Is Paul really dead?

[brainfreeze]

Here's some audio proof that they're not the same guy:

http://digilander.libero.it/p_truth/the_truth/paul_faul_vocal_comparison.gif
On the left - James Paul McCartney Voice spectrum - On the right - Faul's voice spectrum
http://digilander.libero.it/p_truth/audio.html

The sonagrams clearly don't match. I realize the diehard PIA'ers will completely ignore this, but I've come to expect that.

Sorry but for me the iris comparision is far more conclusive than this voice analysis.

[socrates]

Here's some audio proof that they're not the same guy:

http://digilander.libero.it/p_truth/the_truth/paul_faul_vocal_comparison.gif
On the left - James Paul McCartney Voice spectrum - On the right - Faul's voice spectrum
http://digilander.libero.it/p_truth/audio.html

The sonagrams clearly don't match. I realize the diehard PIA'ers will completely ignore this, but I've come to expect that.

Just like you ignore the iris pattern proof!
Jusr like you ignore the lip scaring proof!

Hypocrytical or what?! :mad:

And you're wrong - I will address it. :)

First of all, let's examine the standard of the software used. What voice analysis software does that pic show?

[socrates]

http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/1051/trunk1dy.jpg
Take note of the hairpart, PIDers. :)

Add a moustache and different hair...

"Oooh, look it's Faul!"

http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/762/trunk2qb.jpg

http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/1051/trunk1dy.jpghttp://img81.imageshack.us/img81/762/trunk2qb.jpg

There's non so blind as those who cannot see. :)

People experiencing the Capgras Delusion claim that others, usually those quite close emotionally, have been replaced by near-identical impostors.

[socrates]

Some people really think these are two different people...

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

Yes, really - they do! :D

[socrates]

Different color eyes http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/paul_faul-1.jpg

Notwithstanding that lighting and background can make a person's eye color appear different, aging can also play a factor:

"Aging, however, is the usual cause of color change over time. So, yes, Emily. Color can change as we age. It does so for 10 to 15% of the normal Caucasian population. These people’s eyes change slowly over many years after they reach adolescence.

Investigators considered Caucasians (non-East Asian, non-Native American, non-African) because only Caucasians commonly have lighter eyes.

"Some eyes become darker, but most become lighter with increasing age," says Richard A. Sturm, a Principal Research Fellow at the Institute for Molecular Bioscience at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia.

http:www.wonderquest.com/eye-color-age.htm (http://www.wonderquest.com/eye-color-age.htm)

Another PID myth dies an inglorious death upon the fire of truth... :D

[socrates]

More lip scaring evidence:

http://img174.echo.cx/img174/7740/lsd56kf.gif

But SSSSHHHH! PIDers don't want to talk about that!!! :D

[socrates]

The PIDers claim that Faul's nose is "different".

Here we can see the fallacy in their allegation. It's the same shape. So is the nostril shape:

http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/6644/get5.jpg

[humito]

Sorry but for me the iris comparision is far more conclusive than this voice analysis. HOWEWVER THESE TESTS CAN BE COUNTED AS VOID BECAUSE IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT A LOT OF TRACKS WERE SPEEDED UP OR SLOWED DOWN IN THE STUDIO ..........i ALSO KNOW AS A SINGER SONGWRITER THAT MY VOICE CAN CHANGE DEPENDING ON IF I AM A BIT STUFFY OR HAVE DRUNK AND SMOKED TOO MUCH..........ALSO THE MALE VOICE CHANGES OVER TIME :) ALSO HERE WE GO AGAIN WITH ENDLESS MEANINGLESS COMPARISSON PICS !!! ALSO ITS GETTING TEDIOUS CONSTANTLY BRANDED STUPID AND BRAINWASHED ETC.............THIS THREAD SHOULD BE MOVED TO THE RANT ROOM AS IT IS CLEARLY ABOUT 3 PEOPLE RANTING ABOUT THEIR BELIEFS AND INGNORING ANY INTELLIGENT DEBATE OR DEBUNKING........AGAIN THE ROTTEN APPLE FROM YOU TUBE AND IAMAPHONEY ARE BEING USED AS EVIDENCE WHEN IT HAS BEEN SHOWN THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE DELIBERATLY OUT TO DECIEVE................ANYONE THAT TAKES THAT STUFF FROM YOUTUBE SERIOUSLY, (AND I KNOW THEY DO BECAUSE THE SAME PEOPLE HERE POST REGULARLY ON THEIR VIDEO COMMENTS) JUST SHOWS HOW THEY INFACT ARE THE BRAINWASHED ONES ,FALLING FOUL OF THE SAME TYPE OF MEDIA TRICKS THAT ALL THE PEOPLE WHO THINK PAUL IS STILL ALIVE ARE ACCUSED OF BEING BRAINWASHED BY.
WE HAVE ALL BEEN SUBJECTED TO BRAINWASHING TO SOME DEGREE BUT MY PERSONAL OPINION ABOUT THIS ,ESPECIALLY AS THE MAIN PROPONANT HERE HAS THEIR OWN WEBSITE DEALING WITH THE MATTER,IS CRAZED FANDOM AT ITS WORSE!! WHO SPENDS MOST OF THEIR FREE TIME POURING OVER BEATLES PICS AND PICS OF THE YOUNG CUTE GOODLOOKING PAUL MC CARTNEY AND POSTING ALL OVER THE INTERNET ABOUT IT OTHER THAN A CRAZED FAN???? WHAT A SPECTACULAR WASTE OF TIME............NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE WILL EVER BE CONVINCED BY THE STORY FOR ANYTHING EVER TO COME OF IT BECAUSE THE " EVIDENCE" IS TOO FLIMSY AND PORTRAYED IN A TOTALLY UNCONVICING WAY FOR MOST PEOPLE TO SWALLOW.IT REALLY ALL JUST COMES DOWN TO OBSESSIVE OPINION OF A HANDFULL OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE TAKEN THE ORIGINAL DEATH RUMOUR TO THE EXTREME.
DONT FORGET THIS WHOLE THING STARTED WITH THE " DEATH" CLUES PLANTED IN AMONGST THE LYRICS AND LATER ALBUM COVERS, ( ALTHOUGH PEOPLE HAVE FOUND DEATH CLUES IN PRE 66 ALBUMS AND LYRICS!! THIS SHOULD SHOW HOW ANYTHING CAN BE READ IN ANYWAY ONE WANTS!........SOMETHING THE BEATLES WERE VERY AWARE OF!) THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT SOME OF THESE MESSAGES WERE PLACED DELIBERATLY BY THE BEATLES,HOWEVER I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THIS WAS DONE FOR ENTIRELY DIFFERENT REASONS THEN THE ONE PROPOSED BY SOME OF THE WHACKIER PID THEORIES.

I BELIEVE THE BEATLES WERE INTO THE OCCULT AND DRUGS AND SEX AND ROCK N ROLL AND ALL THREE TOGETHER !! FOR INSTANCE I SEE THE SONG HELTER SKELTER AS A DIRTY SONG ABOUT THE PLEASURES OF AN ORGY ETC..........THIS WAS WHAT THE CULTURAL REVOLUTION OF THE 60S WAS ALL ABOUT, PEOPLE TRYING TO FREE THEMSELVES FROM THE CONVENTIONS OF THE 1950 S AND REPRESSION IN ANYWAY THEY COULD.............THE BEATLES DIDDNT PROMOTE OR CAUSE THE SOCIAL CHANGE ,THEY WERE, LIKE DYLAN, COMMENTERS AND REALLY JUST THE SILLY FROTH ON TOP OF SOMETHING FAR DEEPER THAT WAS HAPPENING ,
I AM SURE THERE WAS SOME MANIPULATION FROM TPTB OF THEM,ESPECIALLY IN THE EARLY DAYS OF BEATLEMANIA BUT I THINK THEY BROKE FROM THAT WITH SGT PEPPER AND THE FORMATION OF THEIR OWN RECORD LABEL. ( ONE OF THE FIRST OR IF NOT THE FIRST BAND TO TAKE ACCONT OF THEIR OWN AFFAIRS ETC)...........IT MAY HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE THAT SOMEONE LIKE YOKO WAS INVOLVED IN TRYING TO SPLIT THE GROUP AND I THINK THE BEATLES THEMSELVES WERE BECOMMING AWARE OF THE REAL WORKINGS OF THE MUSIC INDUSTRY AND THE DIFFERENT SORT OF DRUGS BEING PUSHED THEIR WAY..........THINGS LIKE COKE AND HEROIN ETC ..........AS A PLOY BY TPTB TO MOVE PEOPLE AWAY FROM THE MIND EXPANDING PSYCHEDELICS AS THESE WERE SETTING PEOPLE TOO FREE AND EMPOWERING THEM TO DE PROGRAMME AND THINK FOR THEMSELVES. iIN MY OPINION LSD DID TURN OUT TO BE A DANGEROUS DRUG ANYWAY AS IT LED TO A GENERATION OF YUPPIES!:eek:...................I THINK THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED TO THE BEATLES ........A MOVE AWAY FROM PURE PSYCHEDELIA AND INTO COKE AND HEROIN ETC ..........DESTROYING PERSONALITIES AND FRIENSHIPS AND AMPLYFYING EGO!!!!!!!!! THE VERY THING TPTB WANTS.


IMO.............THE BEATLES WERE USED IN 2 WAYS ..........FIRSTLY AS A VAST CASH MACHINE WITH THE WHOLE CONTRIVED BEATLEMANIA..................THEY MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE LET LSD LOOSE AS A SOCIAL EXPERIMENT.............IT HAD BEEN AROUND A LONG TIME BEFORE BEING POPULARISED BY TIMOTHY LEARY ETC .........IN THE BEAT MOVEMENT .TPTB SOON DISCOVERED THAT PEOPLE WERE MAKING THEIR OWN ACID ANYWAY AND THAT IT WAS SETTING PEOPLE TOO FREE AND REMINDING PEOPLE OF THEIR OWN DIVINITY AND TRUE RELIGIOUS/SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCE.THE BEATLES WERE TAKEN ALONG ON THE ACID WAVE FOR A WHILE AND BECAME "REBORN" IN ATTITUDE/FASHION AND EXPERIMENTALY.TPTB WANTED FULL CONTROL AND SO PUSHED THEIR OWN WELL KNOWN DRUGS ONTO THEM,I THINK ALL THE BEATLES AT ONE TIME TOOK HEROIN!!. (THE STREETS BECAME FULL OF THESE DRUGS TOO AND THAT IS WHAT EFFECTIVELY BROUGHT AND END TO THE UTOPIAN ACID FUELLED FLOWER POWER SIXTIES) THAT TOGETHER WITH THEIR LOVE INTERESTS, INFLATING EGOS ETC IS WHAT CAUSED PAUL TO BREAK UP THE BEATLES.

I AM SURE THAT THE BEATLES HAD SUSSED OUT HOW THEY HAD AT TIMES BEEN MANIPULATED ETC. I DONT KNOW ABOUT RINGO BUT I AM SURE ALL THE OTHERS CONTINUED WITH DIFFERENT DRUGS AND MAGIKAL/SPIRITUAL PRACTICIES.....................I THINK LENNON WAS MURDERED AS HE WAS STARTING TO SING ABOUT TRUTH AGAIN WITHOUT A HEAD FULL OF SMACK/ETC AND AFTER RAISING A KID .HARRISON ALSO WITH HIS SPIRTUAL INSIGHTS AND LIGHT HAD TO GO !

RINGO MY WELL BE YASSER ARRAFAT THESE DAYS ,WHICH LEAVES US WITH PAUL MC CARTNEY HE IS STILL ALIVE!!!!!!!!!!!! AND HE IS CERTAINLY THE SAME MAN FROM THE CAVERN CLUB DAYS............HOWEVER I THINK A TOPIC MORE WORTHY OF DISCUSSION WOULD BE IS HE NOW PART OF THE ILLUMINATI.......AND MIND CONTROLED IN SOME WAY, HE IS CERTAINLY STILL INTO THE OCCULT AND POSSIBLY MASONRY,I DONT BELIEVE HE IS AN EVIL MAN BUT ANYONE CAN DO THINGS IF THEY ARE MIND CONTROLLED.

HE DOES SEEM UNTOUCHABLE IS INCREDIBLY RICH AND HIS EX WIFE SEEMS TO KNOW SOMETHING " BIG" ABOUT HIM..........THIS COULD BE MORE GOLD DIGGING TACTICS BUT FOR THE MOMENT LETS GIVE HER THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT.......AND ASSUME THE SOMETHING BIG ISNT THAT HE IS DEAD!!!.....I THINK SHE KNOWS HE IS A CROWLEYITE SEX MAGICIAN AND HAS TIES TO TPTB FROM THE 60 S ...HE MAY WELL HAVE INSIDE KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT WAS HAPPENNING DURING THE 60S AND WHAT HE WAS INVOLVED IN BUT INSTEAD OF REBELLING LIKE JOHN AND GEORGE HE LET HIMSELF BE TAKEN UNDER THE WING AS IT WERE............LIKE I SAID I THINK HE IS STILL ALIVE,IS STILL PRETTY CREATIVE AND IS AN OK GUY,I ALSO BELIEVE HE IS AN OCCULTIST AND IS A BIT DELUDED AS TO HOW DEEP THE RABBIT HOLE REALLY GOES AND IS ALSO UNDER SOME FORM OF MILD MIND CONTROL AND HAS BEEN FIDDLED WITH IN SOME WAY BY TPTB FOR WHATEVER REASON........THIS DOES NOT MAKE THE MAN DEAD!!! JUST INTERESTING THATS IT.:)

[socrates]

Previously, I mentioned the markings on Paul's chin and how Faul had the very same markings:

I've changed the first pic to black and white and sharpened both photos to highlight the curved 'scar' travelling horizontally across his chin, a straight 'scar' lower down his chin and the two 'divets'. First - the green lines highlight what I'm refering to:

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/5598/arrows3.gif

Now, without the green lines so you can clearly see them:

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/4180/sharpened.gif

Now a negative version which allows us to compare the contours of the face and the marks on the chin:

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/5624/nega.jpg

Clear evidence that they are the same guy.

Well, here are some more photos which prove that Faul has the same chin as Paul - could that be because they are one and the same person? :D

Paul's chin - notice the highlighted mark:

http://img201.echo.cx/img201/8383/chinm18jn.jpg

http://img210.echo.cx/img210/8966/chinm22ca.jpg

Now Faul's chin....

http://img208.echo.cx/img208/3343/cm31xj.jpg

http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/5508/get6.jpg

Once again PID is totally destroyed by the provision of objective evidence!

We have seen that Paul and Faul have identical iris patterns.

We have seen that they had the same lip scaring at the time of the bike accident.

We have seen that they have exactly the same marks on the chin.

All this is objective evidence - you don't need an opinion to 'see' this evidence which demonstrates that Paul is NOT dead.

Yet all people like faulcon can do is post numerous photos, (many of which show Paul with completely different facial expressions and taken decades apart - a typical PID trick) which require an opinion on whether they look like the same person or not.

PID evidence is subjective. PIA evidence is objective. And there lies the difference.

PID is DEAD!

Paul is alive. :D

[pipsicle]

Yeah, fundamentally identical iris patterns. Different colors but fundamentally identical.

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/blueeyes3.jpg

No difference here.

[aonghus36]

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

Apolgoies if this has been posted

This video has an emphasis on varying shoe sizes between Paul and "Faul". But, shoe sizes do often change in time. They can get bigger as body weight
seems to press on the feet over time. My own shoe size went from a 9.5 to 10.5, sometimes 11(USA measuring systems). A reason for the large change for me could be because I have a disability, so my gait can be rather odd; and I work at a job that requires me to be on my feet for long lengths of time.

[socrates]

Yeah, fundamentally identical iris patterns. Different colors but fundamentally identical.

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/blueeyes3.jpg

No difference here.

This was posted just a few posts ago - yet poor old pipsicle blunders on regardless.... :rolleyes:

Different color eyes http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/paul_faul-1.jpg

Notwithstanding that lighting and background can make a person's eye color appear different, aging can also play a factor:

"Aging, however, is the usual cause of color change over time. So, yes, Emily. Color can change as we age. It does so for 10 to 15% of the normal Caucasian population. These people’s eyes change slowly over many years after they reach adolescence.

Investigators considered Caucasians (non-East Asian, non-Native American, non-African) because only Caucasians commonly have lighter eyes.

"Some eyes become darker, but most become lighter with increasing age," says Richard A. Sturm, a Principal Research Fellow at the Institute for Molecular Bioscience at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia.

http:www.wonderquest.com/eye-color-age.htm (http://www.wonderquest.com/eye-color-age.htm)

Another PID myth dies an inglorious death upon the fire of truth...

Pipsicle completely ignores the fact that a Principal Research Fellow at the Institute for Molecular Bioscience at the University of Queensland has confirmed that eye color can change as we grow older! :eek:

But pipsicle also shows their total and utter ignorance of how lighting and background can change the appearance of eye colour...

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/blueeyes3.jpg

The Paul pic is in poor light - the Faul pic is in bright light.

Let's see Faul's eye colour when the lighting and background are different...

http://archiv.hofmobiliendepot.at/linda/gross/paul_mary.jpg

http://www.yellow-sub.net/images/DVD_dBox_Front.jpg

http://gay.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/09/18/paul_mccartney_gay_rumor_2.jpg

http://static.motor.de/bilder/d23043e79f63773e18e3c5e1fa3360e0.jpg

http://www.postimees.ee/foto/8/1/390184486e04e7d16e.jpg

Back to the drawing board pipsicle....

[socrates]

This video has an emphasis on varying shoe sizes between Paul and "Faul". But, shoe sizes do often change in time. They can get bigger as body weight
seems to press on the feet over time. My own shoe size went from a 9.5 to 10.5, sometimes 11(USA measuring systems). A reason for the large change for me could be because I have a disability, so my gait can be rather odd; and I work at a job that requires me to be on my feet for long lengths of time.

Yes, good point.

It just shows you how desperate PID evidence is if they're having to resort to 'different shoe sizes' evidence!

WTF?! :eek: :eek: :eek:

[pipsicle]

OIh but of course... it was just down to different lighting.
http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/blueeyes3.jpg

Yes, his eyes did tend to turn bright green in bright light in the early days didn't they?

http://www.jamespaulmccartney.org/BeatlesStory651.jpg


Erm...

[socrates]

Do people even notice that they're not the same height? How do the ostriches explain this?

Very easily. Perspective, camera angles, posture and each being at different distances from each other in each photo.

http://imagecache.allposters.com/images/pic/AQUA/24-545~The-Beatles-Posters.jpg

[faulconandsnowjob]

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

Apolgoies if this has been posted
Thanks for posting! It was a hot day, so they were all wearing suits? "Paul" said he was wearing sandals that day. Why would you take off sandals to walk on hot pavement? Does that make sense?

Sorry but for me the iris comparision is far more conclusive than this voice analysis.
Even though they have different faces, different color eyes, different shaped heads, and are different heights? Ok. Whatever floats your boat.

Yeah, fundamentally identical iris patterns. Different colors but fundamentally identical.
Yeah, other than being a completely different color, they're exactly the same. LOL! :rolleyes:

Wow! Great comparison faulcon.
Thanks, Dream9! That was one off of Truthseeker's excellent forum:
http://only1rad.proboards.com/index.cgi

[hey_dude]

A few things to note:

1. Paul was the tallest Beatle. He was never a short or even average height guy. My mother met The Beatles in the earl 60's and said that Paul was a tall man for his time - as tall as I am, and I'm 184cm.

2. This is a simple concept to grasp: Your face, your body type, your voice and even your eye colour can change over time - your iris patterns cannot.

3. Would you PID'ers PLEASE stop acting as if the burden of proof lies on us. Stop acting as if Paul being dead and replaced is the foregone conclusion. It isn't. It's up to YOU to prove your theory.

[faulconandsnowjob]

I know some of you really want this to be the same person, but it's just really not. The Illuminati lies to you. Accept it. Deal with it. Don't be an ostrich (nothing against ostriches - they're lovely birds).

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/bopped_Beatles_James_Paul_McCartney.jpghttp://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/Oobu_Joobu_3.jpg

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

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/scan0043.jpghttp://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/78vs9.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v462/OnlyBeatles/profiles.jpg

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/paulgeorevolver.jpghttp://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/Bill4-2-1.jpg

[hey_dude]

Looks like the same guy to me. Heck, it is the same guy! :D

[faulconandsnowjob]

It doesn't look like the same guy to me. In fact, it isn't the same guy.

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/Paulsmall-1.jpghttp://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/fritz-1.jpghttp://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/bigFaul2-1-1.jpg

Yeah... I don't think so.

And this pic of Paul has totally been tampered w/. They uglied him up to make him look more like that prat Faul/Bill.

http://imagecache.allposters.com/images/pic/AQUA/24-545~The-Beatles-Posters.jpg

[fireman]

Previously, I mentioned the markings on Paul's chin and how Faul had the very same markings:



Well, here are some more photos which prove that Faul has the same chin as Paul - could that be because they are one and the same person? :D

Paul's chin - notice the highlighted mark:

http://img201.echo.cx/img201/8383/chinm18jn.jpg

http://img210.echo.cx/img210/8966/chinm22ca.jpg

Now Faul's chin....

http://img208.echo.cx/img208/3343/cm31xj.jpg

http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/5508/get6.jpg

Once again PID is totally destroyed by the provision of objective evidence!

We have seen that Paul and Faul have identical iris patterns.

We have seen that they had the same lip scaring at the time of the bike accident.

We have seen that they have exactly the same marks on the chin.

All this is objective evidence - you don't need an opinion to 'see' this evidence which demonstrates that Paul is NOT dead.

Yet all people like faulcon can do is post numerous photos, (many of which show Paul with completely different facial expressions and taken decades apart - a typical PID trick) which require an opinion on whether they look like the same person or not.

PID evidence is subjective. PIA evidence is objective. And there lies the difference.

PID is DEAD!

Paul is alive. :D

GREAT POST!!

:cool:

[socrates]

GREAT POST!!

:cool:

Thanks Fireman.

Did you notice how faulcon completely ignored the chin evidence (like she did with the iris evidence) and went on one of her mass photo postings in order to desperately bury it under a load of meaningless photos? :rolleyes:

[socrates]

Here's some audio proof that they're not the same guy:

http://digilander.libero.it/p_truth/the_truth/paul_faul_vocal_comparison.gif
On the left - James Paul McCartney Voice spectrum - On the right - Faul's voice spectrum
http://digilander.libero.it/p_truth/audio.html

The sonagrams clearly don't match. I realize the diehard PIA'ers will completely ignore this, but I've come to expect that.

Just like you ignore the iris pattern proof!
Jusr like you ignore the lip scaring proof!

Hypocrytical or what?! :mad:

And you're wrong - I will address it. :)

First of all, let's examine the standard of the software used. What voice analysis software does that pic show?

Still waiting for faulcon to answer my question.

Her avoidance leads me to suspect that the software used to analyse Paul's voice is actually some two bit piece of crap downloaded for around 20 bucks! :rolleyes:

Come on faulcon - spill the beans. Unlike you PIDers, I'm actually willing to look at alternative evidence and discus it.

[faulconandsnowjob]

Socrates, I don't even read your posts. It's all just a bunch of jibba jabba to me. You obviously don't have a discerning bone in your body. I be these 2 guys look exactly the same to you, right? lol :rolleyes:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/pj_serious.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/Faulagain.jpg

[socrates]

Socrates, I don't even read your posts.
Then how can you respond to my question? :rolleyes:

Who you trying to kid?

Are you going to answer my question or are you going to evade it like you did with the chin evidence, the lip scaring evidence and the iris evidence?

Do you want debate or are you just here to post countless, meaningless photos of Paul McCartney?

You've made a claim, so kindly back it up with some more info. We can then assess the credibility of said claim.

The question is simple enough:

What voice analysis software does that pic show?

[faulconandsnowjob]

^ I don't really care about anything you have to say, Socrates. You are completely irrelevant to me.

This is a picture of Paul:
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/124744290_fa3b9e6435-1.jpg

This is a picture of Faul:
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/Areyouserious-1.jpg

I really don't get why this is so hard for some people.

[faulconandsnowjob]

mainly posted b/c of the ears

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/Ears6784.jpg

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/color_gal_08.jpghttp://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/beatlespaul.jpg
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/eardetached1976.jpghttp://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/Fakeear.jpg

[hey_dude]

Lawdy lawd, trying to bury the truth with a slough of stupid pictures are we now? :D

[faulconandsnowjob]

Actually, there's one question I'd really like to have answered. How come all these gullible ostriches fail to notice that Paul was switched even when all the differences are pointed out to them in great detail? :rolleyes:

[fireman]

Quote from Faulconandsnowjob

(http://only1rad.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=faker&action=display&thread=1259&page=1)

I actually think that's a great idea to put Faul's features on Paul & vice versa to show how weird it looks.

Thats what we have been doing. Weird? No. SAME GUY!

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n20/khanmfh/comps/Mr%20Potato%20Faul/mciiimpf.jpg

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n20/khanmfh/comps/Mr%20Potato%20Faul/MPF_pepper_FP.jpg

[socrates]

^ I don't really care about anything you have to say, Socrates. You are completely irrelevant to me.

What a pathetic, childish response. You obviously don't want a debate about this. In which case - why are you on this discussion forum?

I asked you a perfectly reasonable question regarding your claim that voice analysis software had demonstrated that Paul and Faul have different voice patterns.

You refuse to answer it and come back with the comment of a sulky child who's lost an argument.

I think the conclusion to be drawn from your refusal to detail the software is that either:

1. You don't know. In which case, why do you give it any credibility if you don't know how accurate this piece of software is in analysing voices?

2. You know it is a two bit piece of crap downloaded from the internet for about 20 bucks.

Whatever the reason - your refusal to co-operate is suspicious and your claim, therefore, cannot be taken seriously.

Another piece of PID 'evidence' bites the dust...

[socrates]

http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/2416/sfforever0dp.gif

Paul is ALIVE.

[socrates]

This is a great comp:

Take a photo of Faul...

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/2914/get7.jpg

Put on Paul's hair and ears..

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/90/get8a.jpg

And it's clearly Paul.

How PIDers see 'differences' in these two photos is amazing. How brainwashed do you have to be to see two different people here...

http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/892/mpfcomp4cm.jpg

[fireman]

This is a great comp:

Take a photo of Faul...

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/2914/get7.jpg

Put on Paul's hair and ears..

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/90/get8a.jpg

And it's clearly Paul.

How PIDers see 'differences' in these two photos is amazing. How brainwashed do you have to be to see two different people here...

http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/892/mpfcomp4cm.jpg


HAHA, great! Reminds me of this:

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/P45.gif

WHERE IS THE DIFFERENCE??

:p

[socrates]

That's a good pic Fireman. I've used it in the following comp.

As we can see, there is no difference. Only brainwashed PIDers say otherwise...

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/6480/getb.jpg

"Painfully obvious" 'differences'....

Yeah... rrright... :rolleyes:

[supertzar]

Regarding the "sonogram," exactly what is it about the two audio files being compared that is supposed to lead to the conclusion that they are by two different people? They are two different files so they should appear different. It would be bizarre if they were 100% identical.

[faulconandsnowjob]

Socrates, Fireman, & Hey_Dude: Each of you is like a horse that prefers to see his blinders to the "scary" world out there.

These are simply not the same person, no matter how much you stamp your feet & insist they are.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=197&pictureid=3308

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=197&pictureid=3309

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=197&pictureid=3307

Do you even *look* at the pictures? It's so obvious they're not the same guy.

[faulconandsnowjob]

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=197&pictureid=3320

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=197&pictureid=3319

This may be the closest Bill got to actually looking like Paul:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=197&pictureid=3312

[fireman]

Socrates, Fireman, & Hey_Dude: Each of you is like a horse that prefers to see his blinders to the "scary" world out there.

These are simply not the same person, no matter how much you stamp your feet & insist they are.

Do you even *look* at the pictures? It's so obvious they're not the same guy.

Faulconansnowjob, Truthseeker, pipsicle: Each of you is like a horse that prefers to see his blinders to the "scary" world out there.

These are simply the same person, no matter how much you stamp your feet & insist they are not.

Do you even *look* at the pictures? It's so obvious they the same guy.


http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/forfaulc1.gif

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/classic_comp1.gif

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

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/P45.gif

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

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

http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/9016/pidcrusher857385potatoeic4.gif

[faulconandsnowjob]

Regarding the "sonogram," exactly what is it about the two audio files being compared that is supposed to lead to the conclusion that they are by two different people? They are two different files so they should appear different. It would be bizarre if they were 100% identical.

The voice prints do not match. A voice print is like a fingerprint. It is used to identify people. The voice print on the left is of Paul. The one on the right is of the imposter.

http://digilander.libero.it/p_truth/the_truth/paul_faul_vocal_comparison.gif

[faulconandsnowjob]

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=197&pictureid=3316

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=197&pictureid=3314

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=197&pictureid=3313

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=197&pictureid=3311

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=197&pictureid=3310

[fireman]

Thanks, exactly the same dude.

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

[socrates]

The voice prints do not match. A voice print is like a fingerprint. It is used to identify people. The voice print on the left is of Paul. The one on the right is of the imposter.

http://digilander.libero.it/p_truth/the_truth/paul_faul_vocal_comparison.gif

Why won't you name the software used? What have you got to hide? :mad:

Simply posting an image of some unidentifiable software program and then claiming it says the voice prints don't match just won't do at all.

Kindly provide the software program used. It would also be useful to know the origination of the audio files used, as supertzar pointed to.

What interviews were used for the audio files?

[toty1994]

Here's some audio proof that they're not the same guy:

http://digilander.libero.it/p_truth/the_truth/paul_faul_vocal_comparison.gif
On the left - James Paul McCartney Voice spectrum - On the right - Faul's voice spectrum
http://digilander.libero.it/p_truth/audio.html

The sonagrams clearly don't match. I realize the diehard PIA'ers will completely ignore this, but I've come to expect that.

I clicked on that link supposing there'd be some detail as to how this experiment was done, the technology used, how the conclusion was arrived at etc. Alas, none of this is provided. All we are told is that they are soundclips comparing the singing of the word 'go' from 'Your Mother Should Know' with 'Hello, Goodbye'. According to the website YMSK is Paul and HG is Faul but it doesn't say how or why. The clip from YMSK is there for us to listen to but, rather unhelpfully, the one from HG is not - so it's kind of hard to make any sort of judgement on the merits of this 'proof' at all! Well, other than it's, erm, probably crap.:)

Reading futher down the page it states that Paul only sang two tracks on 'Sgt Pepper' - 'She's Leaving Home' and 'A Day In The Life'. Most of the rest are apparently Faul and someone mysteriously labelled 'the imitator'. Most amazingly of all, it claims "With A Little Help From My Friends' is 'probably performed by Faul imitating Ringo's voice'!!

...and we're supposed to take this seriously?!

[socrates]

I clicked on that link supposing there'd be some detail as to how this experiment was done, the technology used, how the conclusion was arrived at etc. Alas, none of this is provided.

Hmmm... well there's a surprise.

All we are told is that they are soundclips comparing the singing of the word 'go' from 'Your Mother Should Know' with 'Hello, Goodbye'.

Hang on - faulcon said "voiceprints" - not "soundclips". You can only get a voiceprint to analyse if you seperate the vocals from the music tracks! And I doubt very much that they would be able to do that without having the master tapes from the studio. You can't just edit out the vocals from the finished track!

So it seems faulcon was being deliberately misleading when she said the software had analysed the "voiceprints". What she should have said was that the software had analysed two different soundclips (including the music) of Paul and Faul singing the same word.

If this is the case, then it is down right obvious that the voices would not give the same patterns! Firstly, the voices are probably in a completely different key. Secondly, the different music in each seperate track would also give a different reading!

How the hell can you analyse two completely different songs and NOT get two different readings?! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I had assumed when faulcon said "voiceprints" she was refering to interviews - not bloody songs!

Reading futher down the page it states that Paul only sang two tracks on 'Sgt Pepper' - 'She's Leaving Home' and 'A Day In The Life'. Most of the rest are apparently Faul and someone mysteriously labelled 'the imitator'. Most amazingly of all, it claims "With A Little Help From My Friends' is 'probably performed by Faul imitating Ringo's voice'!!

...and we're supposed to take this seriously?!

They must think we're as gullible and brainwashed as they are!

[supertzar]

The spectral analyses of the two different clips is more similar than you might expect them to be. Note the concentration of harmonics just under 2 kHz and under 4 kHz that appears in both clips.

[socrates]

I just checked that site out... Oh, lordy! It's a veritable feast of crackpot, deluded nonsense.

Apparently they found Paul's body. On a beach, in erm... France:

http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/2072/20192466.jpg

And these two men are the same person:

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/4926/43625051.jpg

WFT?!!! :eek: :eek: :eek:

And Paul's head is in here - er, somewhere....

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/5457/13947215.jpg

If this is what faulcon and co believe in then they seriously need a reality check.

[toty1994]

Hang on - faulcon said "voiceprints" - not "soundclips".

To be fair 'soundclips' is the word I used and what I assume them to be - although on that webpage it refers to them as 'samples' and 'voice spectrums', not 'voiceprints' (are they the same thing?)

A soundclip of McCartney singing 'go' is provided, though, leading one to think it is that which has been analysed.

[socrates]

To be fair 'soundclips' is the word I used and what I assume them to be - although on that webpage it refers to them as 'samples' and 'voice spectrums', not 'voiceprints' (are they the same thing?)

Similar. Faulcon used the word "voiceprint". You used the word "soundclips" - and you are right, that is exactly what they are.

If the tracks on that webpage are the samples which were analysed by faulcon's mysterious software, then she was being deliberately misleading when she used the term "voiceprints". They are clearly NOT! They are music and vocals.

A soundclip of McCartney singing 'go' is provided, though, leading one to think it is that which has been analysed.

You can hear two versions of him singing "go". The first lasts for but a split second!

And in the second you can hear a piano hammering away like crazy at the same time! And that's not going to affect the audio reading in the software?! :eek:

[socrates]

The spectral analyses of the two different clips is more similar than you might expect them to be. Note the concentration of harmonics just under 2 kHz and under 4 kHz that appears in both clips.

Well something will be similar - they are, after all, recordings of the same man! :D

[supertzar]

You have only just now seen digilander, soc? That is the first I heard of the modern PID myth. I took it seriously and thought about it for a couple of days, but found that it was bullshit. There is a page somewhere that debunks the digilander website very well, piece by piece.

[socrates]

No - never seen it before today. I'm surprised it took you that long to realise it is all bullshit. :D

Phil Akrill replaced Paul McCartney? :eek:

http://i41.tinypic.com/1pz80x.jpg

The resemblance is striking! :rolleyes: :) :)

[supertzar]

At least it can never be said that my mind is closed or that I can't consider the possibility.

[socrates]

At least it can never be said that my mind is closed or that I can't consider the possibility.

Haven't the PIDers already said that? :D

http://www.tlcgraphic.com/images/ear.gif

[supertzar]

Haven't the PIDers already said that? :D

http://www.tlcgraphic.com/images/ear.gif

Yes, they have. Even after I politely informed them of my unbiased approach.

[the seeker]

Wow, you guys have thoroughly debunked the PID nonsense. Nice job.

[faulconandsnowjob]

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=197&pictureid=3321

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=197&pictureid=1732

Wow - this is supposed to show they're the same guy? It actually shows the exact opposite. lol

http://www.tlcgraphic.com/images/ear.gif

Besides, Paul's real ear didn't look like that, as has already been shown.

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/color_gal_08.jpghttp://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/beatlespaul.jpg

[hey_dude]

Grasping for straws I see Faulcon.

Give it up. The facts are working against you.

[faulconandsnowjob]

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=197&pictureid=1698

[fireman]

Faulcon posted this:

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/bb46-2.jpg

now lets look at Paul in 1967
http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/bb46-1.jpg

now lets have a little photoshop play:

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/bb46-5.jpg
http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/bb46-4.jpg
http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/bb46-3.jpg



:D:D

SAME GUY!!

[socrates]

Wow - this is supposed to show they're the same guy? It actually shows the exact opposite. lol

You're very keen on posting even more meaningless photos of the same man - less keen, however, on giving any details of your voice analysis claim.

Very quiet about that - aren't we? :p

Is it because your claim has been exposed as a misleading pile of absolute bullshit?

Seems so...

[socrates]

Wow, you guys have thoroughly debunked the PID nonsense. Nice job.

Thanks.

[toty1994]

Phil Akrill replaced Paul McCartney? :eek:

http://i41.tinypic.com/1pz80x.jpg

The resemblance is striking! :rolleyes: :) :)

That's actually a pic of Vivian Stanshall, another Faul candidate.

I discovered some time ago that Phil Ackrill (who supposedly disappeared without trace once he became Faul) is now an accountant based in the West Midlands. It took me a few minutes on google to find this information - information that continues to elude pid scholars who insist Phil's our man!

[faulconandsnowjob]

Funny how desperately some ostrich people want them to be the same guy :rolleyes: LOL! Yeah, I don't think so.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=197&pictureid=1651

paul is dead - the rotten apple 74 - YouTube

[socrates]

That's actually a pic of Vivian Stanshall, another Faul candidate.

Is it? How many bloody Faul candidates have they got? :rolleyes:

I discovered some time ago that Phil Ackrill (who supposedly disappeared without trace once he became Faul) is now an accountant based in the West Midlands. It took me a few minutes on google to find this information - information that continues to elude pid scholars who insist Phil's our man!

Well, they don't take facts into account when making their claims, do they? :)

[faulconandsnowjob]

An "official" comp of Paul. They didn't even notice Faul is taller than Paul was. :rolleyes:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=197&pictureid=1636

[fireman]

Funny how you say "official".:rolleyes: It's just a comp by somebody on the internet.. "They" just didn't care to line them up properly.

Actually, they match perfectly, and with that PID is crushed again:

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

:D:D

[the seeker]

Faulcon, you have to take a look at yourself and see delusion as a real possibility. Multiple rational people are looking at this thing and seeing not a bit of what you are seeing. Accept the truth -- you loved what Paul was and hated what he became. But there is only one of him, alive today, the same one who was there in 1963.

[reggievandam]

Paul McCartney: 1968 Interview - BBC Documentary :eek: :D


YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.


Excuse me...but...


AAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! OH MY GOD! WHAT A PRICK! OH, FAUL!!!

BWAAAAAAHAAAAHAAAAAA! :D:o


SERIOUSLY??? THAT...THING IS SUPPOSED TO BE OUR BELOVED PAUL???

DEAR GOD...

OH, AND JUST FOR FUN...


Weird Al Paul McCartney Interview
Weird Al Paul McCartney Interview - YouTube

LOL! ENJOY! :D

(Also...@ 2:34 EXTREME close up of FAUL's lips!)

Sigh...

[reggievandam]

What's wrong with Paul's face here, why so puffy???


:confused:

THE BEATLES - Blackpool Night Out (1965) - [Part 1of2]


THE BEATLES - Blackpool Night Out (1965) - [Part 1of2] HQ - YouTube



THE BEATLES - Blackpool Night Out (1965) - [Part 2of2]

THE BEATLES - Blackpool Night Out (1965) - [Part 2of2] HQ - YouTube

Anyway, GREAT vids! :cool:

[pipsicle]

But pipsicle also shows their total and utter ignorance of how lighting and background can change the appearance of eye colour...



Can you explain this to me in more detail? I've had thousands of photos taken of myself, in all shades of light, including very bright sunlight. But not in one single photo have my chocolate brown eyes turned green.

[accuracy]

Can you explain this to me in more detail? I've had thousands of photos taken of myself, in all shades of light, including very bright sunlight. But not in one single photo have my chocolate brown eyes turned green.


I love your style :D

[socrates]

Faulcon, you have to take a look at yourself and see delusion as a real possibility. Multiple rational people are looking at this thing and seeing not a bit of what you are seeing. Accept the truth -- you loved what Paul was and hated what he became. But there is only one of him, alive today, the same one who was there in 1963.

Very true, the seeker. But I'm afraid that your words will fall on deaf ears. The PIDers are totally brainwashed by PID.

Alas, they cannot, and do not, want to be saved from their delusions.

They are happy believing Paul is dead and that they are somehow 'special' in being part of a select group of people who can recognise the imposter.

However, as truthseeker and pipsicle demonstrated earlier when they mistook the face of Faul for Paul, the differences only exist in their minds. :rolleyes:

[reggievandam]

I love your style :D


Seconded!

[fireman]

People, you should check the high def version of that video..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Tyxp8U_zCk&hd=1&hd=1&ap=%2526fmt%3D22

Don't forget to click on HQ, makes it even more clear that this is just Paul! :)

You think he's a dick? Your opinion. I think he is a charming and funny guy.

Not to forget that the Beatles really broke the boundary between classical and popular music!

:cool:

[socrates]

Can you explain this to me in more detail? I've had thousands of photos taken of myself, in all shades of light, including very bright sunlight. But not in one single photo have my chocolate brown eyes turned green.



Eye Color Changes in Certain Lighting

My eyes are very dark brown, almost black. Lately, a lot of people have said that in certain lighting they turn blue. I saw this happen once, the color was actually dark blue/green, like a peacock feather. Does anyone know what's causing this? Is something wrong, is medical attention needed?

If it's any help, I'm 56. My mother and sister have medium brown eyes, my brother's are amber/yellow. Daddy's eyes were emerald green with a gold cluster around the pupil with a bright rust cluster on top of the gold. Thanks for any help.

RE: Eye Color Changes in Certain Lighting
Post by LeticiaticiaLe (1) | (03/09/2008)

Don't worry. There's nothing wrong with you.
Studies have shown that eye colour change when you're older.
Here's a link about it. i came upon it a few months ago.
http://www.wonderquest.com/eye-color-age.htm

RE: Eye Color Changes in Certain Lighting
Post by bailegirl (14) | (02/28/2008)

Sounds like just hazel type eyes. Not unusual for eyse to change. My son's eyes can look blue, gray, green, or brown depending on what he's wearing and the lighting. Just go with it and enjoy!

RE: Eye Color Changes in Certain Lighting
Post by purrplekat (42) | (02/28/2008)

I would say, definitely check with your doctor just to be sure. On the flip-side, I know several people whose eyes change color depending on lighting or what color they are wearing or surrounded by.

I knew one girl, a twin, and the way she differed from her sister was that if she wore yellow, her normally blue-green eyes would turn almost transparent. Mine are dark brown but I have seen them look a lighter almost reddish brown in certain lights, and once one of them looked light brown while the other remained unchanged. I have had several eye doctor visits and physicals since then and my eyes are fine, I guess that's just one of my quirks.
http://www.thriftyfun.com/tf11182275.tip.html

Changes in Eye Color

The iris is a muscle that expands and contracts to control pupil size. The pupil enlarges in dimmer lighting and grows smaller in brighter lighting. The pupil also shrinks when you focus on near objects, such as a book you are reading.

When the pupil size changes, the pigments in the iris compress or spread apart, changing the eye color a bit. Certain emotions can change both the pupil size and the iris color. That's why some people say their eyes change colors when they're angry or loving.

Eye color also can change with age. This happens in 10 to 15 percent of the Caucasian population (people who generally have lighter eye colors). For instance, my once very brown eyes are now hazel, a combination of brown and green.
http://www.allaboutvision.com/conditions/eye-color.htm

Pipsicle - go find a photo of a green-eyed Faul with dark lighting and background. :D

[fireman]

:)

[socrates]

A challenge for the PIDers:

The PIDers claim they can see differences in the eyes.

Let's see if they are prepared to take up the challenge or bottle out.

Here's 6 pairs of eyes, A B C D E and F. Which are Paul's and which are Faul's?

http://img225.exs.cx/img225/2819/eyegame3fh.jpg

[pipsicle]

RE: Eye Color Changes in Certain Lighting
Post by bailegirl (14) | (02/28/2008)

Sounds like just hazel type eyes. Not unusual for eyse to change. My son's eyes can look blue, gray, green, or brown depending on what he's wearing and the lighting. Just go with it and enjoy!




Seriously? Your proof consists in the professional reflections of "bailegirl (14)"?

The photo of green-eyed Faul was taken outdoors in bright, natural light. So wouldn't his eye colour be *less* likely to be distorted than under any other kind of light?

I await your considered response.

[socrates]

Seriously? Your proof consists in the professional reflections of "bailegirl (14)"?

Those are examples of other people's experiences of eye colour changes.

It is as much "proof" as your claim that:

I've had thousands of photos taken of myself, in all shades of light, including very bright sunlight. But not in one single photo have my chocolate brown eyes turned green.

Just because you've not experienced it, doesn't prove it doesn't happen! :rolleyes:

The photo of green-eyed Faul was taken outdoors in bright, natural light. So wouldn't his eye colour be *less* likely to be distorted than under any other kind of light?

Again - cos you obviously don't read...

Changes in Eye Color

The iris is a muscle that expands and contracts to control pupil size. The pupil enlarges in dimmer lighting and grows smaller in brighter lighting. The pupil also shrinks when you focus on near objects, such as a book you are reading.

When the pupil size changes, the pigments in the iris compress or spread apart, changing the eye color a bit. Certain emotions can change both the pupil size and the iris color. That's why some people say their eyes change colors when they're angry or loving.

Eye color also can change with age. This happens in 10 to 15 percent of the Caucasian population (people who generally have lighter eye colors). For instance, my once very brown eyes are now hazel, a combination of brown and green.
http://www.allaboutvision.com/conditions/eye-color.htm


Pipsicle - why don't you go and find us a photo of a green-eyed Faul with dark lighting and background if what you're saying is correct? :rolleyes:

The fact that you won't be able to find one proves that lighting and background affects the appearance of eye colour.

If you've got any more questions about this, then kindly google it. I'm not here to educate you on basic concepts such as this.

Are you going to take the PID Challenge, or are you going to bottle out of it?

I'm betting on the latter. :)

[socrates]

A challenge for the PIDers:

The PIDers claim they can see differences in the eyes.

Let's see if they are prepared to take up the challenge or bottle out.

Here's 6 pairs of eyes, A B C D E and F. Which are Paul's and which are Faul's?

http://img225.exs.cx/img225/2819/eyegame3fh.jpg

[pipsicle]

Pipsicle - why don't you go and find us a photo of a green-eyed Faul with dark lighting and background if what you're saying is correct? :rolleyes:


Because there's no reason natural light would distort someone's eye colour in the first instance. The clue is the word "natural".

I guess that's a minor technicality we won't account for.

[socrates]

Because there's no reason natural light would distort someone's eye colour in the first instance. The clue is the word "natural".

I guess that's a minor technicality we won't account for.

Are you just pretending to be this dim?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081217124338AADR7Kl

Your eyes reflect the colours in your surroundings!

http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/1668/eyedpg.jpg

http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/1852/eye2.gif

See?! :mad:

An interesting question about changes in adult eye color is often asked. As we have discussed previously, eye color is about reflection of ambient light from the structure of the iris. People with lightly colored irises note that their eye color changes according to the colors they wear.
http://www.eyecarecontacts.com/eyecolor.html

People perceive colors based on the light that bounces off objects, and some of that light - for instance, the red light from a red jacket - is going to be reflected in the eyes, said Dr. Norman Saffra, the chairman of the ophthalmology department at the Maimonides Medical Center in Brooklyn.

In a person with black or brown eyes, the reflected color is hard to notice. But in a person whose eyes are lighter - particularly hazel or blue - light hitting the colored part of the eye, called the iris, creates an illusion that the eye has shifted colors.

Clothing can have this effect, Dr. Saffra explained, but so can a different pair of glasses or even a new hair color.

"Anything that is physically closer to the eyes can do it," he said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/health/20real.html?_r=1

[socrates]

No takers yet - surprise, surprise! :D

A challenge for the PIDers:

The PIDers claim they can see differences in the eyes.

Let's see if they are prepared to take up the challenge or bottle out.

Here's 6 pairs of eyes, A B C D E and F. Which are Paul's and which are Faul's?

http://img225.exs.cx/img225/2819/eyegame3fh.jpg

[fireman]

Just keep insisting.. everbody with a little bit of common sense left will see that these 2 are the same guy with different styling:

http://img191.echo.cx/img191/5175/mpf13qu.jpg

http://img308.imageshack.us/img308/6811/fade447dt.gif

:cool:

[humito]

No takers yet - surprise, surprise! :D

can i play?.A paul
B paul
C paul
D paul
F paul



somewhere close?:)

[socrates]

can i play?.A paul
B paul
C paul
D paul
F paul



somewhere close?:)

Thanks for trying humito. I'm not saying yet. I'm giving the PIDers chance to put their money where their mouths are.

So far, they're running scared. :D

Wonder why? LOL.

I mean, with their special ability to spot the "painfully obvious" differences, it should be a piece of cake!

[humito]

lol thats the spirit socrates!:).........i like your sense of humour also.

I cracked under all the bullshit and blindness and possible mental problems of the PID brigade...........i wish i had a better pc to carry on .........you and fireman have done a great job exposing this conspiracy with your work though..........good luck with your comp!

[socrates]

lol thats the spirit socrates!:).........i like your sense of humour also.

I cracked under all the bullshit and blindness and possible mental problems of the PID brigade...........i wish i had a better pc to carry on .........you and fireman have done a great job exposing this conspiracy with your work though..........good luck with your comp!

Lol. Cheers. I think what my little challenge will prove is that PIDers won't take it.

They'll swerve it because without being able to see the hairstyle they won't be able to date the pics - and if they can't date them then they won't be able to tell Faul from Paul! (Although the first pic is an easy one for them as they probably know the photo.)

:D :D :D

[socrates]

No takers yet - surprise, surprise! :D

A challenge for the PIDers:

The PIDers claim they can see differences in the eyes.

Let's see if they are prepared to take up the challenge or bottle out.

Here's 6 pairs of eyes, A B C D E and F. Which are Paul's and which are Faul's?

http://img225.exs.cx/img225/2819/eyegame3fh.jpg

[faulconandsnowjob]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHaq1PlfJXU&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Edavidicke%2Ecom%2Fforum%2F showthread%2Ephp%3Ft%3D30205%26page%3D357&feature=player_embedded

Extreme close up of Faul's lips at ~ 2:34. Paul's lips:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v462/OnlyBeatles/paulAHDN.jpg

[fireman]

HAHAH LOL

I found this great PID "proof" that the lips dont match "Fauls" at Truthseekers PID-forum:

http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa103/theking64/ex.jpg

This shows perfectly how PID evidence is produced and how ridiculous it is!!

:D:D:D

[supertzar]

Faulcon, why don't you take the 'Faul or Paul Challenge?' It doesn't look good to avoid it. It might be considered conceding if you don't.

[humito]

she will but is currently trying to match up millions of paul pics she has with the eyes............;) lol

[faulconandsnowjob]

Faul dares people to notice he isn't Paul in "Strawberry Fields Forever" video:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=197&pictureid=1621

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSlK_mKsNq8&feature=PlayList&p=FDAAA9C52CB10311&index=1

Yikes!! :eek:

For reference, this was Paul:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=197&pictureid=1617

[socrates]

Faulcon, why don't you take the 'Faul or Paul Challenge?' It doesn't look good to avoid it. It might be considered conceding if you don't.

Faulcon and the other PIDers won't take it cos they can't really tell.

Once you take the hairstyle away they are stumped! :D

They're all talk. They're all too keen to post un-ending photos they say are Faul and Paul - but bottle out when put to the test.

Rest in peace PID. :)

[socrates]

she will but is currently trying to match up millions of paul pics she has with the eyes............;) lol

pmsl!

:) :) :) :) :) :)

[socrates]

No takers yet - surprise, surprise! :D

A challenge for the PIDers:

The PIDers claim they can see differences in the eyes.

Let's see if they are prepared to take up the challenge or bottle out.

Here's 6 pairs of eyes, A B C D E and F. Which are Paul's and which are Faul's?

http://img225.exs.cx/img225/2819/eyegame3fh.jpg

[faulconandsnowjob]

Same guy? Right...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tWikCSZjfs&feature=PlayList&p=FDAAA9C52CB10311&index=5

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

[socrates]

Same guy? Right...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tWikCSZjfs&feature=PlayList&p=FDAAA9C52CB10311&index=5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TbLIzhwkP8

No takers yet - surprise, surprise! :D

A challenge for the PIDers:

The PIDers claim they can see differences in the eyes.

Let's see if they are prepared to take up the challenge or bottle out.

Here's 6 pairs of eyes, A B C D E and F. Which are Paul's and which are Faul's?

http://img225.exs.cx/img225/2819/eyegame3fh.jpg

No PIDer has had the courage of their convictions so far and taken the challenge.

We know why. :D

PID is dead.

[reggievandam]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHaq1PlfJXU&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Edavidicke%2Ecom%2Fforum%2F showthread%2Ephp%3Ft%3D30205%26page%3D357&feature=player_embedded

Extreme close up of Faul's lips at ~ 2:34. Paul's lips:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v462/OnlyBeatles/paulAHDN.jpg

EXACTLY, FAULCON!!! THAT'S what I was trying to say in my posts two pages back! Ha! :D

[faulconandsnowjob]

EXACTLY, FAULCON!!! THAT'S what I was trying to say in my posts two pages back! Ha!
Lips don't match, eyes don't match, heights don't match, faces don't match, yet it's clearly the same guy. :rolleyes: lol

[supertzar]

Lips don't match, eyes don't match, heights don't match, faces don't match, yet it's clearly the same guy. :rolleyes: lol

You can't do it. You can't tell Paul and Faul's eyes apart. It undermines everything you say.

[faulconandsnowjob]

Beatles Lost Interview - YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slrvEo50ikY&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fonly1rad%2Eproboards%2Ecom%2Find ex%2Ecgi%3Fboard%3Dgonebutnotforgotten%26action%3D display%26thread%3D1170%26page%3D19&feature=player_embedded

Gawd. Faul says some dumb things sometimes :rolleyes:

[supertzar]

Ignore the heretics with their "reason." What have they got to believe in? That's what I want to know. PID is our belief and always will be, no matter what they say. Is that right, faulcon?

[fireman]

Ignore the heretics with their "reason." What have they got to believe in? That's what I want to know. PID is our belief and always will be, no matter what they say. Is that right, faulcon?

Thats great!

We could keep it with that and end the thread.


Oh wait let's sum up what PIDers believe in:


- Paul suffered from IBS (yes, it's "deadly diarreah"). :rolleyes:
Do they have proof for that? No, someone named Sunking made it up.

- The same Sunking now believes this:

Paul was buried in the space and eventually his mother (who was already Phil Ackrill and Viv Stanshall replacement ) replaced him.

- They claim that Paul died in a car crash, (or sometimes he died of IBS, or was killed off), and then got replaced. So rest of the band was hidding clues on the records.
Proof? No, someone made it up, now they believe it..

- Meanwhile they believe that also George, Ringo and John got replaced in 1967. (they call the replacements Feorge, Fohn and Fingo). How they know that? Well somebody made it up, because he (or she) realized that people do look different in photos from time to time. Not willing to let that count as a hint that they could be wrong about the Paul/Paul comparisons they have been doing, they thought: "Well then, they all got replaced".

- Who was hiding the clues then? And why are there no "John is dead" clues?
Yep, those questions are not asked in PID-world.


- What else do we have? The name "William Campbell" No proof for that, it has been made up.. John started calling the fake Paul "Faul". No proof for that, it has been made up. The involvement of the illuminati? No proof for that either, it has been made up.


- Paul was either replaced by a look a like, by the musician Vivian Stanshell (who bares NO resemblens to Paul), by tour roadie (and later apple manager) Neil Aspinall, or even by his own Mother...
Proof? No none...

- Not only did the illuminati (or what big mystery organisation pulled this off) found one guy who looks like Paul, talks like Paul and is a left handed musician.. No, they found several guys!

That means Paul was replaced with multiple other guys over the years, yet none of the billions of Beatles/Paul fans ever realized this. Only the brains of Sunking/Faulcon/Truthseeker and some 12 year old kids at the PID MISS HIM forum have found out the truth.

:eek:

PID actually believes that and has even much more believes then these above, but it makes one dizzy, so for now thats it...


:)

[astrochicken]

Like a pack of wolves. Funny to watch.

I have allways insisted and allways will (check through any of my posts) that
paul comes across charismatic and unconceited whereas faul comes across as a talentless pretentious wanker.


Add to the fact that he is SIR Faul Mccartney for services rendered to the queen then that is more than enough proof for his replacement for me.

Instead we have a pack of left-brainers acting out a CSI fantasy.
Sorry guys, but the deceit is infinitely more complex than the left-hemisphere can comprehend.

[humito]

this thread really just shows the sad fact that there is no reasoning with mental illness :( its glaringly obvious that paul is alive .everyone is entitled to their opinions though,however, the place to play this silly game ( because that what it amounts to ) is a PID forum, surly? or the rant room or have a laugh section?

Also the " were the beatles evil/ an illuminati tool " etc has been done to death too. Most ageing rock stars become a parody of themselves ....................this is what has happened to macca.

again we are shown the strawberry fields footage! Yawn! again it prooves nothing other than faucon imagines that paul is daring us not to notice its not him??? wtf this is evidence now?? lol

Iamaphoney (whos vids have been used as evidence on this thread),who at one time was worshipped by PID has obviously failed to give give his earth shattering evidence on youtube as well ( because he has none).
What he has done though is proove how gullible and easily manipulated certain types of people are and used the medium to promote his weird backwards remixes etc.


No new credible evidence has been produced on any of the PID forums


PID IS DEAD !! I CANT WAIT FOR THE OLD WRINKLY TO PEG IT......................!!!! THEN WE CAN LOOK FORWARD TO THE "FAUL IS ALIVE" CONSPIRACY. :D

[astrochicken]

Also the " were the beatles evil/ an illuminati tool " etc has been done to death too. Most ageing rock stars become a parody of themselves ....................this is what has happened to macca.


So you're of the opinion that there is nothing contrived about "Beatlemania"?
The manipulation is so in your face... i assume that you think there is no
dumbing down/escapism taking place with the likes of superstar, next top model, daily soaps etc. etc. This is IDIOCRACY for real.

wtf this is evidence now?? lol

I haven't seen any proof for the existence for the ether or free energy either.. but it's out there.



Iamaphoney (whos vids have been used as evidence on this thread),who at one time was worshipped by PID has obviously failed to give give his earth shattering evidence on youtube as well ( because he has none).
What he has done though is proove how gullible and easily manipulated certain types of people are and used the medium to promote his weird backwards remixes etc.


No new credible evidence has been produced on any of the PID forums


PID IS DEAD !! I CANT WAIT FOR THE OLD WRINKLY TO PEG IT......................!!!! THEN WE CAN LOOK FORWARD TO THE "FAUL IS ALIVE" CONSPIRACY. :D



Evidence, proof, court of law blah di blah di blah

You lot are so firmly entrenched in the wrong hemisphere.
I know. I was stuck there for long enough too. LOL



All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.


You'll all get there eventually.

[fireman]

(quote)
The left/right brain dichotomy goes something like this: the left hemisphere of the brain is logical, deductive, mathematical, etc., while the right hemisphere is artistic, visual and imaginative.

The idea stems at least partly from the classic studies of split brain patients performed by Sperry and Gazzaniga in the 1960s. At an intuitive level, I do not agree with this, so I decided to do some research and this is what I found.

There are some functional asymmetries in the brain, and it is true that certain regions of both hemispheres are specialized for particular functions. Speech illustrates this, but also shows that nothing is ever so simple when it comes to the brain.

In most right-handed people, speech is processed in both hemispheres, but predominantly in the left. In some left-handers, speech is processed either predominantly in the right hemisphere or on both sides.

All complex behaviours and cognitive functions require the integrated actions of multiple brain regions in both hemispheres of the brain.


All types of information are processed in both the left and right hemispheres, perhaps in different ways, so that the processing carried out on one side of the brain complements, rather than substitutes, that being carried out on the other.

Every mental faculty seems to be shared across the brain, with complementary contributions. It is the combination, not separation, that matters. The mutually exclusive model has all but disappeared from the literature.


People can no longer be characterised or caricatured as right and left brainers. This is now seen as a primitive form of simplistic labelling or phrenology.

It seems like a situation where some results from a study a few decades ago have been extrapolated, distorted and stretched to build this story.

So the notion that someone is “left-brained” or “right-brained” is absolute nonsense. It is like arguing that my left eye is better for movies and the right one is better for reading the newspaper!

[toty1994]

I have allways insisted and allways will (check through any of my posts) that
paul comes across charismatic and unconceited whereas faul comes across as a talentless pretentious wanker.

You can insist all you like, it still doesn't follow that he must've been replaced by an imposter.


Add to the fact that he is SIR Faul Mccartney for services rendered to the queen then that is more than enough proof for his replacement for me.
Is that really the only proof you need?

Evidence, proof, court of law blah di blah di blah
If neither evidence nor proof are required to support pid then what's the point of discussing it at all?

[humito]

So you're of the opinion that there is nothing contrived about "Beatlemania"?
The manipulation is so in your face... i assume that you think there is no
dumbing down/escapism taking place with the likes of superstar, next top model, daily soaps etc. etc. This is IDIOCRACY for real.



I haven't seen any proof for the existence for the ether or free energy either.. but it's out there.






Evidence, proof, court of law blah di blah di blah

You lot are so firmly entrenched in the wrong hemisphere.
I know. I was stuck there for long enough too. LOL




You'll all get there eventually.

YOU assume a hell of a lot! lol and dont patronise me :)


If you read some previous posts of mine you will see that I am of the opinion that paul is not squeeky clean at all .I think he takes drugs and uses the occult and is a mason .although i do not think he is evil in any way............do i think beatlemania was contrived? yes........do i think most of the music industry is fake ? yes.....do i think paul was killed and replaced ? NO.


its all very well banging on about the perceptions of the hemispheres the problem is if you do not balance your thinking with both hemispheres you will be left in a fantasy world..........I am not a huge fan of his solo career ,however he continues to provide pleasure to millions and you will have to agree that he mostly sings about love and hope...........not really evil illuminati behaviour..........


i think the danger lays in tha black metal and mysoginistic hip hop Paul mc cartney may be a bit of a twit but he is not promoting demons or violent sex etc.

[hey_dude]

Oh god, these PID'ers are like sheep. They are so firmly entrenched in their delusions that even when conclusive, final, definitive proof of Paul's status as a living man is provided they simply pretend it doesn't exist. LOL. Take off your blinders, you deluded drones.

[socrates]

(quote)
The left/right brain dichotomy goes something like this: the left hemisphere of the brain is logical, deductive, mathematical, etc., while the right hemisphere is artistic, visual and imaginative.

The idea stems at least partly from the classic studies of split brain patients performed by Sperry and Gazzaniga in the 1960s. At an intuitive level, I do not agree with this, so I decided to do some research and this is what I found.

There are some functional asymmetries in the brain, and it is true that certain regions of both hemispheres are specialized for particular functions. Speech illustrates this, but also shows that nothing is ever so simple when it comes to the brain.

In most right-handed people, speech is processed in both hemispheres, but predominantly in the left. In some left-handers, speech is processed either predominantly in the right hemisphere or on both sides.

All complex behaviours and cognitive functions require the integrated actions of multiple brain regions in both hemispheres of the brain.


All types of information are processed in both the left and right hemispheres, perhaps in different ways, so that the processing carried out on one side of the brain complements, rather than substitutes, that being carried out on the other.

Every mental faculty seems to be shared across the brain, with complementary contributions. It is the combination, not separation, that matters. The mutually exclusive model has all but disappeared from the literature.


People can no longer be characterised or caricatured as right and left brainers. This is now seen as a primitive form of simplistic labelling or phrenology.

It seems like a situation where some results from a study a few decades ago have been extrapolated, distorted and stretched to build this story.

So the notion that someone is “left-brained” or “right-brained” is absolute nonsense. It is like arguing that my left eye is better for movies and the right one is better for reading the newspaper!

Great post fireman. Just shows what a load of crap astochicken's 'left brain' garbage is.

It's just a reason to believe in PID - because there is absolutely no credible evidence for it. So they come up with some 'left brain' nonsense and claim that you don't need evidence, just a feeling.

WTF?!

What absolute tosh.

[socrates]

Not one PIDer has taken up the challenge.

Not one. LOL.

If they really could see differences in the faces then they wouldn't avoid the PID Challenge.

Yet they run away.

Conclusion?

Paul is alive and the PIDers are full of nonsense.

A challenge for the PIDers:

The PIDers claim they can see differences in the eyes.

Let's see if they are prepared to take up the challenge or bottle out.

Here's 6 pairs of eyes, A B C D E and F. Which are Paul's and which are Faul's?

http://img225.exs.cx/img225/2819/eyegame3fh.jpg

[macmauro]

I had been trough this thread before, just by curiosity, because i'm not a fan of the Beatles, i was reading it and laughing: people come up with the most stupid things, but then i stumbled across this page:

http://digilander.libero.it/p_truth/index.html

and, you know, i think it's actually true, but then again not very bothered :rolleyes:

[socrates]

How brainwashed - how delusional do you have to be to insist that these are the eyes of two completely different people? :confused: :confused:

http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/3931/eyes5.jpg

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/9766/paulcloselookzd7.jpghttp://img227.imageshack.us/img227/9536/paulqe3.jpg

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/paulqe3_fade.gif

[macmauro]

I'm totally delusional

That's why i prefer other music than the Beatles crap ;)

[faulconandsnowjob]

I have allways insisted and allways will (check through any of my posts) that paul comes across charismatic and unconceited whereas faul comes across as a talentless pretentious wanker.
Yeah, no joke. Paul was funny & cool. Faul let the idea of being "Paul McCartney" go to his head. :rolleyes:

Add to the fact that he is SIR Faul Mccartney for services rendered to the queen then that is more than enough proof for his replacement for me.
It's very "Illuminating," isn't it?

Evidence, proof, court of law blah di blah di blah
I know. I hate how non-lawyers go on and on about "evidence," as though they had a clue. :rolleyes:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=197&pictureid=1634

^ Not even close. :p

[dream9]

If I came here and saw the information and came to the conclusion that the evidence was substandard and Paul was always Paul, then I might argue a bit at first. But I wouldn't hang out here arguing until the end of the earth with some people who feel very strongly about the subject. In my opinion, hanging out here constantly arguing this case shows INSECURITY totally on the part of the people that believe Paul is alive...and a total waste of time.

[socrates]

Yeah, no joke. Paul was funny & cool. Faul let the idea of being "Paul McCartney" go to his head. :rolleyes:

In your biased opinion. :rolleyes:

It's very "Illuminating," isn't it?

So Paul being a Sir is evidence he was replaced? You're having a laugh, right?

I know. I hate how non-lawyers go on and on about "evidence," as though they had a clue. :rolleyes:

Oh, and you do?!

Your refusal to take the PID Challenge shows you are just nothing but a great big bag of hot air. You're good at coming on here and posting hundreds of photos of Paul and Faul and opining 'Oh - look at the differences'.

Yet when you are given the chance to identify Paul and Faul from photos that aren't your own, you run away!

Truth is, you know you'll fail and thus prove you really can't see any differences at all - just like truthseeker and pipsicle did.

Everyone can see that the PIDers have avoided the chance to demonstrate their claims. The reason is obvious. :rolleyes:

[faulconandsnowjob]

^ Yeah, actually, I do have a clue about evidence, since I'm a lawyer w/ an advanced law degree. How many law degrees do you have? :p Actually, I'd be surprised if you even finished high school.

Oh, & btw, these 2 guys are not the same guy.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=197&pictureid=1631

[fireman]

^ Yeah, actually, I do have a clue about evidence, since I'm a lawyer w/ an advanced law degree. How many law degrees do you have? :p Actually, I'd be surprised if you even finished high school.

Oh, & btw, these 2 guys are not the same guy.




^Really Faulcon, that has got to be one of the most immature posts ever! It makes me laugh so hard! "I have MORE law degrees then you! You are a high-school baby. And Paul IS dead! *stomps with feet*"

unbelievable how immature you act... :rolleyes:

Did you tell your Professor at Law-school about PID, Paul having deadly diarreah and the illuminati-reptile conspiracy?

...

[faulconandsnowjob]

Fireman, I can only assume that you, too, have 0 law degrees & no clue what "evidence" is. :rolleyes:

Meanwhile, Paul is Paul & Faul is Faul.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=197&pictureid=1633

[ar20]

No takers yet - surprise, surprise! :D

A = Faul
B = Faul
C = Paul
D = Paul
E = Faul
F = Paul


You're going to turn round and tell me they're all Paul, right? Fuck, I walked into that one.

[ar20]

So .... what's Socrates, hey dudes, and firemans opinion on the
different shoe sizes of Paul/Faul?

[fireman]

Fireman, I can only assume that you, too, have 0 law degrees & no clue what "evidence" is. :rolleyes:

Meanwhile, Paul is Paul & Faul is Faul.




"evidence" , funny you put that in quotation marks"! :D

Again, did you tell your Professor at Law-school about PID, Paul having deadly diarreah and the illuminati-reptile conspiracy?

What about this: go to your Professor and show the Paul/Paul comparisons that you have compiled and also show him the ones i posted! I would love to see his face when his "best student" comes in there.
He will have you thrown out before you can say PID!
:D

[dream9]

^Really Faulcon, that has got to be one of the most immature posts ever! It makes me laugh so hard! "I have MORE law degrees then you! You are a high-school baby. And Paul IS dead! *stomps with feet*"

unbelievable how immature you act... :rolleyes:

Did you tell your Professor at Law-school about PID, Paul having deadly diarreah and the illuminati-reptile conspiracy?

...


I think if we are talking about 'evidence' here then having an advanced law degree is relevant...especially if you guys are going to be spewing out that word all the time on this thread.

[lookfar]

Please refrain from making personal insults in this thread.

Thanks

[faulconandsnowjob]

I think if we are talking about 'evidence' here then having an advanced law degree is relevant...especially if you guys are going to be spewing out that word all the time on this thread.

Yeah, exactly. For the laymen's edification:


Federal Rules of Evidence
Rule 401. Definition of "Relevant Evidence"

"Relevant evidence" means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule401

Oh, yeah, & it's still not the same guy.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=197&pictureid=1977

[ar20]

How is what you're posting NOT evidence?

Can I have that explained? How else are we meant to document this, using an etch-a-sketch?

Pictoral Evidence is the most powerful. I'd like to see how many people are seeing what we're seeing, and to make themselves heard in this topic, because it has gone badly in the wrong direction.

I'm pretty sure this isn't a tiny minority of people with eye or mental problems here.

[dream9]

Please refrain from making personal insults in this thread.

Thanks


Which posts are you referring to?

[ar20]

Which posts are you referring to?

:( Mine.

[lookfar]

Which posts are you referring to?

I'm referring to everyone, there is no need to get personally insulting. Surely you can debate without resorting to insults...

Thanks guys:)

[fireman]

Faulcon , i honestly ask you again:

did you tell your Professor at Law-school about PID, Paul having deadly diarreah and the illuminati-reptile conspiracy?

What about this: go to your Professor and show the Paul/Paul comparisons that you have compiled and also show him the ones i posted!

Why don't you do it? If you are the great lawyer you claim to be, you will sure find other members of your profession, who will support your claim. But make sure to show them both PID and PIA evidence that has been collected..

[faulconandsnowjob]

^ See, that's ridiculous that Ar20 was called out for making an insult. Have the moderators read what Socrates, Fireman, & Hey_Dude have posted? Talk about insulting!

And of course photos are evidence!

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/faul_1967.jpg

[ar20]

Faulcon , i honestly ask you again:

did you tell your Professor at Law-school about PID, Paul having deadly diarreah and the illuminati-reptile conspiracy?

What about this: go to your Professor and show the Paul/Paul comparisons that you have compiled and also show him the ones i posted!

Why don't you do it? If you are the great lawyer you claim to be, you will sure find other members of your profession, who will support your claim. But make sure to show them both PID and PIA evidence that has been collected..

Sorry I didn't get back to you by the way about your voice analysis.


I'm no expert like I said, but isn't a spectrogram accurate measurement?

You couldn't use the songs because of the overtones which is why I suggested Acapellas of both Faul/Paul.

[socrates]

^ Yeah, actually, I do have a clue about evidence, since I'm a lawyer w/ an advanced law degree. How many law degrees do you have? :p Actually, I'd be surprised if you even finished high school.

As Fireman said - what a childish response. Sad.

Anyone can come online and say they've got any number of law degrees. :rolleyes: Just like they can come online and say Paul is dead. :D

Doesn't prove diddly squat.

So, if you're so shit on on law, you will thus be aware that the onus probandi regarding PID is on you and can only be fullfilled with evidence.

Therefore, what precise evidence have you to offer us that Paul is dead?

And remember - opinion evidence is not generally admissible unless by an expert. So, unless you have an expert in forensic face matching and line-up identification to support your photos - they are inadmissible.

I think we all know that no expert in facial identification techniques has ever endorsed your Faul photos. (Wonder why? :rolleyes: )

So - photos are out!

So, what evidence have you got left that is admissible?

Let us know, please. I'm sure an expert lawyer like you will have reached your conclusion that Paul is dead on a mountain of credible, admissible evidence, and not on the opinion/fantasy based nonsense of your fellow PIDers.

So please, present your evidence!

Oh, & btw, these 2 guys are not the same guy.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=197&pictureid=1631

That is not admissible evidence. A lay person's OPINION is worth nothing.

You would know this - if you were a lawyer.

How can a lawyer present evidence which wouldn't be admissible in a court of law?!

How can a lawyer accept OPINION based evidence as conclusive proof that Paul is dead?!

You are - allegedly - a lawyer, yet your personal standards of acceptable evidence do not fall within the accepted parameters of the law!

How does that work? :confused:

Something doesn't add up here...

[socrates]

A = Faul
B = Faul
C = Paul
D = Paul
E = Faul
F = Paul


You're going to turn round and tell me they're all Paul, right? Fuck, I walked into that one.

At last! A PIDer who has the courage of their convictions! Well done for taking the challenge. I respect you for that.

I won't give you the results yet since I want to give any other PIDers the chance to stand up and be counted - or to run away and hide like they have done so far.

ONE PIDer has took up the Paul Or Faul? Challenge.

Any more?

A challenge for the PIDers:

The PIDers claim they can see differences in the eyes.

Let's see if they are prepared to take up the challenge or bottle out.

Here's 6 pairs of eyes, A B C D E and F. Which are Paul's and which are Faul's?

http://img225.exs.cx/img225/2819/eyegame3fh.jpg

[ar20]

As Fireman said - what a childish response. Sad.

Anyone can come online and say they've got any number of law degrees. :rolleyes: Just like they can come online and say Paul is dead. :D

Doesn't prove diddly squat.

So, if you're so shit on on law, you will thus be aware that the onus probandi regarding PID is on you and can only be fullfilled with evidence.

Therefore, what precise evidence have you to offer us that Paul is dead?

And remember - opinion evidence is not generally admissible unless by an expert. So, unless you have an expert in forensic face matching and line-up identification to support your photos - they are inadmissible.

I think we all know that no expert in facial identification techniques has ever endorsed your Faul photos. (Wonder why? :rolleyes: )

So - photos are out!

So, what evidence have you got left that is admissible?

Let us know, please. I'm sure an expert lawyer like you will have reached your conclusion that Paul is dead on a mountain of credible, admissible evidence, and not on the opinion/fantasy based nonsense of your fellow PIDers.

So please, present your evidence!



That is not admissible evidence. A lay person's OPINION is worth nothing.

You would know this - if you were a lawyer.

How can a lawyer present evidence which wouldn't be admissible in a court of law?!

How can a lawyer accept OPINION based evidence as conclusive proof that Paul is dead?!

You are - allegedly - a lawyer, yet your personal standards of acceptable evidence do not fall within the accepted parameters of the law!

How does that work? :confused:

Something doesn't add up here...


Socrates it's going round and round and round and round and round.


This entire topic is a great big piece of evidence itself, by various people, through various mediums, and various perspectives.

It's the same as when the police ask you to re-create "what you saw" for the courts.... how is that different from what PiD'ers are doing? Surely it's just opinion! No, eye-witness testimony is incredibly valuable in a courtroom.

There is so many picture comparisons and videos that this could actually be used in a court.

But it's like you said, and it's like how I responded. Who here actually gives enough of a damn to get it done in a court?

Thus this is a never ending topic of discussion, until something absolutely bulletproof comes out.


And personally, that new Iamaphoney vid with Paul/Fauls shoes has a lot to give, if it hasn't already been made a point already.

[dream9]

Faulcon , i honestly ask you again:

did you tell your Professor at Law-school about.....the illuminati-reptile conspiracy?



Why are you here? Do you know this is the David Icke forum?

[ar20]

At last! A PIDer who has the courage of their convictions! Well done for taking the challenge. I respect you for that.

I won't give you the results yet since I want to give any other PIDers the chance to stand up and be counted - or to run away and hide like they have done so far.

ONE PIDer has took up the Paul Or Faul? Challenge.

Any more?


No problem. Although if you want to make it a better challenge, have the photographs all colour, or all black and white.

....a little PiD secret that most coloured ones may infact be Faul, since the majority of Pauls pics are in grey and white. ;)


Although what you're asking is a mighty stretch in itself. If I lined up celebs eyes could you tell me whose they were?

[dream9]

ONE PIDer has took up the Paul Or Faul? Challenge.

Any more?


This is interesting. If you say it's all Paul, then how did you establish a difference between any of the eyes?:confused:

[ar20]

Socrates, when you do post the answers include the years by the photo.

I know I probably haven't done well but I never went for the eyes originally, I went for the entire head profile/height/shoe size/voice.

[faulconandsnowjob]

Originally Posted by fireman
Faulcon , i honestly ask you again:

did you tell your Professor at Law-school about.....the illuminati-reptile conspiracy?

Why are you here? Do you know this is the David Icke forum?
Yeah, it makes you wonder what his agenda is.

Originally Posted by socrates
ONE PIDer has took up (sic) the Paul Or Faul? Challenge.

Any more?

This is interesting. If you say it's all Paul, then how did you establish a difference between any of the eyes?
That's a good point. He shouldn't be able to see any difference, since according to him, they're all of the same guy. :rolleyes:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=197&pictureid=1697

[socrates]

I think if we are talking about 'evidence' here then having an advanced law degree is relevant...especially if you guys are going to be spewing out that word all the time on this thread.

Faulcon's alleged law degree is relevant, yes. Since she is using that as a marker for her knowledge of "evidence" (and her assumption of everyone else's lack of it) we therefore must use the legal definition and term for admissable evidence.

Only trouble with this, however, is that Faulcon's "evidence" is totally inadmissible under the rules of law! :D

Ironic, eh? LOL!!! :D

[ar20]

paul is dead - the rotten apple 74 - YouTube

Opinions?


Shoe size is clearly different and his explanation of why he wasn't wearing shoes on Abbey Road doesn't add up.

"It was a hot day"


Right, so you wear a suit and walked across a hot pavement barefoot? (anyone ever try that, it's agony, especially on a hot holiday)

[socrates]

How is what you're posting NOT evidence?

It is evidence, but it is not credible evidence under the criteria of the Law.

I could produce a bit of cheese and claim that this is evidence that the moon is made of cheese.

It wouldn't be credible evidence, though, would it.

The law has a very good reason for not accepting OPINION based evidence from a lay person.

[faulconandsnowjob]

^ Agreed that Faul's explanation for being barefoot is suspect. Especially considering that he was wearing sandals that day.

Faul is a bigger guy, so of course, he's going to have bigger feet.

[ar20]

Circumstantial evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You could enter a courtroom with cheese and say it came from the moon.

But there is a level of believability to be had. :eek:

A list of evidence that can be used:

Side by Side Comparisons of the changes between Paul/Faul 66-onwards.
Interviews with voice comparisons
Signature doesn't match
Shoe size doesn't match
Album Clues
Backmasking Clues


There is enough there for at least a case, you have to admit. We don't just have mooncheese.

[faulconandsnowjob]

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/paul_66.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/Billgoodshotoffronttwoteeth.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/69fring2swollenlips.jpg

[socrates]

And of course photos are evidence!
http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/faul_1967.jpg

Dear, oh, dear! :eek:

I could use the very same photos as evidence it's the same man!

It is therefore down to OPINION if they show the same man, or two different men.

As such - they are inadmissible under the terms of the Law, unless used in conjunction with the testimony of an expert in facial recognition.

Why don't you understand this? A lawyer would.

[faulconandsnowjob]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/WlarusGirl/All_About_The_Beatles_11.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v462/OnlyBeatles/teatime.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v462/OnlyBeatles/walrus016_a.jpg

[ar20]

My friend actually made a good point.


He said that after 66 it isn't just Paul who looks "different". Lennon looked like a wizard.

All the Beatles suddenly changed appearance pretty much overnight.

Consider the psychological method of that.

If they all look different, you aren't going to spot the difference or care much about discrepancies since they all looked re-packaged.

[dream9]

ONE PIDer has took up the Paul Or Faul? Challenge.

Any more?


I'll ask again socrates. If you think it's all Paul, then how will you know if someone is wrong when they say it's Paul or Faul?:confused:

[faulconandsnowjob]

^ That is an excellent point. Too many people are fooled by a little facial hair. :rolleyes:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v462/OnlyBeatles/niceheightcomparison.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v462/OnlyBeatles/lookatBillandGeorgeshoulders.jpg

I'll ask again socrates. If you think it's all Paul, then how will you know if someone is wrong when they say it's Paul or Faul?
Ha ha ha! They should all be "Paul" according to Socrates.

[ar20]

^ That is an excellent point. Too many people are fooled by a little facial hair. :rolleyes:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v462/OnlyBeatles/niceheightcomparison.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v462/OnlyBeatles/lookatBillandGeorgeshoulders.jpg


Ha ha ha! Let's see if Socrates can wiggle his way out of that one.

Incredible height difference, at the very least, you must acknowledge the change in height.

[faulconandsnowjob]

I'd like to see some PIA'er explain this.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/WlarusGirl/All_About_The_Beatles_11.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v462/OnlyBeatles/walrus016_a.jpg

[socrates]

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

You could enter a courtroom with cheese and say it came from the moon.

But there is a level of believability to be had. :eek:

A list of evidence that can be used:

Side by Side Comparisons of the changes between Paul/Faul 66-onwards. Inadmissible unless accompanied by the testimony of an expert.

Interviews with voice comparisonsWhere are they? Inadmissible unless accompanied by the testimony of an expert.

Signature doesn't match
Inadmissible unless accompanied by the testimony of an expert.

Shoe size doesn't matchInadmissible. Irrelevant. Different shoe sizes - if you could even prove it from photos - doesn't even imply the existence of the main fact - an imposter. This evidence is even less credible than circumstantial evidence; which is itself excluded.

Album Clues See above.

Backmasking CluesSee above.

There is enough there for at least a case, you have to admit.
No, sorry, there really isn't. It is all inadmissible under Faulcon's rules of Law. :D

And there is a reason for this - such evidence is a pile of poop!

[socrates]

I'll ask again socrates. If you think it's all Paul, then how will you know if someone is wrong when they say it's Paul or Faul?:confused:

Huh? Where did I say "it's all Paul"?

I've not said who is who at all.

[ar20]

Inadmissible unless accompanied by the testimony of an expert.

Where are they? Inadmissible unless accompanied by the testimony of an expert.

Inadmissible unless accompanied by the testimony of an expert.

Inadmissible. Irrelevant. Different shoe sizes - if you could even prove it from photos - doesn't even imply the existence of the main fact - an imposter. This evidence is even less credible than circumstantial evidence; which is itself excluded.

See above.

See above.


No, sorry, there really isn't. It is all inadmissible under Faulcon's rules of Law. :D

And there is a reason for this - such evidence is a pile of poop!



With this line of logic, the only expert who could say anything about this at all would be FAUL himself. :eek:

[dream9]

Huh? Where did I say "it's all Paul"?

I've not said who is who at all.


That's funny. You say that Paul is not dead, so who is it in the other pics? Paul's twin brother?

If someone were to take your eye test, how could you tell them if they were wrong or not on who is 'Paul or Faul?' if you yourself don't believe in the existence of a Faul?

[faulconandsnowjob]

See, Socrates, you just show time & again how ignorant you are. Evidence like the photos have to be authenticated, but they don't have to be "accompanied by the testimony of an expert." See Rules 901 & 902 at http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule901.

[faulconandsnowjob]

Originally Posted by socrates
Huh? Where did I say "it's all Paul"?

That's funny. You say that Paul is not dead, so who is it in the other pics? Paul's twin brother?

Ha ha! Except if he were Paul's twin, he would look more like him. :p

[socrates]

I'd like to see some PIA'er explain this.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/WlarusGirl/All_About_The_Beatles_11.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v462/OnlyBeatles/walrus016_a.jpg

So easy! :rolleyes:

It has all been debunked before. It has been explained to you time and time again - yet you refuse to accept simple facts about perspective and angles in photos.

For an alleged intelligent and super educated lawyer, you don't seem to have much grasp of simple physics. :(

In an attempt to illustrate how angles make a big difference in the photos of Paul McCartney that are used to determine his height, I have created an example using things around my desk at work. Here I have 2 identical markers (except for color).

I have placed them in front of a yellow ruled sheet of paper. I have taken this first picture with the camera level to the top of the pens and the sheet of paper perpendicular to the desk. On the left you can see all of the pens, while on the right, I have cropped them a little so you can only see the tops.

http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/5041/25666726.gif

Now I have moved the pen on the right an inch further from the camera and raised the camera roughly 20 degrees higher. In this image (below right), the pen on the right appears taller.

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/8880/71910649.gif

Now I have left the pens in the same positions, but I have moved the camera to roughly 20 degrees below the top of the pens. In the image shown (below right), the pen on the right appears shorter.

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/3247/41738505.gif

And as for how Paul keeps showing up taller than the other Beatles...
Look how much taller he is to George. This image is from 1964.

http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/3928/34601613.jpg

But suddenly George and Paul are the same height again!

http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/6232/85725131.jpg

Paul has been appearing taller than the other Beatles way before 1967. This is because he always has had better posture than the others. Just look at all the pictures where he appears taller.

He is standing straight and everyone else slouches. No kidding. It is that simple. Next time you stand next to someone around the same height as you, try slouching or shifting your weight to one hip. You will be surprised how much shorter you appear.
http://www.paulisnotdead.com/blog1.php/2008/07/28/how-tall-is-paul-mccartney?page=7

I'd love to see the expert lawyer, Faulcon, go into court with her PID "evidence." :D

[ar20]

So easy! :rolleyes:

It has all been debunked before. It has been explained to you time and time again - yet you refuse to accept simple facts about perspective and angles in photos.

For an alleged intelligent and super educated lawyer, you don't seem to have much grasp of simple physics. :(


I'd love to see the expert lawyer, Faulcon, go into court with her PID "evidence." :D


Saying it's "ALL BEEN DEBUNKED" is a cop-out on your part... source the debunking, or quit doing that altogether because it's exactly the reason I get annoyed with you.


Also by height we are very aware if someone stands behind or infront they become bigger or smaller, that's perspective -- it DOES NOT explain height difference when they're on the same plane, through eye-level, that Fauls height is bigger.

The pen-trick simply isn't a great anology.

[socrates]

That's funny. You say that Paul is not dead, so who is it in the other pics? Paul's twin brother?

If someone were to take your eye test, how could you tell them if they were wrong or not on who is 'Paul or Faul?' if you yourself don't believe in the existence of a Faul?

It's the PIDers who are saying there is a Faul. So I'm challenging you to say which is which. I will then show the full photos so we can see if you are right are not.

[astrochicken]

If I came here and saw the information and came to the conclusion that the evidence
was substandard and Paul was always Paul, then I might argue a bit at first. But I
wouldn't hang out here arguing until the end of the earth with some people who feel
very strongly about the subject. In my opinion, hanging out here constantly arguing
this case shows INSECURITY totally on the part of the people that believe Paul is alive...
and a total waste of time.


For all the NEWBIES to this thread...lest this post vanish under the dozens of pages of
"show me proof", "irrefutable" "inadmissible in a court of law" blah de blah de blah

Just do a site search for their usernames and
1. you'll find 99% of their posts on the paul/faul threads alone (bloody impressive!!) and
2. The other 1% of posts on other threads will, strangely enough, be remarkably similiar
ie. "this is illogical", "show me proof" blah di blah de blah

Which, as dream9 allready said, just shows the angle the "paul is alive" crowd are coming from.


ps. ar20... stay civil!!! ;)

[ar20]

For all the NEWBIES to this thread...lest this post vanish under the dozens of pages of
"show me proof", "irrefutable" "inadmissible in a court of law" blah de blah de blah

Just do a site search for their usernames and
1. you'll find 99% of their posts on the paul/faul threads alone (bloody impressive!!) and
2. The other 1% of posts on other threads will, strangely enough, be remarkably similiar
ie. "this is illogical", "show me proof" blah di blah de blah

Which, as dream9 allready said, just shows the angle the "paul is alive" crowd are coming from.

ps. ar20... stay civil!!! ;)


Will do. :p

In all fairness if what I say sounds like an insult, it's probably not, I use harsh language for emphasis or to attract attention, never take anything I say personally -- I'm sure you all have banter like that with your mates, it's a bit of heavy civility. ;)

[dream9]

It's the PIDers who are saying there is a Faul. So I'm challenging you to say which is which. I will then show the full photos so we can see if you are right are not.


Then it doesn't matter who we pick because WE can say if we are right or not. You cannot say if we are right or not because you wouldn't know since only Paul exists.

[truthseeker49]

Now I'm sorry that I've been away. It seems that I've missed quite a bit. That is a valid point made about the eye test. For the past 6 years I have doing my best to logically establish that it is indeed another person in Paul's place post late September 1966.

I have a few more things to interject. There are people on this thread who insist that the Paul is dead mystery has already been debunked. This is most definitely not true.
There are people who do overlays and fades, and those are very deceiving. Watch videos pre and post late September 1966. Look at side by side comparisons of photos that have NOT been tampered with.
The differences between Paul and his replacement(s) are obvious.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/WlarusGirl/pjmAA.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/FaulwithJimMcCartney.jpg
Paul with his dad and brother Mike Vs. Faul and Jim McCartney

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/WlarusGirl/jim_mccartney_comparison.gif

Here's the original photos that he used:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/WlarusGirl/bill_and_jim_pauls_dad.jpghttp://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/PaulandDadbingo.jpg

In the above comparisons, it is obvious that Paul was close in height to his dad. Faul is much taller than Jim McCartney was.

Paul & Ringo, 1963/64 http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/WlarusGirl/All_About_The_Beatles_11.jpghttp://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g146/lilis456/dreamer2.jpg Faul and the gang, 1967


Both of the above photos are full body shots. Paul was not much taller than Ringo. Faul is much taller than Ringo.

This is all I have time for now. I've been pretty much off the forums lately due to health concerns. I hope that these few comparisons help to further illustrate my POV.

If anyone new to this thread has an open mind about Paul being replaced, please come to my forum and check it out. There are a few of us over there who are doing our best to try to figure out this mystery. :)

[socrates]

See, Socrates, you just show time & again how ignorant you are. Evidence like the photos have to be authenticated, but they don't have to be "accompanied by the testimony of an expert." See Rules 901 & 902 at http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule901.

Don't talk daft. Of course photos are admissible - if they are relevant! Such as a photo of the accused sticking a knife in someone.

You are deliberately taking the photo issue out of context. As I said earlier, I could use the very same photos as you to try and establish it is the same man. So it is therefore a matter of OPINION if those photos show the same man or not. And a lay OPINION is NOT admissible!

Your PID photos do not conform to the rules of admissibility. They rely on OPINION evidence, which is not accepted except where it is from a expert on matters that are expected to be outside the knowledge of the court

The evidence of a witness should normally be first-hand and of events directly related to the case at issue. The opinion of a witness is likely to be hearsay, if not irrelevant. An exception is the evidence of specialists in particular fields. The opnion of such a specialist may be acceptable if it is likely to be something that the court could not directly establish itself.

For evidence to be reliable enough to be admitted, the party proffering the evidence must be able to show that the source of the evidence makes it so.

Kindly explain how your photos do that - without resorting to an OPINION!

Are your photos even relevant under the terms of admissibility? Do they have "any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence?" Rule 401. Definition of "Relevant Evidence."

No.

You can try and twist things as much as you want Faulcon - but you are wrong. Your PID photos are not admissible in a court of law by themselves.

And this is why no PIDer in the last 40 odd years has ever tried to prosecute Faul for fraud.

The evidence is NOT admissible.

[hey_dude]

So what do you all have to say about the identical iris patterns, identical chin scars and identical facial assymetries shared by Paul and the mythical "Faul" that socrates and fireman have shown? You seem to be evading those "minor issues" that totally debunk your little conspiracy theory.

[socrates]

Then it doesn't matter who we pick because WE can say if we are right or not. You cannot say if we are right or not because you wouldn't know since only Paul exists.

Yes I can because they are either taken before 1966 or after. Faul allegedly appears after 1966.

[socrates]

Saying it's "ALL BEEN DEBUNKED" is a cop-out

No it's not. I refered to the page which debunked it. :rolleyes:

Also by height we are very aware if someone stands behind or infront they become bigger or smaller, that's perspective -- it DOES NOT explain height difference when they're on the same plane, through eye-level, that Fauls height is bigger.

Yes it does...

http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/3928/34601613.jpghttp://img245.imageshack.us/img245/6232/85725131.jpg

[dream9]

Yes I can because they are either taken before 1966 or after. Faul allegedly appears after 1966.


So what is the difference in Paul from before 1966 to after 1966 according to a person who believes Paul is still alive?

[fireman]

So what is the difference in Paul from before 1966 to after 1966 according to a person who believes Paul is still alive?

He is older, he changed his style, his hair and sometimes his beard. As did all the other Beatles.

Maybe he looks a little more stoned sometimes, as he became a user of hard drugs like LSD and cocain. Also the daily reefer-smoking started to show an effect after 2 years or so...
:D
Thats it!

You know what makes Paul a Faul? Your desperat imagination..

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

Anybody remembers SFF Paul?
:)

[faulconandsnowjob]

Originally Posted by socrates
It's the PIDers who are saying there is a Faul. So I'm challenging you to say which is which. I will then show the full photos so we can see if you are right are not.

Posted by dream9
Then it doesn't matter who we pick because WE can say if we are right or not. You cannot say if we are right or not because you wouldn't know since only Paul exists.
Since Socrates has no eye for detail, he isn't qualified to say which is Paul or which is Faul. And anyway, they should ALL be "Paul" according to him .

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v462/OnlyBeatles/beatles-clowning.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v462/OnlyBeatles/theBeatles19676.jpg

[ar20]

TA-DA

http://img2.imageshack.us/img2/4504/tada.jpg

[ar20]

And different style...

http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/4504/tada.jpg

[socrates]

The differences between Paul and his replacement(s) are obvious.

Sorry, but you proved completely the opposite when you said Faul was Paul...

Socrates, the last two photos you just posted ARE Paul. What are you trying to prove showing us two photos of Paul next to each other ???

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/2097/aa1ltq.jpg

Your claim has no credibilty, whatsoever.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/WlarusGirl/pjmAA.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/FaulwithJimMcCartney.jpg

http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/6232/85725131.jpghttp://img245.imageshack.us/img245/3928/34601613.jpg

There are people who do overlays and fades, and those are very deceiving.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/WlarusGirl/jim_mccartney_comparison.gif

LOL!!!

If you are going to use a fade to show an alleged HEIGHT discrepancy, then you'll need to make sure that the camera is exactly the same height and angle in each shot.

That is not the case in your fade. It is an utter joke.

In the above comparisons, it is obvious that Paul was close in height to his dad. Faul is much taller than Jim McCartney was.

Paul & Ringo, 1963/64 http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/WlarusGirl/All_About_The_Beatles_11.jpghttp://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g146/lilis456/dreamer2.jpg Faul and the gang, 1967

Both of the above photos are full body shots. Paul was not much taller than Ringo. Faul is much taller than Ringo.

Ever heard of perspective, camera angles? Obviously not...

http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/6232/85725131.jpghttp://img245.imageshack.us/img245/3928/34601613.jpg

I hope that these few comparisons help to further illustrate my POV. They illustrate that you don't understand basic principles involved in photography.

[ar20]

^ Also fun to note that's the last picture of who we believe is "Paul" before he became "Faul" with the tash.


So within a few months your telling me that guy is the guy on the Strawberry Fields video?

[socrates]

TA-DA

http://img2.imageshack.us/img2/4504/tada.jpg

What's a caterpillar doing on Paul's lip?

"DOCTORED PHOTO"! :)

[socrates]

^ Also fun to note that's the last picture of who we believe is "Paul" before he became "Faul" with the tash.


So within a few months your telling me that guy is the guy on the Strawberry Fields video?

What are the "obvious" differences in these eyes?

http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/3931/eyes5.jpg

[dream9]

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

Anybody remembers SFF Paul?
:)


Now compare the pic on the right to the 'Paul' in the SFF video and they should look identical or close to identical(had you drawn a better mustache).

[socrates]

Just ONE PIDer has took up the Paul Or Faul? Challenge.

Any more? Or are you going to continue to run away because you know you won't be able to tell the difference?

A challenge for the PIDers:

The PIDers claim they can see differences in the eyes.

Let's see if they are prepared to take up the challenge or bottle out.

Here's 6 pairs of eyes, A B C D E and F. Which are Paul's and which are Faul's?

http://img225.exs.cx/img225/2819/eyegame3fh.jpg

[toty1994]

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

Opinions?


Shoe size is clearly different and his explanation of why he wasn't wearing shoes on Abbey Road doesn't add up.

"It was a hot day"


Right, so you wear a suit and walked across a hot pavement barefoot? (anyone ever try that, it's agony, especially on a hot holiday)

That's one of the better iamaphoney efforts, a little less cryptic than usual. They're getting glossier and more professional arn't they. There's a theory that McCartney himself might be involved - that would be hilarious and wouldn't surprise me. I'd love to know who the old man is - he reminds me of the villain in 'The Spy Who Loved Me'!

I don't see what the fuss is about shoe sizes, though. I've bought shoes size 7 and 8 and a half in recent years - both fit fine; despite size labelling, the actual size of a shoe can vary from brand to brand and type to type. We all know this, don't we? In any case, a person's feet can change in size with age - granted they usually get smaller.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dream9
If I came here and saw the information and came to the conclusion that the evidence
was substandard and Paul was always Paul, then I might argue a bit at first. But I
wouldn't hang out here arguing until the end of the earth with some people who feel
very strongly about the subject. In my opinion, hanging out here constantly arguing
this case shows INSECURITY totally on the part of the people that believe Paul is alive...
and a total waste of time.

For all the NEWBIES to this thread...lest this post vanish under the dozens of pages of
"show me proof", "irrefutable" "inadmissible in a court of law" blah de blah de blah

Just do a site search for their usernames and
1. you'll find 99% of their posts on the paul/faul threads alone (bloody impressive!!) and
2. The other 1% of posts on other threads will, strangely enough, be remarkably similiar
ie. "this is illogical", "show me proof" blah di blah de blah

Which, as dream9 allready said, just shows the angle the "paul is alive" crowd are coming from.

I've got no problem admitting most of my posts are on this thread. In fact, the main reason I joined the forum was because of my interest in pid theory. I happen not to believe it, that's all. So?

It probably is a waste of time contributing to this debate which goes round and round ad infinitum. There's always something else I should be getting on with when I'm on here but, you know, it's fun.:D

[ar20]

Obviously not the best job:

http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/3987/edittwk.jpg

[fireman]

Now compare the pic on the right to the 'Paul' in the SFF video and they should look identical or close to identical(had you drawn a better mustache).


They do, ideed!

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

check this out, 50 % overlay

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

What do you say dream9?

[ar20]

fireman:

Halloween costumes have the same effect, you know...

[dream9]

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

What do you say dream9?


They barely match up at all! LMAO

[ar20]

http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/1076/eekq.jpg

:eek:

He looks like a 70's pornstar man.

[fireman]

They barely match up at all! LMAO

of course not! his face is turned in totally different angle! :rolleyes:

But STILL his basic features are the same!!

Ar20 your comp is ridicolous... I dont have time now but if you want a game of posting Paulpre66/Paulpost66 hybrids, i am in! And you will lose it with comps like that!! :D

[ar20]

of course not! his face is turned in totally different angle! :rolleyes:

But STILL his basic features are the same!!

Ar20 your comp is ridicolous... I dont have time now but if you want a game of posting Paulpre66/Paulpost66 hybrids, i am in! And you will lose it with comps like that!! :D

LOL. I know, the production value isn't great. Still two different people though.

Scrap making compositions though, there's enough pics in this thread and that forum to look through.


Although the point I was trying to make was superimposing images together doesn't matter, if you line up the shapes and ears and eyes and do fades you can't tell much difference unless you're accustomed to doing so.

Although from my shitty comparison, tell me why both the faces (that's all I've touched) look so different. They're from the same direction, the face has been imposed on his face and should look similar but it doesn't, and that's nothing to do with bad editing.

[faulconandsnowjob]

As this shows, sticking a tash on Paul doesn't magically turn him into Faul:

http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/4504/tada.jpg

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=197&pictureid=3321

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=197&pictureid=1883

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=197&pictureid=1741

[socrates]

As this shows, sticking a tash on Paul doesn't magically turn him into Faul.

As this shows, sticking a tash on Paul does magically turn him into Faul. And so does taking OFF the tash. :)

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

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/4.gif

http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/3866/mciiimpf6zg.jpg

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

Watch the details PIDers...

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/scan0fade_cut.gif

You obviously don't have an eye for detail faulcon.

[socrates]

http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/3931/eyes5.jpg

Same eyes.

PID is dead.

RIP.

[faulconandsnowjob]

Not even close

http://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/images/paul_early_66.jpghttp://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/images/faul_81.jpg

[faulconandsnowjob]

Same eyes except for the color

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=197&pictureid=1697

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=197&pictureid=1620

LOL!

[socrates]

Not even close

http://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/images/paul_early_66.jpghttp://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/images/faul_81.jpg

All you can do is post hundreds of the same photos and keep saying the same tedious mantras.

That comparison pic is ludicrous. Different expressions and about 20 years apart! :rolleyes:

You're like a programmed robot.

Give us a break. You have no credible evidence.

How about posting some OBJECTIVE evidence. Like this:

http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/5508/get6.jpg

SAME scar. SAME man. :D

How about trying to rebutt it?

Nah - you'll just ignore the truth and post more meaningless photos.

[socrates]

Same eyes except for the color

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=197&pictureid=1697

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=197&pictureid=1620

LOL!

Same colour:

http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/5508/get6.jpg

LOL!

Same scar:

http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/5508/get6.jpg

LOL!

[faulconandsnowjob]

^ It's funny how you can notice that there's a scar in the same place, but not that the faces are totally difft :rolleyes:

Anyway, how hard would it be to duplicate a scar?

[dream9]

Because of that mark it must be him! Afterall they can use plastic surgery to create an amazing resemblance but they can't put a little mark on the face!

[faulconandsnowjob]

Clearly not the same eyes

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

Not the same forehead, either

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/LennonMcCartney1965LennonSheppard19.jpg

[ar20]

Not related to the topic, but PiD'ers might find the distinguishables interesting:

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

A Yoko appearence too, with a fitting song ;]


Faul has been playing for so many years, he just HAS to look at his bass often. Old Age?

[socrates]

^ It's funny how you can notice that there's a scar in the same place, but not that the faces are totally difft :rolleyes:

That's because the faces aren't different. :rolleyes:

If they're different, then kindly explain the physical differences in these eyes:

http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/3931/eyes5.jpg

Anyway, how hard would it be to duplicate a scar?

But you miss an obvious point. That scar is not always visible! There are photos of pre and post 1966 Paul where it doesn't show. It only shows up when Paul has a certain expression.

It would be exceedingly hard to create a scar that only shows up when the facial muscles are set in a specific way - if not impossible.

When one considers that the plastic surgeons had 1960's techniques then it is taking a gigantic leap of fantasy to suggest that they could do this - especially since they had to have him wearing false ears according to you! :D

Sorry, your claim has no evidence to support it - as usual.

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

[socrates]

Because of that mark it must be him! Afterall they can use plastic surgery to create an amazing resemblance but they can't put a little mark on the face!

See above. :D

[faulconandsnowjob]

Faul has been playing for so many years, he just HAS to look at his bass often. Old Age?
Faul always looked at the bass a lot. Paul never did.

[faulconandsnowjob]

Totally difft facial structure

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

Faul has a totally long-ass face

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/PaulBill20years.jpg

[socrates]

Clearly not the same eyes

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

You're having a laugh!!!!

That first photo is so badly made out and coloured in, it's untrue!

Try a fair comparison:

CLEARLY the same eyes:

http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/3931/eyes5.jpg

Not the same forehead, either

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/LennonMcCartney1965LennonSheppard19.jpg

You can see THROUGH his hair, can you?

In the first pic, his forehead is COVERED by his hair, yet you can SEE it's different?! :D

This is CLASSIC PID nonsense.

'I can see through his hair and his forehead looks different'.

LOL!!!

Lets do a PROPER comparison - where you can actually SEE his forehead:

http://img7.exs.cx/img7/4650/forehead_schmorehead.gif

http://img7.exs.cx/img7/856/JPM_TV_GUIDE.gif

Sorry - WRONG again, I'm afraid.

So, when you can actually SEE his forehead, they are the same.

[faulconandsnowjob]

Faul sure does have some bug eyes :eek:

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

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/compare66.jpg

[socrates]

Faulcon refuses to answer why these eyes are "different".

http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/3931/eyes5.jpg

Wonder why? :rolleyes:

[faulconandsnowjob]

Do these guys look anything alike? I bet if they weren't both labelled "Paul McCartney," people would laugh at the suggestion they were the same guy.

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

[socrates]

http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/3931/eyes5.jpg

[socrates]

http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/5508/get6.jpg

[faulconandsnowjob]

http://digilander.libero.it/p_truth/the_truth/paul_mccartney_and_faux_paul.jpg

[truthseeker49]

That mark on the chin is suspect. We don't know if your photo of Paul has been tampered with. That is Paul from 1965. That was before he had his moped accident. He shouldn't have that scar on his chin yet. < shrugs >
Faulcon, that is an excellent photo comparison. :)

[faulconandsnowjob]

That is Paul from 1965. That was before he had his moped accident. He shouldn't have that scar on his chin yet.
Details, details. Do you think that will matter to the PIA'ers? lol

[hey_dude]

LOL. This is hilarious. A few points:

-Look kids, it's already been well established that Paul Mccartney has hazel eyes. Hazel eyes can appear brown or green depending upon lighting, and this is the case with Paul. What cannot be disputed is that Paul's iris patterns have remained the same, exactly the same. How do you explain this? You continually ignore what is essentially definitive evidence that Paul is alive.

-Please stop saying that Paul and "Faul" have different foreheads and then posting pictures of moptop headed Paul to illustrate your point. It's dumb considering you can't see his fucking forehead. The reality is that Paul Mccartney has an unusually high hairline and an unusually sloped forehead. Even when he was a teen, it looked like a receding hairline.

-The chin mark would have been impossible to duplicate in the 60's, and is probably impossible to duplicate now with modern plastic surgery methods. It's an extremely subtle mark. And don't use the tampering excuse - it's the cowards way out.

-Quit with the Paul = short, Faul = tall nonsense. Paul was ALWAYS the tallet Beatle. Watch some tape. He was around 6 feet tall in his youth while Lennon/Harrison were 5'10-11-ish. If you look at pics of the Beatles as teens you can observe this, too. Mccartney is not and was not a small guy.

Please address these issues and supply logical, reasoned explanations.

[faulconandsnowjob]

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

[hey_dude]

Same iris patterns. It negates everything you say and every picture you post.

[toty1994]

Same iris patterns. It negates everything you say and every picture you post.
Indeed. But as one of them said a few days ago - Who cares about iris patterns? Do they genuinely believe it's a non-issue (if so why?) or do they hope that if they simply ignore it, it will go away?

Let's turn it around. If faulcon, truthseeker or anyone else came up with evidence as strong as this to support their case, I'm sure most from the 'pia' camp would acknowledge it and admit they couldn't explain it. What they would not do is say 'Who cares...?' or Evidence, proof..blah di blah ... or try to bury the discovery by posting 3 pages of pia comparison photos.


Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
Details, details. Do you think that will matter to the PIA'ers? lol
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[humito]

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

How many more times do these silly comparisons get dragged out.......everyone who has looked into this seriously knows (and its been shown several times on this thread alone!!!!!) that the sgt pepper pic on the right is stretched to fit on the cd booklet the original pics look nothing like this ....its really getting pathetic now !!!!!!!!!!!!!


mods! please move this tripe into the rant room!!! its been de bunked now over and over.............LOL

[ar20]

LOL. This is hilarious. A few points:

-Look kids, it's already been well established that Paul Mccartney has hazel eyes. Hazel eyes can appear brown or green depending upon lighting, and this is the case with Paul. What cannot be disputed is that Paul's iris patterns have remained the same, exactly the same. How do you explain this? You continually ignore what is essentially definitive evidence that Paul is alive.


I have a friend with Hazel eyes, no ... he doesn't suddenly go from dark hues to light hues in changing conditions. It's a very small change. Paul has very darkish brown looking eyes in early photos, if that was the case the coloured photos of the one we call "Paul" would have some with Hazel Hues (such as the miraculous greeny colour from Strawberry Fields... he doesn't though, there isn't a dramatic change in his eye colour from photos.

Secondly, I maintain the pic that Socrates post with the eyes are not the same eyes... I'm being honest here. But it's a revolving door of an argument:

"YES THEY ARE"
"NO THEY AREN'T"

I can't make you see what you don't want to see.


-Please stop saying that Paul and "Faul" have different foreheads and then posting pictures of moptop headed Paul to illustrate your point. It's dumb considering you can't see his fucking forehead. The reality is that Paul Mccartney has an unusually high hairline and an unusually sloped forehead. Even when he was a teen, it looked like a receding hairline.


Does not explain his round headed self pre-66 to oblong headed Faul afterwards though, the profile doesn't match.


-The chin mark would have been impossible to duplicate in the 60's, and is probably impossible to duplicate now with modern plastic surgery methods. It's an extremely subtle mark. And don't use the tampering excuse - it's the cowards way out.


It would have been impossible to make a scar mark in the 60's,.... but we're all contesting they made this guy into Paul.... in the 60's.

It would have been possible to put that scar in on photoshop since it was before the accident.

Someones way off here. I'm pretty sure they could re-create a scar if they wanted to.


-Quit with the Paul = short, Faul = tall nonsense. Paul was ALWAYS the tallet Beatle. Watch some tape. He was around 6 feet tall in his youth while Lennon/Harrison were 5'10-11-ish. If you look at pics of the Beatles as teens you can observe this, too. Mccartney is not and was not a small guy.


http://melodyplant.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/beatl_beatles.jpg

http://members.home.nl/jpgr/beatles_rooftop.jpeg

http://members.home.nl/jpgr/london.jpg

http://members.home.nl/jpgr/all467.jpg

http://members.home.nl/jpgr/help.jpg

http://members.home.nl/jpgr/1961hamburg.jpg

http://members.home.nl/jpgr/beachhats.jpg

http://members.home.nl/jpgr/arches.jpg

Dispute these and you get a cookie.

[ar20]

One more for the road

http://members.home.nl/jpgr/peppers.jpg

http://members.home.nl/jpgr/starclub1962.jpg

[ar20]

Sorry can't help myself:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2064/1694747857_61a34e1d7b.jpg?v=0
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/03/25/arts/25aspinall_650.jpg


Look at the eyes:
http://www.jamespaulmccartney.org/BeatlesStory651.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/greeneyesStrawberryFields.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/proper-paula.jpg

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/DR1020_Paul_McCARTNEY_6.jpg

[socrates]

That mark on the chin is suspect. We don't know if your photo of Paul has been tampered with.

So, unless you can find proof it has, the photo stands as proof they have the same scar.

That is Paul from 1965. That was before he had his moped accident. He shouldn't have that scar on his chin yet.

Why does it have to be a scar from the motorbike accident? If that were the case, it should show up on every pic. But it doesn't. It is not an ordinary scar - it only shows up when Paul has a certain expression.

Here's a scar on Faul's lip from the motorbike accident - but I suppose you'll say this has been "tampered" with too, just to suit your argument.

Proof Paul Is Alive:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/WlarusGirl/early_faul.jpg

[socrates]

Details, details. Do you think that will matter to the PIA'ers? lol

We asked you to "detail" the information on your bogus voice analysis claim - you ignored it. :rolleyes:

I asked you to "detail" the differences in these eyes you say are so different:

http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/3931/eyes5.jpg

You ignored it.

Details, details. Do you think that will matter to the PIA'ers? lol

What a joke!

[socrates]

Dispute these and you get a cookie.

http://melodyplant.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/beatl_beatles.jpg

http://members.home.nl/jpgr/beatles_rooftop.jpeg

http://members.home.nl/jpgr/london.jpg

http://members.home.nl/jpgr/all467.jpg

You are just repeating the same claim that has already been debunked a few pages ago. :rolleyes:

You are using photos taken at completely different angles. That is indisputable. Therefore, you cannot get an accurate comparison of the heights.

Why can't you PIDers understand this????????

You clearly know nothing about how angles, distance and perspective create an illusion of height differences.

Your "evidence" is so ridiculous and shows a complete lack of knowledge of basic physics that an eight grader would know.

Here's how your height difference claim was debunked and completely rebutted a few pages ago:


In an attempt to illustrate how angles make a big difference in the photos of Paul McCartney that are used to determine his height, I have created an example using things around my desk at work. Here I have 2 identical markers (except for color).

I have placed them in front of a yellow ruled sheet of paper. I have taken this first picture with the camera level to the top of the pens and the sheet of paper perpendicular to the desk. On the left you can see all of the pens, while on the right, I have cropped them a little so you can only see the tops.

http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/5041/25666726.gif

Now I have moved the pen on the right an inch further from the camera and raised the camera roughly 20 degrees higher. In this image (below right), the pen on the right appears taller.

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/8880/71910649.gif

Now I have left the pens in the same positions, but I have moved the camera to roughly 20 degrees below the top of the pens. In the image shown (below right), the pen on the right appears shorter.

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/3247/41738505.gif

And as for how Paul keeps showing up taller than the other Beatles...
Look how much taller he is to George. This image is from 1964.

http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/3928/34601613.jpg

But suddenly George and Paul are the same height again!

http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/6232/85725131.jpg

Paul has been appearing taller than the other Beatles way before 1967. This is because he always has had better posture than the others. Just look at all the pictures where he appears taller.

He is standing straight and everyone else slouches. No kidding. It is that simple. Next time you stand next to someone around the same height as you, try slouching or shifting your weight to one hip. You will be surprised how much shorter you appear.
http://www.paulisnotdead.com/blog1.php/2008/07/28/how-tall-is-paul-mccartney?page=7

I agree with Humito - send this thread to the Rant Room. The PIDers are going round and round in circles repeating the same crap over and over again when it has already been debunked.

Most of them don't even debate the points the PIAers put forward. They just ignore them and carry on posting the same tired photos we've all seen a million times before.

This is supposed to be a discussion - yet faulcon and co. don't want to.

They are turning this thread into an even bigger joke than it was already.

[hey_dude]

I have a friend with Hazel eyes, no ... he doesn't suddenly go from dark hues to light hues in changing conditions. It's a very small change. Paul has very darkish brown looking eyes in early photos, if that was the case the coloured photos of the one we call "Paul" would have some with Hazel Hues (such as the miraculous greeny colour from Strawberry Fields... he doesn't though, there isn't a dramatic change in his eye colour from photos.

Nonsense.

Hazel eyes are a combination of green and brown shades... different lighting conditions can accentuate one colour or the other. I really don't give a shit about your friend. That is merely one person.

Paul's eye colour differs from photo to photo. This is evident in pre-66 photographs too, some of which show Paul with blatantly greenish eyes.

I can't make you see what you don't want to see.

I have no reason to "not" want to see it though. Ample evidence has been provided disproving your nonsense theory and that evidence is so convincing (read: iris patterns, facial assymetry and everything else) that it's basically become impossible in my eyes for your theory to hold any water whatsoever.

Does not explain his round headed self pre-66 to oblong headed Faul afterwards though, the profile doesn't match.


Yes it does.


It would have been impossible to make a scar mark in the 60's,.... but we're all contesting they made this guy into Paul.... in the 60's.

It would have been possible to put that scar in on photoshop since it was before the accident.

Someones way off here. I'm pretty sure they could re-create a scar if they wanted to.

As Socrates said, the scar is only evident when Paul contracts his facial muscles a certain way and is under a certain light. Impossible to recreate - I don't care if the surgeon is a shapeshifting illumanati reptilian from Zog.


Dispute these and you get a cookie.

Easy - angles my intellectually deficient friend, angles. Please watch The Beatles anthology, which shows numerous videos of Paul pre-66 moving around, filmed at various angles, showing him to be the tallest Beatle from the days of the cavern to the days of Let it Be. My mother and her sisters also met Paul in the early 60's and described him as being the same height as me (184cm)

[socrates]

Easy - angles my intellectually deficient friend, angles. Please watch The Beatles anthology, which shows numerous videos of Paul pre-66 moving around, filmed at various angles, showing him to be the tallest Beatle from the days of the cavern to the days of Let it Be. My mother and her sisters also met Paul in the early 60's and described him as being the same height as me (184cm)

It's amazing how these PIDers come out with all sorts of ridiculous nonsense about alleged height differences. :D

It's all about perspective, distance and angles:

In the first photo, Harrison is 'taller' than both Lennon and McCartney. In the second photo, he's 'shorter'!

In the first photo, McCartney is significantly 'taller' than Lennon. In the second photo, he's very slightly 'shorter'....

http://melodyplant.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/beatl_beatles.jpghttp://www.max.hi-ho.ne.jp/khori/My_THE_BEATLES.jpg

In the first photo, Harrison is 'shorter' than both Lennon and McCartney. In the second photo, he's 'taller' than Lennon.

In the first photo, McCartney is 'shorter' than Lennon. In the second he's 'taller' than Lennon.....

http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/612/13578803.jpghttp://www.paulingles.com/images/Beatles-Poseds.jpg

Case proved! Please quit this idiotic 'height difference' crap. :mad:

[faulconandsnowjob]

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

[socrates]

http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/3931/eyes5.jpg

[toty1994]

Here's a fascinating article on pid from the early 90's - most interesting bits bolded.


Why does this story persist? It's not much like the sorts of urban legends one
finds in modern life. There are no "vanishing hitchhikers" who turn out to
be ghostly apparitions of John Lennon, for instance. Nor are there
reports of cacti which explode, showering passersby with miniature
"O.P.D." badges (Ontario Police Department/Officially Pronounced
Dead). The most persistent folklore I can recall about the Fabs is
the story that "someone" (a friend of a friend of a friend...the usual
UL-source) was at a party where someone else asked if Paul wasn't in
some group before Wings. That and the oft-repeated "fact" that Norwegian
wood is slang for marijuana.

The various legends surrounding the Beatles' genesis---their haircuts,
their Hamburg attachments, their rise to fame---have either been lately
confirmed by documentation or debunked by same.

But the "Paul Is Dead" story seems too big to defeat with facts. And
it appears facts aren't the issue, anyway.

Most Fabs fans these days are pretty well convinced that the original
Paul is alive. What originated as a story about Paul's "death" has
nowadays transformed itself (not without help) into a belief that
the Beatles perpetuated upon an unsuspecting public a myth so
cleverly convoluted that "clues" are virtually endless. Without the
merest hint of verifiable evidence or documentation, it is often
proclaimed that the Beatles must have been behind all this. After
all, the clues are there! Aren't they?

Of course not everyone believes this is the case. Some of us rely on
denials from the principals...or one of them, anyway. John was asked
outright, by a Rolling Stone interviewer in 1970, whether there were
"any of those things really on the albums that were said to be there".
John's reply: "No. That was bullshit, the whole thing was made up." He
*did* admit that the group put in the "tit, tit, tit" as a deliberate
joke in "Girl", but that was the totality of secret messages, backwards
or otherwise, in the Beatles oeuvre ("Rolling Stone", January 4, 1971).

This is surely a fertile field for folklorists, some of whom have
already considered it. One article I've seen about the phenomenon is
Barbara Suczek's "The Curious Case of the 'Death' of Paul McCartney"
in Urban Life & Culture, Vol. 1, Number 1 (1972). Even in this early
work, Suczek picks up on the odd fact that true believers of this
scheme are mightily piqued when confronted with denials---whether
from John, Paul, or mere doubters like me. The suggestion that some
reliable evidence is necessary to prove the Beatles originated this
this hoax is, to ardent PID-fans, ludicrous. As Suczek points out,
"Evidence was the whole point! [Believers] were fortified, bulwarked,
armed to the teeth with evidence: they had a veritable overkill of
evidence."

And evidence seems to point, according to Suczek, right back to
the Fabs---at least that's what the PID proponents say. Otherwise,
one must suppose that the whole thing really *is* a massive joke,
played by some anonymous wit who's still enjoying the stir he's
created. Heaven forfend that the joke should be on the innocent
Beatles fan. Even the suggestion causes tempers to bristle. To
wit: "The fact of the matter was that each public would accept
as credible evidence only such data as suited the logic of its
cognitive system and thus it was that the more McCartney's
death was denied, including by himself, the more the tension
and hostility seemed to increase, feeding in and out of the
interfactional dispute" (Suczek, p. 30).

So it's *got* to be true...or else everyone's wasted a passel
of energy on the subject.
At this point in her article, Suczek wanders into musings on
Dionysian elements in the McCartney resurrection myth, which is
less relevant to today's PID folklore. I think she just misses
the more interesting hypothesis for the perpetuation of this
legend. It's not that people really believe Paul is dead; it's
more or less a belief that one can share the joke with the Fabs
themselves through these clues cleverly planted by their own
hand (for so it must be) from 1966 onward.

It's a big puzzle; and the Beatles relied on us, being True
Fans, to cling tenaciously to the clues till the story was
revealed. What a concept. That's even better than a concept-
album! What other pop group planned such a hoax---and a long-
lived one at that---of such remarkable proportions? It's like
a search for the grail. And once PID enthusiasts get a taste
for the hunt, they're not going to let go. The more random,
disconnected, and illogical the clues, the better. That makes
the game more of a challenge.
The much better question is who *really* might have been behind
the Paul-Is-Dead hoax. And it surprises me that some enterprising
and qualified student of urban myth hasn't taken on the job.

There actually *are* a few clues that point to the PID scheme's
origination in the American midwest. The Oct. 22, 1969 San
Francisco Chronicle and the Nov. 22, 1969 New York Times
both name a U. of Mich. then-undergrad named Fred LaBour
was said to have written a paper connecting the now-famous
random clues; the Times also pointed to three DJs from
WKNR-FM in Detroit, whom they named as the real source
for the legend. And "Rolling Stone" Magazine that same
month claimed that LaBour was not the first to propound
the theory, which arose in *September 1969* in a student
newspaper at Illinois University. I've even had email from
a responsible gentleman, who wishes to remain nameless,
recounting his participation with disc jockey Russell Gibb
of Detroit station WKNR-FM in disseminating "clues"---even
inventing new ones, which, the gentleman reports, have since
passed into accepted legend---over the airwaves during one
drug-hazed afternoon in summer 1969. That's intriguing
corroboration for the NY Times.

Brunvand actually traced the origins of several oft-repeated
urban legends...which if course did not diminish their folkloric
power. Finding out the origins of the PID hoax would likely
not diminish the fervor of its adherents, but might teach us
something about the resilience of personal belief.

[faulconandsnowjob]

One of these kids does not belong:

http://members.home.nl/jpgr/all467.jpg

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

[socrates]

Here's a fascinating article on pid from the early 90's - most interesting bits bolded.

Interesting read toty.

The morale of the story - PIDers never let the facts get in the way of their belief. :rolleyes:

For them, facts don't matter: Like the same iris patterns. The same scar on the chin etc.

You can hit them over the head with facts, punch them in the stomach with logic, kick their asses with reasoning.... Yet they'll still get up off the floor and carry on their ridiculous claims as if nothing has happened. :eek:

PIDers live in a fantasy world of their own in which facts, common sense and truth are invisible irrelevancies to them.

It truly is bizare how brainwashed some people are by a 40 year old joke.

[ar20]

Nonsense.

Hazel eyes are a combination of green and brown shades... different lighting conditions can accentuate one colour or the other. I really don't give a shit about your friend. That is merely one person.

Paul's eye colour differs from photo to photo. This is evident in pre-66 photographs too, some of which show Paul with blatantly greenish eyes.



Nonsense. Show me the exact photos you're referring to, otherwise you're playing "Say what you see".


I have no reason to "not" want to see it though. Ample evidence has been provided disproving your nonsense theory and that evidence is so convincing (read: iris patterns, facial assymetry and everything else) that it's basically become impossible in my eyes for your theory to hold any water whatsoever.


Nonsense again. No debunking, just feverish idiocy and neglecting basic common sense. I've explained in this post you can't use fades as accurate depictions because the profile of the shapes will intersect upon fade. You could tweak anything into anything, it's simple as that -- this seems to elude you PiA'ers so much. If you match the eyes to eyes, it will look like it's the same based on the dimensions and the profile of the shapes and how they correspond to one another.

Iris Patterns as I've said, I see 2 different people. Based on the fact --

THEY LOOK DIFFERENT.





As Socrates said, the scar is only evident when Paul contracts his facial muscles a certain way and is under a certain light. Impossible to recreate - I don't care if the surgeon is a shapeshifting illumanati reptilian from Zog.


Any more Faul photos with this scar?


Easy - angles my intellectually deficient friend, angles. Please watch The Beatles anthology, which shows numerous videos of Paul pre-66 moving around, filmed at various angles, showing him to be the tallest Beatle from the days of the cavern to the days of Let it Be. My mother and her sisters also met Paul in the early 60's and described him as being the same height as me (184cm)


You obviously can't work out that the photos I've just shown you, such as the walking one, if you place Paul in step with John and then line up their height you get the same-ish height.

I also showed you a clear cut one of the two, on the same plane, and them both being about similar height. I then showed you Faul being bigger than the rest of them.

NOTHING TO DO WITH ANGLES MY FRIEND. Once again you've proven that PiA'ers completely overlook it and scapegoat out with another silly argument.

Also I showed you a few photos of them.... BEING DIRECTLY INFRONT OF YOUR FIELD OF VIEW. How does angles come into play when they're RIGHT INFRONT OF YOU IN LINE, ON A SURFACE?

PERSPECTIVE, is YOUR FRIEND.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_(graphical)

How do you explain when they're all on the same platform or pavement that Faul is CLEARLY taller than pre-66? It's nothing to do with angles, if you can't tell what height someone is from the perspective or plane they're on then you clearly have sight deficiency and I can't help you with that.

Did your mom and sisters bring a measuring tape with them that day? :rolleyes:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2064/1694747857_61a34e1d7b.jpg?v=0

Here's what Socrates didn't address with his magic pen trick.

The fact that in all those photos.... does Ringo ever get bigger than George, or George bigger than Ringo? Does John get towered over by George at all?

There's a reason I used pictures of them all standing on the same ground, not with steps, poses, or silly angles.

Let me be clear as well.... again, nothing to do with angles when you line up from the Eye-Level, ok? The blue pen doesn't get suddenly taller if both pens are actually the same size... that's an illusion you're trying to convince yourself.

When you stood at an angle back from the World Trade Centers, was Trade Center 2 appearing taller to you than Tower 1?

See how ludicrous that is, you can't use that as an argument or a debunk.

OPTICAL ILLUSION, PLEASE UNDERSTAND PERSPECTIVE, BOTH OBJECTS SAME HEIGHT, ONE FORWARD AND ONE BACK, ONE CONVINCES YOU IT'S SMALLER BASED ON ANGLE, BUT THEY'RE ULTIMATELY THE SAME HEIGHT, BASED ON PERSPECTIVE -- YOU DO GET TAUGHT THIS IN SCHOOL.
---------------

Why do PiA'ers insist we stop talking about the dead giveaways? Hmm?

They haven't been debunked as Socrates so numerously mentioned, far from it. But if everything we post can't be considered evidence, or everything we post has been "debunked", or everything we post is "doctored", then what's the point?

We've shown you what we see and all we can, and you clearly can't keep away from this topic without getting annoyed, so no, don't move it to the rant room.

I said previously you all AVOID debate purposefully because you can hide behind insults or just plain overlook everything we post. It's getting tiresome.

So I ask you, what is the point in that?

Actually discuss and debate or just leave the topic alone.

[faulconandsnowjob]

Totally different shaped heads:

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

http://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/show-case/profiles.jpg

[ar20]

Meant to add:

Socrates the one with George appearing taller....

It's like I said.. YOU have to image, in your mind, what height they would be if they were all on the same step, lined up... you see what I'm saying?

I think you think we're saying "OH HERE'S A PHOTO DRAW LINES, THEY'RE CLEARLY TALLER".

I realise they're not on the same place so you have to do the mental work.

What I am saying is bring them forward and onto the same plane where they're walking in step (or better yet just look at the HELP! DVD cover) and conjure up their placements as to where they'd line up. This isn't hard to do.

Please don't mistake this for over-active imagination, I'm simply telling you to work out the imagery and difference in height through this method.

[ar20]

Totally different shaped heads:

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

http://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/show-case/profiles.jpg

Must be the angle, man. Has to be the angle. :rolleyes:

[ar20]

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

[faulconandsnowjob]

Using "angles" to explain this huge height disparity is really grasping at straws.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/WlarusGirl/All_About_The_Beatles_11.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/dreamer2.jpg

[socrates]

Must be the angle, man. Has to be the angle. :rolleyes:

Nothing to do with the hairstyle, then? :rolleyes:

[ar20]

Nothing to do with the hairstyle, then? :rolleyes:

You're honestly just here now to wind everyone up, right? :p

So the right picture has a bigger sideburn....?

[socrates]

Meant to add:

Socrates the one with George appearing taller....

It's like I said.. YOU have to image, in your mind, what height they would be if they were all on the same step, lined up... you see what I'm saying?

I think you think we're saying "OH HERE'S A PHOTO DRAW LINES, THEY'RE CLEARLY TALLER".

I realise they're not on the same place so you have to do the mental work.

What I am saying is bring them forward and onto the same plane where they're walking in step (or better yet just look at the HELP! DVD cover) and conjure up their placements as to where they'd line up. This isn't hard to do.

Please don't mistake this for over-active imagination, I'm simply telling you to work out the imagery and difference in height through this method.

Look, I'm not going to debate this height nonsense any more. If you cannot accept that angles, perspective, posture and distance don't affect the appearance of height then that's your problem.

Your're just going round and round in circles.

To finish:

Show me two comparison photos which show that Faul is taller than Paul where:

1. The camera angles are EXACTLY the same in relation to the subjects.

2. The subjects are EXACTLY the same distances from the cameras.

3. The subjects are standing perfectly STRAIGHT.

So far, all you have produced are mismatched photos where all criteria I have outlined above are not present.

So, produce some CREDIBLE photos. Until then, you're so called photo evidence is a pile of absolute POOP. :mad:

[ar20]

Look, I'm not going to debate this height nonsense any more. If you cannot accept that angles, perspective, posture and distance don't affect the appearance of height then that's your problem.

Your're just going round and round in circles.

To finish:

Show me two comparison photos which show that Faul is taller than Paul where:

1. The camera angles are EXACTLY the same in relation to the subjects.

2. The subjects are EXACTLY the same distances from the cameras.

3. The subjects are standing perfectly STRAIGHT.

So far, all you have produced are mismatched photos where all criteria I have outlined above are not present.

So, produce some CREDIBLE photos. Until then, you're so called photo evidence is a pile of absolute POOP. :mad:

http://pro.corbis.com/images/BE061415.jpg?size=67&uid={f3bae138-e760-4265-be7b-b3d746562eba}

http://www.beatlefans.com/collectable/1969beatles.JPG

Okay now on to your request:

http://us.ent3.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/miramax_films/a_hard_day_s_night/_group_photos/george_harrison2.jpg

http://www.ispauldead.com/mediac/450_0/media/9502.jpg


What you're asking me to do is pretty much impossible. You want me to find you identical photos from different periods, where they have the same distance from the camera, and are on the same platform, from a front or side perspective?

Well sir, I just SHOWED you a few back! What about the ones from the front?

[socrates]

You're honestly just here now to wind everyone up, right? :p

So the right picture has a bigger sideburn....?

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

It can CLEARLY be seen that in the first photo his hair is more fluffed up. In the second his hair is more flat.

The point is - you cannot see his FULL profile, the back part of his head is covered by his hair! :rolleyes:

Show a photo of Paul and Faul with their heads SHAVED - then you would be able to see the profile of his FULL head, and not half of it! :mad:

PIDers obviously think they have X ray vision!! :mad:

Really - the absolute nonsense posted by PIDers is unbelievable.

[ar20]

http://www.andalunet.com/sgt.pepper/graficos/beatles1.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2034/2480073345_b77d6f7c32.jpg?v=0

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_c8LNGp0k9_c/SEngUmyIimI/AAAAAAAAC9c/t3JGa-_nGJk/s400/beatles_bbc.gif.png


Find a bigger one of this.

They're all on the same line here, how do you explain the height ?

http://www.norwegianwood.org/beatles/disko/lp/images/help.jpg

[ar20]

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

It can CLEARLY be seen that in the first photo his hair is more fluffed up. In the second his hair is more flat.

The point is - you cannot see his FULL profile, the back part of his head is covered by his hair! :rolleyes:

Show a photo of Paul and Faul with their heads SHAVED - then you would be able to see the profile of his FULL head, and not half of it! :mad:

PIDers obviously think they have X ray vision!! :mad:

Really - the absolute nonsense posted by PIDers is unbelievable.


He now has a Paul-Fro? The hair isn't that big of a difference so that again is another straw, if you can't tell those heads are two different shapes... then.... :confused: You don't need to see the full profile... you don't need to shave anyones head, look at the proportions minus the hair, they don't match.

Even then, I bet with two bald heads you couldn't tell them apart... can you tell new born babies apart from one another too?

You PiA'ers have incredible superpowers btw. :cool:

[socrates]

Using "angles" to explain this huge height disparity is really grasping at straws.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/WlarusGirl/All_About_The_Beatles_11.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/dreamer2.jpg

Then kindly explain the 'height differences' between Paul and George in the following photos.

In the first, Paul is SHORTER. In the second, Paul is TALLER.

Please - provide YOUR explanation to rebutt my argument...

http://melodyplant.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/beatl_beatles.jpghttp://www.max.hi-ho.ne.jp/khori/My_THE_BEATLES.jpg

:D :D :D

I'm waiting for you to explain the above height differences between Paul and George WITHOUT using ANGLES, DISTANCE, And POSTURE.

C'mon Ms clever lawyer - the 'jury' is awaiting your explanation...