Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Entertainment Industry

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 16-05-2010, 10:40 PM   #2541
jannie baby
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Your guess is as good as mine
Posts: 122
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by getsmart View Post
And Jannie Baby, you have just proven to us just how irreplaceable you are!


Please, share some more of your fabulous wit and engaging personality...


GS
LOL Why, thank you for the kind words, getsmart, but I wasn't addressing you.

Last edited by jannie baby; 16-05-2010 at 10:43 PM.
jannie baby is offline  
Old 17-05-2010, 01:17 AM   #2542
hermajesty
Senior Member
 
hermajesty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,421
Likes: 5 (5 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jo_6 View Post

LENNON: "If they didn't understand the Beatles and the Sixties then, what the fuck could we do for them now? Do we have to divide the fish and the loaves for the multitudes again? Do we have to get crucified again? Do we have to do the walking on water again because a whole pile of dummies didn't see it the first time, or didn't believe it when they saw it? You know, that's what they're asking: 'Get off the cross. I didn't understand the first bit yet. Can you do that again?' No way. You can never go home. It doesn't exist."
I think the last thing John would have done was to liken himself to Jesus, especially after the brouhaha over his "Jesus statement." There are 4 Jesus references above:
  • divide the fish and the loaves for the multitudes
  • get crucified
  • walking on water
  • Get off the cross

Yeah, I don't think so.

hermajesty is offline  
Old 17-05-2010, 01:28 AM   #2543
hermajesty
Senior Member
 
hermajesty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,421
Likes: 5 (5 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by getsmart View Post
To make such a statement you probably didn't have much personal experience with LSD. I lost friends to it, some permanently, others who never regained their sanity and were handicapped for life. LSD is very dangerous stuff, and to maintain the contrary is irresponsible. Was John Lennon irresponsible, or if he was indeed a good man, then was it someone else who was in his name?
People are aware that LSD is/was a psycho-chemical, psychological warfare agent, right?

Agents for change: Beatles, LSD, & social-engineering

hermajesty is offline  
Old 17-05-2010, 01:35 AM   #2544
hermajesty
Senior Member
 
hermajesty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,421
Likes: 5 (5 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by getsmart View Post
Thanks Termite, for pointing this out. Apparently John must have been such a chain smoker and a glutton for drugs that his ageing process accelerated quickly enough to rewrite the annals of science. Funny, although he wasn't a slacker for drug use, I didn't notice Jimmy Hendrix growing a hook nose.
People always want to rationalize away the physical differences by attributing them to "aging" or "drug use" or something - anything other than a double pretending to be the original who has small physical differences. The thing is, the oldest "John" ever got was 40. Are we really supposed to believe someone grew a big, old hook nose by the time he was 40? Really?

hermajesty is offline  
Old 17-05-2010, 01:40 AM   #2545
hermajesty
Senior Member
 
hermajesty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,421
Likes: 5 (5 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by getsmart View Post
How would I know what countries they are from? Since it is standard operating procedure to keep the true identity of an impostor unknown, we cannot be sure of exactly who they may be, other than the fact that they aren't the real McCoy.
One researcher thought the Lennon impostor sounded like an Irishman trying to fake a Scouse accent. Capp said something to the effect that "at least the other three were English."


Last edited by hermajesty; 17-05-2010 at 01:40 AM.
hermajesty is offline  
Old 17-05-2010, 08:43 AM   #2546
getsmart
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 266
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Exclamation "They got rid of so many Great Ones"- Phil Spector

Quote:
Originally Posted by hermajesty View Post
One researcher thought the Lennon impostor sounded like an Irishman trying to fake a Scouse accent. Capp said something to the effect that "at least the other three were English."

Hi Hermajesty, and thanks for sharing your acute observations.


Andy Capp had kicked around, and himself had resisted being a tool of TPTB. That in itself lends credence to his comments. The differences between pre-1966 and post-1966 John Lennons are not only physical, even if the younger Lennon has significantly heavier bone structure. Beyond the latter's tapered chin, darker eyes, thinner lips and longer nose, there were significant sudden behavioral changes which cannot be entirely attributed to hyperspace speed accelerated ageing. Because these pertained not just to preferences or moods, but to actual character structure. The latter John Lennon was both physically and psychologically "Structurally Different" from the earlier John Lennon.


To my knowledge, there are four possibilities of such an occurrence:


1. John suffered from a hidden latent multiple personality disorder which emerged coincidentally at the same time as a severe bone depletion disease;


2. John was tortured, starved, drugged and electroshocked out of his wits and was left as a scarred remnant of himself, no longer remembering who he was, what he had lived or where he was heading, and needing a Japanese 'femme fatale' handler to organize the residue of his life;


3. John was abducted, taken to occult satanic Illuminati rituals and his body, having become an empty shell host to a demon, he was taken over and possessed by some dark soul we cannot recognize and which was a stranger to all;


4. John was assassinated just like Paul was in 1966, and just like Paul was replaced by a vaudevillian impostor who was surgically modified to look a lot like him, except for his darker eyes, narrower tapered chin, thinner lips, longer nose, very different personality and missing memories.


Whatever version you prefer, one thing for sure is that he was NOT THE SAME MAN before 1966 and after.


Here is but one of countless examples, St Peters' parish cemetary:


Liverpool's St Peters parish cemetery



It is said that Paul Mc Cartney in writing the song took the name Eleanor in homage to movie actress Eleanor Bron and Rigby as the name of a wine shop in Bristol. He called his heroin "Eleanor Rigby" because he throught it rang well. Lennon never disputed this, while he was presumably with Paul in those days when they used to hang out at St Peter's parish and stroll through the cemetery.


Eleanor Rigby's tombstone in St Peters cemetery



When, in 1980, someone noticed the tomb of Eleanor Rigby in this cemetery, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr were the first to be surprised by this discovery. Yet the grave of John’s uncle George Toogood Smith was in that same cemetery, and John's Aunt Mimi was an active member of the congregation. George Toogood Smith gave John his first instrument, a harmonica. John was member the church's youth group and sang in the choir. He was no stranger to this cemetery and must have known the real origin of the song Eleanor Rigby, if he was really the real John Lennon.


It is hard to believe that the "Beatles" knew nothing of this tomb, when they declared their surprise in 1980. It seems obvious that they had originally found these names by reading the tombstones. The Rigby tomb is conspicuously placed right next to another tomb, in the name of John McKenzie. In the song « Eleanor Rigby » there is father McKenzie, quite the coincidence .


Father McKenzie's tomb in St Peters cemetery



Regarding whether it was the real John Lennon who was "taken out" in 1980, why then and not before or later? We can expect that John Lennon, as witness to Paul's assassination and replacement, would have spoken up years earlier and caused enough trouble to be himself eliminated soon after the fact. That begs the question, why would he wait 14 years before stirring up trouble? We can then expect, due to personality and physical discrepancies, that it was not the original John who was murdered but a replacement who was starting to himself feel expendable. Here is what Phil Spector had to say.




If it was "THEY" who had killed John, apparently Phil Spector would know given the assurance with which he speaks of it. When he said "they got rid of so many Great Ones" who was he referring to? Who was he calling "THEY" and how many Great Ones were assassinated? When saying Great Ones, he is evidently referring to talented world renowned celebrities. Who is he suggesting are the assassins? From their Modus Operandi, the M.O. used in the 1980 assassination of a 'John Lennon figure', then we are talking about a very organized "wet team" using a patsy similar to Lee Harvey Oswald in the JFK assassination. This means that we're looking at the CIA, or some similar intelligence operation under the orders of the Illuminati.


If THEY would kill John Lennon in 1980, what would prevent them from doing so in 1966 ?


Let's be logical. Nothing would stop them, that wouldn't have stopped them from killing Paul McCartney in 1966. Since they killed Paul, why didn't they also kill John? Because one is their lucky number ? Or because John's impostor is a better match ?


Dissidents here, please note that I am not forcing my opinion down anyone's throat. It isn't because my arguments are convincing that I am arrogant. It isn't because I have just cause to believe what I believe, that you or others here are not invited to not only disagree, but also to believe something entirely different. I wouldn't have it otherwise. By the same token, please respect my own convictions, as I respect yours.


GS

Last edited by getsmart; 17-05-2010 at 08:50 AM.
getsmart is offline  
Old 17-05-2010, 09:36 AM   #2547
toty1994
Senior Member
 
toty1994's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Lancashire, UK
Posts: 792
Likes: 119 (71 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by getsmart View Post
Dissidents here, please note that I am not forcing my opinion down anyone's throat. It isn't because my arguments are convincing that I am arrogant. It isn't because I have just cause to believe what I believe, that you or others here are not invited to not only disagree, but also to believe something entirely different. I wouldn't have it otherwise. By the same token, please respect my own convictions, as I respect yours.

That's fair enough, although I've come to think disagreeing with yourself or hermajesty is a futile and pointless excersize anyway. I doubt anyone of the opinion that 'PIA' posting here seriously thinks it will make any difference anymore. For me, and I'm almost certain you won't believe this, it's just a bit of fun.

Anyway, a question:

Given that you appear to be 100% certain that not only McCartney but also Lennon and possibly all The Beatles were killed/replaced, what do you plan to do with this information beyond posting on conspiracy forums?
toty1994 is offline  
Old 17-05-2010, 10:16 AM   #2548
getsmart
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 266
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Smile Disagreeing is an ESSENTIAL Exercise !

Quote:
Originally Posted by toty1994
That's fair enough, although I've come to think disagreeing with yourself or hermajesty is a futile and pointless excersize anyway.

Hi Toty,


I'm truly sorry if I give that impression. You should always disagree with whatever others say, and only later, MAYBE, come into agreement. It is indispensable to keep a lot of distance, especially when arguments are convincing, because that heightens their influence on your perceptions. We must each try to make up our own minds, not choose a side to believe.


I am not fighting what other people think. I am only making a case for what I see, and what seem like obvious conclusions to me. Of course, I may be wrong. Who never is? I'd be quite relieved to be, and that nobody had ever hurt our beloved Beatles. The world would be a much better place, and I'm game for that!


Quote:
Originally Posted by toty1994
I doubt anyone of the opinion that 'PIA' posting here seriously thinks it will make any difference anymore. For me, and I'm almost certain you won't believe this, it's just a bit of fun.

Why not? I'd really be very happy of someone knew that Paul Is Alive and could share this with us. Many of us have been alarmed that he hasn't been seen in close to half a century. It would be fabulous if you could reveal that he has been living a normal happy life elsewhere, and just wanted out of the gig. I'd much prefer knowing that there aren't a bunch of madmen out there ready to murder anyone for power and money.


Quote:
Originally Posted by toty1994
Anyway, a question:

Given that you appear to be 100% certain that not only McCartney but also Lennon and possibly all The Beatles were killed/replaced, what do you plan to do with this information beyond posting on conspiracy forums?

I am not 100% certain of anything. I'd venture to say that I am 'fairly' convinced of that, but I eagerly await evidence which will be compelling enough to change my mind. So far, the elements produced have tended to comfort that bias, and it would be nice to have something more substantial and convincing than a fade, or a bought and paid for newspaper article telling us otherwise.


Regarding what I plan to do with this information, you shall find out once it is underway. It is pointless to discuss actions before they take place, other than with those who partake in them. In case you hadn't noticed, IF several of The Beatles were indeed assassinated, then we are not taking on choir boys like John Lennon. These are people of a very different nature. At best they use hired cold blooded assassins, at worst they are very deeply deranged satanic cult members ready to do worse than murder. So you will understand that anyone planning on opposing them wouldn't be broadcasting their punches in advance.


Thanks for your comments.


GS
getsmart is offline  
Old 17-05-2010, 10:45 AM   #2549
wakeuptime
Senior Member
 
wakeuptime's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,512
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by getsmart View Post
Hi Hermajesty, and thanks for sharing your acute observations.


Andy Capp had kicked around, and himself had resisted being a tool of TPTB. That in itself lends credence to his comments. The differences between pre-1966 and post-1966 John Lennons are not only physical, even if the younger Lennon has significantly heavier bone structure. Beyond the latter's tapered chin, darker eyes, thinner lips and longer nose, there were significant sudden behavioral changes which cannot be entirely attributed to hyperspace speed accelerated ageing. Because these pertained not just to preferences or moods, but to actual character structure. The latter John Lennon was both physically and psychologically "Structurally Different" from the earlier John Lennon.


To my knowledge, there are four possibilities of such an occurrence:


1. John suffered from a hidden latent multiple personality disorder which emerged coincidentally at the same time as a severe bone depletion disease;


2. John was tortured, starved, drugged and electroshocked out of his wits and was left as a scarred remnant of himself, no longer remembering who he was, what he had lived or where he was heading, and needing a Japanese 'femme fatale' handler to organize the residue of his life;


3. John was abducted, taken to occult satanic Illuminati rituals and his body, having become an empty shell host to a demon, he was taken over and possessed by some dark soul we cannot recognize and which was a stranger to all;

4. John was assassinated just like Paul was in 1966, and just like Paul was replaced by a vaudevillian impostor who was surgically modified to look a lot like him, except for his darker eyes, narrower tapered chin, thinner lips, longer nose, very different personality and missing memories.


Whatever version you prefer, one thing for sure is that he was NOT THE SAME MAN before 1966 and after.
Just had to re-post part of this, GS, because its so powerfully expressed. The entire post was spot-on but this struck me as such a perfect summation of why it certainly appears they rubbed out John along with Paul in 1966.

They love that year.
__________________
The time is now.....
wakeuptime is offline  
Old 17-05-2010, 11:53 AM   #2550
aratron
Senior Member
 
aratron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 505
Likes: 26 (15 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by getsmart View Post
Here is but one of countless examples, St Peters' parish cemetary:


Liverpool's St Peters parish cemetery



It is said that Paul Mc Cartney in writing the song took the name Eleanor in homage to movie actress Eleanor Bron and Rigby as the name of a wine shop in Bristol. He called his heroin "Eleanor Rigby" because he throught it rang well.
so Paul was using heroin? aswell as LSD. No wonder he looks different.
aratron is offline  
Old 17-05-2010, 03:39 PM   #2551
formosan termite
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 440
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hermajesty View Post
Dede Superman just sent me this:
Quote:
I read the post recently and formosan termite correct you to say that the pictures of Faul is Paul and wrote the date is July 6, 1966 and I think is make a mistake because The Beatles visited India in the year 1967 (August) and the beginning of 1968 this is the link and a part of information:

It was obviously Faul in that pic w/ the "Lennon" w/ the rounded profile.

Of course Dede Superman is wrong here. Did he even bother to notice that John's hair style was totally different in the video he presented? In that video from presented by dedes superman, John's weight is different, his hair style is different, and he has extensive facial hair.

The Beatles were in Manila (a disaster for them) at the beginning of July 1966. On July 5, 1966, The Beatles took KLM flight number 862 from Manila to New Delhi, India.

Here is a video from July 1966 when the Beatles arrived in London after the Manila shambles. Note John's hair style and coat. You can see they match the photo used by Faulcon (hermajesty.) It shows that the photo is from July 1966, not 1967 or 1968.



The photo IS from July 1966. It is Paul in that picture. But faulcon can not tell the difference.

Before making stupid comments about the Beatles not going to India until 1967 or 1968, at least try to get your facts straight.

Last edited by formosan termite; 17-05-2010 at 04:47 PM.
formosan termite is offline  
Old 17-05-2010, 03:43 PM   #2552
formosan termite
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 440
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the squire of gothos View Post
Here is a nice collection of theories by hermajesty (aka faulconandsnowjob, aka plasticmacca, aka someotherguy) and a few of her friends. Quite illuminating (not Illuminati) about the foundations and theories found on this thread.

Enter at your own risk!! (ooh, scaddy)

LINK


WOW!

That is a must read for any open-minded person who wants to see what this is really about.
formosan termite is offline  
Old 17-05-2010, 04:12 PM   #2553
the squire of gothos
Senior Member
 
the squire of gothos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: IHQ Retirement Village
Posts: 170
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by formosan termite View Post

Before making stupid comments about the Beatles not going to India until 1967, at least try to get your facts straight.
It's easier to just make stuff up that better fits with the fantasy she's trying to pass off as "already proven".

hermajesty is a classic disinfo agent. While steadfastly claiming the Paul is alive folks doctor photos and stretch the truth, her home forum (PID MISS HIM) continues to shamelessly do the very same things she accuses us of. Yep. classic disinfo.

But instead of making claims, and never backing them up before moving on (as she ALWAYS does), here are links clearly showing the tactics used at hermajesty's forum.

CLICK -> THE MOST RECENT EXAMPLES OF PHOTO DOCTORING

CLICK -> THE ENTIRE THREAD FROM THE BEGINNING


Now watch hermajesty completely ignore this devastating evidence against her.
__________________
Living is easy with eyes closed.
Misunderstanding "Faul" you see...

Last edited by the squire of gothos; 17-05-2010 at 04:22 PM.
the squire of gothos is offline  
Old 17-05-2010, 04:58 PM   #2554
ar20
Senior Member
 
ar20's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,083
Likes: 7 (7 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ar20 View Post
Time to put an end to this:

JULIAN LENNON — Date of Birth: April 8, 1963








"Hey Jules! Don't be afraid... I'm just an imposter! Your dads dead and so are all his friends... but shhhh, you have to keep it a secret because you look too much like the original!"

Wonder why Julian has that same nose?

Don't forget Sean:

Conveniently ignored.

I'm about ready to check my ass into the MaccaFunHouse with this shit, seriously. WTF.

Last edited by ar20; 17-05-2010 at 04:58 PM.
ar20 is offline  
Old 17-05-2010, 04:59 PM   #2555
getsmart
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 266
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Question John Lennon - assassinated in 1966 or 1980 ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by aratron View Post
so Paul was using heroin? aswell as LSD. No wonder he looks different.

That is a valid argument Aratron. One who has known people before and after they started 'shooting up' with heroin will know that there is definitely a "mutation" in their physical appearance and behavior. They will become gaunt, losing weight, and will sometimes become distant with family and friends. So your argument is definitely valid, and admittedly some will find this sufficient explanation that John is John and that he died by assassination in 1980 and not in 1966.


People browsing this thread will however notice something very uncanny. That the issue being debated here isn't whether John Lennon was assassinated, but what date he was assassinated. That "someone" would want to kill him is not at issue. So why should it be so controversial that he may have been murdered earlier than we were told ?


This is because it would hammer an extra nail, not only into Paul McCartney's coffin but also into our vision of reality. Are there really Blue Meanies who are prepared to kill off anyone, no matter how loved or revered? Is there a power so great that they can shut up families, friends and the media for decades on end, and snuff out any discussion of their crimes?


So this isn't just a matter of whether you believe in one date or the other. It has a far greater impact. Tell me, what world do we live in?


Most normally constituted healthy people would much rather choose to live in a world where respect for human life prevails. A world where one owes a duty of truth to the public. A world where things are what they appear to be.


Take a step back, and pray tell me: which of these worlds do we really live in?


From many things I've learned from life, from reading, from research and from forums such as this one, it is not entirely inconveivable that 'somebody' may have been willing, able and capable of committing a capital crime. Furthermore, 3 years after the Kennedy assassination, there were manifestly people and organizations which didn't hesitate to kill the most famous and beloved people on Earth.


I've lost enough friends to drugs, heroin being the worst in those days, to be sensitive to the substantial physical and psychological changes which take place. A number of them didn't survive. Yet, I fail to recognize this as a sufficient explanation of the more radical yet shift seen in John Lennon. This is only my personal subjective opinion, based on my experience and observation. John lost weight, but this should have revealed an even more squared off jawline.


Were this the only difference in bone structure, it could be passed off as a freak natural event. But the bridge of his nose, between his eyes, also receded, and his cheekbones got lower. This makes 3 separate, even if relatively minor, changes in bone structure which can't be readily explained by anything short of a serious car accident. Lastly, the shade of brown of his iris darkened by several degrees. This isn't a small matter, as eyes don't change pigmentation naturally.


Add to this the fact that he didn't just lose interest in things, but instead he substituted his values with others sometimes contradicting his former deep convictions. Sure this can happen to anyone, but usually it occurs in the form of a clearly reformulated worldview and not merely an attraction for opposite beliefs. Combined with his loss of memory and absence of a formal declaration about what happened to Paul in 1966, and you've got a very strong likelihood of John Lennon having been replaced by a very convincing look-alike in 1966.


Thanks for taking the time to read this brief analysis and consider with a critical mind the strengths and/or weaknesses of the elements presented.


GS
getsmart is offline  
Old 17-05-2010, 05:10 PM   #2556
formosan termite
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 440
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT:

NOSES ARE NOT CARVED IN STONE. THEY CHANGE WITH AGE.

Noses are not bone. They are made of soft tissue. You can flare nostrils and change the shape of the nose using facial muscles. So should we be surprised that two pictures of the same person can show noses that look different? No. Anybody should know that.

Secondly, noses change with age. Noses start to droop creating a "hook nose". Mine started in my early-twenties.


Quote:
Have you ever looked at old pictures of yourself and thought, "hmmm....when did my nose get bigger?" Is it true that our noses get bigger or longer as we get older? Not really. But aging can cause the nose to droop.

Why does this happen? As we age, collagen and elastin fibers break down, allowing the skin to stretch and sag, thereby making the nose longer and droopier. Shorter, perkier noses tend to be associated with youth. For this reason, rhinoplasty is sometimes recommended along with anti-aging procedures (such as a face lift) in order to restore the nose to a more youthful appearance.

Drooping, however, is not the whole story. One more reason the nose may appear to grow larger as we age is that the surrounding areas of the face (the cheeks, the lips, and the "hollows" of the eyes) lose some of their volume. By comparison, then, the nose can appear larger. To improve on this, many people turn to the use of injectable dermal fillers and/or lip augmentation.
http://plasticsurgery.about.com/b/20...as-you-age.htm

Quote:
But, there are certain aging processes over which we have no control. One of those is, surprisingly, the aging and drooping of the nose. Yes, in addition to the ears, the nose does grow with age whether or not one is always truthful (a la Pinocchio).
http://www.todaysface.com/Droop-no-more.html

Quote:
The hallmark of nasal aging is the loss of support for the lower one-third of the nose. The major and minor tip support mechanisms have been documented to weaken with age. The secondary effects of these changes include a relative dorsal hump as a result of decreased tip projection, and a longer nose as a result of lobular depression and derotation.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Rhinop...se-a0144014252

Quote:
The Aging Nose

As we age, the nose elongates. Common causes are thinning of the soft tissue and loss of elasticity, which causes "drooping of the tip," and unmasking of the bone above, creating a new hump. Loss of bone near the upper teeth and jaw coupled with the drooping tip decreases the angle between the nose and the upper lip. Flattening of the forehead can make the nose appear longer. Rhinoplasty may be performed in conjunction with aging face surgery.
http://www.mdface.com/proc_agingface.html

Yes! BULLETIN: People do change with age. Smoking and drug use can accelerate the affect of aging.

Now, should we really be surpised if we see that John's nose might look a little different as he aged? No.

You should NOT take my word for it. There are many many websites that talk about the drooping of the nose tip with age. It is common knowledge.
formosan termite is offline  
Old 17-05-2010, 05:21 PM   #2557
aratron
Senior Member
 
aratron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 505
Likes: 26 (15 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by formosan termite View Post

Secondly, noses change with age. Noses start to droop creating a "hook nose". Mine started in my early-twenties.



pics or stfu
aratron is offline  
Old 17-05-2010, 05:27 PM   #2558
hermajesty
Senior Member
 
hermajesty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,421
Likes: 5 (5 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by getsmart View Post

2. John was tortured, starved, drugged and electroshocked out of his wits and was left as a scarred remnant of himself, no longer remembering who he was, what he had lived or where he was heading, and needing a Japanese 'femme fatale' handler to organize the residue of his life;
And not just any Japanese femme fatale, but an Elite Japanese banking family femme fatale!

"Yoko Ono was born to mother Isoko Ono, the granddaughter of Zenjiro Yasuda of the Yasuda banking family, and to father Eisuke Ono, who worked for the Yokohama Specie Bank and was a descendant of an Emperor of Japan.[1] ... In 1937, her father was transferred back to Japan and Ono was enrolled at Tokyo's Gakushuin, one of the most exclusive schools in Japan, which, before World War II, was open only to the Japanese imperial family and aristocrats of the House of Peers..."

The Illuminati & the Beatles

Well, it explains how she could be so successful w/ her crappy art & music. And how she could get an audience w/ "Paul McCartney" by knocking on his door.

Quote:
4. John was assassinated just like Paul was in 1966, and just like Paul was replaced by a vaudevillian impostor who was surgically modified to look a lot like him, except for his darker eyes, narrower tapered chin, thinner lips, longer nose, very different personality and missing memories.
I'm checking YES on this one.

Liverpool's St Peters parish cemetery

Very interesting information! Good detective work.

Quote:
It is said that Paul Mc Cartney in writing the song took the name Eleanor in homage to movie actress Eleanor Bron and Rigby as the name of a wine shop in Bristol. He called his heroin "Eleanor Rigby" because he throught it rang well. Lennon never disputed this, while he was presumably with Paul in those days when they used to hang out at St Peter's parish and stroll through the cemetery.
This was what Paul said in a 1966 interview:

Quote:
PAUL 1966
(following the release of the 'Revolver' album)
Q: "How did you come to write Eleanor Rigby?"

PAUL: "I was sitting at the piano when I thought of it. The first few bars just came to me, and I got this name in my head... Daisy Hawkins picks up the rice in the church. I don't know why. I couldn't think of much more so I put it away for a day. Then the name Father McCartney came to me, and all the lonely people. But I thought that people would think it was supposed to be about my Dad sitting knitting his socks. Dad's a happy lad. So I went through the telephone book and I got the name McKenzie. I was in Bristol when I decided Daisy Hawkins wasn't a good name. I walked 'round looking at the shops, and I saw the name Rigby. Then I took the song down to John's house in Weybridge. We sat around, laughing, got stoned, and finished it off."

http://www.beatlesinterviews.org/db66.html
I guess this is an example of how the story changes?

Quote:
It is hard to believe that the "Beatles" knew nothing of this tomb, when they declared their surprise in 1980. It seems obvious that they had originally found these names by reading the tombstones. The Rigby tomb is conspicuously placed right next to another tomb, in the name of John McKenzie. In the song « Eleanor Rigby » there is father McKenzie, quite the coincidence .
Yes, quite a "coincidence."

Quote:
Regarding whether it was the real John Lennon who was "taken out" in 1980, why then and not before or later? We can expect that John Lennon, as witness to Paul's assassination and replacement, would have spoken up years earlier and caused enough trouble to be himself eliminated soon after the fact. That begs the question, why would he wait 14 years before stirring up trouble?
Did John really seem like the sort of person to just sit quietly by after his friend had been murdered & replaced? He seemed sort of the rebellious type to me, not afraid to speak his mind. IMO, he may have been taken out at the same time as Paul to "pre-empt" any trouble.

Quote:
We can then expect, due to personality and physical discrepancies, that it was not the original John who was murdered but a replacement who was starting to himself feel expendable. Here is what Phil Spector had to say.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gusARyZj2SA
watch?v=gusARyZj2SA
Well, the whole "investigation" after "John Lennon's" assassination is extremely suspicious, especially the doctor who withheld & destroyed evidence.

Quote:
If it was "THEY" who had killed John, apparently Phil Spector would know given the assurance with which he speaks of it. When he said "they got rid of so many Great Ones" who was he referring to? Who was he calling "THEY" and how many Great Ones were assassinated? When saying Great Ones, he is evidently referring to talented world renowned celebrities. Who is he suggesting are the assassins? From their Modus Operandi, the M.O. used in the 1980 assassination of a 'John Lennon figure', then we are talking about a very organized "wet team" using a patsy similar to Lee Harvey Oswald in the JFK assassination. This means that we're looking at the CIA, or some similar intelligence operation under the orders of the Illuminati.
Intelligence agencies would find & train the "talent." The Illuminati would be able to control the media & "sell" the doubles as the originals.

It's interesting that there seem to be quite a few news shows on PID in other languages, such as Italian & Spanish. It seems that the PID story has broken in other countries. It must be nice for the Illuminati to have control over English-speaking news.

Quote:
If THEY would kill John Lennon in 1980, what would prevent them from doing so in 1966 ?
Nothing.

Quote:
Let's be logical. Nothing would stop them, that wouldn't have stopped them from killing Paul McCartney in 1966. Since they killed Paul, why didn't they also kill John? Because one is their lucky number ? Or because John's impostor is a better match ?
Actually, it makes more sense to kill John & Paul at the same time. Both were strong, natural leaders. They had the media's attention. One or the other could very easily have spilled the beans about what happened. That would have been a big risk to take.

Quote:
Dissidents here, please note that I am not forcing my opinion down anyone's throat. It isn't because my arguments are convincing that I am arrogant. It isn't because I have just cause to believe what I believe, that you or others here are not invited to not only disagree, but also to believe something entirely different. I wouldn't have it otherwise. By the same token, please respect my own convictions, as I respect yours.
You don't really expect them to be respectful of your opinions, do you? lol That's not what they're here for. They're here to shut down discussion of sticky topics.
hermajesty is offline  
Old 17-05-2010, 05:31 PM   #2559
formosan termite
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 440
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

July, 7th. Staying in New Delhi









Ah. Again dislpaying her great powers of observation and research.



To anybody here possibly being fooled by this PID hoax.

It just takes SIMPLE research to find that The Beatles were in India in July 1966. Yet the PID people here did not even know that fact. They didn't even bother to research it. It is also quite simple to find and see that the photo is from that visit to India in July 1966. Yet hermajesty claims it is the mythical "Faul" in that picture.

These pidders claim they have superior powers of observation and superior research skills.

Can you really rely on their powers and skills? Honestly?
formosan termite is offline  
Old 17-05-2010, 05:48 PM   #2560
hermajesty
Senior Member
 
hermajesty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,421
Likes: 5 (5 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by getsmart View Post
That is a valid argument Aratron. One who has known people before and after they started 'shooting up' with heroin will know that there is definitely a "mutation" in their physical appearance and behavior.
Except there is no indication that Paul ever took drugs other than smoking pot. He flat-out refused to try heroin, according to Dick Lester.

Quote:
People browsing this thread will however notice something very uncanny. That the issue being debated here isn't whether John Lennon was assassinated, but what date he was assassinated. That "someone" would want to kill him is not at issue. So why should it be so controversial that he may have been murdered earlier than we were told ?
Yeah, it doesn't really work to say John wasn't assassinated. Like you said, if they could assassinate him in 1980, they could've done it in 1966. Or maybe people don't think assassins or doubles existed back then?

Quote:
This is because it would hammer an extra nail, not only into Paul McCartney's coffin but also into our vision of reality. Are there really Blue Meanies who are prepared to kill off anyone, no matter how loved or revered? Is there a power so great that they can shut up families, friends and the media for decades on end, and snuff out any discussion of their crimes?
Quote by President Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom (1913):

"Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the Field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."
http://www.missionislam.com/nwo/illuminati.htm

Quote:
So this isn't just a matter of whether you believe in one date or the other. It has a far greater impact. Tell me, what world do we live in?
We live in a world of manufactured reality. I know for a FACT that intell agencies will make up news stories & print them in respectable newspapers as actual fact, when they were, in reality, completely fabricated.

Quote:
I've lost enough friends to drugs, heroin being the worst in those days, to be sensitive to the substantial physical and psychological changes which take place. A number of them didn't survive. Yet, I fail to recognize this as a sufficient explanation of the more radical yet shift seen in John Lennon. This is only my personal subjective opinion, based on my experience and observation. John lost weight, but this should have revealed an even more squared off jawline.

Were this the only difference in bone structure, it could be passed off as a freak natural event. But the bridge of his nose, between his eyes, also receded, and his cheekbones got lower. This makes 3 separate, even if relatively minor, changes in bone structure which can't be readily explained by anything short of a serious car accident. Lastly, the shade of brown of his iris darkened by several degrees. This isn't a small matter, as eyes don't change pigmentation naturally.
Does heroin or any other drug morph bone structure?

Quote:
Add to this the fact that he didn't just lose interest in things, but instead he substituted his values with others sometimes contradicting his former deep convictions. Sure this can happen to anyone, but usually it occurs in the form of a clearly reformulated worldview and not merely an attraction for opposite beliefs. Combined with his loss of memory and absence of a formal declaration about what happened to Paul in 1966, and you've got a very strong likelihood of John Lennon having been replaced by a very convincing look-alike in 1966.
Seems very likely that his popularity & influence were exploited to manipulate the masses.

hermajesty is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:35 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.