Monday, March 23, 2015

The Beatles and Paul McCartney (In Depth Q & A) Part I

Q. Hi Lynn, I love your work and would like to propose that you do an in depth focus reading on a topic you've touched on before look concerning the Beatles.  Growing up in the sixties I was a big fan of the Beatles, but in the eighties I started to feel a very strong aversion to their music, as if they were my generation’s Michael Jackson as far as mass social programming goes, and I wanted to resist that programming I had been a part of. It is interesting that they were introduced to the US almost right on the heels of JFK’s murder. There is a theory that they were chosen and hoisted to fame in order to influence and shape their generation, but later rebelled from their assigned role and developed a more independent and evolved outlook which lead to them being dangerous and open to assassination.

The introduction of the Beatles initially was a huge rollout, complete with fake mobs of screaming girls trucked in to their concerts before they were even known and wall to wall playing of their songs on the radio and television. Was their introduction part of a social programming, and if so what was that purpose? Did they do the same thing with Elvis the decade before?

A. The first thing I get is the analogy of the Beetles being in that time what Walt Disney is to our youth now.  Disney was once wholesome and entertainment for our younger people.  It along with other media outlets have now turned into role models that portray parents that don't know anything, children encouraged to deal with issues above their maturity level, and a disrespect /breakdown of the family (then I hear to watch the programming of the Nick Jr. channel on tv sometime- iCarly and Victorious to name a few)

Then I get that what Disney (or the higher up Powers that Be) did to Hannah Montana (aka Miley Cyrus) is exactly what happened to the Beatles during their time.  Wholesome, loving and fun music turned into something more...


I actually see two different paths happening at the time the Beatles were introduced to the US.  In the first, kids and young adults are dancing, singing and being happy.  They were drawn to the music because of how it made them feel.  It was joyful.  Then, something flipped - like overnight there was some kind of surge of drug use.  The Beatles didn't cause this drug use, but the environment of a mass collection of people made it easier to introduce and spread.  People would flock to see the Beatles, and when people were happy and dancing, rather than grab a drink (if they chose), they could get high- and I see the popularity and ease of access increasing.


Then I see the second path emerging- I see the media bringing attention to the Beatles and also the issue of drugs.  The constant discussion of the both looks and feels more like advertising, which in turn made the problem worse.  This joyful music that made people happy was starting to cause family issues (parents with their children)- and I hear a parent saying "this is because of that rock music you are listening to."  In reality, it wasn't the music- it was the environment the music created and was exacerbated by the media.


As I type this I realize that the government had something to do with the introduction of drugs during this time- I see them seizing drugs from other countries and those drugs were filtered out to peddlers that started much of this usage at these concerts- the government was the problem (and the solution?).  When I ask WHY, I get because at that time people were getting upset with the management of the government, there were too many questions, and they needed this (big) distraction- therefore the "drug" problem (that they created) in America was being blasted all over the media.


Q. I know you've already done a reading that said Paul’s death involved something embarrassing, but could you elaborate on specifically how did Paul die? Did he balk at something he was ordered to do? Was he killed, with the foreknowledge that he would be replaced?

A. I get that Paul considered leaving the group, going on his own or just completely going against the system.  He could see what people were tying to the Beatles and it didn't make him feel good.  He wanted to change the message in the lyrics or do something else to get them back to the good place that they were once in- but by this time they were in too deep and the controllers at the top would not allow it to happen (There is this feeling of being owned or indebted to someone else).  When Paul rejected doing it- I see these "powers" getting angry and started to plot how to work around him.

Several things came into play to remove him from the group- a sex scandal, "accidental death," gambling situation gone bad, or their favorite idea- a drug overdose (supported the shift in the country and the youth would see this not as scary, but as the "Beatles" are doing it too).  They knew they couldn't actually kill him with the drugs though, because the Beatles would be ever changed, so the best thing would be a silent death and replacement.  [In my original reading I saw the gambling issue / situation coming forward as if that was the favorable way to deal with Paul, but as I dig into this much deeper, I see that isn't what they chose...].


Q. Embarrassing deaths happen often and it is common practice to fabricate a more socially acceptable cause of death, such as an illness, for public consumption rather than to pretend with an impostor the person never died. Such an elaborate scheme would certainly require government authorities to pull off which suggests the Beatles' role in social programming was too important to abruptly end. Some even suggested Paul’s death could have prompted massive suicides from a his grieving fans. Was the UK’s MI5 involved to the replacement and if so, how was he picked?

A. The UK was involved, but I also see the US being partnered with this as well.  I get as soon as Paul started to show resistance to the agenda, they started to search for a double.   I have an image of the replacement starting to make appearances before Paul's death just to see if he could fool the people.  It was like Paul was being held (while alive) hostage while the impostor started to pose as Paul.  Once the plan went off fairly well, they laid the real Paul to rest.

Q. Did the replacement have a prior relation with the Beatles and what was the process of him becoming Paul, particularly to be able to write music consistent with the original?

A. I get that he did not... I see that he wasn't even from the UK...?  The sought him from a different country, and I get they found and started to mold him in Australia???  He semi looked like Paul, but he had talent- so they did a few minor plastic surgery procedures on him to reinforce his "Paul" appearance, and slowly introduced him to the people

Q. Is it true they went to India in an attempt to have Paul’s soul transferred into the replacement?

A. I cannot connect to that being done.

Q. How did they get away with the switch to the new Paul? Certainly lots of musicians, friends and press that accompanied the group must have noticed the switch and that this new guy had different eye color was 2 inches taller and wore false ears and had a more wooden personality? Did other feel a sense of danger to speak out or was there some sort of mass hypnosis in play?

A. I get a lot of people noticed it, and they were afraid to talk about it.  (There were A LOT of whispers about it though). Everyone knew who was controlling the Beatles, and knew not to mess with them.  (Then I hear that they knew not to speak up or they would end up like Joan Rivers...?)

Q. Charles Manson seemed to code is plan for the Tate Bianca murders after the Beatles' Helter Skelter. Was there some kind of frequency or coded message embedded in their music that had some subliminal effect on listeners, particularly Manson? 

A.  I thought for a while on that specific song, and I see Manson read something into that which was not there.  He was in an altered state, or mental imbalance- and I get he heard voices.  He was right in seeing the Beatles (as a whole energy) changing America, and he understood the overall agenda, but I don't see anything encoded or specific to that song..

And that is all I have for this portion of the reading.  Thank you.  Love and light-

22 comments:

siketa said...

The latest interview with Cobra...
Rob: Is Paul McCartney . . . did he die?
Cobra: He was not replaced. No way. This is not true.

Now what? Who is right?

Watchand Knock said...

hi PF! Thank You for this post! What about the lefthandedness of Paul? Aren't both (the supposedly deceased and the still living) lefthanders? Isn't that too much of a coincidence (I mean in addition to looking very similar, voice almost identical, skilled left-handed guitar player (in addition to the regular left-handed bass player) & unique ability to compose)? Left handers comprise just 10% of the population!

Robert Schoen said...

I could feel you buzzing in my head last night and thought you were working on this! Thanks so much for this reading. As someone who grew up in the Sixties, I can tell you you're absolutely right about how they were introduced and started, and by the way, Disney and the Mickey Mouse Club were huge back then as well, shaping young minds and hearts! ha ha. The drugs issue doesn't surprise me at all but I've never heard it articulated so clearly in the context of Viet Nam and the huge depressing shift form the optimism of Kennedy's tern to the depressing times under Johnson with racial strife, war, you name it. A complete flip around that NEEDED distraction.

I'm amazed by your reading of Paul's replacement, in that it's always talked about as if it was a sudden car death, which makes no sense as why that would motivate the switch. Your reading of Paul not going along with the program makes so much sense!

Your last reading on Paul spoke of how the other Beatles went along with it on a majority vote basis with the record company. Do you see if Brian Epstein played an active part in the switch of Pauls, or if was he killed the year(1967) after because he objected? Why was he killed?

Baku Matsumoto said...

Yoko Ono, the 2nd wife of John Lennon knows about this Paul Double?????

Raymond G said...

Thanks.

I wonder how the remaining Beatles feel about having so much impact on society?
Their music will never get too old to play or go out of style. They broke up in 1970 and people still talk about them.

A Man Called Da-da said...

@siketa: Da-da has noticed that Cobra has been incorrect about a few things, which is a little disconcerting (as is the fact that he's also selling some rather bizarre items on his site(. Having read every single post Lynn has made, Da-da trusts Lynn first. Da-da has an innate nose for the truth (hold on, he needs to blow his innate nose), and there aren't many psychics whose batting average is as high as Lynn's. However, note that, just because someone is mistaken about something, it doesn't mean they're mistaken about everything.

Lynn, is it true than John Lennon didn't like to be around Paul #2? He was really good friends with Paul #1, wasn't he? Da-da can't believe we're having this discussion.

A Man Called Da-da said...

Ringo has been saying this for a while now, btw. Da-da thought this was some elaborate prank.

whitelite 1111 said...

How does the fake Paul feel about living someone like some else all this time? Does he know what happened? Or did they lie to him? What does his - the fake Paul's family think and were they lied to as well? It's amazing how this has been kept a secret all these years. Thank you so much!!!

John Casey said...

On one hand, I think this would make a great movie, a body-double switch of a famous person by nefarious agents. On the other hand, I find it appalling that it is even possible that these nefarious agents can work at even so granular level as to swap one person for another as suits their needs. I've heard rumors for a while now that The Grateful Dead were a social engineering project.

I have huge doubts about Cobra's credibility, as I do with Ben Fulford, both of whom seem to pass along such large servings of nonsense in their fare that I don't see how they contirbute usefully any discussion. But I agree also with DaDa. Just because someone hits a homerun once in a while doesn't preclude him from striking out alot, too. Maybe psychics should come with a batting average.

siketa said...

Lynn, what do you get on Cobra? Are his infos authentic and real?

A Man Called Da-da said...

Da-da takes in all info from all sources and looks for patterns, since none of this is real. The omniverse is a distraction meant to keep you from looking within. YOU know that YOU'RE real, so start there and take everything else with a giant salt lick.

YourPsychicFocus said...

@siketa: I don’t tell anyone they are wrong, we all tap into our own higher sources… I didn’t see it the same as Cobra, and I just relay what messages I am able to get based on what the collective consciousness reveals to me.. I think I have a question out there about Cobra- I will plan on a reading soon before I learn too much on him (I don’t like my view jaded).

@watchandknock: I got that a switch did happen, and this replacement was discovered in a different country.

@Robert: I continued the reading in a part II that I recently put up. Let me know if you still have questions. L&L

@Baku, whitelite and Raymond: Yes, she knew and was part of it… I continued on in a second reading (I had to split it up as it was too much for one sitting.).

@Dada: xoxo. I’m not familiar with Cobra- I think I have a question on him, so maybe I will check out who he is on his site after I do it.

@John: I agree- we can all be wrong. That is why talking and feedback is such a gift. There are times when you see something, and can’t understand what you are seeing or maybe you get an image and don’t relay it properly- I have learned to just say what I get and don’t try to interpret it (or at least give both the interpretation and image description when I feel both are important). I treat every day like an opportunity to learn something else. Xoxo

@Dada: Good point..

siketa said...

Thanks, Lynn! :)

diotima5 said...

I respect your work, Lynn,and feel the truth of most of your insights....however, this time? No...
I'm English...maybe all the other commenters are American..I was a student in Liverpool in the 60's, I saw the Beatles live, Ive followed Paul's career through every decade since.....you can hear the Liverpool accent in his voice to this day...you can see his mannerisms, everything.... the idea of someone, especially a non Brit ( you suggest the imposter is Australian)replacing him is just too bizarre....and the idea that through all these decades not one person who knew the '' original'' Paul and knew of the switch has ever spoken of it...Im sorry, its impossible to believe and Im a guy who believes in aliens, believes the Moon is a spaceship from another intelligence spying on us, believes countless bizarre theories, but this? No

John Casey said...

Yes, Dada makes a good point. I stand corrected. No point in shooting the stink eye at Cobra or anyone else, for that matter. We're all in this together.

A Man Called Da-da said...

Note that even disinformation agents can be useful (defined as anyone who consistently and deliberately sews fear and anger and guilt), as they paint a picture of how the Powers-That-Were are trying to shape perceptions.

Juli T said...

Once I asked my dad about drugs in his teenage years, and he told me "There wasn't drugs around... we knew The Beatles did it, but it wasn't something we had access to".
So here in my country, the message of the The Beatles doing drugs got very clear at that time. I always remembered that, my dad linking drugs to The Beatles as some kind of reference point.

Who is this Cobra?? Does he do something like Lynn does?

YourPsychicFocus said...

Thank you for all the comments. I really do appreciate them, and I like that they make me think (and learn). Love and light-

John Casey said...

It's interesting to note how difficult it can be to accept information that runs counter to accepted historical models. In this case it's about McCartney, but I think the same thing happens with the recent Hitler readings. In Greece, the new government brought up the issue of war reparations and how, during the Nazi occupation, 50,000 Greek Jews were shipped to northern Europe to their deaths. So, was Paul murdered and replace? Did the Nazis murder 50,000 Greek Jews? In both cases the cognitive dissonance gets so high that the reader may want to shut it all out.

YourPsychicFocus said...

@John: Those types of readings are difficult for the intuitive too- we have so much social programming that you really have to distance yourself from what you are told, and go with what your subconscious tells you to be true. You have to keep yourself in a certain type of meditative state to allow the images to keep flowing b/c your conscious mind will try to stop them.

Yes, Paul died and was replaced (based on the images I got).

No, Hitler was not the man history painted. Just as many Germans were raped and murdered (if not more) as any other country. Garmay wasn't the villain. I also don't see the war being about the Jewish faith- it was about stopping a monetary system that was thriving (without using usury as a way to gauge people).

Juli T said...

Look Lynn! This was posted today about a new book http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3011930/Did-Allied-troops-rape-285-000-German-women-s-shocking-claim-new-book-German-feminist-exposing-war-crime-slandering-heroes.html

Andy Campbell said...

I could've written that.