Is Paul really dead? [Archive] - Page 11 - David Icke's Official Forums

faulconandsnowjob

26-02-2009, 02:57 AM

From The World; Will the Real Saddam Hussein Please Step Down
By TOM ZELLER
Published: October 6, 2002

...Intelligence officials have long suspected that the Iraqi president makes ample use of body-doubles -- an idea reinforced two weeks ago when a German television news program asked a forensic pathologist to examine hundreds of archived photographs and video stills of the Iraqi leader. The pathologist, Dr. Dieter Buhmann of Homberg University in Saarland, determined that there are at least three Saddam Hussein lookalikes in rotation, making public appearances, firing rifles, smoking cigars, waving and strutting. (The doubles rarely speak, it was suggested, because Mr. Hussein has an inimitable lisp.)

Iraqi dissidents have told stories of impostor Husseins in the past -- of recruitment schemes and plastic surgery, of training in mannerisms, strides and tics. The differences can seem remarkably subtle. In some instances, Dr. Buhmann suggested, the face of the doppelgänger was just a hair too wide. In others, the area under the mouth was just a bit too small and too low...

Indeed, the pop-culture fascination with cloak-and-dagger devices like doubles, disguises and decoys tends to give Mr. Hussein's use of lookalikes a sort of buffoonish quality. But this is serious business, with a long history. And it would be naÛve, some intelligence officials have suggested, to think that everyone isn't playing the game.

''The truth must have a bodyguard of lies,'' said Antonio Mendez, a former chief of disguise for the C.I.A. and a co-author of the book ''Spy Dust'' (Atria Books, 2002). He was paraphrasing the famous words of Winston Churchill, who was known to have made use of a double himself. So too did George Washington and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Most world leaders, in fact -- and the intelligence apparata surrounding them -- consider doubles and decoys a part of their bag of tricks...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F07E3DE123BF935A35753C1A9649C8B 63

truthseeker49

26-02-2009, 03:26 AM

Yeah, that's alot better than posing with meat & dead babies. This photoshoot was AFTER that, as Paul's hair is longer & he looks more worn out.:(

John and Paul: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/lennonmccartney5.jpg

John and Bill: http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/pp04.jpg
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/mantle4.jpg

It's funny. In the photo of John & Paul
shaking hands they both look so very earnest.
In the 1st photo of Faul and Johnny shaking hands
Faul looks like he's trying to be reserved.
He doesn't seem to know what to make of John.
In the second photo, they all look like they've
agreed that something really great was going on.
Most likely it was the fact that Bill had gotten
away with impersonating Paul.
Sergeant Pepper was a hit ! ::) 8-)

The Beatleshttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v462/OnlyBeatles/youngmen.jpg
the Beatleshttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v462/OnlyBeatles/TheboyswithBill.jpg

What a DRASTIC difference !!!!

Nite, everyone...

faulconandsnowjob

26-02-2009, 04:16 AM

How very interesting...

From 80 to 90% of the population can be hypnotized to varying degrees...At least 5% (10,000,000) of the U.S. population is extraordinarily hypnotizable, so easily hypnotizable that they are in a constant state of exaggerated suggestibility, even when awake and going about their normal daily routine. They are at the total mercy of all forms of influences and can easily be persuaded to do things and afterward have no idea why they did them..." Dr. Tobias H. Brocher, Director, Center for Applied Behavioral Sciences, Menninger Foundation, Topeka, KS. Be Wise As Serpents by Fritz Springmeier

The brain in order to be efficient uses its framework of knowledge--its world view--in which to hang new incoming knowledge. This author’s Be Wise As Serpents book considered this to be the biggest barrier to people coming to the truth. Because education, television and society in general control how people’s framework of knowledge is built, and these frameworks are built skilfully to exclude major truths that would expose how the World Order is controlling mankind, it is really difficult to speak to people about mind-control, and the control of the world in general. ...... The mind puts up a grid to prevent non-approved information from coming in that doesn’t fit it’s accepted concept of truth. Much of this grid is fear based. Deeper Insights into the Illuminati Formula 9: THE SCIENCE OF MIND MANIPULATION BY PSYCHOLOGICAL PROGRAMMING METHODS: BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION, PSYCHOLOGICAL MOTIVATION & NLP

http://www.whale.to/b/blood_q.html

If that's true, then we are def fighting an uphill battle to get people to see Faul isn't Paul. lol

faulconandsnowjob

26-02-2009, 05:34 AM

We were talking about the LSD agenda before. Well, it might have just been part of a greater plan.

As example of how ingenious these plans are to create a One-World-Government consider the following part of it. The Drug War is not what it seems. It is a very ingenious scheme to enslave the American people, and destroy all their civil rights. The first rumblings of the Drug War part of The Plan seem to stir from the occult, so it is highly possible the Drug War originally was first developed by Satanists, perhaps even given during one of the Feasts of the Beast. The Drug War seems like the perfect plan, with no way for the Power to lose. First, the Power creates a drug culture in America. The Drug Culture would and did give many their first step into the Aquarian (New Age) conspiracy.6
The Power would make billions of dollars by running drugs, to further finance other nefarious schemes, and could use their world-wide power to crush all their competitors. When the Power crushed and arrested their competitors in drug running, they would be hailed as hero's by the majority of people (and they have).
The introduction of drugs into society does several things. It taxes the Christian church’s ability to oppose immorality. It gets the public indignant about drugs, and the public’s moral outcry allows the Power to pass "drug" laws that remove the last vestiges of legal civil rights. In fact, the beguiled public demands the laws which abolish their rights, and applauds these laws in ignorance unknowing what the laws actually say and mean.
If the public somehow gets a complete picture that their government has been smuggling drugs to create a drug war in spite of the controlled media, or perhaps through the media at the right time, then they can create a scandal involving several U. S. Presidents to eliminate the U.S. government and switch the public’s allegiance to a world government. (See chapter 3.9 for more details and a chronology of the secretly planned escalation of today’s designed Drug War.) As an ex-Mason, who is very aware of their plans, said to this author, "These people are in it for the long-term." Bloodlines of the Illuminati 12. Russell

http://www.whale.to/b/blood_q.html

fireman

26-02-2009, 09:09 AM

Paul
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/pp04.jpg

Paul
http://i42.tinypic.com/1zqpqbp.gif

Paul
http://i39.tinypic.com/afc3kz.gif

faulconandsnowjob

26-02-2009, 10:11 AM

^ Well, you got 1 out of 3 right :D

fireman

26-02-2009, 10:31 AM

^ Well, you got 1 out of 3 right :D

i reckon, math is not your major

same guy...

chapeau!
http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/scan0fade_edit.gif

faulconandsnowjob

26-02-2009, 10:34 AM

^ I reckon forensic science isn't your major! Anyway, keep trying. :cool:

fireman

26-02-2009, 10:53 AM

Don't need that. It's obvious that it is the same guy. But good luck embarassing yourself in the court room.

but anyways, "keep trying" Faulcon... :cool: ;)

truthseeker49

26-02-2009, 01:04 PM

truthseeker49

26-02-2009, 01:08 PM

If that's true, then we are def fighting an uphill battle to get people to see Faul isn't Paul. lol

So sad, and so true.
What you posted about the drug wars is shocking. I can believe it, and I'm sure that is exactly what there plan is.
How diabolical ! :(:mad:

fireman

26-02-2009, 05:04 PM

That second photo is a great photo of Paul with his hair flat to his head. It makes his head & forehead look even smaller.
It looks to me like his face has been "modified" a bit to make him look more like the chap in the 1st & 3rd photo. Or vice versa... ???
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/Paulmodified.gif
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/GZ1002_BEATLES_6.jpg

No, it has not been modified. Its ultra vintage.

Found it on this side:

http://www.beatlesource.com/savage/

the whole thing with the so called "doctored" pics doesn't make sense at all.

Why should "they" doctor some pics, and most of them not? (according your logic..)

Do you realize that all of these where he looks a little different are "undoctored", and all of those that i posted are called "doctored" because they don't fit in your theory?

How is that?

The illuminati agent must have thought:

"Well, lets doctor only some of the pics. Mostly the rare ones. They will be found one day on a thing they will call the Internet.."

:)

orbandsceptre27

26-02-2009, 05:12 PM

^ Thanks Fireman - you`ve just proved our point that Paul had a smaller head than Faul.

fireman

26-02-2009, 05:42 PM

^ Thanks Fireman - you`ve just proved our point that Paul had a smaller head than Faul.

no. he hasn't. its all about the hair, and the perspective...

see:

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/newfade2009.gif

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/sidebyside.gif

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/fiddy.gif

orbandsceptre27

26-02-2009, 05:49 PM

^ You can downsize and overlap dud photos all day Fireman, the only thing they prove is you`re a big fan of photoshop. Same as your aliases Lightman, Redman and Socrates.

fireman

26-02-2009, 06:07 PM

^ You can downsize and overlap dud photos all day Fireman, the only thing they prove is you`re a big fan of photoshop. Same as your aliases Lightman, Redman and Socrates.

Try it yourself.. nothing "doctored" or downsized...

and those are not my aliases, i am quite happy on my own, Faulcon.. :rolleyes:

fireman

26-02-2009, 06:19 PM

his facial features are matching quite well

http://i39.tinypic.com/2vla748.gif

:D

orbandsceptre27

26-02-2009, 06:26 PM

.....and those are not my aliases, i am quite happy on my own, Faulcon..

- Fireman do you realise when you started posting here on the D.I forum there were four separate P.I.D threads (threads dealing with the replacement of Paul McCartney).

- From your 106 posts to date every single one has been on this thread...... every one - 106 posts out of 106 on this thread! :eek:

Like I said there were four threads which have now been merged into two.

- What do you make of this... because imo, troll isn`t a strong enough description!

orbandsceptre27

26-02-2009, 06:35 PM

his facial features are matching quite well

http://i39.tinypic.com/2vla748.gif

Billy is a "double" - for the most part the features should match up, what do you think a "double" is lol? :).

Also how do you expect people to analyse both photos (photos of a middle-aged Billy and a young Paul I might add) when they`re both flashing over each other.

^ This point is has been made many times previously.

All this PID stuff is going to your head Fireman - why not take a break for awhile........ and let Socrates/Lightman back in for a spell? ;)

fireman

26-02-2009, 06:43 PM

- Fireman do you realise when you started posting here on the D.I forum there were four separate P.I.D threads (threads dealing with the replacement of Paul McCartney).

- From your 106 posts to date every single one has been on this thread...... every one - 106 posts out of 106 on this thread! :eek:

Like I said there were four threads which have now been merged into two.

- What do you make of this... because imo, troll isn`t a strong enough description!

Why is that trolling in any way?

I am a Beatles fan and not interested in illuminati-reptile-ufo-crap.

The pia/pid related forums are the ONLY ones i post at all on the
internet. That is wasting enough time.. no need for reptile-discussions!

orbandsceptre27

26-02-2009, 06:48 PM

I am a Beatles fan and not interested in illuminati-reptile-ufo-crap.

No shit Sherlock! :D - 106 out of 106, that has to be a new record lol. :cool:

The pia/pid related forums are the ONLY ones i post at all on the
internet. That is wasting enough time.. no need for reptile-discussions!

Take up golf..... you`d be better at it, trust me! :)

fireman

26-02-2009, 06:55 PM

Again: why is that trolling?

At least i am staying on topic, while you are talking about fantasy-agents and golf...

faulconandsnowjob

26-02-2009, 07:20 PM

It's obvious that it is the same guy.
It's obvious that it's not the same guy.

But good luck embarassing yourself in the court room.
Hey, you're the one who keeps embarrassing yourself by insisting that 2 guys are the same guy no matter what the pics & videos show. It sort of reminds me of how GW Bush was always so sure he was right. He didn't need no stinkin' facts. :D :p

It looks to me like his face has been "modified" a bit to make him look more like the chap in the 1st & 3rd photo. Or vice versa... ???
I do believe you're right!

Thanks Fireman - you`ve just proved our point that Paul had a smaller head than Faul.
Don't you love it when they do that? Doh! :p

his facial features are matching quite well
http://i39.tinypic.com/2vla748.gif
Why don't you try w/ the same expression on his face? That pic doesn't show anything except Paul looking serious & Faul looking surprised.

All this PID stuff is going to your head Fireman - why not take a break for awhile........ and let Socrates/Lightman back in for a spell?
LOL! Maybe he will grace us w/ a new username. :D

faulconandsnowjob

26-02-2009, 07:32 PM

socrates

26-02-2009, 10:18 PM

Is there really still doubt that photos of Paul have been tampered w/? This is so obviously a doctored photo (on right):

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/paul_faul_66.jpg

This is so obviously a doctored photo (on right):

If it's "so obvious", then why do you feel it is neccesary to inform people that the "doctored" photo is on the "right"? :)

Several times recently the Paul is dead believers have claimed that certain photos have been "doctored" - yet every single time they have failed to supply any evidence whatsoever to support it. They obviously feel that other people are as gullible as they are and will swallow any nonsense they come out with.

I think most people on this forum have more sense than that.

What can be asserted without evidence - can also be dismissed without evidence.

socrates

26-02-2009, 10:34 PM

because imo, troll isn`t a strong enough description!

Troll: Anybody who disagrees with the Paul is dead belivers and argues that Paul is alive. :rolleyes:

If you don't like people putting forward a different opinion, then why are you here faulconsnowjob, er, I mean orbandsceptre? Just what is your agenda? Stick to your Paul is dead boards if you don't like people disagreeing with you and quit the silly name calling. It only reveals your insecurity.

astrochicken

26-02-2009, 11:33 PM

Stick to your Paul is dead boards if you don't like people disagreeing with you and quit the silly name calling. It only reveals your insecurity.

I don't disagree.

You're just programmed not to see it which is why youl often post FAUL / FAUL comparisons.

"It's just a jump to the left".....

and all of a sudden you have a different perspective and you'll smack yourself on the forehead for not seeing it sooner.

It's allright though.. we won't be here pointing the finger and sniggering.

Basically we're in Schopenhauer's 3 stages of truth territory here. It will eventually become self-evident.

orbandsceptre27

27-02-2009, 12:17 AM

Troll: Anybody who disagrees with the Paul is dead belivers and argues that Paul is alive.

Not so.

If you don't like people putting forward a different opinion, then why are you here faulconsnowjob, er, I mean orbandsceptre? Just what is your agenda? Stick to your Paul is dead boards if you don't like people disagreeing with you and quit the silly name calling. It only reveals your insecurity.

People with different opinions are very welcome here - all views and opinions respected.

I know Paul McCartney was permanently replaced and the truth is coming out.

Faulcon and I are two different individuals and wouldn`t know each other if we passed in the street. You on the other hand are a lying, deceitful individual who tries to hide behind many different user id`s. Well we see you, and there`s nothing you can do about it!

It`s no harm to make people aware of those who try everything they can to disrupt, spread disinformation and confusion. You`re a prime example of this in operation - but you`re not being very successful are you. :)

socrates

27-02-2009, 12:33 AM

I don't disagree.

You're just programmed not to see it

Merely your misguided opinion, nothing more. What can be asserted without evidence - can also be dismissed without evidence.

which is why youl often post FAUL / FAUL comparisons.

Wrong. I have posted Faul v Faul comparisons to show the apparent differences in the same man. This illustrates that the same person can look different in photos. That is all you Paul is dead believers are doing, except you cannot see that it is the same man.

Guess you're just programmed not to see it. :)

If you are so sure of your proof, take it to court instead of posting countless photos day after day and saying the same things over and over. But you wont, because you know your evidence would be laughed out of court. That's why you Paul is dead people are here, obsessing about Paul McCartney, spending your lives posting endless messages about invisible eyebrows, hidden foreheads, false ears and other nonsense. Where does that get you? Nowhere. Certainly no nearer unmasking the person you allege is personating Paul McCartney.

All you are doing is keeping a myth alive. Until you prove it is not a myth, then you Paul is dead theory is just that - a theory. And the only way to prove it is to have your evidence assessed in a court. But no Paul is dead believer has ever done it. I think that illustrates the strength of your evidence.

Basically we're in Schopenhauer's 3 stages of truth territory here. It will eventually become self-evident.

How can it? There is no truth in it. If there were, you'd take your case to court. You've had 40 years to gather your evidence, and Paul is still happily being Paul, singing his songs and bringing joy and happiness to all his fans. Meanwhile, all you can do is batter away at your keyboards, obsessing about noses and eye colours and posting thousands of photos which prove absolutely nothing.

Paul has won. You have lost. He is accepted the world over as Paul McCartney. You will just have to live with that as you post your photos and tap endlessley away at your keyboards... getting absolutely nowhere.

faulconandsnowjob

27-02-2009, 01:05 AM

If it's "so obvious", then why do you feel it is neccesary to inform people that the "doctored" photo is on the "right"?
1) Some people might think I was implying the screen shot on the left was doctored, which I wasn't;
2) Some people wouldn't be able to tell a doctored photo if it bit them on the you know what. :D

You're just programmed not to see it which is why youl often post FAUL / FAUL comparisons.
I know - so funny. He simply can't tell the differnce. :p

Basically we're in Schopenhauer's 3 stages of truth territory here. It will eventually become self-evident.
I love Schopenhauer! :)

What can be asserted without evidence - can also be dismissed without evidence.
We post a lot of evidence to support our position. You should change that little phrase to smth more suitable. How about: "What can be asserted with evidence - can be dismissed without a thought." Just trying to be helpful. :D

I have posted Faul v Faul comparisons to show the apparent differences in the same man.
Yeah, Paul looks like Paul & Faul looks llike Faul.

This illustrates that the same person can look different in photos. That is all you Paul is dead believers are doing, except you cannot see that it is the same man.

Guess you're just programmed not to see it.
Yeah, b/c we are "programmed" to believe Paul & Faul are different. :rolleyes: Do you even understand the concept of programming?

If you are so sure of your proof, take it to court instead of posting countless photos day after day and saying the same things over and over. But you wont, because you know your evidence would be laughed out of court.
You're obviously not a lawyer, & that's too stupid to even bother commenting on.

That's why you Paul is dead people are here, obsessing about Paul McCartney, spending your lives posting endless messages about invisible eyebrows, hidden foreheads, false ears and other nonsense.
You just don't have a good eye for detail.

socrates

27-02-2009, 01:05 AM

Troll: Anybody who disagrees with the Paul is dead belivers and argues that Paul is alive. :rolleyes:

Not so.

Yes so. You called Fireman a troll. Fact. He disagrees with your view that Paul is dead. Fact. If that is not the reason you called him a troll - for posting messages disagreeing with your views - then kindly explain why you called him a troll.

People with different opinions are very welcome here - all views and opinions respected.

Erm..

You`re dealing with a ridiculous person Truthseeker.

He`s been posting utter crap on this thread from the very first page lol.

You on the other hand are a lying, deceitful individual

If those quotes are an example of 'respecting' "all views and opinions" then I'm Paul McCartney! :) Who are you trying to kid faulconsnowjob - er I mean orbandsceptre? :rolleyes:

I know Paul McCartney was permanently replaced

No. You think you do.

and the truth is coming out.

Where?

You on the other hand are a lying, deceitful individual

You are a rude, disrespectful, fantasist who resorts to abusing people who disagree with your point of view because you cannot adequately engage them in debate of the relevant points. This is partly because your evidence is so poor. Your frustration causes you to lash out with abuse.

It`s no harm to make people aware of those who try everything they can to disrupt, spread disinformation and confusion.

As I said earlier:

Troll: Anybody who disagrees with the Paul is dead belivers and argues that Paul is alive. :rolleyes:

Calling people names just because they have a different opinion to yours is pathetic. You're just showing how insecure you are. If you don't like people coming on this board to put over a view contary to yours then bugger off to your Paul is dead forums and leave the adults here to debate and discuss our views - free from your snidey and infantile temper tantrums and abusive comments.

socrates

27-02-2009, 01:14 AM

1) Some people might think I was implying the screen shot on the left was doctored, which I wasn't;
2) Some people wouldn't be able to tell a doctored photo if it bit them on the you know what. :D

So it wasn't "obvious" then, was it? :)

We post a lot of evidence to support our position.

And you post claims without a shred of evidence, too. :)

You should change that little phrase to smth more suitable. How about: "What can be asserted with evidence - can be dismissed without a thought." Just trying to be helpful. :D

Well, you're not. It adequately points out that everytime you make a claim that isn't supported by evidence then your claim can be dismissed without any evidence as well. Such as your claims that certain photos have been "doctored". No evidence whatsoever. So:

What can be asserted without evidence - can also be dismissed without evidence.

Yeah, Paul looks like Paul & Faul looks llike Faul.

You obviously don't have an eye for detail.

Yeah, b/c we are "programmed" to believe Paul & Faul are different.

Thanks for admitting it. There's hope for you yet. :)

You're obviously not a lawyer, & that's too stupid to even bother commenting on.

If you have proof that Paul has been replaced then you have a case to take to court. Don't evade the point by babbling nonsense.

faulconandsnowjob

27-02-2009, 01:27 AM

Such as your claims that certain photos have been "doctored". No evidence whatsoever.
See? You can't tell this photo has been doctored, which is blatantly obvious.

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/paul_faul_66.jpg

If you can't tell that photo has been doctored, then I totally get why you can't tell the difference btw Paul & Faul - no eye for detail.

If you have proof that Paul has been replaced then you have a case to take to court. Don't evade the point by babbling nonsense.
LOL! Just out of curiosity, how many law degrees do you have? B/c I have 2. Ok, if you're so smart about the law, why don't you tell me the following:

1) What's the cause or causes of action?
2) What are the damages?
3) Where would jurisdiction lie?
4) Where is the proper venue?
5) Who are the indispensable parties?
6) Would joinder be required?

After you get back to me on that, then maybe I'll look into it. :D

faulconandsnowjob

27-02-2009, 02:09 AM

More on the LSD agenda:

Acid: The Secret History of LSD
by David Black

ABOUT THE BOOK
Synopsis
The story of LSD isn't just the story of hippies, Merry Pranksters, free love, and Woodstock, or of tuning in, turning on, and dropping out. It's also the story of top-secret CIA programs, terrifying mind-control experiments, and a booming drug trade that made counterculture icons into millionaires overnight. It's a tale framed by conspiracy theory on one side and rock-'n'-roll hedonism on the other, and it's brilliantly told in all its dark and delicious detail by David Black in Acid: The Secret History of LSD.

From The Publisher
LSD is a mind-bending illegal drug and its widespread use today has a bizarre background. Startling evidence shows that scientists and psychiatrists have helped to promote its use - with more than a little help from the CIA and the British security services.

This book investigates the mysterious people who turned LSD-tripping into a popular recreational pastime, including the buccaneers with links to organized crime. The author unravels an extraordinary story of double-dealing, intrigue and betrayal as the drug's proponents became overnight millionaires - and officialdom turned a blind eye.

Acid: The Secret History of LSD catalogues how the drug was used to treat mental illness and for extensive mind-control trials - including sex experiments with scientists watching through one-way mirrors. It concludes that LSD became a vehicle for the security agencies to penetrate youth culture and radical groups.

A pivotal role in this fascinating story was played by the shadowy figure of Ron Stark who emerges as one of the Godfathers of the acid business in Britain and the US. Finally, the book tries to answer the question - who exactly was Ron Stark, and who controlled him?

http://www.ftrbooks.net/psych/drug_industry/secret_lsd.htm

orbandsceptre27

27-02-2009, 04:25 AM

Yes so. You called Fireman a troll. Fact.

109 of his posts (every one of them up to the present) are on this thread. He is a troll just like you.

He disagrees with your view that Paul is dead. Fact.

How perceptive of you.

If that is not the reason you called him a troll - for posting messages disagreeing with your views - then kindly explain why you called him a troll.

He spreads disinformation and excludes all evidence which may suggest Paul McCartney was replaced. Like yourself his views are completely unbalanced.

Regarding the quotes you have taken from me, you omitted to mention my apology to Supertzar. He had written some very poor comments on this thread (to say the least) imo.

Regarding calling you "a lying and deceitful person" - I stand by every word, you are one of the darkest people I have come across on this forum. You use a variety of id`s and have written some of the most vile, vindictive and abusive comments on this thead.

Who are you trying to kid faulconsnowjob - er I mean orbandsceptre? :rolleyes:

Sarcasm - well at least you`re showing some sense of humour again!

You are a rude, disrespectful, fantasist who resorts to abusing people who disagree with your point of view because you cannot adequately engage them in debate of the relevant points. This is partly because your evidence is so poor. Your frustration causes you to lash out with abuse.

I`m not in the least frustrated - I am wondering what a nutter like you gets from all of this? You`ve been here quite a while now and you`re still bawling.

Calling people names just because they have a different opinion to yours is pathetic. You're just showing how insecure you are.

Well said from a poster who goes under at least four different id`s and has yet to add any relevant weight to the discussion of McCartneys replacement. You`re just a tad insecure yourself imo.

If you don't like people coming on this board to put over a view contary to yours then bugger off to your Paul is dead forums and leave the adults here to debate and discuss our views

Getting a little hostile I see.

I welcome any and everyone who`s interested in this topic. It`s a very interesting area, I`m sure you`ll agree Socrates, since you`ve taken such an immediate and keen interest in it.

faulconandsnowjob

27-02-2009, 04:54 AM

This is partly because your evidence is so poor. Your frustration causes you to lash out with abuse.
This is what the PIA'ers do. They post flashing pictures of Paul & Faul or other very poor comparisons, even doctored ones. They are the ones who get really nasty & resort to insults. I suppose it's difficult to prove the untenable position that Faul is Paul, so I can see how they'd get frustrated.

fireman

27-02-2009, 07:12 AM

This is what the PIA'ers do. They post flashing pictures of Paul & Faul or other very poor comparisons, even doctored ones. They are the ones who get really nasty & resort to insults. I suppose it's difficult to prove the untenable position that Faul is Paul, so I can see how they'd get frustrated.

1. regarding the troll-discussion from above: then the orband-guy is a troll himself, he isn't moving one step from his perspective, and doesn't consider any of my arguments and comparisons. same goes for faulcon..

2. how are these comparisons "poor", they are better then yours in every aspect :D

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/comp2009.gif

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/10fe5y0.gif

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/uppermost.gif

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/2-1.gif

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/new_comp_janepaul.gif

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/vlcsnap-59472.gif

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/pp12_fade_still.gif

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/comp1.gif

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/_sasd1.gif

that are pictures of the same guy...

and your argument: "he is a look a like, what do you expect?" doesn't count:

Again the major question is

How to find a look a like, who is willing to give up his live, who looks the same (at least to fool millions), who sounds the same (at least to fool millions), who has the same voice, mannerisms, (seems to be an actor too), who is a bass, piano and drums player, and a composer and a singer, who is left-handed, or who has enough talent to play all instruments lefthanded...

you get the point....

faulconandsnowjob

27-02-2009, 07:29 AM

^ Yes, he's a look alike. He's not the same guy. Didn't you read anything about the political decoys I posted? The doubles actually do try to seem as much like the "target" as possible - they will practice mannerisms, accent, etc.

Anyway, some of those comps were pretty good, but this one isn't the same angle.

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/10fe5y0.gif

This pic of MMT Faul has come up before as being a possible composite.

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/2-1.gif

Here are 2 other comps w/ MMT Faul:

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/comp_MMT.jpg

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/comp_mmt2.jpg

And Fool on the Hill Faul (also from MMT):

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/fool_hill_comp.jpg

fireman

27-02-2009, 08:12 AM

I can see to what you are reffering. they do look a little different in those. But not more then anyone does. He is just making different facial expressions. I can show you pre 1967 picture of so called JPM where exactly that happens...

look at this:

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/PID%20stuff/de9a1ia6.jpg

(vinatge)

or this:

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/PID%20stuff/new1.gif

(big nose, small nose)

or this:

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/342Pp.jpg

or this:

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/rare%20paul%20photos/closeness-1.jpg

or this:

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/ljbjl.jpg

point is, people look different in many photos.. sometimes they look good, sometimes not, some nose looks long, sometimes not.
the angle and expression can make such a difference...

I really have considered PID for a long time now, i came to the conclusion that there is nothing at all. Paul is Paul and the Beatles: just a band! (well, the greates sixties band of them all, but that just my taste!)

faulconandsnowjob

27-02-2009, 08:27 AM

If you think the Beatles were "just a band," then you're completely missing how TPTB will use celebrity to push its agenda.

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/ljbjl.jpg

Aug 19, 1966 v. Aug 29, 1966

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/comp_memphis_la.jpg

Nov 1966 vs Dec 1966

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/PID%20stuff/de9a1ia6.jpghttp://www.weybridge.de/pepper/images_photos/19661220_Reporting66/19661220-19_Reporting66_PaulSite_faul_2.jpg

It looks like Paul's face has been stretched in that Beatles Monthly pic. Since Paul was probably already gone by then, they were already busy re-writing history, it seems.

faulconandsnowjob

27-02-2009, 08:46 AM

"Putin welcomes ex-Beatle McCartney to Kremlin before Red Square performance"
May 24, 2003

MOSCOW (AP) - Paul McCartney's dream to perform on Red Square is coming true - an event President Vladimir Putin assured him Saturday couldn't have happened in Soviet times when the Beatles' were deemed "propaganda of an alien ideology.''

Putin welcomed the former Beatle to the Kremlin ahead of the Saturday
evening concert in front of St. Basil's Cathedral. The performance is
McCartney's first in Russia, a country he is also visiting for the first time.
McCartney asked Putin if the Beatles' music had been banned in the Soviet Union. "It was not exactly banned. But the fact you weren't allowed to play in Red Square in the 1980s says a lot,'' Putin told McCartney. Putin, an ex-KGB agent, said the Beatles were considered "propaganda of an alien ideology.''
"It did not seem to some people that art was beyond ideology,'' he said...

http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/7195.htm

So, this was Lyndon LaRouche's take. I don't agree w/ him about the Beatles' talent, btw, but it's just smth to think about...

In 1978, [LaRouche] wrote that "The Beatles had no genuine musical talent, but were a product shaped according to British Psychological Warfare Division (Tavistock) specifications, and promoted in Britain by agencies which are controlled by British intelligence." ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche

Tavistock, England--This has been the primary programming center for England. The Rothschild programmers work out of Tavistock. A large number of slaves in America have been programmed there. Tavistock has been doing mind-control since before W.W.ll. Under the supervision of London’s W Board & 20 Committee MI6 and MIS’s Section BIA ran double agents and mind-controlled spies/couriers during W.W. II. MI6 has had an office at Century House, No. 100, Westminster Bridge Road. MI5 offices have been in part on Curzon St. MI5 has operated behind a number of fronts, incl. their fake travel agency Casuro Holidays. MI-5’s address for mail is Room 055, The War Office, London. Special Intelligence Service (SIS) dealt with all types of mind control. Tavistock was under SIS. The British government has had their own telephone exchange with a 222 prefix, which was later linked to another secret exchange YTAN. Outsiders could dial 222 8080 to get into the secret govt. exchange.
The Royal Free Hospital at the University of London works with Tavistock Clinic, as well as the Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU) of Sussex University. A large number of Britian’s psychologist, social workers and police get their training at Tavistock. Tavistock has set themselves up as the authority on ritual abuse and MPD (DID). In other words, the primary programming site, is pretending to be the leading institution trying to solve the problem! That’s a good cover. The Illuminati Formula Appendix I: The Programmers

http://www.whale.to/b/blood_q.html

More info on Tavistock:

The Science of Mass Manipulation through Crisis Creation
The Science of Mass Manipulation through Crisis Creation - YouTube

Beatles, Rock&Roll and Mind Control
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/beatles_mind_control.htm

Why Bush & the CIA Had John Lennon Killed -- The Beatles, the Montauk Project, the Tavistock Institute and Mass Social Control
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/beatles_mind_control.htm

Deeper Insights into the Illuminati Formula
http://educate-yourself.org/mc/deeperinsightsbook.shtml

hugolast

27-02-2009, 11:58 AM

astrochicken

27-02-2009, 01:57 PM

This thread has lead to me learning For No One and Yesterday properly so now i can go play them at my gig's good has come of it - Oh and strawberry fields from watching the vid too :)

For me it's "The night before" absolutely bloody brilliant.. i see so many similarities between that song and "I don't want to spoil your party" and "baby's in black". Paul & John (or the tavistock guy) had a real knack for writing catchy ditties that are fun to play and sing.

As regards the current debate, i'll quote Bob Marley:

"Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery;
None but ourselves can free our minds."

Dangerous words.. let's remove bob from the equation with a toe infection turned bad.
Yeah right.

faulconandsnowjob

27-02-2009, 05:38 PM

howie

27-02-2009, 05:53 PM

I'm a bit of a mimic (0:54)

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

He uses 4 different accents in the Leno interview

orbandsceptre27

27-02-2009, 06:07 PM

^ Bill makes an artform out of talking shite lol.

karol2020

27-02-2009, 06:40 PM

astrochicken

27-02-2009, 06:45 PM

I totally agree with you...:) And I´ve been thought that if is him doing a bad job compared to his past it could be due to mind control... i have thought about it and find a bit difficult to someone change the behaviour so much, in a so small period of time, like he did, even if that person takes a lot drugs........

As i said a while back he morphed from a humble, modest, natural, unaffected, unconceited and charismatic person to a self-important, grandiose, hoity-toity, pompous, puffed-up, puffy, self-important, highfalutin pretentious wanker AND all that in the space of a few months.

Then add the visual and audial disparity to the mix, season and toss well.

Et voilá: "Faul á la prétentieux"

Disgusting & the taste will make you puke.

ALL THE PAUL FOOTAGE shows a charismatic man without pretention.

ALL THE FAUL FOOTAGE shows a pretentious prick.

This is like a big red line through any and all footage of the two.. think Faul's interview with the sly middle-finger, throat-slitting gestures, blowing his brains out etc. etc. etc.

Pretentious:
Etymology: French prétentieux, from prétention pretension, from Medieval Latin pretention-, pretentio, from Latin praetendere

1. Claiming or demanding a position of distinction or merit, especially when unjustified.
2. Making or marked by an extravagant outward show; ostentatious.

1. Characterized by an exaggerated show of dignity or self-importance: grandiose, hoity-toity, pompous, puffed-up, puffy, self-important. Informal highfalutin. See plain/fancy.
2. Marked by outward, often extravagant display: flamboyant, ostentatious, showy, splashy, splurgy. See plain/fancy.

Definition: snobbish, conceited
Antonyms: humble, modest, natural, unaffected, unconceited

karol2020

27-02-2009, 06:54 PM

As i said a while back he morphed from a humble, modest, natural, unaffected, unconceited and charismatic person to a self-important, grandiose, hoity-toity, pompous, puffed-up, puffy, self-important, highfalutin pretentious wanker AND all that in the space of a few months.

Hi astrochicken!:) I totally agree with you too, we can really see these differences you point between "them" or "him"...
but i still havent a side in this PID theory like hugolast said..............

faulconandsnowjob

27-02-2009, 11:27 PM

As i said a while back he morphed from a humble, modest, natural, unaffected, unconceited and charismatic person to a self-important, grandiose, hoity-toity, pompous, puffed-up, puffy, self-important, highfalutin pretentious wanker AND all that in the space of a few months.
LOL! Faul seems to have let being Paul McCartney go to his head. :D

Anyway, it's interesting that you mention mind control, Karol. That has certainly come up in my research on doubles. My personal feeling is that they (the original Beatles) were not mind controlled. They seem to have given TPTB some trouble. Hee hee :D

orbandsceptre27

27-02-2009, 11:56 PM

so it's either just someone who's not him doing an excellent job or is him doing a bad job compared to his past- i only say that because i looked him up because he didn't seem right when he was on tv, that's all i can say - i became suspicios of him for no reason out of no where. So my conclusion is like i said,

He's either a a good impressionist or same man not as good as he used to be.

At the moment i'm 70% him being faul 30% him being paul. That's where i stand for what it's worth, but i'm well interesed so sway me - lol i'll keep you posted on the percentages! This thread has lead to me learning For No One and Yesterday properly so now i can go play them at my gig's good has come of it - Oh and strawberry fields from watching the vid too :)

Thanks for your comment Hugolast - it`s encouraging to hear people are seeing the differences.

As Astrochicken previously pointed out, the intuition plays a major part in sensing this is not the same guy. The man has had so many dramatic character changes (as well as physical) in such a short space of time, that he looks, sounds and feels completely at odds with what the media/entertainment industry are telling us. "The is Paul McCartney" - No it`s not, it`s a very capable "double," but a double none the less.

As Faulcon, Lostworld and others have pointed out, "doubles" have often been used in society. Whether we look at politics, music and entertainment and even the military, the premise of the doppleganger has been around for a long time.

Why use a double? - It`s all about control, control of peoples` minds/attention.

faulconandsnowjob

28-02-2009, 12:26 AM

Why use a double? - It`s all about control, control of peoples` minds/attention.
Yeah, no joke. Especially when the real deal has a mind of his own. :D

orbandsceptre27

28-02-2009, 12:35 AM

^ Yep... seems the closer to the top you get, the more controlled the individual. If (s)he she becomes "a thorn in the side" of the establishment then it`s time for a little accident/replacement etc. This plain is all about control/knowing your place etc from the top down. How nice it will be when people wake up to see there is no "top" of the pyramid or "bottom."

faulconandsnowjob

28-02-2009, 12:40 AM

^ The Laurel Canyon articles talk about some of the mysterious deaths in the entertainment industry (Hollywood): http://davesweb.cnchost.com/

orbandsceptre27

28-02-2009, 12:56 AM

^ The Laurel Canyon articles talk about some of the mysterious deaths in the entertainment industry (Hollywood): http://davesweb.cnchost.com/

Cheers Faulcon :cool: - I`ll take a read through some of those articles!

reggievandam

28-02-2009, 01:51 AM

Incredible thread guys! I'll contribute whatever I can find! :cool: :D

This guy's making a profit on the whole thing!

With THIS weird image!!!

:eek:

http://www.kyle-eby.com/images/paul_is_dead.jpg

:eek:

Kyle Eby's portfolio...

http://www.kyle-eby.com/silkscreenpaul.html

reggievandam

28-02-2009, 02:06 AM

WHY, Hello, FAUL!!!

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_qUFDMUpk9jE/RvN2VJgwuUI/AAAAAAAAFug/ESLBEFlVQ4E/s1600/0mcartney.jpg
"Hail SATAN!!!" -Faul McFartny

Paul McCartney is now "Sir Paul". As with "Sir Mick." "Sir Elton." Or "Sir Geldoff." These entertainers have SIR-ved their cause well and been rewarded by the British Royals.

From...

http://snippits-and-slappits.blogspot.com/2009/01/this-is-well-known-greeting-of-one.html

reggievandam

28-02-2009, 02:11 AM

From Orwell Today...

BABY FACE PAUL NOT INNOCENT

Paul McCartney isn't the goody-goody-two-shoes he always portrays himself to be. Paul "the innocent one" is actually the opposite. He's Paul "the guilty one" to be exact. John Lennon said as much in "How do you sleep at night?" and I'd take his word over McCartney's any day.

Actually, when the Beatles moved to London Paul started hanging around with communists and heroin addicts. It was Paul who introduced John to LSD and Yoko Ono* - not necessarily in that order. And it was Paul who put John back together with Yoko after he'd escaped from her to Los Angeles. Yoko had gone running to Paul and Linda's place in London and gave Paul his marching orders. John was returned to the Dragon Lady. I learned this while reading the book PAUL MCCARTNEY MANY YEARS FROM NOW, by his friend and associate Barry Miles.

Then in the days after John was shot, Paul visited Yoko at the Dakota and the two of them drank a toast and shared a laugh. John's blood-splattered glasses were displayed on a table near the window.

Look at McCartney now. He's a spokesman for One World Government**. He was actually singing a concert to some wealthy elites at the Colliseum in Rome last week [June 2004]. He thinks the bombing of Iraq wasn't necessarily a bad thing.

Anyway, now he's letting us in on one of his secrets. He says that once he sent a song to Frank Sinatra - a born and raised gangster from New York who hung around with top mafia goons from Murder Inc and profited from prostitution and gambling etc - but Sinatra rejected it. The name of the song was "Suicide". hmmm. It would be interesting to hear it and read the words. Maybe Paul will sing it at some future concert. Anything would be an improvement on the words to most of his songs, especially "Yesterday" and "Michelle, mon belle" or whatever. ~ Jackie Jura

PS - Hard to tell Paul wasn't my favourite Beatle. John was my favourite Beatle and also one of my favourite people.

McCartney kept grief in closet.
Ottawa Sun, Dec 8, 2005
After John Lennon was shot, a grieving world wanted -- indeed, needed -- to see Paul McCartney, with a wrenched heart, struggling to cope with the sudden loss of his dear friend. Like the rest of us. But pretty much the opposite transpired. Caught by a camera crew leaving a London recording studio a day after Lennon's murder in New York City, McCartney said with all matter-of-factness: "It's a drag." No emotion. No "I can't believe my best mate is gone." No sign of love behind the missing tears. Just: "It's a drag." If millions of people worldwide found themselves sobbing, unable to come to grips with the tragedy, how was it McCartney --Lennon's soulmate for more than a decade -- could be so seemingly cold and unaffected? His reaction still outrages many Beatles fans.

LOTS more here...

http://www.orwelltoday.com/mccartney.shtml

faulconandsnowjob

28-02-2009, 02:26 AM

reggievandam

28-02-2009, 02:40 AM

^ Reggie, thanks so much for posting that about Faul. I would not be surprised if some or all of that were true - esp about Yoko & Faul being handlers. :eek:

Faul shows his allegiance, or is that a mind control signal? :eek: I'm clearly not in the loop. :p

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_qUFDMUpk9jE/RvN2VJgwuUI/AAAAAAAAFug/ESLBEFlVQ4E/s320/0mcartney.jpg

No Problem, Faulcon! :D

Yeah, I'm learning more and more each day and find a DOZEN or so new sites every day that introduce me to things I may have not thought of before!

Seeing Faul using that satanic symbol, and his general smugness about the entire affair, I have less and less respect for him every day!:mad:

Be sure to check out that website, it has ALOT of stuff about ALL the Beatles and the ILLUMINATI!

http://www.orwelltoday.com/mccartney.shtml

orbandsceptre27

28-02-2009, 02:51 AM

^ Thanks Reggie - some great points made there. Feel free to post what you can! :cool:

reggievandam

28-02-2009, 03:09 AM

^ Thanks Reggie - some great points made there. Feel free to post what you can! :cool:

Anytime! :D

Harrison Stabbing & Masonic Symbolism

(c) 2000 NewsHawk(r) Inc.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On December 30, less than two days before the beginning of the year 2000, former Beatles member George Harrison was attacked and stabbed in his home outside London. Harrison would very likely have been killed if his wife Olivia hadn't smashed a lamp on the attacker's head.

Considering what happened to Harrison's former bandmate John Lennon on the streets of New York almost exactly 19 years before, and considering the Beatles' key, pivotal role in the mass social experimentation carried out by Britain's Tavistock Institute in conjunction with covert intelligence agencies like the CIA, NSA and Britain's MI5/MI6, we'd say there is a strong likelihood that Harrison, like Lennon, was NOT the victim of some random act of senseless violence.

In fact, Lennon was murdered shortly after he gave an interview to Playboy magazine in which he blew the lid off the fact that the Beatles were part of massive experimentation in social control/engineering unleashed by Tavistock and intelligence agencies, as was the deliberate introduction of drugs like LSD into the burgeoning "counterculture" scene during the 1960s and 1970s. The Playboy interview was published not long after Lennon's death.

We'd say it's a good possibility Harrison was targeted to be bumped off by some of the same forces responsible for rubbing out Lennon, using MK-Ultra/Manchurian Candidate-type mind-controlled assassin Mark David Chapman.

Perhaps Harrison had likewise done something to incur the wrath of his former "programmers"; or perhaps it's just "company" procedure to terminate operatives of whatever designation at someone point in time, lest they somehow become an unnecessary security risk.

Perhaps George Harrison had been designated as some sort of "sacrificial victim" by the demented, obsessed, criminally insane, ritualistically-oriented "Illuminati" power brokers operating behind the scenes of so many events in the world. Perhaps there was some connection between this attempted "sacrifice" and the end of the 20th century/beginning of the new millennium (even though that REALLY begins next year!).

The Beatles' movie "HELP!" kept coming to mind. A sacrifice to Kali, perhaps?

Right off the bat, we wondered if perhaps the near-fatal assault on Harrison was linked to elements of the covert government, and there were some indications this may have been the case.

Few pop bands had as much impact on the latter half of the 20th century than the Beatles. How ironic, then, that less than 48 hours before what was generally considered the end of this century Harrison was nearly killed in a rather ritualistic fashion--by a knife.

The number "33", a very significant number in Masonry, seems to pop up with more than random frequency as having been a factor--somehow or other --in many events or incidents which have ritualistic, cult-like aspects. To name but one such recent event, there was a WEALTH of 33s which figured in the crash of Flight 990 (33x10).

Sure enough, we find some 33s showing up in the Harrison stabbing incident.

The attacker Michael Abram is 33 years old.

And even more freaky, the attack was said to have occurred at THREE-THIRTY in
the morning (London time).

The DATE of the attack was 12.30.99. In numerology, the numbers of this date
tally up to SIX, which is THREE plus THREE.

Some similarities have emerged between the knife attack upon Harrison and the New York City street shooting of Harrison's ex-bandmate John Lennon in December 1980.

As with Chapman, the mind-controlled assassin who killed John Lennon, the person who wielded a 7-inch knife against Harrison and his wife Olivia Wednesday night in their home near London, a Michael Abram, is shaping up as some kind of fanatical lunatic who had only fairly recently become "obsessed" with the Beatles, according to Abram's mother Lynda. She also said that her son "hates" the Beatles and believes them to "witches."

What she describes about her son's "beliefs" regarding the Beatles sounds to us like Michael Abram was subjected to Manchurian Candidate/MK-Ultra/Monarch/Montauk style belief-system conditioning; inculcated in the target subject by such means as drug- or EM/RF-assisted hypnotic trance induction or the like, as part of an overall mind control program. There are other anomalous and peculiar aspects to the entire incident--some of which George Harrison has already commented upon publicly. Harrison said the man "was certainly not intent on burglary."

The attacker in fact seemed quite proficient at wielding a knife, stabbing Harrison four times--the most serious wound was only an inch from Harrison's heart.

For another example, one of the more inexplicable aspects is how the attacker, now charged with two counts of attempted murder, was able to penetrate what Harrison's neighbors describe as "Fort Knox"-like security at the Harrison residence. Police have repeatedly noted their amazement that Abram was able to penetrate the extensive, elaborate security in place around Harrison's house.

Obviously this was in some way or other an "inside" job.

And furthermore, we'd really like to know whether slasher Abram was carrying a copy of J.D. Salinger's "Catcher In the Rye," as were both Lennon's murderer Chapman and would-be Reagan assassin John Hinckley--NOT to mention the MK-Ultra mind-controlled assassin "Jerry" played by Mel Gibson in the surprisingly revealing movie "Conspiracy Theory".

Salinger, a quite accomplished and well-respected author whose book "Catcher In The Rye" is required reading for a great many high school students in the U.S., had extensive ties to the CIA throughout most of his adult and professional life including his stint as a university professor.

We're very relieved to hear that neither of the Harrisons were seriously injured in the stabbing assault.

http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/themagazine/vol9/articles/harrison.shtml

faulconandsnowjob

28-02-2009, 04:07 AM

^ That's pretty much where my research has led me as well. :eek:

truthseeker49

07-03-2009, 03:12 PM

Thank you for your "illuminating" posts, Reggie. I'm glad to welcome you aboard..:D
I hope you don't mind, but I cut & pasted your posts verbatim on my forum. Come by & check them out ! < wink >

truthseeker49

07-03-2009, 10:52 PM

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/65car.jpghttp://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/Faulmustardsuit.jpg
Paul, 1965 vs. Faul, 1967

Paul http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/Paulcolour4.jpghttp://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/strawberrypaulae9.jpg Faul, 1967

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/1.jpghttp://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/FaulandMickey.jpg

Paul, 1965 vs. Faul, 1967 (vintage)

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/335162d8.jpghttp://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/24-beatles-082207-1.jpg

Paul, 1966 Revolver Sessions vs. Faul, 1967 MMT...

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/Paulcolour.jpghttp://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/closeupofFaul.jpg

Paul, 1965/66 vs. Faul, 1970 - I know that Faul has facial hair, so it makes a facial comparison difficult. I did this one for the difference in their EYES...

faulconandsnowjob

08-03-2009, 02:12 AM

^ Their eyebrows clearly don't match. Penny Lane Faul is so creepy, imo :eek:

truthseeker49

08-03-2009, 04:18 AM

I love that last photo of Paul. I just found that one earlier today. There are still some untapped caches of Paul photos. I'm shocked every time I find one ! :)

faulconandsnowjob

08-03-2009, 04:31 AM

^ Paul was a cutie, that's for sure :)

truthseeker49

08-03-2009, 08:15 PM

Yes, he was...
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/rb2.jpghttp://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/rb1.jpg

Paul http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/96.jpghttp://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/c06f_1.jpg Faul

I just love it when I get accused of using the same photos over & over again. I just found a totally new source of photos. MANY of them I've never seen before. I'm trying to use those new photos for comparisons.

lostworld

08-03-2009, 08:42 PM

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/96.jpg

I love this photo of the guys... :)

truthseeker49

08-03-2009, 09:07 PM

He was a very sweet man.

More comparisons:
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/670.jpghttp://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/book_cover.jpg

They have to be kidding. Look how much LARGER Faul is than Paul ! :eek:

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/baldbeatles.jpghttp://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/i03vg4.jpg
Faul signed it, so he must agree with the way that he was depicted ! < wink >

lostworld

08-03-2009, 09:45 PM

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/book_cover.jpg

^
A PINK suit... PINK???

Faul is sitting like an old lady (they all do) - what IS that...? :eek:

This photo is awful and wrong in so many ways... :rolleyes:

They have to be kidding. Look how much LARGER Faul is than Paul ! :eek:

Yeah, I've noticed this too, especially on some of the pics you just posted the other day... Faul has much wider shoulders than Paul - over all he's taller and much more big boned...

truthseeker49

08-03-2009, 09:53 PM

Paul http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/thumbs2.jpghttp://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/FaulMichael1980.jpgFaul
Paul http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/fullbodydefensiveposture.jpghttp://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/bigFaul2.jpg Faul
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/waxbeatles1968.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v462/OnlyBeatles/L.jpg
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/waxbeatles25ll.jpghttp://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/Georgemouthearly-1.jpg

It's amazing how the wax dummies look like who they are supposed to be portraying ! The 1963 one looks like Paul & the 1968 one looks like Faul !

truthseeker49

08-03-2009, 10:00 PM

Lostworld, you're so right. Faul is most definitely bigger boned than Paul was.

Paulhttp://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/Lulu-1.jpghttp://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/1968.jpgFaul

Paul http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/prsconf2.jpghttp://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/Strangeangle.jpg Faul

Paul, 1965 http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/help-1.jpghttp://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/bigFaul-1.jpg Faul, 1968

lostworld

08-03-2009, 10:09 PM

Paulhttp://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/rehearsal12.jpg

Paul as Dusty Springfield's hairdresser? :D
So cute...

Truthseeker, you're a machine.
Great photos all the way... :)

truthseeker49

09-03-2009, 01:37 AM

That was Paul, he was such a character...
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/rehearsal12.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/Paul-Dusty-Tom-Ringo-1966.jpg

The second photo was taken at the Melody Makers Music Awards in September, 1966. It is one of the last photos taken of Paul. There are those who do not think that is Paul in the 1966 photo. Dusty seems comfortable with him. I had no idea that Paul had taken another photo with her until today. < shrugs >

faulconandsnowjob

09-03-2009, 02:39 AM

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/Strangeangle.jpg

The tip of Faul's nose turns down in a way that Paul's def did not.

Faul's pink suit is unforgiveable. Paul would never wear smth like that :eek:

lostworld

09-03-2009, 05:26 AM

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/Strangeangle.jpg

The tip of Faul's nose turns down in a way that Paul's def did not.:

I totally agree. And WHY would Paul had a nose job? It makes no sense what so ever...

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/book_cover.jpg

A PINK suit... PINK???

Faul is sitting like an old lady (they all do) - what IS that...? :eek:

This photo is awful and wrong in so many ways... :rolleyes:

Faul's pink suit is unforgiveable. Paul would never wear smth like that :eek:

:D That was a shocker...

The whole picture is SO non sexy... They look like 4 little ladies - sorry... :( :D

truthseeker49

09-03-2009, 06:01 PM

Lostworld and Faulcon, I can't agree more !

Back to their size differences:
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/Paulsmall-1.jpghttp://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/bigFaul-2-1.jpg

Paul, 1965 vs. Faul, 1968

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g146/lilis456/niceheightcomparison.jpghttp://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g146/lilis456/Magical15.jpg

The Beatles, 1963 vs. the Beatles, 1967

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g146/lilis456/4doorway-1.jpghttp://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g146/lilis456/4beatlesFaul.jpg
The Beatles, 1965 vs. the Beatles, 1968

Check out how Paul & George's face are close in size in 1965 & in 1968, Faul's face is much larger than George's ! :eek:

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g146/lilis456/verynicecolor.jpghttp://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g146/lilis456/beatles20hey20jude1jpg.jpg
The Beatles, 1964 vs. the Beatles, 1967

truthseeker49

09-03-2009, 06:18 PM

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g146/lilis456/epoch08-1.jpghttp://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g146/lilis456/RS_1968_Articles08-1.jpg

Damn, that Faul is one scarey dude !!! :o

astrochicken

09-03-2009, 07:51 PM

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g146/lilis456/niceheightcomparison.jpg

Any more pics of their legs?..no, it's not a fetish LOL

Paul is obviously seriously bandy-legged.. let's compare those to Faul's.

truthseeker49

09-03-2009, 08:25 PM

That's a great observation, Astrochicken. Let me see what I can find.

Paul http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v462/OnlyBeatles/niceheightcomparison.jpghttp://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/bandpic38.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y60/Trueclues/JohnonfloorAA.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/thumbs3.jpg

Faul http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/WlarusGirl/ng97AA.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/paul-linda-martha.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/ram4.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/0a2416ec.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/scotlandFaulJane.gifhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/pid_on_magazine_p05-1.jpg

Faul's legs are longer & straighter.

truthseeker49

09-03-2009, 08:54 PM

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/thumbs3.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v462/OnlyBeatles/Life1968.jpg

Paul, 1964 vs. Faul, 1968. Look how much larger Faul's foot is than Paul's !

Paul is pushing up his foot to make himself appear taller. Faul never had to worry about that...

Paul http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v462/OnlyBeatles/niceheightcomparison.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/paul-linda-martha.jpg Faul

karol2020

09-03-2009, 09:37 PM

lostworld

10-03-2009, 02:44 AM

faulconandsnowjob

10-03-2009, 04:42 AM

Faul is kind of dorky & effeminate compared to Paul. JMO

lostworld

10-03-2009, 05:16 AM

^
I agree on that! :)

socrates

10-03-2009, 10:45 AM

Truthseeker,
These comparisons are great! :)

Obviously, there is a BIG difference... :p

Obviously - there isn't:

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g146/lilis456/Magical15.jpghttp://img18.imageshack.us/img18/9356/heightb.jpg

Whilst Photographs are sometimes a good way of comparing height, the further they deviate from the perfect pose, the harder they become to use as reliable evidence. A perfect photo for comparison requires several main requirements:

1. Both subjects are an equal distance from the camera.
2. The shoe sizes are equal, or at least known.
3. They have similar posture, which in some photos is hard to tell.
4. There is no horizontal tilt in the picture and the camera is at least at their face level.
5. The floor is flat and level.

Yes, common sense stuff really, but 90% of photos won't be near perfect. As soon as you start to get away from this ideal set of conditions for 'perfect photos', judging the actual difference is open to interpretation and prone to a larger margin of error.

http://img414.imageshack.us/img414/8471/camerapositionuv6.gif

The Paul is dead believers clearly do not understand simple photographic principles such as this.

As the above explanation and photos prove - their photographic evidence to support a height difference is hopelessly flawed.

socrates

10-03-2009, 10:57 AM

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/thumbs3.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v462/OnlyBeatles/Life1968.jpg

Paul, 1964 vs. Faul, 1968. Look how much larger Faul's foot is than Paul's !

LOL! You cannot even see his foot - only his shoe. :rolleyes:

One pair of shoes has a longer style/design near the toes than the other pair. Guess some people just don't have an eye for detail. :)

socrates

10-03-2009, 12:14 PM

Same man:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/hdnnwhr.jpghttp://img25.imageshack.us/img25/203/pppqxl.jpg
http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/3272/july41965.jpghttp://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g292/sabeth_photos/beatles/Paul%20McCartney/paulbird3big-1.jpg

Compare the lips on the bottom two photos - they are clearly the same.

supertzar

10-03-2009, 12:23 PM

It's called casting pearls before swine, soc. Either they are sincere and will never get it or they are disinfo agents and will always pretend not to get it. I appreciate you taking the time to do this, though.

socrates

10-03-2009, 12:58 PM

It's called casting pearls before swine, soc.

:)

Either they are sincere and will never get it or they are disinfo agents and will always pretend not to get it.

I think it is just a game for some of them. They keep posting photo after photo, day after day, week after week, month after month. Why? Surely you only need to provide a few photos to show the 'clear differences' and to show it's 'not the same man'? After that, what's the point in posting even more?

And they seem to think it's like some kind of job to keep posting photo after photo after photo:

We have to fill in for each other, when some of us are away for whatever reason.

:rolleyes:

I appreciate you taking the time to do this, though.

Thanks. Disinfo needs exposing. :)

socrates

10-03-2009, 01:28 PM

No surprise that faulconandsnowjob has never addressed my reply to this:

LOL! Just out of curiosity, how many law degrees do you have? B/c I have 2. Ok, if you're so smart about the law, why don't you tell me the following:

1) What's the cause or causes of action?
2) What are the damages?
3) Where would jurisdiction lie?
4) Where is the proper venue?
5) Who are the indispensable parties?
6) Would joinder be required?

After you get back to me on that, then maybe I'll look into it. :D

Since you claim to have a law degree then surely you would know that false impersonation in order to deceive others and gain some advantage is a crime? :confused: You would also surely know that false impersonation is defined by federal statutes and by state statutes. For example, under New York law, criminal impersonation is committed when an individual "impersonates another and does an act in such assumed character with intent to obtain a benefit or to injure or defraud another".

But since Paul is a UK citizen, let's stick to UK law. Have you 2 degrees in UK law? :)

Under the Fraud Act 2006, a person is guilty of fraud if he is in breach of any of the sections listed in subsection 2 (which provide for different ways of committing the offence).

Subsection 2:

(a) section 2 (fraud by false representation),

(b) section 3 (fraud by failing to disclose information), and

(c) section 4 (fraud by abuse of position).

We can clearly see that Faul would be guilty of fraud by false representation - dishonestly impersonating Paul McCartney for financial gain.

Fraud by false representation:

(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and

(b) intends, by making the representation—

(i) to make a gain for himself or another.

A representation is false if—

(a) it is untrue or misleading, and

(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

Faul could also be sued for false advertising or deceptive advertising. Faul would also be guilty of identity theft, which is a crime used to refer to fraud that involves someone pretending to be someone else in order to steal money or get other benefits. Actually, the term is a misnomer, since it is not possible to steal an identity, only to use it. In many countries specific laws make it a crime to use another person's identity for personal gain.

Fraud, in addition to being a criminal act, is also a type of civil law violation known as a tort. A tort is a civil wrong for which the law provides a remedy. A civil fraud typically involves the act of intentionally making a false representation of a material fact, with the intent to deceive, which is reasonably relied upon by another person to that person's detriment.

So, any person who has bought a record by Paul McCartney and subsequently believes that they have been a victim of fraud ie. the record wasn't of Paul McCartney, can bring a private prosecution under the Prosecution of Offences Act. All you have to do is submit your evidence to The Crown Prosecution Service. They would take over the case and prosecute if the case passes the two tests in the Code for Crown Prosecutors, ie. there is sufficient evidence and a prosecution is in the public interest.

So, you have no excuses faulconandsnowjob. If you Paul is dead belivers really had the courage of your convictions and wanted to prove to everybody that Paul McCartney has been replaced and an imposter has taken his place, then you'd take your evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service with the intention of applying for a private prosecution.

Paul is alive. That's why the Paul is dead believers won't go to court. They just enjoy spending their time posting endless photos on forums. I'm sure there are more productive hobbies though.

lostworld

10-03-2009, 01:58 PM

Paul is alive. That's why the Paul is dead believers won't go to court. They just enjoy spending their time posting endless photos on forums. I'm sure there are more productive hobbies though.

And the court system isn't corrupt just like the media?
Need I say "Florida"...? :D

lostworld

10-03-2009, 02:07 PM

:)
I think it is just a game for some of them. They keep posting photo after photo, day after day, week after week, month after month. Why? Surely you only need to provide a few photos to show the 'clear differences' and to show it's 'not the same man'? After that, what's the point in posting even more?:)

But you guys also continue posting. Just to debunk... :rolleyes:
At least we do it out of passion... What's your excuse? Cause you're paid to? = disinfo?

And they seem to think it's like some kind of job to keep posting photo after photo after photo:

It's hard work but somebody's got to do it...
And - the truth is worth it :) :p

Thanks. Disinfo needs exposing. :)
:D

Yeah, I couldn't agree more actually... :rolleyes:

supertzar

10-03-2009, 02:20 PM

There is good reason to post criticism on this thread. I don't want people to think that everyone on the David Icke forum believes Paul McCartney is dead based on these images. Plus, I just think this thread is offensive to reason itself and I naturally want to deconstruct it.

lostworld

10-03-2009, 03:29 PM

socrates

10-03-2009, 03:57 PM

And the court system isn't corrupt just like the media?
Need is say "Florida"...? :D

You cannot use that as an excuse - you've not even tried to prosecute Paul. :rolleyes:

That is my point. And I submit my opinion that the reason you won't even try is because you know your evidence would be torn apart and exposed by even the most incompetent of lawyers.

lostworld

10-03-2009, 04:19 PM

You cannot use that as an excuse - you've not even tried to prosecute Paul. :rolleyes:

That is my point. And I submit my opinion that the reason you won't even try is because you know your evidence would be torn apart and exposed by even the most incompetent of lawyers.

Well, Faul is protected, that's for sure.
Otherwise this whole charade wouldn't have last this long... :rolleyes:

AND there was this paternity case against him, in Germany.
It was cancelled though :(
I don't know the details but I know that you've all heard it from Faulcon and the others here before.

A German woman who claims Sir Paul McCartney sent a doppelganger to take a DNA test to prove he wasn't her father has had her case dropped.

Bettina Hubers, 44, alleges McCartney - who she calls The Beatles' "cute one" - got her mother pregnant during a three-year affair in Hamburg.

German prosecutors investigating fraud charges brought against the singer for allegedly sending a look-alike to the paternity test which took place in 1983 threw the case out of court on Friday (25.05.07), claiming the incident occurred too long ago.

Michael Grunwald, the spokesman for Berlin's prosecution office, said: "Any criminal act alleged by the woman filing the complaint, even if it happened, has passed the statute of limitations."

McCartney agreed to the tests after Hubers demanded money from him.

In 1966, the legendary musician allegedly paid Hubers' mother £13,000 to keep quiet about their relationship.

Read more: "Paul McCartney paternity case dropped" - http://www.monstersandcritics.com/people/news/article_1310658.php#ixzz09MsQUvNm

socrates

10-03-2009, 04:20 PM

But you guys also continue posting. Just to debunk... :rolleyes:

Debunk: to expose or excoriate (a claim, assertion, sentiment, etc.) as being pretentious, false, or exaggerated.

I'm glad you have inadvertently admited that we have 'exposed' your claims as "false", lostworld.

At least we do it out of passion

That is no excuse for posting flawed evidence.

What's your excuse?

Er, maybe because this is a discussion forum. :)

Cause you're paid to? = disinfo?

WANTED

People to post messages on the 'Is Paul Dead?' thread in the David Icke forum, saying Paul is alive.

Good rates of pay. Must be computer literate and like looking at countless photos of Paul McCartney.

If interested contact:

The Illuminati,
Secret Headquaters,
USA.

It's hard work but somebody's got to do it...

Nobody has got to do it. Your conspiracy myth has been around for over 40 years and 99.99% of people still believe Paul McCartney has not been replaced. It is therefore crystal clear that you will never, ever, convince any significant number of your beliefs.

Posting countless photos for months on end achieves nothing more than just posting a few. You are therefore wasting your time continuing to post more and more and more.

But, if you like doing it, I have nothing against it as such. But I think there are much more productive hobbies out there.

And - the truth is worth it :)

That's why most people think you are wasting your time. :)

socrates

10-03-2009, 04:31 PM

Well, Faul is protected, that's for sure.
Otherwise this whole charade wouldn't have last this long... :rolleyes:

Protected by who, exactly? Names, please! Then please also supply supporting documented evidence of how these people have "protected" him, such as documents, independent eye-witness testimony, dates etc.

Can you do this, or is your claim merely an opinion with no actual, definitive, substansive evidence to support it?

AND there was this paternity case against him, in Germany.

Irrelevant. That had nothing to do with allegations that Paul has been replaced.

Therefore, my earlier assertions still stand:

If you Paul is dead belivers really had the courage of your convictions and wanted to prove to everybody that Paul McCartney has been replaced and an imposter has taken his place, then you'd take your evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service with the intention of applying for a private prosecution.

Paul is alive. That's why the Paul is dead believers won't go to court. They just enjoy spending their time posting endless photos on forums.

truthseeker49

10-03-2009, 05:09 PM

Paul, 1966http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/Paul1966.jpghttp://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/Faulpink-1.jpgFaul, 1968

]http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/purple.jpghttp://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/M2.jpg
Paul, 1965/66 vs. Faul, 1968

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/peggylipton-1.jpghttp://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/three-1.jpg
Paul, 1965 vs. Faul from the 1970's

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/PaulandJohn2-1.jpghttp://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/puffy.jpg
Paul, 1965 vs. Faul, 1968/69

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/PaulandJohn3-1.jpghttp://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/fanletters-1.jpg

Both of Paul, 1965. I'm trying to establish the size of his left leg. In both photos, his leg is exactly the same size from ankle to hip.

astrochicken

10-03-2009, 06:17 PM

Both of Paul, 1965. I'm trying to establish the size of his left leg. In both photos, his leg is exactly the same size from ankle to hip.

I don't care about the length of his leg.. but if modern-day Faul is not bandy/bow-legged then he can't be Paul.

I don't know of any corrective procedure for people with bow-legs, faces you can do, lips you can do, eyebrows,noses,earlobes.. all this is do-able.. but to fix bandylegs just sounds really bloody painfull (that is if it's at all possible).

lostworld

10-03-2009, 06:20 PM

I'm glad you have inadvertently admited that we have 'exposed' your claims as "false", lostworld.

No way... :p
I mean you're trying to debunk... In vain :rolleyes:

Nobody has got to do it. Your conspiracy myth has been around for over 40 years and 99.99% of people still believe Paul McCartney has not been replaced. It is therefore crystal clear that you will never, ever, convince any significant number of your beliefs.

Posting countless photos for months on end achieves nothing more than just posting a few. You are therefore wasting your time continuing to post more and more and more.

I can only speak for myself but my main goal is NOT to convince other people. I know this can't be forced on anyone.
I also know that there is some kind of biological factor/programming/veil or whatever that makes most people not being able to see this...

But I do need to get the truth out and speak my mind about it. At least it's "out there" then...
And if we can help people to open their eyes to what's really going on in this world - then that's just a bonus and I'm glad... :)

I know my stepford thread has helped a lot of people, to open their eyes or to get a confirmation of what they already know...

But, if you like doing it, I have nothing against it as such. But I think there are much more productive hobbies out there.
Such as? Being a disinfo...? :p

WANTED

People to post messages on the 'Is Paul Dead?' thread in the David Icke forum, saying Paul is alive.

Good rates of pay. Must be computer literate and like looking at countless photos of Paul McCartney.

If interested contact:

The Illuminati,
Secret Headquaters,
USA.

:D

lostworld

10-03-2009, 06:25 PM

Protected by who, exactly? Names, please! Then please also supply supporting documented evidence of how these people have "protected" him, such as documents, independent eye-witness testimony, dates etc.

Can you do this, or is your claim merely an opinion with no actual, definitive, substansive evidence to support it?

I wish I did have all those documents and evidence that you're talking about... Then i certainly wouldn't have to be here anymore :rolleyes:

BUT - you really don't think that we "ordinary people" get access to these kind of things, do you?
It's destroyed and has been silenced since long time ago, unfortunately :(

Both you and I are about opinions. Your "evidence" is not enough to support your claims either (even if you yourself think so).
All we can do is be sure in our beliefs and argue as well as we can for them...

lostworld

10-03-2009, 06:30 PM

I don't care about the length of his leg.. but if modern-day Faul is not bandy/bow-legged then he can't be Paul.

I don't know of any corrective procedure for people with bow-legs, faces you can do, lips you can do, eyebrows,noses,earlobes.. all this is do-able.. but to fix bandylegs just sounds really bloody painfull (that is if it's at all possible).

You can correct bow-legs to be straight. The other way around - no I don't think so... A "normal" doctor wouldn't do it, but what "they" can do is another thing. :rolleyes:

Bonus info, nothing to do with PID: leg lengthing is also possible. Painfull operation though... :cool:

socrates

10-03-2009, 06:33 PM

No way... :p
I mean you're trying to debunk... In vain :rolleyes:

Not what you WROTE! That's why I said "inadvertently". It's called a Freudian slip. :)

Decades apart, but clearly the same ear:

http://xoomer.virgilio.it/james_paul_mccartney/animations/ears_comparison.gif

Same nose:
http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/1342/nose1o.jpg

Same hairy arms:
http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/4929/rb1.jpghttp://img12.imageshack.us/img12/4921/gaybilly.jpg

Same man.
http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/3227/7428332610.jpghttp://img201.imageshack.us/img201/7658/98644148.jpg

socrates

10-03-2009, 06:45 PM

I wish I did have all those documents and evidence that you're talking about...

If you have no evidence to support your belief then your belief is based upon nothing but the desire to believe what you do. For, without evidence, you have no logical basis to make the claims you do.

BUT - you really don't think that we "ordinary people" get access to these kind of things, do you?

In this case, no. Because such evidence does not exist. Paul hasn't been replaced.

It's destroyed and has been silenced since long time ago, unfortunately :(

Mere speculation. No evidence? No case!

Your "evidence" is not enough to support your claims either (even if you yourself think so).

My evidence is a living, breathing Paul McCartney! It's a hellava lot more than you've got! :)

I think that is more than enough to support my claim. It is up to you to prove it's not Paul - and you have admitted that you have no substansive, documentary evidence to support your contention.

Therefore, your claims cannot be taken seriously, unfortunately. They are mere speculation - nothing more.

fireman

10-03-2009, 07:16 PM

for all the people who can't decide yet who is right...

more photographic evidence that Paul never changed

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/NEWCOMP_BEARD.gif
http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/NEWCOMP_BEARD_FIDDY.gif

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/sidebyside2.gif

Oh i know you PIDers hate fades, but i couldn't resist:

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/sidebyside2_fade.gif

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/uppermost.gif

SAME MAN! :)

truthseeker49

10-03-2009, 07:22 PM

Paul,1965( 1st two)http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/PaulandJohn3-1.jpghttp://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/fanletters-1.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/scotlandFaulJane-1.gif Faul,1967
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/548097831968mccartneysefo2-1.jpghttp://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/Faulpink-1.jpg

Faul, 1967 & Faul, 1968/69 - same legs...

Paul http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/191036.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/Linda2-1.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/Bill-insertfrominsideMcCartneyalbuma.jpg Faul & Faul
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/NakedHeather-1.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/Faulbypool.jpg Faul

Faul appears to have longer legs than Paul. I have come to this conclusion after looking at photos of both men in various stages of undress over the past 6 years. I will have to do alot more comparisons of their legs as I come across viable options.

truthseeker49

10-03-2009, 08:00 PM

Paul 1966 http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/Paul1966.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/548097831968mccartneysefo2-1.jpg Faul 1967/68
.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b375/Cavern61/All_About_The_Beatles_7.jpghttp://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/sitting_around_red.jpg
Paul 1963/64 vs. Faul 1967

truthseeker49

10-03-2009, 08:06 PM

socrates

10-03-2009, 08:14 PM

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/uppermost.gif

same man! :)

My god, you're right!!!! :)

lostworld

10-03-2009, 08:18 PM

Same nose:
http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/1342/nose1o.jpg

Not the same nose! Not even close! Different bridge, different nostrils.
Faul has a longer and more straight nose. It's very plain to see.
Again - why would Paul have a nose job if this was the same person?

Same man.
http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/3227/7428332610.jpghttp://img201.imageshack.us/img201/7658/98644148.jpg

Absolutely not.

lostworld

10-03-2009, 08:23 PM

I wish I did have all those documents and evidence that you're talking about... Then i certainly wouldn't have to be here anymore

BUT - you really don't think that we "ordinary people" get access to these kind of things, do you?
It's destroyed and has been silenced since long time ago, unfortunately

Both you and I are about opinions. Your "evidence" is not enough to support your claims either (even if you yourself think so).
All we can do is be sure in our beliefs and argue as well as we can for them...

Her post illustrates the difference between most of the PIDers and most of the PIAers I've come across on this board. She has responded in a non-judgemental, kind manner. This is how I have been endeavoring to handle this myself. It gets tough, since I seem to be under attack most of the time for my opinions.

Thanks Truthseeker,
but we don't get back what we give, do we? :rolleyes:

I'm not always this kind though... everything has it's limit. :p

But that is the main difference, you're right. We don't attack like that and get aggressive and rude for no reason. Yet, we get attacked back...
It's really tiring but sheeple and the evil ones are like that, as you know... :)

socrates

10-03-2009, 08:27 PM

It gets tough, since I seem to be under attack most of the time for my opinions.

It is your evidence that has been criticised, not you. If you are offering up flawed evidence for scrutiny - such as hidden foreheads, feet that you cannot see because they are in shoes and alleged height differences which in reality are caused by different camera angles and positioning - then please do not complain when people point these things out.

It is you, after all, who is offering this evidence for comment. Nobody has asked you to. So you cannot complain when some people do not agree with it and point out the obvious discrepencies in your evidence.

socrates

10-03-2009, 09:10 PM

http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/1342/nose1o.jpg

Not the same nose! Not even close! Different bridge

They are clearly the same, sorry.

Faul has a longer and more straight nose. It's very plain to see.

Sorry, it's not...

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/IMG_0122aaa.jpghttp://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/bill_story/another_day_45_rpm_cover.jpghttp://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/images/james_paul_mccartney_right_profile.jpg

different nostrils.

http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/1342/nose1o.jpg

LOL! Of course they are - one's his right, the other is his left!!! :rolleyes:

(These Paul is dead believers aren't the sharpest tools in the box, are they? :) )

lostworld

10-03-2009, 09:18 PM

http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/1342/nose1o.jpg

They are clearly the same, sorry.

Sorry, it's a fact - you're absolutely blind...

http://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/bill_story/another_day_45_rpm_cover.jpg

^
You post this pic!?
This pic is Faul with a fake nose tip trying to look like Paul.
This is also very easy to SEE if you have an eye for (bad) make up.

LOL! Of course they are - one's his right, the other is his left!!! :rolleyes:

Classic disinfo: to "misunderstand" deliberately and then ridicule... :cool:
You're tactics are very transparent S... :rolleyes:

You forget that I've seen hundreds of pics before. The nostrils ARE different no matter angle or left/right comparison.

These Paul is dead believers aren't the sharpest tools in the box, are they?
Again, ridicule...
Compared to you - yes, I can say that we are... :D

socrates

10-03-2009, 09:36 PM

Sorry, it's a fact - you're absolutely blind...

In your opinion.

This pic is Faul with a fake nose tip trying to look like Paul.
This is also very easy to SEE if you have an eye for (bad) make up.

Mere speculation. You have no proof whatsoever for that claim. Merely claiming he is wearing a fake nose tip (in order to suit your argument) is very easy.

What can be asserted wthout evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

Classic disinfo: to "misunderstand" deliberately and then ridicule... :cool:
You're tactics are very transparent S... :rolleyes:

You claimed they were different nostrils, did you not? What is there to "misunderstand"? You cannot compare different nostrils and then use that opinion to state it is because he is a different man.

The same person can have slightly different shaped nostrils - therefore you're comparison and conclusion is flawed. You would have to compare the same nostrils - and the pics you was commenting upon clearly showed the left and right.

You forget that I've seen hundreds of pics before. The nostrils ARE different no matter angle or left/right comparison.

In your opinion.

Again, ridicule...

No a JOKE, hence the SMILEY! Come on, get a sense of humour. You've been arguing with grachtengordel for too long. Made you all grumpy and grouchy!

truthseeker49

10-03-2009, 09:55 PM

fireman

10-03-2009, 10:05 PM

Socrates, it's all opinion. Can't you just move onto something else ? All you're doing is wasting our time. :rolleyes:
Lostworld, don't waste your time on him. People will either see the truth or they won't. As long as he uses untampered photos, the differences will always be obvious to those with open eyes. :)

Hey there.

You mean "untampered" like this one, which was just posted at your forum?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/Daytripper.jpg

I mean come on! That is a joke right?

You call that blurry video-still untampered, while you ignore my post from just a few posts above, with clear pictures that show exactly the same man??

No offense, but that might be a reason, why you are not even taken very seriously on a board like David Ickes...

But your words are true, people will decide for themselves eventually...

lostworld

10-03-2009, 10:59 PM

You've been arguing with grachtengordel for too long. Made you all grumpy and grouchy!

Ok. :D
Maybe I can't stand any more narrow minded opinions for a while... :rolleyes:

That grachtengordel is beyond saving though - what a looney! :eek: :mad:
(my opinon)

socrates

10-03-2009, 11:09 PM

Socrates, it's all opinion.

Yes, it is. But your opinion is wrong and mine is right.

JOKING!!! :)

All you're doing is wasting our time. :rolleyes:

Ditto. :rolleyes:

But I don't want people being taken in by completely flawed evidence and this whole Paul Is Dead myth. You are not really serious about it, because if you were you'd try and prosecute him for fraud. But you won't. That speaks volumes. You just like to spend the whole of your time posting endless photos on forums. No harm in that, but there is no harm in me and others posting the flaws in such evidence, either.

Lostworld, don't waste your time on him. People will either see the truth or they won't. As long as he uses untampered photos, the differences will always be obvious to those with open eyes. :)

Hmmm.. Like foreheads that are supposed to be bigger; only you can't actually see them because they're covered by hair? Or feet that are supposed to be bigger - only you can't actually see them because they are in different styled shoes? Or bizare claims of false ears and false nose tips without a shred of suporting, documented evidence to substantiate them?

Yep, with those kind of 'differences', I'm sure people with open eyes will soon see that such evidence is about as convincing as a $9 note.

socrates

10-03-2009, 11:12 PM

Ok. :D
Maybe I can't stand any more narrow minded opinions for a while... :rolleyes:

Well, you'll be ok with my opinions then. :)

That grachtengordel is beyond saving though - what a looney! :eek: :mad:

I think that's something we can finally agree on. :)

astrochicken

10-03-2009, 11:13 PM

Same man.<br>
http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/3227/7428332610.jpghttp://img201.imageshack.us/img201/7658/98644148.jpg

LOL

You really, genuinely can't (or won't) see it, do you?

lostworld

10-03-2009, 11:16 PM

Well, you'll be ok with my opinions then. :)

I wouldn't count on it... :p

I think that's something we can finally agree on. :)

:)

Wow, there's hope...

socrates

10-03-2009, 11:17 PM

Hey there.

You mean "untampered" like this one, which was just posted at your forum?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/Daytripper.jpg

OMG! :eek: Who's that next to John? Is it an alien?

What's an ET doing singing with John Lennon?

socrates

10-03-2009, 11:29 PM

So, anyway. These Paul is dead believers claim the following:

Faul is a different height.

Faul has different coloured eyes.

Faul's nostrils are different.

Faul's hands are different.

Faul's lips are different.

Faul's hairline is different.

Faul's teeth are different.

Faul's nose is longer.

Faul's eyes are different.

Faul's feet are bigger.

Faul looks older.

Fauls legs are longer.

Faul's forehead is bigger.

Paul's bodyshape is different.

Faul's eyebrows are a different shape.

Faul's chin is a different shape.

Faul wears a false nose tip.

Faul wears false ears.

And yet this guy is supposed to be a lookalike?!! :eek:

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/1117/31326518.jpg

:) :) :)

faulconandsnowjob

11-03-2009, 05:22 AM

So, Socrates posts this photo comparison to prove that Paul & Faul are the "same man." It's not even the same angle or anything. Pretty sloppy, imo.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/hdnnwhr.jpghttp://img25.imageshack.us/img25/203/pppqxl.jpg

And I love this, b/c isn't it Faul playing right-handed in India? Was the pic flipped?

http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/7658/98644148.jpg

Paul McCartney Right Handed - YouTube

Lostworld, I think Bettina Krischbin's case is really compelling. Paul sent a body double to give blood in the paternity case in 1983 b/c he was already dead. Of course, the DNA didn't match. Duh!

I don't see why some people have so much trouble accepting that the Illuminati control the entertainment industry just as much as they control everything else. It's a fact that they replace people. It's a fact that they replaced Paul.

fireman

11-03-2009, 07:57 AM

And I love this, b/c isn't it Faul playing right-handed in India? Was the pic flipped?

http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/7658/98644148.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tWikCSZjfs

Lostworld, I think Bettina Krischbin's case is really compelling. Paul sent a body double to give blood in the paternity case in 1983 b/c he was already dead. Of course, the DNA didn't match. Duh!

I don't see why some people have so much trouble accepting that the Illuminati control the entertainment industry just as much as they control everything else. It's a fact that they replace people. It's a fact that they replaced Paul.

THAT is you proving something?

Well, before stating "it's a fact that they replaced Paul" (really???), you should get your facts straight.

That brown thing on Pauls guitar is a pickguard, it's on the lower end of the guitar!

So either the picture is flipped or Paul flipped the guitar to play it better.

You know, Paul started playing right-handed, before he bought himself a lefty-guitar. He can play them all!

SO you got no point there...

And you call socrates comps sloppy? What about the one above, the "untampered one"? That is professionell detective work? :rolleyes:

And what about mine frome a few posts above? They where ignored, because the proved that it is the same guy.

Oh wait, i know your secret psychological weapon against this kind of cognitive dissonance: they are "doctored"..

accuracy

11-03-2009, 08:33 AM

THAT is you proving something?

Well, before stating "it's a fact that they replaced Paul" (really???), you should get your facts straight.

That brown thing on Pauls guitar is a pickguard, it's on the lower end of the guitar!

So either the picture is flipped or Paul flipped the guitar to play it better.

You know, Paul started playing right-handed, before he bought himself a lefty-guitar. He can play them all!

SO you got no point there...

And you call socrates comps sloppy? What about the one above, the "untampered one"? That is professionell detective work? :rolleyes:

And what about mine frome a few posts above? They where ignored, because the proved that it is the same guy.

Oh wait, i know your secret psychological weapon against this kind of cognitive dissonance: they are "doctored"..

fireman you just can't prove anything yourself, my
friend, you just like stirring the pot. :cool:

toty1994

11-03-2009, 09:13 AM

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/3227/7428332610.jpg http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/7658/98644148.jpg

LOL

You really, genuinely can't (or won't) see it, do you?

I genuinely can't either, in fact I'm at a total loss. What are the physical differences that convince you that these are two different human beings?

I wish I did have all those documents and evidence that you're talking about... Then i certainly wouldn't have to be here anymore
BUT - you really don't think that we "ordinary people" get access to these kind of things, do you?
It's destroyed and has been silenced since long time ago, unfortunately

Both you and I are about opinions. Your "evidence" is not enough to support your claims either (even if you yourself think so).
All we can do is be sure in our beliefs and argue as well as we can for them...

Her post illustrates the difference between most of the PIDers and most of the PIAers I've come across on this board. She has responded in a non-judgemental, kind manner. This is how I have been endeavoring to handle this myself. It gets tough, since I seem to be under attack most of the time for my opinions.
I agree that ridicule is unhelpful but I wonder if some of the pid contingent secretly welcome it; I've noticed this on several occassions - it's as if it gives them an excuse not to address the point being made and instead concentrate on the perceived attack on them. In other words ridicule may actually help them to avoid answering difficult questions, which subsequently get buried under their apparent outrage and then 'forgotten'. Just my take, of course.

If those sceptical of pid were to henceforth avoid even a hint of ridicule in their posts I think the results could be interesting and may help to stop this thread going around in circles.

faulconandsnowjob

11-03-2009, 02:14 PM

You know, Paul started playing right-handed,
Yes, he did - when he was replaced by Faul. His double seems to be right handed. Paul himself was, apparently, "no good" w/ his right hand.

fireman

11-03-2009, 02:56 PM

Yes, he did - when he was replaced by Faul. His double seems to be right handed. Paul himself was, apparently, "no good" w/ his right hand.

No, Pauls first guitar was a right handed guitar. He learned to play it right handed. He then pulled the strings upside down and learned to play the chords in "mirror-mode".

he also did that sometimes in the later years:

Quote (Wiki):

In 1966, Paul McCartney purchased a 1964 Fender Esquire model with a sunburst finish and rosewood fretboard: McCartney bought this guitar, a right-handed model which he restrung and played "upside-down," during the Revolver sessions. Also used on "Good Morning, Good Morning," "Helter Skelter" and "Maybe I'm Amazed," among other cuts from his solo career.

:cool:

howie

11-03-2009, 03:33 PM

Paul McCartney Right Handed - YouTube

astrochicken

11-03-2009, 03:59 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tWikCSZjfs

I do believe there's an interview floating around where paul (the real one) states how useless his right hand is.. which is why he plays left-handed.

Which, when thinking of Faul, makes sense as to why he'd subsequently switch to playing piano dirges and novelty songs on all post-paul beatles releases.

truthseeker49

11-03-2009, 05:41 PM

Paul never played guitar right handed. If you view ANY vintage photos/videos/concert footage pre late September 1966, you will see him only playing LEFT handed. If you look at photos or videos of him signing ANYTHING pre late September 1966, he is doing it LEFT handed. If you read any vintage interviews in which he is asked about his handedness pre late September 1966, he will ALWAYS respond that he is left handed.
Paul was left handed. It is/was very well documented over many years.
That is why it is such a gem of a find when Faul uses his right hand to do something that a lefty cannot do. Faul is either originally right handed or ambidextrous.
These are two of the earliest photos of Paul playing guitar:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/youngPaul2.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/paulzenithaa.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/TwistandShout1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/what.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/Paulsinging.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/salsplainswall.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/Paul-tambourineMan.jpg
Playing tambourine lefty.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/talkingpics5.jpg
Paul eating left-handed.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/Paulandsterwardesses.jpg
Paul signing an autograph, lefty.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/LargerPaulbrushingteeth.jpg
Paul, brushing his teeth lefty.

fireman

11-03-2009, 07:08 PM

No, Pauls first guitar was a right handed guitar. He learned to play it right handed. He then pulled the strings upside down and learned to play the chords in "mirror-mode".

he also did that sometimes in the later years:

Quote (Wiki):

In 1966, Paul McCartney purchased a 1964 Fender Esquire model with a sunburst finish and rosewood fretboard: McCartney bought this guitar, a right-handed model which he restrung and played "upside-down," during the Revolver sessions. Also used on "Good Morning, Good Morning," "Helter Skelter" and "Maybe I'm Amazed," among other cuts from his solo career.

:cool:

I told you that he restrung his guitars in the early days! I know he is a lefty!
I also told you that the "pickguard" is on the lower side of the guitar, not on the upper side like in Faulcons pic...

DOnt you understand that?

Paul is ABLE to play it both ways, you know?

truthseeker49

11-03-2009, 07:26 PM

Show me VINTAGE photos of Paul playing righty pre late September 1966 and I will believe you.

fireman

11-03-2009, 07:39 PM

you don't understand, that is not the point!

He IS not playing "righty" on that pic above. I told you the picguard is upside down.

I posted a wiki quote stating that he has guitars that he "restrung". That means its a right-handed guitar with the strings upside down, so that lefty can play them.

It is well documented (in the Anthology and many other biographies) that Pauls first guitar was a normal guitar for right handed people, which he restrung.

He then had to save money for a real lefty guitar, which was more expensive.

Thats all i am saying.

And why shouldn't he be able to play on both? he is a very gifted man!

at least you believe that "Faul" (or post 1966 Paul) is able to play both ways..

i don't see the logic in your argument!

howie

11-03-2009, 07:48 PM

i don't see the logic in your argument!

You can but you choose to deliberately ignore the video evidence of him playing right handed.

fireman

11-03-2009, 08:04 PM

You can but you choose to deliberately ignore the video evidence of him playing right handed.

>No, i did not ignore it. You ignore my argument!

Why is the guitar upside down? (watch the picguard)

Why he is he changing left/right in that video?

Even if: How does playing right-handed make him dead?

He is clearly playing left handed in ALL other pictures and videos from 1960 to 1966 to 1970 until today!

So your point would be:

If Paul is playing right-handed then he must be "Faul".

But when "Faul" is playing left handed, he is what? Very gifted musician? :)

fireman

11-03-2009, 08:21 PM

Let Paul do the talking

"Stu said he was going to stay in Hamburg. He'd met a girl and was going to stay there with her and paint," Paul remembers. So it was like, Uh-oh, we haven't got a bass player. And evreone sort of turned 'round and looked at me. I was a bit lumbered with it, realy it was like, 'Well ... it'd better be you then.'I dont think you would have caught John doing it; he would have said: 'No, you're kidding. I've got a nice new Rickenbacker!' I was playing piano and didn't even have a guitar at the time, so I couldn't really say that I wanted to be a guitarist." You may have seen the Beatles' Hamburg period portrayed in the movie Backbeat, and in one scene McCartney/s character picks up Sutcliffe's right-handed bass and plays it left-handed and upside down. Did you really do that, Paul? "I did, yes. I had to! Guys wouldn't let you change their strings around," he laughs. "When John wasn't there, I'd pick up his guitar and play it upside down. John did that [with my guitar] as well - he got pretty good playing upside down because of me. "

http://www.macca-central.com/macca-archives/bassplayer.htm

faulconandsnowjob

12-03-2009, 01:57 AM

It kills me to think how much awesome music missed out on b/c of what happened to Paul :(

faulconandsnowjob

12-03-2009, 04:22 AM

fireman

12-03-2009, 08:25 AM

Just saw this pic & it cracked me up. They seemed to have made Faul almost into a caricature of Paul. Gawd, those eyebrows :rolleyes: LOL!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/McCartney3_large.jpg

Thanks Faulcon , it clearly shows Paul is Paul! :cool:

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/faulconcomp1.gif

And because you love it so much, the overlay-thing:

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/faulconcomp1_flick.gif

fireman

12-03-2009, 08:27 AM

and some more from the same time...

(every facial expression of pre-1966 Paul, you will find an exact match in post 1966 Paul)

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/interview_comp.jpg

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/interview_comp2.jpg

astrochicken

12-03-2009, 10:18 AM

fireman

12-03-2009, 10:44 AM

yeah?

You are right, Paul is always playing lefthanded.

And he is also in that india-video. the sequence is clearly mirrored, you can see it because of Paul asymetric face.

Also there are alot more clips of him playing lefthanded in india.. (not only there, but EVERYWHERE else!)

pinkfreud

12-03-2009, 10:45 AM

paul mccartney is too over hyped.

there are much, much better musicians and songwriters out there in the world.

no, i don't care if he's living or dead. because it doesn't matter to me or make any difference to the path i seek to take.

fireman

12-03-2009, 11:06 AM

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/rare%20paul%20photos/india5.gif

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/rare%20paul%20photos/india-4.gif

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/rare%20paul%20photos/india1.gif

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/rare%20paul%20photos/india6.gif

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/rare%20paul%20photos/india8.gif

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/rare%20paul%20photos/india2.gif

truthseeker49

12-03-2009, 01:14 PM

Faulcon wrote:
It kills me to think how much awesome music missed out on b/c of what happened to Paul. :(

Girl, you have said a mouthful. :(

fireman

12-03-2009, 01:38 PM

Faulcon wrote:
It kills me to think how much awesome music missed out on b/c of what happened to Paul. :(

Girl, you have said a mouthful. :(

You did see the Pics above right?

You did see the comparisons i posted right?

You did listen to Sgt. Peppers, The White Album and Abbey Road right?

So there is no need to be sad, 'cause Pauls alive! :):)

:):cool:

So i am happy how much awesome music i can enjoy b/c nothing ever happend to Paul!

:)

supertzar

12-03-2009, 01:50 PM

You did see the Pics above right?

You did see the comparisons i posted right?

You did listen to Sgt. Peppers, The White Album and Abbey Road right?

So there is no need to be sad, 'cause Pauls alive! :):)

:):cool:

So i am happy how much awesome music i can enjoy b/c nothing ever happend to Paul!

:)

They don't want to believe that their idol just sucked without the chemistry of the other members. He did his life's work with the Beatles and pretty much expressed everything that he needed to. There just wasn't much creative output left in the tank after that.

truthseeker49

12-03-2009, 01:54 PM

That's your opinion. My photo comparisons are for those who haven't made up their minds yet and are keeping an open mind about the possibility. I don't slam anyone for their opinions, and I would appreciate the same courtesy extended to me.

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/JohnandPaul.jpghttp://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/Faulhofner-1.jpg

Paul vs. Faul

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/purple.jpghttp://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/closeupofFaul.jpg

Paul vs. Faul

Look at the immense forehead on Faul. Yeah, Paul has bangs and Faul doesn't. However, if you would judge from the top of Paul's eyebrows to the top of his head, Faul's forehead would still be going up from there ! It's obvious, even though the top inch or so of Paul's hair has been teased up a little. :rolleyes:
And, Paul's eyes are wider apart than Faul's. ;)

fireman

12-03-2009, 02:03 PM

supertzar

12-03-2009, 02:03 PM

That's your opinion. My photo comparisons are for those who haven't made up their minds yet and are keeping an open mind about the possibility. I don't slam anyone for their opinions, and I would appreciate the same courtesy extended to me.

My mind is completely open. Show me some good information and I'll be all over it. None of what you have shown is good, though.

fireman

12-03-2009, 02:07 PM

Well, i think i just made a perfect case against Truthseeker forehead/eyes argument above..

And i think i made a good case about the left/right handed thing above...

supertzar

12-03-2009, 02:09 PM

Faulcon you are just using the wrong pictures with eachother.

For every one of those i can show you, he looks the same.

Look:

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/sidebyside2.gif

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/NEWCOMP_BEARD.gif

and just for the forhead argument:

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/NEWCOMP_BEARD_FIDDY.gif

All you have to do is look at the proportions of the face and it is easy to see it is the same person. Why do some people look at these and think it is someone else? The "theory" of PID is anomalous in itself. Usually people aren't that wrong. I am leaning more towards the mindfuck explanation, where agencies are trying to see how many people believe something that is obviously untrue.

faulconandsnowjob

12-03-2009, 02:26 PM

I love these comps. They totally show Faul & Paul are 2 difft guys. Thanks! And even if they've been tampered w/, there's still enough of a difference to tell they're not the same.

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/interview_comp.jpg

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/interview_comp2.jpg

Faul playing right-handed:

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/right_handed_faul.jpg

LOLOLOL!

joe2005

12-03-2009, 02:54 PM

twins ??

old paul??http://www.stargods.org/faul_81.jpg
old faul??http://www.stargods.org/06_mccartney_lgl.jpg

supertzar

12-03-2009, 03:35 PM

Faul has more of a beaked nose! :D:D:D Oh, wait. The other one is Faul, too...

supertzar

12-03-2009, 04:34 PM

Well, i think i just made a perfect case against Truthseeker forehead/eyes argument above..

And i think i made a good case about the left/right handed thing above...

I was actually replying to truthseeker49, who said My photo comparisons are for those who haven't made up their minds yet and are keeping an open mind about the possibility.

Sorry about the confusion.

karol2020

12-03-2009, 06:11 PM

Truthseeker, you are just using the wrong pictures with eachother.

For every one of those i can show you, he looks the same.

Try this, look:

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/sidebyside2.gif

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/NEWCOMP_BEARD.gif

and just for the forhead and eyes argument:

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/NEWCOMP_BEARD_FIDDY.gif

does Faul do his eyebrows? FAulconandsnowjob have talked about it, that they eyebrows are different, and i agree... We can see many photos of Faul where his eyebrows are with a different draw and with more hair in areas we dont see in Paul´s. I have seen a interview where the presenter asks him a fan question if he plucks his eyebrows.. and he says no he doesnt. I dont think he would lie about it, why would he? his eyebrows always had a definite shape even in his adolescence....

fireman

12-03-2009, 06:29 PM

It is only his left eyebrow, it was a little messed up after his moped accident in 1966 (like the scar on his left upper lip).

You can see he has that eyebrow in many photos from mid 1966 on...

I can provide pictures if you want...

karol2020

12-03-2009, 07:18 PM

truthseeker49

12-03-2009, 09:52 PM

The eyebrows are the smallest part in all of this. There are many photos of Faul with flat eyebrows also ... :rolleyes:

Again, supertzar, that is your opinion. There are many people who feel that what I am showing them is plenty good enough to open their eyes.

Fireman, as far as you sticking Faul's eyes & forehead on Paul's face, that proves nothing. First of all, it is not all of Faul's face ( due to part of his chin not being included ). Second of all, Paul has his hair puffed up in that photo.
That is why side by side comparisons are much more reliable.
What I don't understand is why some PIAers feel the need to make this personal. I do not go out of my way to try to refute their claims. I just post my photos for people to see. That is that. If you don't think it's true that is your perogative. That does not give anyone the right to attack & ridicule my opinions here or anywhere else.
This is the main reason why I do not allow PIAers on my forum. We have tried that in the past. It totally ties up everyone's time constantly having to defend our position & prove ourselves over & over again.

Now, about that left eyebrow. I'm really not too clear what you guys are trying to get at. So, I will just provide some photos, and Karol, you let me know if this is what you want to see.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/greeneyesStrawberryFields.jpg
From Strawberry Field's Forever video, Faul, 1967 NOTE: this is AFTER the 1966 moped accident, and his eyebrows look even to me.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/pid_on_magazine_p.jpg
Faul, 1967. It looks like he's trying to do something with his left eyebrow.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/pid_on_magazine_p57.jpg
Faul, 1968. Again, it looks like he's done something with his left eyebrow. To be honest, I never even realized any of this before. I never really gave his eyebrows much thought. < shrug >

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/thumbs6.jpg
In this 1967 photo, both Faul's eyebrows appear pretty even. Hey, this guy is better at getting them even than I am !
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/paul-cigarette-bw.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/548097871968mccartneyseto0-1.jpg
Also from 1967, the left eyebrow is to the camera. It looks fine to me.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/paul-74-holly.jpg
This photo is dated 1974. His face looks very puffy, and his left eyebrow appears thicker than his right one.
Two more from the 1970's. His eyebrows don't appear arched at all...< shrugs again >
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/paul-doves.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/page57a.jpg

unusual_suspect

12-03-2009, 10:06 PM

The eyebrows are the smallest part in all of this. There are many photos of Faul with flat eyebrows also ... :rolleyes:

Again, supertzar, that is your opinion. There are many people who feel that what I am showing them is plenty good enough to open their eyes.

Been following this thread for a while but have not posted anything, it is very interesting, I am 2 minds about it.

Some of the Paul Faul comparison photos look quite different, but their teeth seem very similar so I really can't tell.

Great thread though ;)

socrates

12-03-2009, 10:17 PM

The eyebrows are the smallest part in all of this. There are many photos of Faul with flat eyebrows also ... :rolleyes:

Again, supertzar, that is your opinion. There are many people who feel that what I am showing them is plenty good enough to open their eyes.

Members of truthseeker's forum: 134

http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/3126/ab2s.jpg

Members of Paul McCartney's forum: 33086

http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/6294/ab3n.jpg

Hmmm... "Many people"?

socrates

12-03-2009, 10:44 PM

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n20/khanmfh/comps/math.gif

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n20/khanmfh/fades/fade.gif

http://img309.imageshack.us/img309/4237/piddersslamdunk3fi.gif

http://img234.exs.cx/img234/852/slamdunk.gif

http://img18.exs.cx/img18/9166/AYNIL.gif

Same eyebrows:
http://img225.echo.cx/img225/513/eyebrows2rx.jpg

Same hands:
http://img13.exs.cx/img13/2308/hand_fade.gif

Same ears:
http://img108.imageshack.us/img108/7228/leftearcomp9ks.jpg

http://img58.exs.cx/img58/3893/ear.gif

Watch Paul as he ages:
http://img223.echo.cx/img223/7528/aging30nc.gif

socrates

12-03-2009, 11:15 PM

http://www.tlcgraphic.com/images/Paul_65-7X-00.gifhttp://www.tlcgraphic.com/images/Paul_65-7X-01.gifhttp://www.tlcgraphic.com/images/Paul_65.gif

http://www.tlcgraphic.com/images/sigear.gifhttp://www.tlcgraphic.com/images/sigeye.gifhttp://www.tlcgraphic.com/images/sig23.gifhttp://www.paulisnotdead.com/old

2013

12-03-2009, 11:17 PM

Somewhere on this thread or the other paul one there are pics of him with entirely different ears .On some pics large fleshy lobes detached on others small lobes attached tot he side of his head .This at least proves someone else stood in on some of the photoshoots if nothing else . The thread is that large i cant find them ,butthat was what drew me into the possability if something going on . I do happen to thin kthough that the older paul bears more resemblance to the younger paul .Its the inbetween one that looks different .:D

truthseeker49

13-03-2009, 12:31 AM

Paul getting a haircut. You can see his whole forehead. It is unfortunate that there aren't more photos of Paul like this. Believe me, if he knew what was going to happen to him, I think that he would've taken more. :(
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v462/OnlyBeatles/paul-haircut-2.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/Macca197071.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/lookingdown.jpg Faul, 1969
In the second photo of Faul above this, it appears that he has dyed his hair. I know that for a fact, as I have inadvertently dyed the skin on my forehead many a time dyeing my hair. That is really strange. Now I wonder what color his hair really was ???
Of course, I will post more photos of Paul showing his forehead, compared to Faul, as I come across them in my journeys. < smile >

This is a really strange vintage photo that I just came across:
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c250/ladygamer/6a_3.jpg

Leave it to John to do the strange thing. Looking at that photo, Paul appears small in it.

Now you've gotten my curiosity up. Let's try to find some photos of Paul's
eyebrows post his moped accident and compare them to Faul's:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/seriousHelp.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/paulsmallheadaa.jpg Paul

Now I'm totally confused. In the first photo of Paul above this, part of his left eyebrow is missing. This is a vintage photo taken during the filming of Help !, 1965. In the second photo next to it, his eyebrow looks fine. That photo was taken at least in 1965, maybe even 1966.
Maybe his eyebrow troubles started before his moped accident. < shrugs >

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/ptooth.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/prince5.jpg Paul

The above two photos were taken after his moped accident & before his tooth was fixed.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/paulface1.jpg Paul
I'm unsure if this is 1965 or 1966, but he does appear to have problems with his left eyebrow.

truthseeker49

13-03-2009, 12:43 AM

Unusual suspect, thank you for checking out this thread. All I ask is that people keep an open mind & try to look for themselves where & when they have the chance.
Unlike certain others, I do not try to dazzle & bully people into seeing my POV. :)
I must say that teeth are very easy to fix. I would guess that they studied many photos of Paul in order to fix Faul's teeth to make them appear that close. I have seen early photos of Faul in which his teeth don't look that much like Paul's. I will have to do some major digging, but I will see if I can post a few sometime in the near future. Unfortunately, my daughter needs the computer for the rest of the evening.
Fades are notorious for being deceiving. That is why I stick to side by side comparisons.
As far as my only having a few members on my forum that is true. However, there are always guests checking it out. Not everyone is interested in joining.
I have no interest in turning this into a pissing contest. Unfortunately, that option has been taken out of my hands. < shrugs >
As far as the Paul McCartney forum having so many members, I have to say that is a truly wonderful thing. The greatest thing that Faul has accomplished by taking over Paul's life was to keep Paul alive in people's minds. It is a testament to the love that people have for Paul, that so many people still want to spend so much time talking about him.
Bravo, Paul... :D
And Bravo, Faul, for doing such a fine job... ;)

faulconandsnowjob

13-03-2009, 01:54 AM

faulconandsnowjob

13-03-2009, 02:18 AM

I do happen to thin kthough that the older paul bears more resemblance to the younger paul .

Yeah. That would be b/c of the plastic surgery.

Truthseeker, that pic of Faul w/ dyed hair is a dead give-away. LOL! :D

I think 2013 mentioned the various ears? Check out the assortment of Mr. Potato Head detachable ears Faul has.

Paul McCartney and Wings- Mary had a little lamb - YouTube

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/FakingIt.jpg

fireman

13-03-2009, 09:04 AM

Once you can get past the fact that doubles are used, it's not that hard to see the differences btw Paul & his double(s). Yeah, the differences are pretty subtle. Isn't that the point w/ a double? Faul certainly studied his "target" well, but he has made some slip-ups along the way, though. For ex, playing guitar right-handed, not wearing his brown contacts, etc. Sometimes it seems like he almost dares people to recognize that he's a fraud. I'm thinking of this video in particular:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUX9qmnlx6U&feature=channel_page

That was debunked a long time ago.

The video clip is not original. Iamaphoney took it from a russian PID video (which was not very serious, they showed how you could rub of pictures of skulls on sgt.peppers, it was a joke basically). However, in that video the part was overdubbed with a different voice.

Here is the transcript of the Red Square interview:

http://www.beatles.ru/special/moscow/article.asp?article_id=252

You can translate it via babelfish on the bottom of the page.

Guess what... again the Phoney overdubbed something.

Original

Q: "Sir Paul, say please, about which you today did talk with President putin?

Paul: It's a secret, I can't tell you.

[/I

The Phoney version:

[I]Q: Are you natural or a double?

Paul: It's a secret, I can't tell you.

The basic point is: it's all a big hoax!

:rolleyes:

accuracy

13-03-2009, 09:16 AM

Yeah. That would be b/c of the plastic surgery.

Truthseeker, that pic of Faul w/ dyed hair is a dead give-away. LOL! :D

I think 2013 mentioned the various ears? Check out the assortment of Mr. Potato Head detachable ears Faul has.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaZ9s7S26qg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/FakingIt.jpg

Grey hair as mine.....................:D

truthseeker49

13-03-2009, 02:00 PM

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/faul_teeth.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/Faul_brother_wedding2crop.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/CopyofBill67lighteyes.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/pid_on_magazine_p66-1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/Billgoodshotoffronttwoteeth.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/pid_on_magazine_p3-1.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/Billgrinning.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/ram-1.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/goateecolor-1.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/pl_chest-1.jpg
Faul, 1967, 67, 67, 67, 68, 69, 70, Ram/ 74, 70's, 80's

Now to find photos of Paul to compare these to. The front teeth have to be compared to Paul post the reconstruction that he had done on his front tooth ( after his moped accident on December 26, 1965).

faulconandsnowjob

13-03-2009, 02:08 PM

^ Do people really think that teeth would somehow be beyond TPTB's ability to copy?

unusual_suspect

13-03-2009, 02:11 PM

It's wierd, he definitely goes through a stage when he doesn't look like himself, but then he starts to look like Paul again :confused:

truthseeker49

13-03-2009, 03:28 PM

As Faulcon has already suggested, that was due to all the plastic surgery done in order to make him better resemble Paul. That's why I do my best to find photos from early on to use, before this happened.

I will do my best to find comparisons of the teeth. They did do a pretty good job on matching their teeth. However, on the top left side of Faul's mouth his teeth all look even sometimes. Paul's never were.

Paul,65/66http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/polomint.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/faul_teeth.jpgFaul,67
Paul,66 http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/paultoothyaa.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/Billgoodshotoffronttwoteeth.jpg Faul,68

Paul,65http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/redjacket.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/goateecolor-1.jpgFaul,70's

Paul,64http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/Paulinnewspaper.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/pid_on_magazine_p3-1.jpg Faul,69

Paul, 65http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/paulhide4.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/pid_on_magazine_p66-1.jpg Faul, 67

That's all the images I can put in this post, and I've run out of time for now. My little girl is home from school today, and I have to do the mommy thing. < smile >

unusual_suspect

13-03-2009, 03:49 PM

So who is Faul then? :confused:

karol2020

13-03-2009, 04:15 PM

HI truthsekeer! That photos of the eyebrows was what i was wanting to see his left eyebrow especially... you post a photo after the moped accident with his left eyebrow with a fault resembling some faul photos... so maybe it was really caused by the accident...

fireman

13-03-2009, 05:25 PM

http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/7905/paulaxbj1.jpg

faulconandsnowjob

14-03-2009, 03:13 AM

So who is Faul then?

Hard to say. He could be a celebrity impersonator, but my bet would be that he has some sort of intell background. He is most def Illuminati or Illuminati-controlled. He has done a good job of mimicking his target, but then he says things like he's schizo or there are 2 Paul McCartneys. I guess he figures no one will figure it out. It could possibly be keeping w/ the Illuminati tradition of letting the sheeple know what the truth is, for those who have the eyes to see it.

faulconandsnowjob

14-03-2009, 03:46 AM

This is a great comp. The differences in the noses, lips, and ears is pretty clear:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/Paulunusual.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/WlarusGirl/paul-looking.jpg

Look closely.

This cracks me up:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/FaulTruthMoustache.gif

The effeminate straight guy:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/Billinwhite2a.jpg

^ That is so NOT Paul.

faulconandsnowjob

14-03-2009, 04:14 AM

Paul in 1964:
The only thing I couldn't cure myself of was being left-handed. I do everything with my left hand, and no matter how I try I can't change the habit. I just seem to do everything back to front. I used to even write backwards. Every time the schoolmasters would look at my handwriting they would throw swinging fits.

Reeve also pinpoints a possible starting point for the Paul Is Dead rumor: musician and Grand Funk Railroad manager, Terry Knight, and his 1969 single, "Saint Paul." Usually thought of as a hoax-fueled novelty, this very strange song actually came out in May 1969 - five months before the first article on the subject appeared in the campus paper at Iowa's Drake University. More mysteriously, "Saint Paul" is the only Knight composition administered by Maclen Music - McCartney and Lennon's exclusive publishing company!

TURN ME ON, DEAD MAN: The Complete Story of the Paul McCartney Death Hoax by Andru J. Reeve. Ann Arbor, Popular Culture, Ink. 218 pp. $ 40.
Richard Harrington, Washington Post
The Jerusalem Post
May 6, 1994

saint paul - YouTube

toty1994

14-03-2009, 09:53 AM

Faulconandsnowjob said of this video: "Sometimes it seems like he almost dares people to recognise that he's a fraud".
paul is dead - nothing is real 4 - YouTube

That was debunked a long time ago.

The video clip is not original. Iamaphoney took it from a russian PID video (which was not very serious, they showed how you could rub of pictures of skulls on sgt.peppers, it was a joke basically). However, in that video the part was overdubbed with a different voice.

Here is the transcript of the Red Square interview:

http://www.beatles.ru/special/moscow/article.asp?article_id=252

You can translate it via babelfish on the bottom of the page.

Guess what... again the Phoney overdubbed something.

Original

Q: "Sir Paul, say please, about which you today did talk with President putin?

Paul: It's a secret, I can't tell you.

[/I

The Phoney version:

[I]Q: Are you natural or a double?

Paul: It's a secret, I can't tell you.

The basic point is: it's all a big hoax!

:rolleyes:

Faulcon, I notice you didn't acknowledge your mistake here. This video keeps cropping up as evidence despite the clear debunking from goodness knows how long ago. Why iamaphoney continues to be taken seriously by some baffles me.

Another pid clue that is still frequently referenced is the infamous 'Beatle Bill' clip. Here's the un-manipulated version.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
When george says "I see Beatle Bill is making a pig of himself" he's clearly referring to Billy Preston who is standing right there in front of him, helping himself to some more food.

The quote normally used in pid circles seems to be "He's not doing too well these days, is Beatle Bill", maybe because it fits the theory better. Actually, Lennon says "Beatle Ed" Who's Beatle Ed'? I don't know, perhaps that's another conspiracy for another time!

socrates

14-03-2009, 12:43 PM

This is a great comp. The differences in the noses, lips, and ears is pretty clear:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/Paulunusual.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/WlarusGirl/paul-looking.jpg

There are no differences. You just want to see 'differences'.

Tell us, what 'differences' do you see in the shape of the lips, below:

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/3272/july41965.jpghttp://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g292/sabeth_photos/beatles/Paul%20McCartney/paulbird3big-1.jpg

What 'differences' can you see in these noses:

http://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/bill_story/another_day_45_rpm_cover.jpghttp://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/images/james_paul_mccartney_right_profile.jpg

And these noses, eyes, eyebrows:

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/uppermost.gif

This is, clearly, absolutely, the same man:

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/NEWCOMP_BEARD.gif

unusual_suspect

14-03-2009, 01:33 PM

I think that Paul is better Looking than Faul, there is a period of time where it all goes a bit strange and he looks very different.

truthseeker49

14-03-2009, 03:46 PM

Yeah, he does look rather strange at times. I think it's all about the filler shots, and the plastic surgery. I can post quite a few photos from various stages in his life, in which his cheeks are so puffed up he looks like he has the mumps. There was also a period during the filming of Magical Mystery Tour, in which his upper lip was so swollen he looks like someone socked him in the mouth.
I will post photos illustrating this as I come across them.

Paul, 63http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/63port-1-1.jpghttp://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/301547ab5gk.jpgFaul, 68

I have to thank Socrates for posting that last comparison, the one of Paul vs. bearded Faul:
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/NEWCOMP_BEARD.gif
Paul was suffering from Bell's palsy in that photo. This caused the left side of his face to slump. I have looked over many, many photos of Faul in the past 6 years, I have not seen him exhibit it once. I have come across a few photos of Paul with it though. It is caused by a virus, like herpes. It can be caused to manifest by stress. It is not curable and comes & goes at will.
Both of Faul's eyes are the same size as the one that is slumped due to Paul's affliction. Paul's right eyelid seems a little larger than Faul's in that comparison. It seems that it's a pretty close match with the nose though. So, either that was touched up or Faul was at a good stage in his surgeries. It's strange how his nose doesn't always look the same. His nose tips change quite frequently.

Here's some interesting album covers that I came across recently:
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/LFDLAALB.jpghttp://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/RSR.jpghttp://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/TLIBRV5.jpg

In the Abbey Road one, both Paul & Ringo are black. Weird... The Ringo Starr one is really, really strange. The Let it Be one has photos on it that I've not seen before.

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/YoungPaul.jpghttp://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/EarlyPaul-1.jpghttp://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/correcteyecolor-1.jpghttp://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/Beatles1965-1-1.jpg
Paul as a teenager, followed by Paul 1963, 63 (4), and lastly 65. His profile remains the same. He has the same small forehead, although Paul's hair is a bit puffed up in the '65 photo. Paul was even cute as a teenager, lol. < grin >

unusual_suspect

14-03-2009, 03:58 PM

Well truthseeker, I have to admit that when I first heard of the Paulconsipracy some 5 years ago I dismissed it. But now after seeing these photo's I'm open minded about it.

Can I please ask why they replaced him though?

edit....Paul was a total hottie :o

faulconandsnowjob

14-03-2009, 04:20 PM

I think that Paul is better Looking than Faul,
Paul was HOT. Faul was not. Actually, I think Faul is kind of creepy. :eek:

I can post quite a few photos from various stages in his life, in which his cheeks are so puffed up he looks like he has the mumps.

Faul's chipmunk cheeks (they were really trying to make him look like Paul at this point):

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/paul_mccartney_faux_paul_open_mouth.jpg

Can I please ask why they replaced him though?

Here's my current working theory: I think the Beatles were a very talented band that got under the control of the Illuminati's Tavistock Institute (TI). (I don't think anyone can be that big without some help.) I believe that TI tried to use celebrities to push their drug agenda (LSD, mainly) on the masses as either a mind-control experiment, or just a way to control the anti-war movement that was growing in the mid-60's. My personal feeling is that Paul must have refused to go along with some part of the agenda. So, Paul, not being a "team player," was eliminated. However, he was popular, so they found a replacement who would be more amenable to the agenda. Not long after, Faul does an interview talking about taking LSD. Well, of course, a lot of kids are going to try it if "Paul McCartney" does it. This is an example of celebrities selling the Illuminati agenda, imo.

Faul controls an immense amount of wealth. I'm sure the Illuminati would not want a loose cannon out there who was very popular & very rich. It is also my opinion that Paul's murder served as a warning to the other Beatles, friends, family, etc, to not step out of line. Again, my personal opinion, but I think John Lennon was killed because he was another tough one to control. He was assassinated right after he gave a Playboy interview in which he talked about LSD. He said "they" wanted to control people, but ended up setting them free. I'm not sure why they chose a public execution for him & a replacement for Paul. Maybe it's because the Beatles were still a popular band in 1966, & they could be exploited some more. It is my feeling that this charade with Faul could not have been pulled off for so long w/out the media's complicity - & the Illuminati controls the media.

truthseeker49

14-03-2009, 04:46 PM

That's a good question. There aren't many people who know the answer to that. Sir George Martin, Ringo Starr, maybe Sir Paul's immediate family... Quite possibly a handful more. He has given us a few clues. I have a photo of Faul & Linda with a bass fiddle with the name "Bill" stencilled on it. Then there's the photo of the McCartney family walking with Faul holding a suitcase with the name "Billy Martin" stencilled on it. That was one of Faul's pseudonyms.
Here's the photo of him carrying the suitcase with the name Billy Martin on it:
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/BillyMartin.jpg
Now the one that has Bill stencilled on his bass fiddle:
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/937284774_824ff0131b_o-1.jpg

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/YoungPaul.jpghttp://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/billy_shears_on_mal_evans_video_15.jpg
Young Paul vs. Faul in Kenya, November 1966
This is one of the earliest photos of Faul that has surfaced to date. Faul is supposed to be 24 years old in that photo.

A young man posted this on my forum, concerning Faul's facial fillers:
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/FacialFillers.jpg
Above: Example of Faul in need of new fillers (Left)
And recently after a filler operation (Right)
The weird thing is that he is younger in the photo on the left. Gawd bless those facial fillers, eh ? < smile >

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/PaulandJane.jpghttp://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/PaulvsFaul.jpg
Paul and Jane, 1965 vs. Faul and Linda, 1969

Note the difference in the size & shape of Paul's face/head compared to Faul's. Paul's face is noticeably rounder & wider. And, even though he is wearing bangs, it is obvious that his forehead is smaller than Faul's. It is apparent that the top of his hair has been teased up a bit. I know this, as I have many, MANY photos of Paul in which his hair is flatter to his head.
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/EarlyPaul-1.jpghttp://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/correcteyecolor-1.jpg Two examples of this.

unusual_suspect

14-03-2009, 04:51 PM

What kind of space cakes has Linda been eating in that photo, I want some lol!

Seriously, Faul does seen to have a longer more gaunt looking face. Then he seems to look more like Paul.

The only thing is, that if you look at pictures of people you know, some people can look very different in quite a short space of time.

But I do agree, he does look different.

truthseeker49

14-03-2009, 04:57 PM

Faulcon wrote :
Here's my current working theory: I think the Beatles were a very talented band that got under the control of the Illuminati's Tavistock Institute (TI). (I don't think anyone can be that big without some help.) I believe that TI tried to use celebrities to push their drug agenda (LSD, mainly) on the masses as either a mind-control experiment, or just a way to control the anti-war movement that was growing in the mid-60's. My personal feeling is that Paul must have refused to go along with some part of the agenda. So, Paul, not being a "team player," was eliminated. However, he was popular, so they found a replacement who would be more amenable to the agenda. Not long after, Faul does an interview talking about taking LSD. Well, of course, a lot of kids are going to try it if "Paul McCartney" does it. This is an example of celebrities selling the Illuminati agenda, imo.

Faul controls an immense amount of wealth. I'm sure the Illuminati would not want a loose cannon out there who was very popular & very rich. It is also my opinion that Paul's murder served as a warning to the other Beatles, friends, family, etc, to not step out of line. Again, my personal opinion, but I think John Lennon was killed because he was another tough one to control. He was assassinated right after he gave a Playboy interview in which he talked about LSD. He said "they" wanted to control people, but ended up setting them free. I'm not sure why they chose a public execution for him & a replacement for Paul. Maybe it's because the Beatles were still a popular band in 1966, & they could be exploited some more. It is my feeling that this charade with Faul could not have been pulled off for so long w/out the media's complicity - & the Illuminati controls the media.

I think that her theory is very close to what actually happened, I'm very sad to say. :(

faulconandsnowjob

14-03-2009, 05:26 PM

Look at this get-up:

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/BillyMartin.jpg

Would Paul ever wear such a thing? I think he had more style than that. I'm sure Paul would be rolling in his grave if he knew that "he" was wearing pink suits & other horrid ensembles.

Seriously, Faul does seen to have a longer more gaunt looking face.
Ooh, you've been a naughty boy, you've let your face grow long :D

Who is Faul? Some speculate that his name is William Campbell or William Shepherd. Billy Shears would fit w/ Shepherd, but it could be "Billy's here." Anyway, the Sgt. Pepper album cover is a funeral scene. We/they were saying goodbye to the old Beatles - goodbye to Paul :(

unusual_suspect

14-03-2009, 05:28 PM

ooh, you've been a naughty boy, you've let your face grow long :d

lmao! :D

truthseeker49

14-03-2009, 06:01 PM

My mom was looking at a photo of me & my husband from about 15 years ago. She said that he looks great, and I look the same. I haven't gained much weight in that time, so I guess that's why. However, if you compare photos of Paul thin to Faul thin, or Paul chubby to Faul chubby, the differences remain the same. Paul has a smaller frame, smaller head, and is shorter. Faul has a larger frame, larger head, & is taller. Which would make sense, if you think about it. I've noticed that all three McCartney kids from Faul's first wife Linda have large foreheads.
There are photos of Faul from 1968 in which it looks like they stuck Paul's face on this big head. What I mean is that the features look the same, but since the forehead & chin are larger, they take up a smaller portion of his face. Does that make sense ?
Faul, 68http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b375/Cavern61/Bill4.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/sweetprince.jpgPaul, 66
As you can see, Paul's face is smaller and rounder and his features take up a larger proportion of it. They did a good job at finding a decent doppelganger, but that is still NOT Paul.

There is one very strange thing about this. Once you see the differences between Paul & his replacement(s), there is no going back. I can look at a page full of photos, and as long as they show the person's entire head and they haven't been tampered with, I can tell you which ones are Paul & which ones are Faul. The differences just jump out at you.

Unusual Suspects, have you checked out my forum ? There is alot more information for you to look over there. :)

Someone created this, but I'm sure that it wasn't to illustrate that it's two different people. However, you can see that Paul is a smaller guy, even though people are supposed to shrink with age, lol. Check out the width of their shoulders:
http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e87/im_mikamavvers_new_account/Paul%20McCartney/paulpaul.jpg

Here's that photo from Magical Mystery Tour in which Faul looks like his upper lip is swollen:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/Magical4.jpghttp://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b375/Cavern61/Bill2.jpg
The second photo is also Faul from 1967. Notice how thin his lips are ! :eek:

Here's another photo from 1968 of Faul with his face very swollen:
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b375/Cavern61/paulmc1.jpg[

socrates

14-03-2009, 06:14 PM

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/PaulandJane.jpghttp://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/PaulvsFaul.jpg
Paul and Jane, 1965 vs. Faul and Linda, 1969

Note the difference in the size & shape of Paul's face/head compared to Faul's.

You are comparing photos taken 4 years apart - with his head at a different angle. Weight changes ( losing his puppy fat), camera angles and perspective are the answer as to why he 'looks' different in those photos.

Paul's face is noticeably rounder & wider.

Paul's face is also "noticeably rounder & wider" than in this pic too - but it's STILL PAUL!

http://www.beatlespennylane.com/More_Beatle_Pics/pa5.jpg

And, even though he is wearing bangs, it is obvious that his forehead is smaller than Faul's.

You can see UNDERNEATH his hair, can you? How many times are you going to say his forehead is smaller/bigger when analysing photos where his forehead cannot be seen because his hair is COVERING it? :(

Why don't you actually use photos where you can see his forehead? :rolleyes:

Here are two photos where you CAN actually SEE his forehead:

http://img.timeinc.net/time/photoessays/2008/beatles/beatles_01.jpg http://www.beatlesource.com/savage/1950s/58.xx.xx%20unk/01.jpg

Now let's compare:

http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/5056/billymartin.jpghttp://img261.imageshack.us/img261/3381/beatles01.jpg

As any open minded person can clearly see - the foreheads are the same.

faulconandsnowjob

14-03-2009, 06:35 PM

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e87/im_mikamavvers_new_account/Paul%20McCartney/paulpaul.jpg

When I first saw that pic, I was like, who's the guy on the right? OMG, it's Faul. Wow, he looks like all that plastic surgery is starting to show... Anyway, then I thought it was a comp somebody did to highlight the differences. It's actually an official photo somebody pulled off of some Paul McCartney website. Um, didn't they notice that old Faul is taller than young Paul? Hell-o! :confused: :D

socrates

14-03-2009, 06:41 PM

Someone created this, but I'm sure that it wasn't to illustrate that it's two different people. However, you can see that Paul is a smaller guy, even though people are supposed to shrink with age, lol. Check out the width of their shoulders:
http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e87/im_mikamavvers_new_account/Paul%20McCartney/paulpaul.jpg

You are joking, right? Somebody photoshops a photo of an old Paul alongside a photo of a young Paul and you interpret the size difference and shoulder width difference as evidence they aren't the same person?

I'm not even going to bother explaining why your 'analysis' is so flawed because it is so obvious to everyone with any common sense. :mad:

truthseeker, is this proof that Paul was a vampire? :)

http://www.b3tards.com/u/c84b5d533ef9dcace130/paul-macartney-alien.jpg

faulconandsnowjob

14-03-2009, 06:50 PM

The Illuminati replaces people with doubles. For many years they recruited look-alikes who would serve their ends. Now they are perfecting cloning technology that will let them replace anybody. (Abner Whatley)

Here's a good use for a double: take over [for ex, in case of death] so that the person’s powerful influence won’t be interrupted.

Faul wasn't exactly a "political decoy" (or was he?), but the principles are transferable.

The political decoy is an individual who has strong physical resemblance to the person they are impersonating. This resemblance can be strengthened by plastic surgery. Often, such decoys are trained to speak and behave like their 'target.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_decoy

"The truth must have a bodyguard of lies,'' said Antonio Mendez, a former chief of disguise for the C.I.A. and a co-author of the book ''Spy Dust'' (Atria Books, 2002). He was paraphrasing the famous words of Winston Churchill, who was known to have made use of a double himself. So too did George Washington and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Most world leaders, in fact -- and the intelligence apparata surrounding them -- consider doubles and decoys a part of their bag of tricks...

...Intelligence officials long suspected that Hussein used doubles -- an idea reinforced when a forensic pathologist examined hundreds of archived photographs and video stills of the Iraqi leader. Dr. Dieter Buhmann of Homberg University in Saarland determined that there were at least three Saddam Hussein lookalikes in rotation, making public appearances, firing rifles, smoking cigars, waving and strutting. (The doubles rarely speak, it was suggested, because Mr. Hussein has an inimitable lisp.)

Iraqi dissidents have told stories of impostor Husseins in the past -- of recruitment schemes and plastic surgery, of training in mannerisms, strides and tics. The differences can seem remarkably subtle. In some instances, Dr. Buhmann suggested, the face of the doppelgänger was just a hair too wide. In others, the area under the mouth was just a bit too small and too low...

NYT article at
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F07E3DE123BF935A35753C1A9649C8B 63

So, doubles are used. They practice imitating their target. They get plastic surgery to increase their resemblance to the target. These are all things we have postulated that Faul has done. Even if you don't agree that Paul was replaced, you must concede that it is, at least, a possibility.

socrates

14-03-2009, 07:03 PM

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e87/im_mikamavvers_new_account/Paul%20McCartney/paulpaul.jpg
Um, didn't they notice that old Faul is taller than young Paul? Hell-o! :confused: :D

Hell-o! Guess I'll have to explain it for you Paul is dead believers, after all. :(

The reason the old Faul looks bigger is because the ratios of the two Paul's are different! They used a larger image of the old Faul than they should have done. They should have scaled his image down a little before they imported it.

Also, Paul is not the same distance from the camera in both photos, so this will also screw up the ratios.

Why don't you actually research things before you make such silly claims?

Here is a photo where the ratios are a bit better:

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/2967/74119823.jpg

Case closed! :)

hurr

14-03-2009, 07:10 PM

faulconandsnowjob

14-03-2009, 07:14 PM

"Paul" isn't the only one who grew taller, it seems:

In the spring of 2006, says Shigemura, American spy satellites succeeded in photographing Kim [Jong Il]. An analysis of the photographs led to an astonishing conclusion: Kim had grown 2.5 cm!

http://www.japantoday.com/category/kuchikomi/view/north-koreas-kim-died-in-2003-and-was-replaced-by-lookalike-says-waseda-profesor

faulconandsnowjob

14-03-2009, 07:32 PM

So, talking about subtle differences, has anyone read this book?

In the book Desert Shield and The New World Order pub. by Northpoint Tactical Teams, Topton, NC, if you look on page 32 you will see a picture of the original FDR who had a mole over his eyes and then you will a see a picture of the double of Roosevelt who they used, who had no mole and had different ear lobes. Roosevelt may have died prior to when it was actually announced.

socrates

14-03-2009, 07:39 PM

faulconandsnowjob

14-03-2009, 08:39 PM

Faul's head is larger, both horizontally and vertically, than JPM's.
Bill has a larger chin and forehead

Paul's hair grows from left to right and his bangs are very thick
Bill's hair as Faul grows from right to left, and his bangs are thin
Bill has a cowlick

Bill's natural ears are much smaller than Paul's
Paul's earlobes are attached and his ears stick out far from his head
Bill's natural ears, and even many of his fakes ears have unattached earlobes, and are set closer to his head
Bill's ears vary because he wears rubber pieces
Faul was caught on film wearing an obviously fake ear, with a wedge missing. Ears are unique identifiers for a person, and it is necessary for a doppleganger to hide or disguise his or her ears in some way. Look at video for “Mary Had a Little Lamb” on YT

Paul had high arching eyebrows
Bill had thick eyebrows with little arch. Fillers are used to pump up his eyebrows, and therefore they've varied over the years

Paul had Bell's Palsy in the left side of his face, which caused it to sag in some pictures
Bill never had this condition and no pictures show signs of Bell's Palsy

Paul always stayed clean shaven and wore short sideburns
Bill has had three moustaches (1966-67, 1974 & early 1976), beards (1969, 1970-72), and various long sideburns

Paul was a legendary bassist and seldom looked down at his fingers while playing
Bill has always needed to look at his fingers while playing guitar, even on simple chord changes. Ditto for bass

Paul was left handed
Bill is right handed and had to learn to play guitar left handed

Paul had more body hair than Faul

Paul rarely stared directly into video cameras while performing
Bill often gazes into video cameras for long periods while performing

Paul was masculine
Bill's portrayal of Paul has been very effeminate

Bill is around 2.5 inches taller than Paul, and has a larger frame

Plastic surgery is most noticeable from 1967-1969
Cheek fillers most noticeable in 1970

Paul: brown eyes
Faul: green eyes
Paul’s eyes were set farther apart than Faul's

Faul’s feet are longer & are shaped differently from Paul’s. For ex: hammer toes

Paul's voice was lower register, deeper, and had more resonance and vibrato than Faul's voice
Faul's singing voice is higher and thinner than JPM's, and his Liverpool accent is noticeably less thick and consistent than JPM's
Dr. Henry M. Truby of the University of Miami used samples from three Beatles songs sung by Paul McCartney ("Yesterday," "Penny Lane," and "Hey Jude") and produced three very different sonagrams.

Please feel free to add to the list :)

truthseeker49

14-03-2009, 10:07 PM

Here's my theory: The universe is ruled by god(s) who were huge Beatles fans. Then some demons who hated the Beatles caused Paul's death. Gods quickly created Faul from Paul's corpse, like Dr Frankenstein created the monster. That's why Paul's body was never found. Gods wanted that Beatles would go on, because they were such loyal fans. They did a fantastic job, and no doubt Faul believes that he is Paul. But the gods were in a hurry, and some errors were inevitable.

That is most definitely the most creative explanation I've heard to date.
Bravo, my friend, you've made my day.
BTW, I'm pagan, so WHY THE HELL NOT !!!

Faulcon, I would love to. But, I think that you got most of it. So, I'm going to post some more comparisons :

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/PaulandRuthduringHelp-1.jpghttp://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/Paul-bike1.jpg

Paul, 1965 ( during the filming of Help ! ) Vs. Faul, 1967

Paul is smaller and has shorter legs.

Concerning that composite of young Paul and old Faul, that is your opinion. As far as I can tell, the shoulders, hips and knees line up. In that composite, Paul has a smaller head than Faul, and he's a couple of inches shorter.

http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii220/truecolors112/k561.jpghttp://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/Faul1967-1-2.jpg

Paul, 65 vs. Faul, 67 Look at the size of Paul's eyes in that photo !

Paul, 65 http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/mccartney_large.jpghttp://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/lovely_group_shot-1.jpg Faul, 67

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/sunning40hotel.jpghttp://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/Faulbypool.jpg

Paul vs. Faul Paul most definitely looks smaller boned than Faul.

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/sunning40hotel2.jpg

Paul, sunbathing. I think that this lays to rest the question as to whether Paul was bowlegged. I would have to say a resounding YES !

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/fan_kisses_paul.jpg
Paul being sweet...

faulconandsnowjob

14-03-2009, 10:11 PM

^ Did Faul really stuff his pants into his socks? Gawd, what a dweeb. Seriously :p

Faul might believe he's Paul. He could be a mind-controlled Illuminati slave...

toty1994

14-03-2009, 10:21 PM

Faul's head is larger, both horizontally and vertically, than JPM's.
Bill has a larger chin and forehead

Paul's hair grows from left to right and his bangs are very thick
Bill's hair as Faul grows from right to left, and his bangs are thin
Bill has a cowlick

Bill's natural ears are much smaller than Paul's
Paul's earlobes are attached and his ears stick out far from his head
Bill's natural ears, and even many of his fakes ears have unattached earlobes, and are set closer to his head
Bill's ears vary because he wears rubber pieces
Faul was caught on film wearing an obviously fake ear, with a wedge missing. Ears are unique identifiers for a person, and it is necessary for a doppleganger to hide or disguise his or her ears in some way. Look at video for “Mary Had a Little Lamb” on YT

Paul had high arching eyebrows
Bill had thick eyebrows with little arch. Fillers are used to pump up his eyebrows, and therefore they've varied over the years

Paul had Bell's Palsy in the left side of his face, which caused it to sag in some pictures
Bill never had this condition and no pictures show signs of Bell's Palsy

Paul always stayed clean shaven and wore short sideburns
Bill has had three moustaches (1966-67, 1974 & early 1976), beards (1969, 1970-72), and various long sideburns

Paul was a legendary bassist and seldom looked down at his fingers while playing
Bill has always needed to look at his fingers while playing guitar, even on simple chord changes. Ditto for bass

Paul was left handed
Bill is right handed and had to learn to play guitar left handed

Paul had more body hair than Faul

Paul rarely stared directly into video cameras while performing
Bill often gazes into video cameras for long periods while performing

Paul was masculin
Bill's portrayal of Paul has been very effeminate

Bill is around 2.5 inches taller than Paul, and has a larger frame

Plastic surgery is most noticeable from 1967-1969
Cheek fillers most noticeable in 1970

Paul: brown eyes
Faul: green eyes
Paul’s eyes were set farther apart than Faul's

Faul’s feet are longer & are shaped differently from Paul’s. For ex: hammer toes

Paul's voice was lower register, deeper, and had more resonance and vibrato than Faul's voice
Faul's singing voice is higher and thinner than JPM's, and his Liverpool accent is noticeably less thick and consistent than JPM's
Dr. Henry M. Truby of the University of Miami used samples from three Beatles songs sung by Paul McCartney ("Yesterday," "Penny Lane," and "Hey Jude") and produced three very different sonagrams.

Please feel free to add to the list :)

At numerous points in these 272 pages can be found perfectly sound and largely obvious explanations for most of the above. For whatever reason, you choose to ignore them, that's all.

faulconandsnowjob

14-03-2009, 10:30 PM

Interesting. An Illuminati Grand Master once told Cisco Wheeler, "never, never think you are seeing who you think you are seeing."

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_genetica07.htm

I think there are really too many differences between Paul & Faul to ignore. That is kind of the point!

socrates

14-03-2009, 10:54 PM

At numerous points in these 272 pages can be found perfectly sound and largely obvious explanations for most of the above. For whatever reason, you choose to ignore them, that's all.

Quite right, toty. They ignore them because they have no real answers. They just keep repeating the same claims over and over again - despite the fact that they have already been debunked. :rolleyes:

truthseeker49

14-03-2009, 11:03 PM

truthseeker49

14-03-2009, 11:09 PM

Again, socrates, you & your alter-ego can have your OPINION. We have ours.

Paul goofing off for the camera. That man was just so darn cute:

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/MTB01.jpg
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/MTB03.jpg
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/MTB04.jpg
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/MTB05.jpg
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/MTB06.jpg
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/MTB08.jpg
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/MTB10.jpg

truthseeker49

14-03-2009, 11:12 PM

Now, Faul being goofy. Not so cute:
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/ugh.jpghttp://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/strangeFaul.jpg
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/JB5.jpg
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/JB4.jpg
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/JB3.jpg
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/JB2.jpg
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/JB1.jpg

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/MTB05-1-1.jpghttp://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/JB4-1.jpg
Paul being goofy vs. Faul being goofy. Nope, still not the same guy. < smile >

faulconandsnowjob

15-03-2009, 12:23 AM

Like I said before, there are way too many differences between Paul & Faul to ignore. :D

socrates

15-03-2009, 12:47 AM

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/74119823.jpg

By case closed, are you saying that the above photo looks right to you ? I don't get it. Not that it matters, since you superimposed the head of old Faul over a photo of young Faul. :confused:

It's not my photo, I just found it. By case closed, I meant that your observations about Paul being smaller than Faul were based upon a photoshoped photo of Faul which wasn't correctly sized before being pasted into the photo.

You could paste a giant Faul 10 times the size of Paul into the same photo. Would that be evidence that they aren't the same man?

Of course not. Therefore, photoshoped discrepencies are not evidence that Paul was replaced.

Therefore...

Case closed! :)

truthseeker49

15-03-2009, 12:50 AM

A young man on my forum just animated those goofy photos into two gifs. This is what the two men really looked like being goofy:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/GoofyJPM.gifhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/GoofyBill.gif

I would guess that the photos of Paul are from 1964 and the ones of Faul are from sometime in the 1970's ???

truthseeker49

15-03-2009, 12:55 AM

socrates, that makes no sense, as everything else in the photo matches up as I stated earlier. Shoulders, hips, & knees. The discrepancies still stand.
As far as I'm concerned the case is far from closed.
As I have stated many times now, you will have your opinions on this & I will have mine.
Certain PIAers will do everything in their power to try to discredit us PIDers, while we just continue to pile up evidence upon evidence. Everyday I continue to find more things on the internet to use to try to prove my point.
It seems that Paul and The Beatles, & Faul & the Beatles are still very popular. :)
I'm doing this because I care about what happened to Paul. Why are you so intent on discrediting us ???

This is the signature of someone on another thread. I think that it makes good sense:
You will do me justice to remember that I have always strenuously supported the right of every man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave to himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it. The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is reason. I have never used any other and trust I never shall.

socrates

15-03-2009, 01:26 AM

Like I said before, there are way too many differences between Paul & Faul to ignore.

Same foreheads:
http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/5056/billymartin.jpghttp://img261.imageshack.us/img261/3381/beatles01.jpg

Same eyebrows:
http://img225.echo.cx/img225/513/eyebrows2rx.jpg

Same ears:
http://www.tlcgraphic.com/images/sigear.gif

Same eyes:
http://www.tlcgraphic.com/images/sigeye.gif

Same nose:
http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/1342/nose1o.jpg

Same lips:
http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/3272/july41965.jpghttp://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g292/sabeth_photos/beatles/Paul%20McCartney/paulbird3big-1.jpg

Like I said before, there are way too many differences between Paul & Faul to ignore.

Er, yeah..... right... :rolleyes:

truthseeker49

15-03-2009, 01:55 AM

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/fan_kisses_paul.jpghttp://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/soNOTPaul-1.jpghttp://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/whatapair-1-1.jpg
Paul being sweet...Faul being Faul... :D

Fades like you just posted are very deceiving. The ear one especially, since you are going from young to old. Anyone will tell you that ears change as you get older. That is why I do my comparisons of Paul vs. a young Faul.
And, you're comparing body parts of which we have no idea where you got them from. In the first comparison of Faul vs. a very young Paul, Faul's forehead still looks larger to me. Not to mention that I've noticed that quite a few early photos of Paul appear to have been messed with. His face looks warped in that photo. Also, I highly doubt that a young man like that would have eyebrows so thin that they look pencilled in.

socrates

15-03-2009, 02:00 AM

socrates, that makes no sense, as everything else in the photo matches up as I stated earlier. Shoulders, hips, & knees. The discrepancies still stand.

Yes they do! Let me ask you a question. Was the older Paul exactly the same distance from the camera as the young one? No. There will be a difference. It is therefore not possible to scale the image of the older Paul precisely to the scale of the photo because you are trying to fit a figure which is closer to the camera next to a figure which is further away from the camera. How can you scale them exactly if they are different distances from the camera? They are different sizes because of their different distances from the camera in the original photos.

Yes, their shoulders may line up, but that's simply due to the different distances from the camera and having to enlarge or decrease the size of the older Paul.

As I have stated many times now, you will have your opinions on this & I will have mine.

That is not down to opinions - it's fact! Go and ask any photoshop expert and they'll tell you. :rolleyes:

Certain PIAers will do everything in their power to try to discredit us PIDers,

No, you do that by yourself. See above.

while we just continue to pile up evidence upon evidence.

Anybody can pile up a lot of flawed and useless evidence - see the Flat Earth Society website or The Moon Is Made Of Blue Cheese Photo Evidence Forum. :)

Doesn't mean it is factual or accurate. And if you have so much evidence, why don't you use it in court? No - you'd rather just sit there posting it on an internet forum.

Everyday I continue to find more things on the internet to use to try to prove my point.

You can prove your point in court - but you won't do it. That says everything about the quality of your evidence.

I'm doing this because I care about what happened to Paul. Why are you so intent on discrediting us ???

If you post flawed evidence, I'm entitled to post why I think it is flawed. I'm not "discrediting" you - just your evidence. If you don't like people critiquing your evidence, why post it? Are you only looking for people to agree with you? Sorry - this isn't a Paul Is Dead forum.

truthseeker49

15-03-2009, 02:43 AM

Socrates, I honestly don't care what you have to say. I am making my posts for those who are interested in what happened to Paul. They either will see it or they won't. I'm interested in those who do see it. You can post what you like, say what you like. Those who read this thread will take from it what they will. As far as I'm concerned this is not a pissing contest. I'm interested in trying to reveal the truth.
As far as taking it to court, that goes both ways. There was a good reason for Heather Mills to be afraid. She was smart & she got out of it while she still could.
They did everything in their power to defame her. I respect her for not allowing them to break her spirit.

Sorry, I don't have time to play with you anymore. I must get back to work.

It's hard to find photos, due to angle & all of that. These aren't perfect but it's a start:
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/teeth.jpghttp://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/ram-1.jpg

Paul, '65 vs. Faul '74

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/tamperedeyes.jpghttp://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/FaulandJohnnyCash-1.jpg
Paul in '64, vs, Faul in the 1970's. Damn, look at Faul's cheeks ! I will have to take this back up tomorrow. Nite to all...:)

toty1994

15-03-2009, 04:04 AM

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/strangeFaul.jpg

I'm not certain but there's something about those teeth that just isn't right. They're not an exact match imo.

faulconandsnowjob

15-03-2009, 05:54 AM

I like how Socrates posts all of these pics of Paul & Faul where they don't look alike at all, & yet insists they are the same person. LOL! :D

socrates

15-03-2009, 12:29 PM

I like how Socrates posts all of these pics of Paul & Faul where they don't look alike at all, & yet insists they are the same person. LOL! :D

I like how how faulconandsnowjob posts all of these pics of Paul & Faul where they are clearly the same man, & yet insists they are not the same person. LOL! :D

socrates

15-03-2009, 12:41 PM

Paul has Hazel eyes. This is a combination of greens and browns. Using color filter, I have increased the luminosity of some of the green and brown areas. I have found an area in one of Paul's eyes that is difficult to see without computer enhancements. Below I will demonstrate this.

The images immediately below are a side by side comparison of Paul's right eye from the Fool On The Hill video (Left) and a 1964 printed magazine (right). Although the Fool on the Hill image seems clear, keep in mind that there does appear to be a slight gaussian blur. You can tell by looking at how soft the shadows surrounding his eye appears. This blur has diminished the contrast in some of the details we might have otherwise seen in his iris. By increasing the mid tones and highlights in the green and red channels, we see a dark area near the bottom of his iris. Is this the smoking gun PIA needs to destroy PID rumors? Maybe?

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/8468/ab4.jpg

Some may claim it is a reflection. Others claim it is not valid because it can't be reproduced 100% of the time. I agree it can't. This reason is because many early Beatle images are either printed in a low resolution, or have had their eyes airbrushed overexposed to increase the pupil to an enormous size. But in other images, the anomaly is visible in the same place in only one eye. Would a reflection be only in one eye?

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/7249/ab5.jpg

http://www.paulisnotdead.com/blog1.php/2008/07/29/puppy-dog-brown-eyes?page=4

Paul and Faul have the very same dark area near the bottom of the iris -fact. So, how do the Paul is dead believers explain this away? Coincidence? "Doctored photos" (Anyone can try this experiment - you'll get the same result)

This is clear proof that Paul and Faul are the very same man.

astrochicken

15-03-2009, 02:05 PM

Faul goofing.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/GoofyBill.gif

To me Faul just looks coked out of his skull in that animation.

There are still too many disparities which coincide with their stopping touring, their musical style (piano dirges and novelty songs) , paul's voice changing dramatically and the fact that paul would appear to have had a total charisma bypass which all leads me to conclude that paul has been replaced.

Intuitively i can judge people and in this case and entirely subjectively, i have an utter dislike for the man posing as paul mccartney.
The man went from humble and charismatic to a pretentious wanker in the space of several months.. throw in all the disparities from the first paragraph and there's not a doubt in my mind that for the last 40 years someone has been posing as paul.

unusual_suspect

15-03-2009, 02:18 PM

the fact that paul would appear to have had a total charisma bypass which all leads me to conclude that paul has been replaced.

This is what I find most suspicious.

faulconandsnowjob

15-03-2009, 03:44 PM

^ Yeah, Paul was cool & funny. Faul... not so much. :rolleyes:

humito

15-03-2009, 04:38 PM

cant believe there are still people arguing the toss on this thread ! lol what a spectacular wate of time.........i feel because of some comments posted by those that advocate the PID theory that there is some sort of infatuation with the young good looking paul mc cartney ( to the degree of a schoolgirl/boy crush) and beatles pre psychedelic era ,they are clearly "in love" with his looks and personality before all the heavy drug taking started and in denial that paul would ever get into or advocate such behaviour..........he clearly wasnt even remotley squeeky clean before the hippy era either and was renowned for his womanising and taking of uppers during the hamburg days..........Drugs like lsd and cocaine etc do change your outlook on life,your personality and interests and artistic expression and to a certain degree your looks. It is obvious to me that during the sgt pepper era they were dressing up ,wearing false moustaches etc for the " concept" of sgt pepper........they certainly were not the first to do it . In my opinion they got the idea from the copycat bands around the mersybeat scene that would all play beatles covers and have similar haircuts........there was one band especially that did this called BILLY PEPPER AND THE PEPPERPOTTS..........its not such a great leap of the imagination to see what the beatles were up to with songs like i am the walrus and the sgt pepper album.The Ruttles then took the piss out of what the beatles were doing with the psychedelic stuff!!
It has been said that paul was a genius and never had to look at his frets when playing....however most of the beatles earlier stuff was dead simple to play,mostly 3 or 4 chords ........anyone can do that .......I would say the man is still a genius.......can still write a "beatles quality " tune and is a multi instrumentalist. Like i already stated a lot of the PID crowd are in denial that their " HOTTY/CUTIE" paul could grow up and get old ...........all the beatles changed........focus on any one of them and you could gather the same "photographic evidence" that they were replaced lol...........paul has taken drugs and messed about with cosmetic surgery for most of his adult life............this more than explains differences in personality /fashion sense and slightly altered looks..........most "Stars " from the sixties still in the public eye have surgery etc.
To me looking for clues to his death is a morbid parlour game that has got out of hand since the advent of the internet and is ideal for obsessives and the mentally unstable.............TPTB would have gained nothing from replacing him.........LSD use was already prominant without the beatles promoting it............infact i think bands like early floyd were better proponants for it and were far more inovative in the studio.
The rest of the beatles would have had far more integrity in my opinion to go along with a sick thing like that............also what are the chances of finding a lookalike/soundalike multi instrumentalist genius who would be prepared to give up his identity? ( surly someone this talented would already be well known as there were not that many chartable bands around in the sixties..not like today.) that also had to learn to play left handed .......all in the space of a few months?.
Any musician worth his/her salt can easily see that paul has a certain way of writting and composing ( as well as nuance in playing style)that is still apparent today . 99 % percent of all the evidence presented so far can easily be explained away............The remaining 1 % does not IMO proove that he was replaced.

faulconandsnowjob

15-03-2009, 04:50 PM

So, maybe if there were 2 or even 3 anomalies btw Paul & Faul, I wouldn't think they were replaced, but I posted a huge, long list of differences. That's not so easy to just "explain away."

And how do PIA'ers explain the fact that Paul was hot & Faul is not? If it were the same guy, he'd be hot even if he were older. I could imagine Paul would be pretty hot even today, if he were still alive, of course.

karol2020

15-03-2009, 05:50 PM

socrates

15-03-2009, 06:09 PM

So, maybe if there were 2 or even 3 anomalies btw Paul & Faul, I wouldn't think they were replaced, but I posted a huge, long list of differences. That's not so easy to just "explain away."

That's because you ignore all the explanations - like you have ignored the fact that both Paul and Faul have the same dark area in the lower iris:

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/8468/ab4.jpg

And how do PIA'ers explain the fact that Paul was hot & Faul is not?

LOL! :) :rolleyes:

Paul McCartney -- the sexiest man alive

But there was no doubt who most girls wanted in a heartbeat -- and then some. It was Paul. The press labeled him the Cute Beatle, but it was really The Sexy One. The girls called him "dreamy." And "gorgeous." And they used other words that I can't use here.

That was then. This is now. For many women who were first generation fans and grew up with the Beatles -- and even some who are younger -- those feelings still exist today. Even though he'll turn 67 in 2009 (take "When I'm 64" and add three.), for these fans, Paul is still the same as he ever was. Sexy as hell.

From Laura:

"Well there is so much we women can say. For starters, Paul comes across as very natural. He doesn't appear to try too be a fashion setter. He dresses as he always has which to me is sexy...."

SR told us:

"What makes Paul still sexy after all these years? His youthful attitude towards life (even with all that he's been through lately), his graciousness with his fans, his philanthropic endeavors, his amazing work ethic with regards to his music..."

Sheryl:

"To me, sex appeal is not just a face, it is something that emanates from within you, which carries out of you and around you. Mainly, for me, it is Paul's eyes, smile, lust of life and his voice. To me, that is what makes a man sexy. Yes, he is still sexy."

And Kris chimes in:

"Oh, those eyes, that smile, that face! Who could resist?? We've seen him age so gracefully from that adorable young guy all us teenage girls went ga ga over, to that gorgeous man in the seventies on stage with Wings, to the handsome Dad and husband... and to "Sir", the knight in shining armor! Not to mention, the tremendous love for his wife... a kind, loving, caring man has great appeal, and tugs at the heartstrings.

"And he still has that gorgeous young guy lingering behind the eyes of the 66 year old!"

From Rachel:

"It's undefinable. It's Paulie magic...the way he moves, talks, his little mannerisms. His looks don't hurt either. He can still give me goose bumps and make me so happy I can't stand it just by watching him in a video..."

From Carol:

"If the eyes are the windows to the soul, his soul is much more than rubber and I could be a peeping Tomasina looking in those windows all day. Ahhh, The Gaze........ man oh man, I'll never forget getting a zap of that! When he manages to lock eyes with you, he sends you to the 4th dimension, no kidding! It's like waves of whateveritis flowing through the two of you - like electricity! Nuh-uh, I did *not* imagine it ;)..."

From Mish:

"Over the last 40+ years the public has gotten a glimpse of what we believe is the real McCartney.
There are genetic stand-outs among us. McCartney embodies creativity, talent, intelligence, and generosity all wrapped up in a handsome package. So glad he rose to the top for many of us to admire...."

From Beatlefan:

"Paul simply exudes sexiness! That look, that wink, that boyish grin makes him scrumptdeliumptous to this day! Not to mention how his hands move over the guitar or piano keys, oh baby! His voice is pure "magic", and makes you glad all over, a "call of the wild" if you will! Complete chemistry *is* James Paul McCartney!"

http://www.examiner.com/x-2082-Beatles-Examiner~y2009m1d27-Paul-McCartney--still-sexy-after-all-these-years

Paul not hot? Guess you're belief that he's dead is kinda clouding your judgement, faulconsnowjob. LOL! :)

faulconandsnowjob

15-03-2009, 06:18 PM

Faul being goffy is not cute at all.... i would say is bizarre...

LOL! Yeah, no one would call him Paul "McCharmley," that's for sure...

truthseeker49

15-03-2009, 07:29 PM

I find it interesting that socrates shows the colour chart with Paul & Faul's eyes, says that there's the same dark area in the lower iris, but doesn't notice that they have totally different eyelashes.
I really don't think that eyelashes can change. Being a woman, I can say that I wish that was possible. I have ones like Faul, not very full at all. There are a million women who wish that they had long, full, luscious eyelashes like Paul had.
As far as that article about Paul being sexy, that is absolutely true. The thing is, Paul exuded it naturally. Faul had to learn the part. As I have posted here & in many other places, there are/were many times that Faul simply falls short. Let's face it, it has to be hell trying to be someone else day in & day out. He's going to slip up occasionally, even if he is programmed to believe that he is really Paul. He is only human, after all...

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/ab4.jpg
The ring around the iris is different in both eyes. In fact, the iris themselves appear different. As far as the small spot in the same place, I have no idea how common that would be. And, it is similar but not exactly the same. If I find a vintage photo from before late September, 1966 in which Paul clearly had GREEN eyes, I will be sure to inform this forum.

Paul, 64http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/41-1.jpghttp://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/Faul1968.jpg Faul, 68 Is he wearing mascara ???
In the above two photos, Paul appears to have a smaller mouth than Faul. I have noticed this before, in many other comparisons. < shrugs >

http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii220/truecolors112/part%204/973742.jpg
http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii220/truecolors112/part%204/973776.jpg Paul's eyelashes are obviously thick.
Paul was like the pied piper, totally unassuming about it all.

http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii220/truecolors112/part%204/73989088.jpghttp://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii220/truecolors112/part%204/73989087.jpg
Look at how far the hair goes up Paul's hands. Paul had hairy hands.
Faul http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/pl_chest.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/paul-apple.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/Billinbathingsuittheone.jpg
Faul however, does not.

truthseeker49

15-03-2009, 07:32 PM

http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii220/truecolors112/part%204/miami4iz3.jpghttp://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/Faulbypool.jpg

Even though Paul is closer to the camera, Faul's knees still appear larger. They have different legs & feet. Paul's big toe looks very different from Faul's.

Paulhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/paul_coconut.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/Faulinshorts.jpg

Here is a picture of Paul's feet. Notice how much smaller they are than Faul's. Here are Faul's feet. Notice that he has hammertoe, and his feet are significantly larger than Paul's feet.

http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii220/truecolors112/part%204/rareunseen3ey1.jpg]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/68usa.jpg

Paul, 63 vs. Faul, 68

http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii220/truecolors112/part%204/rareunseeniy6.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/shirtless68.jpg

Paul, 63 vs. Faul, 69

Small Paul. The width of his shoulders, the size of his torso. Both smaller than Faul's. The difference between them is quite striking in the second comparison. What happened to Faul in that short period of time ?

I will see if I can find better comparisons in days to come.