Our friend Mike has suddenly hinted that something might happen on May 1, now.
The thing that we are calling the schedule on the Iamaphoney YouTube Channel has been modified again.
If you recall, there had been an entry indicating that something would happen on April 9, 2008. Nothing did.
There is also an exclamation mark (!) presumably in the place of the interview that did not happen on April 10, 2008.
April 11, 2008 is probably for the Rotten Apple 9 Q video which appeared on that date.
All other entries between April 11 and June 1 (the date of the Paul McCartney concert in Liverpool) are ambiguous.
We were all geared up for the big interview on April 10 and what a strange day it was.
Remember that day?
99% sure it will happen tonight.
Four hour delay on Iamaphoney's plane from the West Indies, but 100% sure it will happen tonight.
1% sure it will happen tonight.
this weekend %50
next week 80%
this month 99%
Now he says May 1, which by all accounts is not this month.
But Mike has shown not only great patience, but great dignity and class throughout this whole thing. He really deserves to be the guy who scored the Iamaphoney interview if it ever happens. I think he has allowed himself to be jerked around a little bit for the sake of art.
I do understand those who are asking, "If Mike already submitted his questions in video format a month ago, why would there be a delay of any kind and why would there be all this build up as if it were a live interactive chat?"
I don't know the answer to any of those questions. But, like Mike, I remain intrigued enough to stay for the duration. And like most of you, I am completely aware that the interview is not the end game. There will be more speculation, more conjecture and certainly more ambiguity.
So we still have no interview, but we do have the new video the rotten apple - 9 q
It is a bit more heavy handed that your usual Iamaphoney videos. There are more clips from the Magic Christian movie and more connections to serial killers. I am continuing to analyze this and will have more to say in later posts. I love the interpretations so far that appeared in the comments of the last post: Everything from "Iamaphoney is still getting it [the interview] ready for you" to Iamaphoney is causing us to jump into raw sewage and laughing about it. One does not exclude the other.
I am hoping that the delay is an artistic choice and not caused by something else. Iamaphoney did appear to receive a threat in the middle of all the interview hype, although it was indirect and ambiguous.
The threat appeared in the comments of a video by Happy Show Host Matt Hawes, who has done three PID-related Videos. This latest video was posted during the interview hysteria of last week and it gives a plug to Iamaphoney.
The comment came from MilesDeo, the one who started posting on "Nothing Is Real" recently.
The video was called Did Paul McCartney of THE BEATLES Really Die in 1966? and here is the comment from MilesDeo (posted 1 week ago):
Nice hate.
Have you noticed that IAAP (and "iamaphoney" is not a 'guy' it's a group, but you already have figured that I would guess) have used clips from the Happy Show in the Rotten Apple Series?
IAAP.. they should be very afraid.
No physical danger of course. :)
Nice show Matt. 5*s
Last month LupaMorna posted on YouTube a "She Loves You" - New Stereo Version - The Beatles and milesdeo commented:
MilesDeo | March 09, 2008
Vish-pyre, vish-pyre; the sun will be black as pitch! But the fruit will not rot and wither away; neither will the tents of those who are full of trust and love.
So I guess we will see where all this leads.
In other news...
The NME tells us that Paul McCartney is planning another World Tour
McCartney co-conspirator Barry Miles wrote an article in The Times about the inspiration for the song Paperback Writer
The BBC reported that a last minute deal has saved the June 1 McCartney concert that was in jeopardy of cancellation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
The question list update deadline is on may 1st
Yeah, yeah, but Mike and IAAP has lost a lot of credibility from us.Sorry , but is true.
Anonymous said...
Yeah, yeah, but Mike and IAAP has lost a lot of credibility from us.Sorry , but is true.
...are you kidding? Mike had little or nothing to do with when/how IAAP finishes the interview. He sent his part in weeks ago, he doesn't control them. Sheesh.
No No Zakk, no hard feelings with Mike, but come on, he is sure about his comments on IAAP Group but nothing has landed.
I know i said i was sure
heck they confirmed it a couple of hours before the interview originally was planned! than came the delay, and then came that he wouldn't make it on 1 AM.
i do wonder why he wouldn't do it the next day
They wouldn't do the interview Mikey because, frankly, they don't have the answers. If that were the case, those answers would have come out in the series, which is what the series promised.
Mike, I say you should turn it around on them. You should give them your own deadline, and say that if they don't come through by such and such a day, you will remove yourself from the process because the delays (among other things) have already caused you personal worry and loss of respect, whether or not it was justified, as Taful pointed out.
Mike still hasn't given any indication of why he cannot release any of the questions that were originally submitted.
Why?
It seems like we should be able to revise the list a bit, starting with something along the lines of...
"IAAP, Why did you promise us an interview when you never had any intention of doing one?"
why would we ask that question? i already know why IAAP wasn't on time, so don't need to ask.
btw; the question list is on NIR
anonymouse:
1. Can you tell everything you know about the LOVE/CODE discovery?
no.
2. What is the significance of the nurse who is supposed to be in danger?
a nurse=reasun
3. Can you please explain in detail any new findings you may have made?
no. tune in.
4. What is the complex cipher hidden on the Sgt. Pepper album cover that was shown in the rotten apple series?
it has been revealed.
(hint: HE^DIE)
5. Why was Paul murdered, if it was an accident, how did it happen?
paul was not murdered.
6. How high up does the cover-up go?
so incredibly high.
7. Who has been killed to protect the secret of the cover-up and the possible murder?
who has not?
8. Can you tell new things about the mal evans briefcase and its contents?
no.
9. What is the true motive of the controllers of this project?
iamaphoney has no true motive. only false.
Wow. Are these the actual questions?
If those are the questions, the whole enterprise is pointless. The question, "Why was Paul murdered?" is a classic lawyerly mistake that is unacceptable in court, equivalent to "When did you stop beating your wife?" It supposes the question speaks to a known fact when it doesn't. The real questions should be "What hard evidence do you have, if any, that Paul McCartney died and/or was replaced?"
"What IS the Love Code, and how can you prove to our satisfaction that you solved it?"
Instead of asking IAAP questions like "How high up does the cover up go?" (as if "he" knows the answer) you'd be better off asking "Who are you and what is your connection, if any, to McCartney, and why should anyone believe you have done anything more than speculate on the matter?"
Relax people. That list of questions was not THE LIST. I wrote a list like that with a similar tongue in cheek on NIR.
I guess Mike is giving us the chance to improve the list based on any changes that have happened since the original list was made (e.g. the briefcase recovery, the 9 Q video, etc.)
BTW, Mike has very thick skin for someone his age. He rarely gets bothered by the questioning of his credibility.
It's Iamaphoney's credibility that is in question right now. That's good news for us because he's an artist and I'm sure he is intent on delivering something to shut up his critics.
So, I suggest we all hang in there and see what happens.
yeah, sometimes i have a burst out, but it happens you know. I get a lot of emails and PM's and i'll always answer them the best i can, though it's gets harder to keep up with the number of emails!
anyway, i've posted all the questions on NIR and please, go ahead and alter them if you will. I'm sure you guys wanna change it now
um...If that is not the list (or at least the initial one), then why is Mike posting it on NIR?
The Question List
^^^^i see Mike has already answered this question^^^^
Right. I guess my point was, the answers will be what Iamaphoney wants to tell us whether they correspond to the questions or not. My expectation is just that something interesting will come out of it, and if it does, I will report it here.
A lot of things about this whole "interview" concept don't make any sense to me.
I think you would make an excellent interviewer, Tafultong.
...and at this point, considering how enigmatic he has been the last several weeks, I also think MikeNL would make an interesting interviewee (in lieu of IAAP, upon whom we clearly cannot rely).
Mike has talked with IAAP & Associates, he's met with some undisclosed Beatles' expert in his neck of the woods, he has been given some sort of "exciting news" and, apparently, he is still being fed information about some future revelatory talk...
IAAPs credibility has been in question since day 1. It is astounding to me that anyone trusts "him" at all based on his track record of distorting facts and tampering with "evidence." Some of that tampering took more than a little effort in the studio to accomplish. Some give him a huge benefit of doubt by saying he takes "artistic license" to "make a point." Since when is accusing a living human being of being a phoney (libelous if not true)and a satanist an artistic statement? His only way out of this is to reveal the whole thing as a fictional soap opera of sorts. .
Anonymous,
Thanks for the comment.
You wrote: Some give him a huge benefit of doubt by saying he takes "artistic license" to "make a point." Since when is accusing a living human being of being a phoney (libelous if not true)and a satanist an artistic statement?
I can't dispute the first part of your statement, but I would like to respond to the second. I think it was Denny Laine and Geoffrey Giuliano who made that accusation. Iamaphoney's work, because I believe it is art, is open to interpretation. And while your interpretation is legitimate, it may not be the only one.
I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that it is possible that Iamaphoney has more respect for the music of Paul McCartney than most people. While others have dismissed McCartney's work as being just a bunch of lightweight silly love songs, Iamaphoney has taken it much more seriously and provided much more depth to the interpretation of his work.
One criticism is that I don't think that Iamaphoney has looked into the McCartney catalog deeply enough. He is well aware of the more obscure pseudonymous material, but there is quite a bit of fascinating work in the mainstream McCartney releases. A deeper look might not reveal something sinister, but there are things in there that can be interpreted that way.
Does Iamaphoney really have inside information about the identity of the man we know as Paul McCartney? If the chance of that is any greater than zero, I want to hear the story that Iamaphoney is telling.
I don't think that what Iamaphoney is doing is slander.......yet.
As far as the accusation goes that the man known as Paul McCartney is actually a satanist, it can be argued that Iamaphoney is simply drawing interpretations from the lyrics in some of his work, from the picture of Crowley in the SP cover, and from what others have already said which "McCartney" has already responded to.
The right to do draw these interpretations, I guess, would be the prerogative of anyone who considered the works and public personality of "McCartney".
As far as calling "McCartney" a "phoney" is concerned, these same arguments can essentially be made and it can also be argued that "McCartney", in a number of ways, has encouraged speculation that he is something other than what he is presumed to be.
The Beatles never gave forthright answers to the PID furor of 1969. Some people will insist that they did, but in fact, they didn't. For whatever reason.
Moreover, the notion that the REAL or the ORIGINAL Paul McCartney is dead really can (apparently) be defended as an artistic interpretation.
In NIR, an article was posted to the effect that art critics came to this conclusion after considering the paintings of the man who bears that name today.
http://www.contactmusic.com/new/xmlfeed.nsf/mndwebpages/art%20critics%20reconsider%20mccartney%20is%20dead%20myth
How well this artistic interpretation serves as a means of forensic identification is anyone's guess, but presumably, it really is a legitimate artistic interpretation.
It's not easy for a public figure -- which "McCartney" undoubtedly is -- to prove libel. It's necessary to prove not only that the charges are false but that they were made with malicious disregard for the truth.
Given "McCartney's" own tenuous relationship with the truth concerning his life and his art; given his habit of steering clear from any serious discussion of the identification issue; and given the loose threads that are still out there regarding both the identification issue and the satanist issue, I'm thinking that the possibility of having to respond to an action for libel is the very last thing that IAAP, Inc. has to worry about.
WITCHKRFT
It is generally hazardous to draw conclusions about an individual based on their art or artistic references (song lyrics, album covers), particularly when those references are collaborative efforts like the Sgt. Pepper cover, etc. One could draw any number of contradictory conclusions from the Pepper album cover alone.
Based on his lyrics and personal history, one could also conclude that Macca became little more than a domestic husband who only continued to dabble in songwriting as a hobby. These are all subjective musings, and have no real bearing on whether Paul died.
It would not be difficult to demonstrate that IAAP has shown a "disregard for truth" (if not "malicious") insofar as he has doctored audio/video/photographic content without disclaimers. It is one thing for IAAP to allude to things based on what Macca has said in interviews, quite another to deliberately re-edit (and add voice overs) to existing materials out of context in order to make it appear as though Macca said or meant something he didn't. Many viewers, without knowing the source material, have made wild assertions about Paul based on these editing tricks ("Shape-shifting reptile" springs to mind).
That there are "loose threads" regarding identification and alleged satanism is purely subjective, and not supported by a single industry insider or associate of McCartney past or present (correct me if I'm wrong). Also bear in mind that all public figures have to endure whispers and rumors, often from those who seek to blackmail them or write "tell all" books.
I know of no "serious discussion" as it relates to identity that Paul has ever steered clear of. To which discussion are you referring? If the audio of the unknown person talking about Macca's death is genuine, however, it's another story. I am skeptical, however, of that source, and more skeptical of the venue in which it is playing out. But as you have stated (65if), if that audio is an actor (i.e. hoax), then IAAP has moved well beyond art into malicious territory. I appreciate your remarks; you and Taful are clearly the most rational of the agnostics.
Maybe it's time to get the authorities involved.I would certainly feel better knowing that Iamaphoney is being looked into.If he turns about to be harmless then so be it.
-Aja
I'm surprised there's been no copywrite problems, forcing him to shut down!
Post a Comment