922 – The Gunman

…I have this theory…
In my upcoming book, I explore the duality between what the Beatles were trying to accomplish, and what was trying to be accomplished supernaturally through them. This isn’t always an easy distinction to make, but its the critical distinction to make if you want to understand the whole thing.

See, once you are confronted with the Paul is Dead mystery, most people reason that Paul is in fact alive, this is obviously a hoax or just people are mistaken, and then decide to drop the whole thing. The first half of that is fine; the problem is that the mystery and the clues are very real but its all just been applied to the wrong subject. The timing is the key. We’re always told to look at the fall of ’66. Instead, look at the summer of ’66 and realize that John Lennon apologized for something he was completely right about to appease a group of people who had significant race issues, while still going to church every Sunday.

Ask yourself, would John Lennon, or the Beatles, really just let that go?

They didn’t.
The Beatles, in my view, were essentially baited into a response against God via More Popular Than Jesus. The main reason, again in my opinion, that the Beatles were tempted to response is that there still was a very real fear that the establishment was going to somehow “kill” Rock and Roll the way it had been done in the fifties.
Of course, a more logical view is that given the number of artists who vacated their position on the top of the Rock and Roll mountain due to naturally occurring events, this too could be seen as supernatural, but the fear of a backlash to More Popular Than Jesus in the summer of 1966 was real.

This gave the Beatles motivation to react to the Southern US religious uproar against More Popular Than Jesus, a segment  still endorsing racism, by attacking the fundamental Christian youth in sort of a stealth way, maybe enlighten would be the kinder and probably the more accurate word.

Did you ever wonder what the Walrus actually meant? And why the Beatles found it so important? The oysters being led out of the ocean, or in this case the kids being led to it (San Francisco in 1967).

She’s Leaving Home and LSD.

Jane Asher’s door, showing COE and LSD innocently broken out from CLOSED. Melanie Coe being the source story for She’s Leaving Home. Incredibly, the pic is from 1964, after Paul judges a contest won by Melanie Coe and 3 years before She’s Leaving Home….

No Beatle intended this sign; but it was intended all the same…

Then, the Beatles reaction, resulting from temptation in the first place,  can afterwards be seen as further temptation to cause a supernatural (God or otherwise) response to what they did.

What on earth am I talking about?

Sgt Pepper is a direct link to this: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,835309-8,00.html

This is the key to everything that followed. The Time Is God Dead issue was on April 8th 1966. Julian Lennon’s third birthday. Hence the 3 that becomes prevalent and unexplained other than a Paul is Dead clue. Except Paul is Dead is really God is Dead.

The obituary is where the mystery lies. Atlanta and the forever immortal date of November 9th. This is the date later given as Paul’s death date and is the date pointed to on the Sgt. Pepper drum when mirrored.

That mirrored drum is real. If Paul is alive though, what in the world does the drum mean. II IX He Die. It matches the date of the Is God Dead Obituary.

…and finding the Atlanta is so much easier. So easy and obvious in fact, that it has been referenced as a joke by the perpetrators for years. Hidden in plain sight, flowers in the dirt, etc…

Where is it??

Do you see what the doll is pointing at? Right in front of us?


It couldn’t be that easy? But it is, there just was never a frame of reference for it.

The Run Devil Run store, on Broad Street in Atlanta.

It was George who sang, we were talking about the space between us all. ATL and the drum, within the space between the 4 Beatles.

But do you also see, when the Beatles are cleared out of the cover, that there is a guy, Timothy Carey to be exact, standing behind where George would ordinarily be.

He’s a gunman in a shooting pose from the Kubrick film The Killing.

Have you ever seen this mentioned? Anywhere as a clue?

Why not?

The Old Testament God, referring to Himself as I AM, replaced with “I Was” in 1967. This isn’t a Christian thing, you don’t have to believe the Beatles were evil, They pursued the Maharishi to pursue spiritual enlightenment and wanted everyone else maybe enlightened in their own way.


Romans 9:22 – What if God, willing to make his power known, prepared withlongsuffering the Objects of Wrath fitted for Destruction.

On the date John Lennon died on, Julian, the three year old on the day of the Is God Dead issue of Time (there are more than a few time references on Sgt. Pepper, aren’t there?), was exactly, to the day, 922 weeks old.

…and thus is the divine response to a reaction the Beatles were tempted into.

Johnny Carson referencing Atlanta as the announcement is made.


Author: willemaus

I write things and post things and talk about the things that I write and post...

10 thoughts on “922 – The Gunman”

  1. The only problem I have with your theory is that The Beatles “manifested” this reaction to the God Is Dead /Bigger than Jesus Christ backlash.

    The inclusion of certain individuals on the front cover of Sgt Pepper time and time again shows that The Beatles had very little to do with who actually appears, beyond copyright/legal ramifications of using another person’s image. The choices made (particularly Lennon and McCartney’s) and the “these are our heroes” official story, do not match up. Especially researching people like Sir Robert Peel. Or the Vargas Girl, who is actually Anna Mae Clift (aka Anna Vargas, Alberto’s wife) – the painting comes from apx 1923- 1925. And the Petty Girls. I can find no documentation finding Petty was either commissioned to submit his art, nor find that art of the petty Girls that matches his very distinctive style that was already established by 1933. It doesn’t look like Petty’s work, that’s what I’m saying. And if it is his work, it’s very early in his career, before he joined Esquire magazine. Only to be “replaced” by Alberto Vargas, when Petty ran into dispute with Esquire over ownership of his works. I do not believe other than George’s choices of the Gurus, that many of these people were actually the choices of Lennon or McCartney, because surely Brigitte Bardot would have shown up in that crowd, NOT Diana Dors. Bardot was McCartney’s main request. It would have been Lennon’s surely if McCartney had not done so. She is nowhere to be found. The selection of the crowd I believe is purely down to Peter Blake and Robert Fraser, and that’s it. The only thing that makes Sir Robert Peel in any way a hero to The Beatles, is that he began the Metropolitan Police Force. And that in Ontario is the County Peel, named after him, which is also what McCartney wears, an altered Ontario Provincial Police badge. Going through Peel’s history, it’s the only thing of note I can find about the man that would even suggest he was admired by The Beatles, and by far he is certainly the “oldest” in the crowd.

    The Vargas Girl, The Petty Girls — these are Ziegfeld Follies allusions, both Petty (if he even made those images) and Vargas did work for Ziegfeld Follies before hitting it “big”. And the Ziegfeld Follies associations on that cover show more heroes to The Beatles came from the 1920’s than in their own generation or the one before. This is just false to believe they picked these people that appear. David Livingstone’s resting place was 2 doors down from No.3 Savile Row. THAT I can see and say, okay maybe they’d pick him. But Dion? Why would they pick Dion and not Elvis Presley? Or Little Richard? Or even Lonnie Donegan? Surely Donegan should have appeared on that cover, right? Surely. This cover had nothing or little to do with them at all, barring Harrison’s inclusions. And Ringo chose no one. Maybe he chose Dion and it was a grace.

    This was not The Beatles reaction to God Is Dead. But i do believe a Christ parable is being played here, and it DOES relate to that Bigger Than Jesus statement. I have definitely come to believe Paul Is Dead and Sgt.Pepper’s cover do have something to do with that. But not as a reaction to it. Further hammering it into the consciousness, and raising one, or all of them as the new religion. And only one of them is bigger now. And that’s Paul. The Beatles are bigger than Christ. Well on Sgt Pepper, Paul is bigger than the Beatles. He was born, he died, and he was resurrected (replaced.) He is the new Christ. Or something else.

  2. Sorry, one more thing. LSD.

    In truth, the two Beatles that promoted Transcendental Meditation at every opportunity they could, was Harrison and Lennon. And when asked was he using The Beatles fame to promote it, Lennon said an emphatic YES! Neither of these two individuals, though their music may have said something is happening here, promoted LSD, or ever admitted to taking it.

    That was Paul. And on the same day that the LIFE article snatches comments he made from an earlier QUEEN magazine article by some unknown reporter, on an unknown date, that no one seems to have record or proof of today, and reprints them 16th June 1967, is the same day the Monterey Pop Festival has one of the largest product roll outs of a drug ever seen. LSD. And on that board of directors of Monterey is Mr. McCartney. Now I personally find that timing extraordinary. Not does he only have a national magazine reprint his FULL endorsement of LSD as a recreational AND potentially existential drug experience, but he also sees the festival he was there for its very beginning planning stages, get the full effects of Orange Sunshine and Monterey Purple. Amongst other variations in this huge product roll out. 16th June was a VERY good day for Paul McCartney and LSD. Not so good for George Harrison and John Lennon (and Ringo Starr) who had kept their mouths shut about what they did privately, and had done privately for at least a year by that point, as opposed to McCartney’s admitted 4 experiences with this CIA tested, Sardoz manufactured, highly erratic experience drug made in a laboratory by Hofmann.

    If Jesus is Paul, well then LSD was manna from Heaven, and he’d just given the ok for any counter culture that MAY have started making a strong foothold regardless of Buffalo Springfield, and all the fake hippies from military intelligence communities and families from totally diluting it, to start taking it. That was not Harrison or Lennon. That was McCartney and McCartney alone. Jesus left the building.

    1. You’re making quite a few assumptions regarding why these people were on the cover. We all know the official story is BS, but if Dion is supposed to represent something
      (Dionysus?) that Elvis does not, that would be the reason for inclusion, not because we like them so much. The Beatles themselves most certainly could have contributed to a riddle and I wouldn’t assume that anything that has been officially said about the motive let alone who was involved, is real at all…there is an assassin on the cover hidden behind George. That is no accident and has never been talked about. And Lennon didn’t admit to Lucy because Lucy is an actual girl, but you don’t think he knew the initials? Spare me…

      Paul meanwhile did more in discrediting LSD than he did by briefly admitting to it and drew sufficient wrath in the process. Everyone talks about the 66-67 crowd of Frasier, etc…where’d they all go after June of 67? Its exactly then that Paul started to become the outsider…

      1. Assumption does suck. At the same time, you’re dealing with a band that has so many myths and lies surrounding their very creation and success, that to believe much of any story that comes from the Apple Camp is a bit of folly. Like the 26th December, 1965 Moped crash, or the 9th November, 1966 John met Yoko story. Both of these stories have so many holes in them, that telling them barely seemed worthwhile to do. So yes I am assuming about the pepper cover. But then there’s no Brigitte Bardot on that cover either, and I know of 3 Beatles who would have requested her presence, and one actually did ask for it to be there, but that was ignored. W.C. Fields on the otherhand, he can be there. And that makes no sense.

        Regardless whether Harrison’s or Lennon’s music SAID they were on something, you will be hard pressed to ever find admittance before McCartney’s tell all to anyone LSD story. The BBC wanted to ban A Day in the Life because of “connotations”. Well prove they are there! They couldn’t really, and the connotations are quite tame if you think about it. Well, bam, McCartney’s admission gave the BBC license to say WE WERE RIGHT, these people are telling you to take drugs. And McCartney even suggested that should world leaders take LSD, that we’d have no wars, and LSD was cool man. I used to think Lennon was to blame for the “advocacy of LSD” — but I can’t find that article or interview before 1967 that says he ever said it. Nor Harrison. And both of them took more acid than McCartney ever dreamed of. And when asked did LSD due anything for the creative process, Lennon said no more than what he would’ve done without it. And he said that in 1967, when he HAD to, because the heat was on, on a subject he kept to himself and his private pursuits.

        When did McCartney “discredit” it? I have trouble finding that article in 1967 or 68.

  3. Put it this way though,’ Lennon and Harrison didn’t want to have to renounce or justify the use of LSD even if you could read between the lines of Lucy, etc….Paul made them take a stand on it one way or the other and from what I’ve read, a number of the sixties artists felt betrayed by that given that Paul had barely partaken in comparison to others. I believed the article was actually in IT but I can’t find it either right now…

    1. The original article actually appeared in the now defunct QUEEN magazine. When it appeared? Who knows. Who was the reporter? Who knows. What exactly was the entire context of the comments? Don’t know. All we have surviving is the comments that were extracted from it for the 16th June, 1967 LIFE magazine article. And that’s all that survives. And right now, going on that much, is not enough to say an article ever appeared in QUEEN for McCartney to ever get all riled up about being asked in the first place.

      International Times is actually intriguing for its January 1967 issue where McCartney states he’s not the wizard that’s going to sort it all out, he’s just one of them. Underneath these statements runs a cartoon that involves a mystery coach trip, drawn by Jeff Nuttall. Both were associated with William S Burroughs. It’s just an intriguing coincidence hinting at magical mystery tours months before official proclamation an idea was had for one (April 1967)

      As said, I’m not “fighting” against God Is Dead/Sgt Pepper/New Religion concepts here. I’m actually in agreeance, i think that plays very much a part in it. The Beatles ROLE in this is what I question, and whether they had as much control over such things as one would like to give them. Because I don’t think they did. They are a band that allegedly devised a hoax to pull in more money from clues being found on multi-media formats, but failed twice to acquisition ownership over their own song catalogue (Lennon/McCartney/Ono). All the money supplied by this Hoax, should have given them enough capital to buy that ownership. It suggests to me they were genius at tricking people, but easily scammed out of their own legacy. These two pictures do not match eachother.

      1. Well I guess I’m still questioning whether the Time Obituary is a deliberate plant or a coincidental 922-style foreshadowing…the problem is that the Band was on the Run, so to speak, from something. There has to be something that they regarded themselves as having warranted some sort of reaction.

        I agree that MMT in particular shows them to be much more fallible than Sgt Pepper would make them appear…I actually made a blog post about Seedy Bees Mystery Tour a couple of years ago from the IT issue; part of what led me also to the conclusion that you cannot really believe much of any of the Beatles official story…

      1. Thanks for the link 😉 — when you read the content of the interview, the mention of Wizards, McCartney’s views on society at the time, I mean the interview itself seems to be someone laying out the groundwork for some sort of cultural rule. Then read the content of Seedy Bees, and the takeover of the UltraHouse. My whole blog is titled after this Jan 1967 entry — Wizards, Buses and the Physiodelic Church. Some say April 1967 is the birth of Magical Mystery Tour. My feeling is, it was in the works all along. And January 1967 in the International Times, you get the first hint of those plans. Clifton De Berry, having outlined his intentions for the improvement of cultural affairs in 1967, proceeds on his first plan of action – to take over the “Ultra House”, a (sp) pychedelic community in South London, and establish SSASP (South Streatham Abbey of Sanctified Pulp) Britain’s first Physiodelic Church. Look at the content of this comic strip, and the content of McCartney’s interview. Nevermind the mystery coach bus that shows up. And remember. This is January 1967. Wizards. Buses. Physiodelic Church? And where is the Ultra House. More importantly WHAT is the Ultra House? http://drtomoculus.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/16th-january-1967.html

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s