two in the east, one in the west) the fact that two of the three 33rd degree masons depicted appear at exactly 33 degrees when you place a compass on the cover, all of these suggest to me a masonic, or secret organisation of some sort, aspect to the cover. If the history is to be believed it was McCartney who was at the forefront of the cover design, and he who brought in Robert Fraser to oversee it. To me this implies that the Beatles, or possibly just McCartney had been initiated into some secretive organisation or with some fantastic knowledge, and they were conveying their entry to others in the know. Add to the mix, Kenneth Angers appearance on the scene at this time and something is clearly going on. Scratch the surface of the Pepper cover and you discover the hidden characters, Sophia Loren, Timothy Carey, Queen Elizabeth I etc. and it becomes even more tantalising. How an image of Bette Davis from an obscure film about a long dead monarch would qualify to be on anyone’s list of heroes is mystifying and can lead only to speculation – or, in my mind, to Francis Bacon and possible Rosicrucian links! The oto seems the likeliest organisation to be involved, given Crowleys appearance on the cover and the involvement of Kenneth Anger at that time. The image of the telegraph I feature from ‘Brother Anger’ to Fraser asking for money implies they are brethren to some degree and certainly share an interest in Crowley. For me, the Pepper cover is a treasure map just waiting to be decoded. My purpose with these videos is to stimulate further investigation into this area. I was always inspired by the postings of Apollo, and whether he was Neil Aspinall or not, he always returned to Pepper as being the key to this mystery. Equally, I am convinced that Robert Fraser was at the hub of it all. Not just his involvement with the Beatles but the Stones as well. During 66 and 67 he always seemed to be there, not on the periphery, but at the heart of all the key events. He needs further investigation, and I would welcome anyone’s input into his past as not a huge amount appears to remain. My feeling is that the whole PID saga is becoming weighed down with too many crazy theories and is travelling down too many cul-de-sacs. By offering my own take I appreciate I am merely adding to this melting pot and adding further, possibly unnecessary, layers. But I am sure Pepper is the Rosetta Stone and that Fraser, at least at one time, holds the key.
|
|
|
Post by fishdelusions on Dec 2, 2011 16:52:04 GMT
In your view Beacon, what does "The Fireman" mean? I'm especially interested in the September 22nd reference on the note in Beacon 5.
|
|
beacon
Contributor
http://beaconfilms2011.blogspot.com/
Posts: 79
|
Post by beacon on Dec 5, 2011 10:58:32 GMT
Hi Fishdelusions, For me the Fireman is yet another example of McCartneys use of dual or alter egos. Throughout his career he has used them, from Paul Ramon, Apollo C Vermouth, Percy Thrillington to the Fireman. There is a certain pagan theme embedded in the names and images he has used with rams and goats featuring on the artwork and other possible clues. The 22 September date relates to the Autumn Equinox and was the date McCartney chose as a Fireman release date. It is a highly symbolic pagan festival and is yet another clue he has chosen to leave. Initially I think he adopted these personas to cease being Paul McCartney and I think therein lies the key to the mystery. Sgt Pepper was about no longer being a Beatle and him having become something greater. I think there is an element of John and Paul feeling as if they had become something greater than mere mortals, that they were mixing in higher circles, there outlooks and intellects were expanding and they were discovering new ideas and truths. I think they may have been inducted into some sort of secret society and possibly bought into an alternative religious concept. There is a lot of Masonic imagery and symbolism contained within the Sgt Pepper cover and I believe that decoding those clues is the key to the whole mystery around PID. For me, McCartney didn’t die. Not actually anyway, I think the funeral scene depicted is for Tara Browne, I think McCartney may have witnessed it, may have been present and was certainly feeling guilty about it as they were both on LSD that night. This, in turn, lead to McCartney’s desire to symbolically kill off the Beatles and their personas and be reborn anew. There are a lot of car crash references from the Beatles at this time from the lyrics to A Day In The Life, which was written on the same day that McCartney’s ‘black’ mini cooper was supposedly involved in an accident, to the videos that seem to show cars driving into Paul’s head. Something, or somebody was responsible for the Beatles sudden interest in religion come 66 / 67. The whole Maharishi thing and the trip to India was a manifestation of this. For George Harrison this experience was sufficient to satisfy his religious beliefs for the rest of his life. John, on the other hand, saw through the Maharishi in the same way he saw through conventional Christianity. I believe Lennon was always a non-believer but having lived through a period of his life when he seemed to be feted as a god, he was constantly seeking answers to the bigger questions in life, hence the whole ‘bigger than Jesus’ quote. My theory is that through their initiation the Beatles were presented with these ‘answers’, or at least the OTO or whoever it was version of religious truth. McCartney lapped it up and has been dropping hints of this conversion ever since, Harrison couldn’t accept this and chose to worship Eastern beliefs instead, Ringo simply didn’t care and Lennon questioned the ‘answers’ and McCartney’s conversion for the rest of his life. Who knows, maybe knowing too much was what got him shot? My hope with my videos and my posts is to stimulate debate and to hopefully crack the treasure map that is the Sgt Pepper LP cover. Long winded answer but I hope I have answered your question?
|
|
|
Post by fishdelusions on Dec 5, 2011 17:38:20 GMT
Yep, I'm with you. I'm in the middle of writing a book on all of this and mainly joined because I was interested reading all of Apollo's comments to try and hash out what they actually intended with PID. I'm at about 99% that this was not about Paul actually dying myself; I can't quite bring myself to 100% though because of the clips of him on August 28th 1966 in LA and the San Francisco clip of August 29th 1966. willemaus.wordpress.com/2011/12/01/922-pid-2/I can't quite shake the difference in appearance and yet if you look at the Rain video you sort of see some of each (the longer, goofier face and the round one). That doesn't really suggest he died in the fall of 1966 but only the possibility that the guy we saw during the summer of '66 isn't the same guy we saw the rest of the time. Like I said, that's keeping me from going with 100% it's a hoax right now. I was Willie Campbell in Gratitude is the tip-off that something isn't right; the William Campbell name came from Fred LaBour and is 100% fiction and this I know as a fact. I'm interested in the rest of your post, but for starters I'm interested in if you've reconciled visually that Paul was always the same guy and whether you or anyone else ever tried to unravel Apollo's final riddle about all of this? Once upon a long ago, lived four young lads I'm sure you know. The other three, you know them two. You'll know me better when this is through. Before the band was on the run, a natures child followed the sun. And soon the four became a three, a list of clues for those to see. A story told in fine detail, to keep the loonies on the trail. A coin, a sheep, a favored son, were welcomed guest when the day was done. Now, those days are gone, the stories told, in rivers of ash, and urns of gold. A final hint to all of those, who refuse to see the Emporer's clothes.
Apollo C. Vermouth
|
|
beacon
Contributor
http://beaconfilms2011.blogspot.com/
Posts: 79
|
Post by beacon on Dec 6, 2011 11:41:17 GMT
As I said, my theory is that Paul did not die, but like you, I can’t be 100%. In many ways I wish it were true, it would just be the greatest untold story ever.
Personally, I haven’t done too much research into the possible facial differences. I have studied avidly other people’s comparisons but the potential for them to have digitally altered images to suit their own theory is too great. That said, you can’t deny that there do seem to be changes, not only facially but in height also and these cannot be denied. The case for the Beatles having had, and using, doubles is something that does need to be considered, but for a permanent switch to have been made and for the replacement to have been able to sing like the original and write as well, if not better, than the original seems too far-fetched.
What I am sure about though is that if he was replaced it wasn’t by Neil Aspinall, Viv Stanshall, Phil Ackril or Tara Browne as others have speculated.
It is very interesting that you mention the Rain video though. If conventional Beatle history is to be believed, Paul had a moped accident in December 1965 whilst out with Tara Browne, scarring his lip and breaking a front tooth. This is interesting because it involves our old friend Tara Browne, it is another mention of a motoring accident, but, possibly most intriguingly, when the Rain video was shot in May 1966, Paul still has the broken tooth.
Surely, someone as high profile and regularly photographed as McCartney would not wait six months for dental treatment?
Something else is going on at this point but I am not sure what? Incidentally, Rain was also the first song with backwards recordings on.
It is great that you bring up the postings of Apollo C Vermouth. I, like a lot of people, have been heavily influenced by his messages and I remain convinced that his insistence that people should concentrate on Sgt Pepper as the starting point is accurate. Whether or not he was Neil Aspinall I am not sure, but whoever he was, he clearly had some insight that the rest of us lack.
With regard to that tantalising posting that you mentioned I am not sure. Once upon a long ago, lived four young lads I'm sure you know. The other three, you know them two. You'll know me better when this is through. Before the band was on the run, a natures child followed the sun. And soon the four became a three, a list of clues for those to see. A story told in fine detail, to keep the loonies on the trail. A coin, a sheep, a favored son, were welcomed guest when the day was done. Now, those days are gone, the stories told, in rivers of ash, and urns of gold. A final hint to all of those, who refuse to see the Emporer's clothes. Apollo C. Vermouth
This is open to so many interpretations it is difficult to know where to start. It doesn’t necessarily imply anyone died - a natures child followed the sun – could refer to Paul’s death, but could also refer to a re-birth, or an introduction to a new belief?
And soon the four became a three, a list of clues for those to see. A story told in fine detail, to keep the loonies on the trail – Again could refer to a death, however, my take is that this refers to the original 1969 Paul is Dead story. It seems to me that whatever happened in 1966, if Paul died or not, that by 1969 the Beatles were actively promoting this story. There are too many clues on record sleeves and in songs to ignore the fact that the Beatles must have been in on this whole campaign. I also find it hugely significant that Terry Knight returns from watching the Beatles in the studio, not only with a hit song that lands up with a Maclen credit, but that the whole story then starts with a radio DJ in Terry Knights hometown of Detroit. This can’t be a coincidence and to me implies that the Beatles or their people gave him the whole story and told him to get the ball rolling.
A coin, a sheep, a favored son, were welcomed guest when the day was done – Presumably a reference to the ‘three’ but who is what and why I am not sure. Interestingly, to me anyway, is the American spelling of ‘favored’. If Apollo was Neil Aspinall, as a Brit, he would have spelt it with a u. Other than that I am not sure.
What is your take on this and all of Apollo’s messages?
|
|
|
Post by fishdelusions on Dec 6, 2011 18:44:20 GMT
I'm not sure what Apollo (Neil or whoever) meant by this.
Like I said I want to make the jump to 100% but I can't really shake certain things. Unfortunately I also pay attention to the Iamaphoney group's comments and they regularly allude to something "inside" that we all just don't seem to have yet.
I have two separate things I'm chasing. One is what I believe was intended through them, which is my 922 theory of supernatural or spiritual warfare that basically puts the Beatles in the middle of a Bible story (I'm not a Christian or moralizing, it's just that I think a Christian system was in play). I'll post that in a separate thread however.
The other is what the Beatles actually intended; what they were trying to do with all of this and where I think Apollo's riddles may help unravel this all.
The Detroit connection is interesting, I'm from Michigan and have some contacts and am fairly certain that both Russ Gibb (the DJ) and Fred LaBour were innocent pawns in this. Terry Knight though was a different story, and I don't think he was referring to Paul dying in Saint Paul. That's a riddle too...
|
|
beacon
Contributor
http://beaconfilms2011.blogspot.com/
Posts: 79
|
Post by beacon on Dec 7, 2011 16:31:21 GMT
I have had a look at your 922 theory and it is very interesting. I agree to an extent – I think the Beatles themselves were hoping to achieve something and that also there were external forces involved, also hoping to achieve something. These objectives I believe differed in the 60’s, though I am not so sure they do now.
I will attempt to illustrate my point. We hear a lot at the moment about the 99%. We are the 99% and we essentially survive on what the 1% allow us to have; low wages, limited education, basic health services etc. whilst the 1% get richer and stronger on the back of our work. In essence, we get up to go to work to produce goods and products for them to sell back to us. The goods are paid for by the wages they allow us to have, after tax of course, so that what they give us with one hand they take back with the other. The entire world in which we live is controlled by the rich and powerful and always has been and is designed in such a way that protects and preserves that power.
That being the case, what would the 1% attitude to religion be? Conventional religion tells us that we are all equal in the eyes of God and providing we live our lives according to religious doctrine we will all go to heaven and be happy for eternity. In reality, if heaven really exists, wouldn’t the 1% try and preserve it as a haven for themselves? I believe they would.
When you start to research secret societies such as Freemasonry the common theme is that right at the very heart of them they exist to protect some deeply guarded religious secret. Something so earth shattering, so fundamentally at odds with what we are all brought up to believe that only the inner-core, the highest of the high can be informed and even they on the pain of death should they reveal the secret. Imagine then that God was actually the Devil and the Devil actually God but only they, the 1%, knew this. At a stroke it would prevent all the 99%, regardless of faith or lack of it, from entering the kingdom of heaven whilst guaranteeing it for everyone they decide is worthy. The 99%, in all ignorance, will have been worshipping a false God.
Could all conventional religion be a lie, a means of controlling the masses?
I have deliberately over simplified things with this example but imagine if the Beatles, or Lennon and McCartney, or perhaps just McCartney had been invited to join the elite. It would represent a huge gamble for the 1% (in reality it is probably more like 00000.1%) to induct an ordinary working class boy, someone who would not have the education to fully comprehend what he was being told, into their group. Clearly there was a motive behind it. Possibly, looking at it from a sixties perspective, they feared the collapse of modern society as people were no longer controlled by religious beliefs in the same way and thought it could be replaced through pop music and culture. This approach still goes on, we are constantly fed an endless succession of bland, predictable and vacuous celebrities that television and the media tell us we must like and through them we are fed moral messages and deprived of our money as we buy their product. However, the Beatles were never anyone’s puppets and I think this is why the 1% has learnt to use increasingly anodyne and unintelligent individuals for their purposes.
For me the conduit between the 1% and the Beatles was Robert Fraser. Eton educated and highly influential he would have been approved by the powers that be whilst remaining appealing and aspirational to the pop stars. It can’t be a coincidence that both the Beatles and the Stones got into Crowley and all his occult trappings immediately after entering Frasers orbit. I am not sure if Frasers intentions were to hamper the aims of the 1% by inducting the Beatles and Stones or if he was merely a pawn.
The case remains though that the cover of the Sgt Peppers LP contains any number of masonic / occult clues. Were they sending a message to the initiated that they knew their secrets or were they sending a message to the public that there is more than just meets the eye?
I don’t know and I am not sure I ever will. Lennon knew and I am sure that if he could have blown the lid he would have, maybe he was just about to and was stopped in his tracks? James Paul McCartney knew but would Sir Paul ever betray the establishment? Iamaphoney has been promising the revelation for a long time and has yet to deliver. The bottom line there is he either knows nothing or he is on the McCartney payroll and therefore will play the party line!
I welcome opinion.
|
|
|
Post by fishdelusions on Dec 7, 2011 16:52:00 GMT
I don't disagree with any of what you're saying Beacon. Lets take Paul in 1967, we know that he was hesitant to use LSD, he was so involved with the International Times that Ian Iachimoe (his pseudonym which is Paul McCartney said backwards even though I don't think it really is, one of your videos has a more plausible explanation) is listed as the after hours contact in one issue, he comes out as being pro-marijuana but then in the summer of '67 renounces LSD.
Why?
He had to have made enemies by doing that...
My point being that shortly after Pepper's release, its almost as if he got cold feet about something. That doesn't necessarily speak to the occult references that continue after Sgt. Peppers release, but its as if Paul specifically, sort of backed off at least one position, that being towards LSD, maybe only publicly.
Did Judas speak to you or did you put the whole world on?
You're on the right track, these guys are talking in code...it's not just Apollo pointing at Pepper, Terry Knight and John Lennon (How Do You Sleep) were also.
|
|
|
Post by fishdelusions on Dec 7, 2011 17:25:38 GMT
One other thing to keep in mind, and this is a point I e-mailed to Iamaphoney some time back, is that the religion issue that you are mentioning with regards to Sgt Pepper may have resulted in some of the issues that I point to in my 922 posts.
There is a sense that I have, that these guys may believe they let a genie out of the bottle so to speak with Pepper, it's almost impossible to not realize how the RFK/Polanski/Manson issues weren't based on something truly bizarre going on and the possibility that the Beatles and others may have believed they had somehow caused this stuff to start happening.
Even though they may have seen it this way, and deliberately obfuscated after Sharon Tate, I don't believe that's really how this came down. I think its all seen backwards. They got tempted to get into all of this to justify strange occurrences that were going on all the way back to November 22nd 1963 and even further back from there. Julian Lennon was born precisely 922 weeks after Hiroshima and then was precisely 922 weeks old when his dad was killed. That's no accident in my view...
Dylan seems to have been the first to pick up on this with There's no left or right to me anymore, only up and down . And it's probably not a coincidence that Dylan was the first to duck out of the sixties either...
|
|
beacon
Contributor
http://beaconfilms2011.blogspot.com/
Posts: 79
|
Post by beacon on Dec 9, 2011 14:49:05 GMT
Yes, there is an element of back tracking from McCartney post Pepper. I am not sure he was anti LSD I just think that after Tara's death, whilst perhaps not caused by LSD but definitely a factor, and Lennons almost prodigious ability to consume the stuff, he may have felt isolated within the band and this might explain some of his desire to start mixing in different circles with Fraser and the International Times mob. These people were certainly brought up within the British 'establishment' and although professing to be avant garde they would have access to the higher echelons and the secrets they protect. I agree also that there seems to be a lot of talking in code occuring in song lyrics etc. I am sure others must have their own takes on all of this?
|
|
|
Post by fishdelusions on Dec 9, 2011 16:18:44 GMT
I'd be interested in others' takes as well, but we know the circles Paul ran in leading up to Peppers release. But why is it so much less documented who he was running with after Pepper's release?
Did Paul start changing his circles or just go underground with something?
|
|
|
Post by fishdelusions on Dec 10, 2011 18:53:32 GMT
I get the sense that a lot of people have become disheartened or disillusioned by false promises and hidden agendas, by briefcases and Blair Witch videos. It seems difficult to get anyone to engage if you aren't speaking directly about Paul's earlobes or something.
The thing is though, there is plenty of value to figuring out what happened with Paul, and what the Beatles were trying to say and why they were trying to say it. But, to focus solely on Paul is to miss the overall; the Band wasn't on the Run because of Paul being dead imo, it was a different mystery than the one many are chasing. They thought they let a genie out of the bottle...what was Leadbelly's version of the Grey Goose, before it became a Vodka brand? Who did Robert Plant blame Karac's death on, even after Do What Thou Wilt was pressed into vinyl? Dark Side of the Moon is a chapter from Moonchild; The Pros and Cons of Hitchhiking was released on Walpurgis and specifically called Yoko out in one song, but no one pays attention if it isn't about Paul...
Paul quite frankly didn't have a lot of friends in the industry from the 80's onward it would seem. There was something that disconnected him from the people he hung with in the sixties. What did Heather Mills say? Betrayal, an act of betrayal. What was it? And how does it relate to John? Why did George need to be out of the picture before Paul opened up to do the Beatles catalog full-time?
There are answers, but we need to get the obfuscation and the MPL people out of the equation to get some intellectual integrity back into this...where did Jude and Tafultong and the people that were passionately into an honest solution take off to?
|
|
beacon
Contributor
http://beaconfilms2011.blogspot.com/
Posts: 79
|
Post by beacon on Dec 12, 2011 16:14:55 GMT
I think Heather Mills may well know the truth but I fear she has too much to lose by going public. As you say there are answers but will we know them if they are ever given? What I mean is, I think McCartney wants to rewrite Beatles history so that it suits him therefore if any answers were to be revealed by him or his camp then they would be spun in a fashion that presents him in the best light. An example would be his attempt to get all Lennon/McCartney writing credits altered to McCartney/Lennon. He wants to present himself as the key figure in Beatle lore when if you consider his post Beatles career it only proves he was just part of a bigger whole.
|
|
|
Post by fishdelusions on Dec 12, 2011 18:28:50 GMT
I hear you, and hence the desire for someone inside to try and solve this for everyone. I think Apollo was giving a legit riddle personally...
The problem is, anyone inside may not be willing to step on certain toes or go down certain rabbit holes. I'm also not of the opinion that Paul is really even the central figure in this, but it seems to have been made much easier to make it seem that way once George passed on...less resistance.
Deductive reasoning is the best bet maybe, that and a healthy skepticism applied by multiple incorruptible people to anyone who claims to know all of the answers.
|
|
beacon
Contributor
http://beaconfilms2011.blogspot.com/
Posts: 79
|
Post by beacon on Dec 13, 2011 10:50:19 GMT
Absolutely, I agree with all that. I too am not sure Paul was at the heart of all this. Certainly in 66/67 I think he was being played - setting himself up as a spokesperson for LSD when he himself had hardly used it is an example of him spouting other peoples mantras - and where he is at now is open for debate. Certainly now with George gone he is at the heart of Beatles inc and the only one who will battle him is, strangely enough, Yoko, and I doubt her motives massively.
|
|