It's The Muppet Show!

User avatar
rachel
Posts: 1873
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 340 times
Been thanked: 615 times

Re: It's The Muppet Show!

Post by rachel »

If you've ever looked into the Paul/Faul conspiracy, then you'll know there is a lot of research around, 'Paul died and was replaced'. The idea being shortly after The Beatles last tour of the U.S. finishing 29 August 1966, the band returned to England and Paul was killed in a car crash. There is a far more logical explanation about why what transpired with The Beatles happened post 1966, but one of the claimed proofs of his death is Paul's false ears. Here's a blog post discussing it, unfortunately most of the youtube videos have now gone away.
https://plasticmacca.blogspot.com/2009/ ... -ears.html

Beatles fake ears & Paul's ever-changing earlobes


From the video:
ScreenShot-VideoID-bqXiIb68YSg-TimeS-93.png

But taking another couple of stills from the video, you'll see the fakery is not confined to Paul's ears. It's his nose, his forehead and his hair. And it is perfectly reasonable why, particularly during the first five years of The Beatles. Whoever you believe wrote the songs, and I'm of the opinion they were written by Lennon and McCartney, the band was under contract to a record label, and that meant the songs, the visuals, any spin-off items sold and 'The Beatles' actual image were all wholly owned by EMI. The contract was five years in duration, starting from 27 March 1962, and ending in March 1967.

Not only fake ears; the wig, forehead and nose are also plastic.
Not only fake ears; the wig, forehead and nose are also plastic.

There were evidentially fractures behind the scenes in 1964 when Paul McCartney was interviewed for BBC's A Degree of Frost, in which he pretty much confirmed once the contract was over, he was retiring. But what it also meant, as soon as the band walked away from EMI, they could no longer use the mop-top look as that was owned by EMI not the four band members. I can be quite sure of this because of what Paul said in his 1987 Wogan interview, this was the second interview a person claiming to be Paul McCartney gave to Wogan, but it is my conjecture that the 1986 interview is by the person conspiracy theorists know as Faul. Again, this thread is not about going into detail on that, but everything I have learns since my original hypothesis only strengthens it as being accurate.

In that 1987 interview, Paul talked about his school days and how the band started, as I recall he said he was good at literature and poetry, but that his teacher didn't think he would amount to much with his music. So when he was signed by EMI he wrote to that teacher to say, you'll be happy to hear I'm on such-and-such wage. I don't remember numbers, but it was high compared to the average he would be expecting to earn from other careers. My point, he earned a wage so he was still an employee. The Beatles, if you look on Company's House, was set up as a business with one hundred shares, the fact Paul says he was on a wage confirms he and the other band members were not share holders. Having worked for both college and university in which I earned a salary/wage I know there was a clause in the contract that stated any intellectual property I create while I'm employed by them, they own the copyright. It doesn't actually matter if I do it in my own time, by working for them, I agree, they own it all. Likewise, this will have been the case for The Beatles, while with EMI, they dictated the look, where The Beatles went, who doubled for them, etc. etc. This is not to say Paul McCartney didn't have some sway, but in the 1964 Frost interview, there is some indication the underlying structure is standard to any other employer/employee relationship in the UK at the time.

Post-EMI look; ears, hair, forehead, nose remain fake, with added eyeliner, false lashes and probably coloured contacts.
Post-EMI look; ears, hair, forehead, nose remain fake, with added eyeliner, false lashes and probably coloured contacts.

So, Paul McCartney, if that is indeed his birth name, is different to PAUL MCCARTNEY, and because EMI could not claim the skin on Paul's face as their property, but they wanted to be able to defend their copyright, they made the band members wear a false skin. And if the band members use this look outside of EMI's terms, they could have been sued as readily as any other bootlegger. It is all highly logical when you add profit and sweat labour to the equation. After March 1967 when the band declined a new contract with EMI, they set up their own label and distanced themselves from the EMI look; also, Paul McCartney decided to remain connected to the band but take more of a backseat, moving the Scotland. I don't think the band members really wanted to deceive, it's just the things they would rather not say, and because Apple Corps was a business designed to make money, the same as say Pfizer now, truth got thrown out of the window in the pursuit of profit. And this will be the case for all other bands owned by labels. My feeling, people started to notice, and the transgender thing was amplified to misdirect from discussing money, contracts and wages, and the fact the people promoted who we think we know are actually works of fiction with the sole aim to sell products.
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 1873
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 340 times
Been thanked: 615 times

Re: It's The Muppet Show!

Post by rachel »

Some people think "The Fool On The Hill" is about Paul's death and replacement, but no, not quite. Once I had listened to a number of Paul's interviews, from the horses mouth so to speak, it made sense what this is actually about. We only have Paul's view, but you'll notice when the band was with EMI in the mop-top days, Paul was the main mouthpiece. The band's fame definitely reflected his ambition. While he wrote to his teacher to say he was on good money he soon realised it was peanuts compared to the money the shareholders were making from his sweat labour, we hear this indirectly in Paul's 1964 interview where he says he wants to retire... "When?"... "In a couple of years the way things are going." - that's the end of that five year contract, and as he says this he moves his hand into the following position.

finger.png

This carefully hidden micro-gesture which was up for less than a second is proof for me he said what he meant and meant what he said. And in other interviews, it is clear he is sick to death of people making money off his talent. This is the main reason I am convinced he wrote all his songs. Why would it irk someone so much if he was just singing someone else's creations? ...No clearly, he put his foot down that he wasn't going to let his songs be used to sell washing powder etc, and he would go to court over it. To be able to do that, he had a legitimate claim. And when it came to the band's break up and him forming Wings, he would never play Beatles songs because he was not the copyright holder, and he refused to pay someone else a fee to play something he wrote. If you want to work out the truth, the surest way to get to the bottom of it is property claims.

So back to the song "The Fool On the Hill". It's starts with the man with the foolish grin, Paul, being alone of a hill, in Scotland, when the other band members are in London. He's made an agreement, as he suggests in the 1964 interview, he will continue writing and recording songs from his studio. He sends his parts down to London where they are mixed. Because he didn't want the constant travel of the EMI days, he agrees to continue with the band only appearing in person to events he considers important, they get a stand in to do all other non-singing appearances.

The next verse, the fool with the head in the clouds is the stand in, he is an impersonator, and he is getting ahead of himself and putting words into Paul's mouth which Paul is feeling increasingly uncomfortable about. This is Paul keeping perfectly still, when Faul is in say America, Paul has to keep a low profile, he cannot be seen going in and out of his house, he can only really communicate with people who are in on the deception. While it seemed to Paul an excellent idea to begin with, he is getting increasingly irritated by it, especially when Faul is caught with drugs and arrested, and the British government clearly pull strings to get Faul released without charge so it doesn't all come out.

I like this bit a lot, talking about Faul, "nobody ever hears him or the sound he appears to make and he never seems to notice", I think best summed up with this movie clip.



Next verse, I think what he wants to do is exactly what happened in the clip above. Too many vested interests though. He keeps quiet until finally (wiki)...
The final time that the four members recorded together collectively was the session for Abbey Road's closing track "The End" on 18 August 1969. Lennon privately informed his bandmates that he was leaving the Beatles on 20 September, although it was unclear to the other members whether his departure was permanent. On 10 April 1970, McCartney issued a press release that stated he was no longer working with the group, which sparked a widespread media reaction and worsened the tensions between him and his bandmates. Legal disputes continued long after his announcement, and the dissolution was not formalised until 29 December 1974.
That is what the song tells us.
The Fool On the Hill
The Beatles

Day after day
Alone on a hill
The man with the foolish grin is keeping perfectly still
But nobody wants to know him
They can see that he's just a fool
And he never gives an answer

But the fool on the hill
Sees the sun going down
And the eyes in his head
See the world spinning around

Well on the way
Head in a cloud
The man of a thousand voices talking perfectly loud
But nobody ever hears him
Or the sound he appears to make
And he never seems to notice

But the fool on the hill
Sees the sun going down
And the eyes in his head
See the world spinning 'round

And nobody seems to like him
They can tell what he wants to do
And he never shows his feelings

But the fool on the hill
Sees the sun going down
And the eyes in his head
See the world spinning 'round
(Oh oh oh...)
('round and 'round and 'round...)
He never listens to them
He knows that they're the fools
They don't like him

The fool on the hill
Sees the sun going down
And the eyes in his head
See the world spinning 'round

Songwriters: Paul Mccartney, John Lennon. For non-commercial use only.
Marfer
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2022 2:09 pm
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 14 times

Re: It's The Muppet Show!

Post by Marfer »

rachel wrote: Mon Nov 14, 2022 4:00 pm So back the Jeremy Hunt, when he was Secretary of State for Health, he used to go a missing for seemingly months on end, leading to such headlines as...

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics ... of-Commons


A13-147.jpg
Ahead of Wednesday’s planned 24-hour strike by Junior Doctors, the Tory minister was hauled before the House of Commons to make a statement over the ongoing contract negotiations.

But Mr Hunt failed to attend Parliament and instead left junior health minister Ben Gummer to tackle questions from Labour.

Shadow health secretary Heidi Alexander accused Mr Hunt of lacking the "nerve" to appear before MPs, as she branded the Government's approach to the Junior Doctors’ row as an "exercise in using a sledgehammer to crack a nut".
In fact, I remember there being a set of "Where's Jeremy?" Wally type memes doing the rounds.


Wheres-jeremy-hunt-main.jpg


Turns out he was probably at the Babbacombe Theatre in Torquay, hey Jeremy? ... But does it remind you of anyone else currently apparently in government?

https://news.yahoo.com/column-kamala-ha ... 15373.html


A13-152.jpg
And of course a clown wears a Red nose.

One legend surrounding the red nose dates back to before both the Fratellinis and Jacobs: As the story goes, in the 1860s, a German circus performer named Tom Belling was wearing oversized clothes and ended up being accidentally pushed into the ring of the show. (The reasoning for his attire and how he found himself in the spotlight varies from tale to tale.) One consistency is Belling falling, bloodying his nose and the crowd chanting “auguste”—German slang for “fool”—at him. Thus, the buffoon stereotype of the Auguste clown, as well as the signature red nose, was born.
PotatoFieldsForever
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2022 4:34 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 21 times

Re: It's The Muppet Show!

Post by PotatoFieldsForever »

"The Fool on the Hill" reminds me of "The Fool" card in the Tarot game, even though, it's more a cliff than a hill.
Image

But the part about seeing the sun going down, seeing the end of a cycle and at the beginning of a new one just like the Fool card is thought as the card 0 and 22.

The eye in his head makes me think of the third eye, someone with that kind of perception would probably act like a fool in the eyes of others. It could simply be a reference to drugs though.

Now it kinda works with the moon too, you could see it "on a hill", the grin on his face, "perfectly still", never gives an answer, seeing the sun going down and the world spinning round from its perspective.

Image
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 1873
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 340 times
Been thanked: 615 times

Re: It's The Muppet Show!

Post by rachel »

It's interesting, when I heard about the "Paul is dead" conspiracy, I had a desire to research it because The Beatles are so intertwined with my home town. I think I took the approach of first having a clear understanding of the claim, then looking to see if it had merit, which it does, and then whether the claim continued to be valid beyond the given time frame. This is the point where it falls apart.

7 completely legit signs that Paul McCartney died in 1966 and was replaced by a look-alike
https://www.mirror.co.uk/usvsth3m/7-com ... ul-5262843

You could totally be right with the symbolism in 'Fool on the Hill', and certainly Paul at the time was into symbolism. In his last U.S. press conference a press man asks about "Tomorrow Never Knows", and he says "it's the words of the Tibetan Book of the Dead" expecting some response, but nobody reacts to what he said, he does a small sigh to himself. And that was it, the end, the next Paul who went to America to talk to the press was "the man of a thousand voices".

From a fakeology point of view this is interesting to analyse as tricks are clearly reused. The "Paul is dead" conspiracy seems to have existed while The Beatles were still active, so quite possibly it was always a counter-narrative created and put out by Apple Corps to keep people interested in the band. But I'm of the opinion Paul never really got the memo and it was more a John creation. Also of note, it is always confined to The Beatles, never Wings. Wings was Paul's personal creation, no leeches included. In my research I saw an interview where Richard Madley, in a live-link from his house in Scotland, gets Paul out-of-jail with something he said about retirement when he was being interviewed in relation to a famous musician who had just died. It just proved to me, the main talking heads in the media absolutely know the score and are paid to keep the talent on-script. I wish I'd saved it.
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 1873
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 340 times
Been thanked: 615 times

Re: It's The Muppet Show!

Post by rachel »

There is a set of "politicians" that always seem to get the top jobs, and they wear prosthetic appliances to change the way they look. And this would seem to be so the "living man" has no liability for whatever the "fictional persona" appears to enact.

I've shown this multiple times with Joe Biden, here from 2006, we see a line on the side of his forehead, this is an edge of a forehead prosthetic that includes his eyebrows, nose and hair line. It is lifting at the side as he creases his brow. The hair underneath is likely neither balding nor grey, and the real man is likely a lot younger than the persona he plays.

screenshot-twitter.com-2022.11.18-09_09_17.png

My working theory; this practice has gone on for centuries and actually dictates some things in our culture that we take for granted. It was once the custom that ladies of the aristocracy in the last trimester of pregnancy, when the pregnancy could no longer be hidden, would move away from their home to give birth away from the family, and then would later come back with a baby some weeks old. On return, the family might employ a wet-nurse to take up the responsibility of breastfeeding the baby, and a nanny. Then as soon as the child was old enough to enter the schooling system, they were fully-boarded away so they were hardly ever seen with their parents or around the home.

It seems to me the above description, which is perfectly valid for many families of wealth, can be gamed. Since pregnancy was something to be hidden it is entirely possible a ladyboy who was posing as the lady of the house could go away and come back with a surrogate baby, and even, that baby's actual mother pose as the wet-nurse. But also, it wouldn't be too hard to create fantom family members because the children would so rarely be seen publicly with their parents.

In theory it would seem quite possible for the lady of the house to move away for each real child, then follow the exact same pattern for a fantom baby, arranging instead to hire a baby and wet-nurse from an orphanage on her return claiming it to be her own. The family could then have an arrangement with the orphanage to hire out the same child each time it was needed, the same employee of the orphanage turning up as "nursey". When the child gets a little older, it is possible that one of the other children could take on the role when needed. Again, with said child apparently boarding at school, then starting age as young as seven, the deception would be relatively easy to maintain considering the education path would be Eaton, then Oxford. All it takes if planning and time and then you have an extra fictional son or daughter that has a seemingly legitimate history.

A play on this would be for the child to be born in another country. Then the birth is outside the jurisdiction of UK courts. I previously looked at Liz Truss and Laura Kuenssberg highlighting some interesting points the two have in common. In this case, Mary Elizabeth Truss was born on 26 July 1975 in Oxford, England and Laura Kuenssberg was born in Rome, Italy in 1976. As an example, if we were to say these two are the same person, Truss is the real woman, Kuenssberg the fictional persona. I'll come back to this.

Interestingly enough, when Boris Johnson declared he would not run for another term as Mayor of London his brother Jo Johnson was an MP in the House of Commons. A parliamentary seat and bi-election magically opened up for Boris, which of course he won. He returned as an MP before his job as London Mayor was over. Remember, these are both supposedly elected representative positions that have a terms specifically attached to the person who was elected. This is representative democracy. In the UK you can't just switch out one person for another in the way you apparently can in the EU. This accounts for the "seemingly for no reason" 2017 General Election. Remain was meant to win, so the EU parliament would have become a major player in UK politics, the cabal therefore already had their puppets planted in as MEPs. In leaving the EU, these people had to be pulled back into the House of Commons, this can only be done via a General Election, so Theresa May, (if you remember she got the job by circumventing the Conservative members vote, as a shoo-in a bit like old Rishi Rich) called a General Election even though the UK at the time had a fix-term parliament written into law meaning Prime Ministers couldn't call General Elections. [Do you see how British "Democracy" is wall-to-wall bollocks?] I didn't know many MEPs, but I realised the Labour MEP faces I did know were suddenly converted into MPs in the 2017 General Election. And I've since found out the same was true for the Conservatives.

MP_Jo_Johnson_speaks.jpg
Boris Johnson head shot 32.jpg

So back to Boris, I wanted to know if he was getting paid both salaries when he was both MP and Mayor of London. This small fact didn't seem to interest any UK journalist though. I suspect probably yes, as it all appears to be a money laundering scam anyway. But as soon as Boris became Prime Minister, his brother Jo, pictured above, stepped down as an MP. Why would that be? I certainly don't believe the excuse that was given. Remember, Boris was born in New York, away from UK court jurisdiction.
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 1873
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 340 times
Been thanked: 615 times

Re: It's The Muppet Show!

Post by rachel »

To continue, the point of the fictitious identity is to circumvent the law. The courts might prosecute the fiction but no living man takes the punishment for the crime, and in fact there is a good chance it ends up just being another source of revenue for the shadowy figures behind the scenes as we can expect the State really does bill taxpayers to keep these names in prison. But might the practice have been so prevalent in certain circles that it gained its own idiom - the black sheep of the family?

So, after Boris swanned into the prime minister's role to "deliver BREXIT", he instead gave us a COVID-19 DEMOCIDE of the elderly. Was he removed for mass murder? No, for eating CAKE... And his co-conspirator got the job as PM instead. It might be that they do indeed thing this is a wheeze as the person we know as Matt Hancock swallowed back his laughter at WILLIAM-SHAKESPEARE getting the first jab. But it's not all gone their way. It doesn't matter how much they flog-the-dead-horse of RUSSIA V's UKRAINE, we know it's FAKE NEWS, we know RUSSIA and CHINA are their allies not enemies, and it's each countries' citizens who are the actual enemies in this death cult.

And of course we have the 44 days of LIz Truss in between, which I'm sure some will put down to an occult ritual only, but I think I know why it transpired the way it did; and it does suggest the Queen's death was some time earlier than was announced. But before going into that, PM Rishi Sunak, and of course when it is fiction, you can make up any name - RISHI-RICH or MR.SUN-AK, and interestingly enough, switching out the letters AK for numbers = 111 and as shown elsewhere 1 and 9 are interchangeable, so 111 = 999 which becomes 666. The Occult on that...
rachel wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 5:40 pmEarlier in this thread I discussed the 999 NWO System, which can also be expressed as 911 because according to the above, 1 and 9 are interchangeable as they express 19, which is also equal to ONE. Further more, "the beast of two horns" is expressed as 11, not 2. So the beast of 10 horns plus the beast of 2 horns, using the numerology rules of dropping the zero becomes 111, or again, 999. And if you want to take one step further, 111 is the three-in-one God (1+1+1=1), The Trinity.

The Holy Bible does not reveal God to be a trinity, the concept is alien to the scriptures. The TRINITY is PAGAN and was not brought into the church until after the Apostles were dead and Rome had converted to Christianity. So it is unsurprising this is actually the symbol of the SUN GOD and PANTHEISM.

Image

Image

rgb-light.jpg

TRIANGLES: Light is split into three distinct colours, red, blue, green; when added together in equal proportions give white light. The Sun itself in early religions was considered to have three definite stages in the sky;- rising, midday and setting sun, making up the THREE-IN-ONE-DEITY. This pattern in the sky itself making a triangle, and an equilateral triangle having three angles of 60 degrees, which shortened using the numerology convention of dropping naughts = 666.

ScreenShot-VideoID-POCobYxEKPo-TimeS-2676.png
ScreenShot-VideoID-POCobYxEKPo-TimeS-2750.png

The SUN GOD = 666 which can be expressed as 999, which can also be represented as 111.
The THREE-IN-ONE-GOD is the SUN GOD... SUN111 or SUNAK.
napoleon
Posts: 421
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2021 3:23 pm
Has thanked: 603 times
Been thanked: 99 times

Re: It's The Muppet Show!

Post by napoleon »

FANTASTIC RACHEL

Post Reply