Is Paul really dead?

[faulconandsnowjob]

Maybe the "Paul-fro" explains why Faul is 4 inches taller than Ringo :rolleyes:

Meanwhile, the faces still don't match up.

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

Faul has a bigger space btw his nose & his upper lip, for starters.

[ar20]

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...


IN SIMPLE TERMS SO YOU CAN CLEARLY UNDERSTAND:


GEORGE IS IN THE FRONT STEP, KIND OF LIKE IN A RACE, WOULD THE FIRST PERSON IN A RACE APPEAR TO BE LAST?


SECOND,

GEORGE HAS A STANCE/POSE IN THAT PHOTO, HE'S CLEARLY SEMI-KNEELING AND IS NOT AT FULL UPRIGHT POSTURE.




Honestly man, stop posting, you're actually HELPING our cause. :D

[socrates]

if you can't tell those heads are two different shapes... then.... :confused:

Can you SEE the FULL head?

No.

How can you make a judgement on something you CANNOT SEE?

You can't!

You are saying: 'I can't see his full head, but it looks bigger than the other head I can't see fully, either.'

What absolute nonsense! :mad:

You don't need to see the full profile...

If you can't see it, how can you make an accurate assesment?!! :mad:

look at the proportions minus the hair, they don't match.

Merely your OPINION.

Give us some objective evidence, not what you THINK.

[socrates]

Maybe the "Paul-fro" explains why Faul is 4 inches taller than Ringo :rolleyes:

Meanwhile, the faces still don't match up.

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

Faul has a bigger space btw his nose & his upper lip, for starters.

Yeah - IGNORE my question.

You can't answer it!

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D

[ar20]

Can you SEE the FULL head?

No.

How can you make a judgement on something you CANNOT SEE?

You can't!

You are saying: 'I can't see his full head, but it looks bigger than the other head I can't see fully, either.'

What absolute nonsense! :mad:



If you can't see it, how can you make an accurate assesment?!! :mad:



Merely your OPINION.

Give us some objective evidence, not what you THINK.


Nonsense sir again.

You don't need to see the full picture or profile of anything, if I show you a zoomed up picture of a banana, you should be able to tell me it's a banana based on a small part of the picture.

Observe this game played:

http://www.listology.com/content_show.cfm/content_id.13451

They can guess the celebrity just by the hair... no angles, no funny business, nothing. Just by the hair, ok?

[socrates]

IN SIMPLE TERMS SO YOU CAN CLEARLY UNDERSTAND:


GEORGE IS IN THE FRONT STEP, KIND OF LIKE IN A RACE, WOULD THE FIRST PERSON IN A RACE APPEAR TO BE LAST?


SECOND,

GEORGE HAS A STANCE/POSE IN THAT PHOTO, HE'S CLEARLY SEMI-KNEELING AND IS NOT AT FULL UPRIGHT POSTURE.




Honestly man, stop posting, you're actually HELPING our cause. :D

Are you pipsicle in disguise? LOL!

You've just proved what I've been saying!

You are using DISTANCE and POSTURE as you're explanations - that's EXACTLY why I posted those photos. :D

Use the same criteria on your 'Faul is bigger than Paul' photos and you will see that they display the same characteristics as the ones I posted.

Thanks for finally seeing sense! :)

[ar20]

Are you pipsicle in disguise? LOL!

You've just proved what I've been saying!

You are using DISTANCE and POSTURE as you're explanations - that's EXACTLY why I posted those photos. :D

Use the same criteria on your 'Faul is bigger than Paul' photos and you will see that they display the same characteristics as the ones I posted.

Thanks for finally seeing sense! :)

*sigh*

Please read what I say, PLEASE, I beg of thee.

I showed you a few photos back of them from the front, in the same line, with no postures or funny business... both of Faul and Paul.

I made an effort to find photos where they weren't posturing, posing, and weren't in too much of a difference in perspective.

You overlooked this again. :confused:

Visit the last page. What you're saying is a little contradictory... I'm showing you photos of them in similar stances (upright), not with one kneeling, or sitting, or posturing in some way. They aren't perfect, but they're upright.

[socrates]

Nonsense sir again.

You don't need to see the full picture or profile of anything, if I show you a zoomed up picture of a banana, you should be able to tell me it's a banana based on a small part of the picture.

WTF?!!!!

How the hell can you compare looking at a zoomed up picture of a banana and being able to tell it's a banana - with assesing the similarity in SIZE of two heads covered by hair?

Seriously, you need to lay off the crackpipe. :eek:

[ar20]

WTF?!!!!

How the hell can you compare looking at a zoomed up picture of a banana and being able to tell it's a banana - with assesing the similarity in SIZE of two heads covered by hair?

Seriously, you need to lay off the crackpipe. :eek:

Is English your first language man, you seriously aren't reading into what I'm saying.


You told me I couldn't make an accurate description of the two based on the fact they're not bald. :confused:

Then I said you don't need the FULL IMAGE of anything to tell what it is.

You know the game where they show you part of an image and you've to guess what it is? That's the point I was making, that's all!

:eek:

*smokes some more crack*

[socrates]

*sigh*

Please read what I say, PLEASE, I beg of thee.

I showed you a few photos back of them from the front, in the same line, with no postures or funny business... both of Faul and Paul.

I made an effort to find photos where they weren't posturing, posing, and weren't in too much of a difference in perspective.

Nonsense - look at this:

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

Paul is clearly leaning back! :rolleyes:

And NON of them are taken at the EXACT same angle. Non of those photos will have the same focal lengths.

Your photos are ridiculous.

Go back over the criteria I gave you - then post photos abiding by that.

Then I'll look at them seriously.

[ar20]

Nonsense - look at this:

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

Paul is clearly leaning back! :rolleyes:

And NON of them are taken at the EXACT same angle. Non of those photos will have the same focal lengths.

Your photos are ridiculous.

Go back over the criteria I gave you - then post photos abiding by that.

Then I'll look at them seriously.


You're criteria is IMPOSSIBLE.

YOUR ASKING FOR IDENTICAL POSES AND POSTURES, FROM THE SAME POSITION AND ANGLE, FROM THE SAME PERSPECTIVE, FROM DIFFERENT ERA'S.

:eek:

I ask you what are the odds of me finding any of that criteria? If you can't use your discernment and mind to see the height difference, then I can't convince you. Hide behind angles all you want, sir.


If I lean back, do I gain 4 inches? Is that what you're saying?

[socrates]

Is English your first language man, you seriously aren't reading into what I'm saying.


You told me I couldn't make an accurate description of the two based on the fact they're not bald. :confused:

No - I told you you couldn't make an accurate assesment on the different sizes of their heads for the very simple reason that you couldn't actually see their full heads!:rolleyes:

Their heads are covered by hair! :eek: :eek: :eek:

[ar20]

No - I told you you couldn't make an accurate assesment on the different sizes of their heads for the very simple reason that you couldn't actually see their full heads!:rolleyes:

Their heads are covered by hair! :eek: :eek: :eek:

Oh the HORROR. :eek:

Dude...I'm not looking at the hair.

I'm observing the shape of the head, the nose, the eyeline, and the width of the side profile.

The hair is a non-issue.

[socrates]

You're criteria is IMPOSSIBLE.

YOUR ASKING FOR IDENTICAL POSES AND POSTURES, FROM THE SAME POSITION AND ANGLE, FROM THE SAME PERSPECTIVE, FROM DIFFERENT ERA'S.

:eek:

I ask you what are the odds of me finding any of that criteria? If you can't use your discernment and mind to see the height difference, then I can't convince you. Hide behind angles all you want, sir.

So you accept photos with completely different angles, completely different focal lengths and with the subjects in different postures and different distances from the camera as credible evidence of a height difference?! :eek:

Dear, oh, dear.

[socrates]

Oh the HORROR. :eek:

Dude...I'm not looking at the hair.

I'm observing the shape of the head

How can you observe the shape of the head when you cannot see it - it's covered by bloody hair! :eek:

The hair is a non-issue.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ar20]

How can you observe the shape of the head when you cannot see it - it's covered by bloody hair! :eek:



!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's like saying you can't tell a two coconuts apart based on their size!!!!!!!! :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

[ar20]

So you accept photos with completely different angles, completely different focal lengths and with the subjects in different postures and different distances from the camera as credible evidence of a height difference?! :eek:

Dear, oh, dear.

I showed you the help cover with them all on the same line, Paul is clearly not as tall.

Then you have Abbey Road from the side and Faul is taller.

This is the final time I'm saying this.

[faulconandsnowjob]

Ar20, socrates isn't here to objectively look at the evidence. He's here to keep people from seeing the Truth that Paul was replaced.

He can't explain how the same man has 2 different faces, though :D

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

[socrates]

The following photos illustrates the effect of different focal lengths on the perspective.


http://www.photozone.de/images/3Technology/demos/p100mm.jpghttp://www.photozone.de/images/3Technology/demos/p50mm.jpghttp://www.photozone.de/images/3Technology/demos/p35mm.jpg

Same lampost. Same church. Same distances from each other.

BUT....

DIFFERENT apparent heights to each other in each photo! :) :) :)

Here endeth the lesson to PIDers who can't understand that camera angles, focal length, perspective etc can cause people to 'look' taller...

*SIGH*

[ar20]

The following photos illustrates the effect of different focal length on the perspective.


http://www.photozone.de/images/3Technology/demos/p100mm.jpghttp://www.photozone.de/images/3Technology/demos/p35mm.jpghttp://www.photozone.de/images/3Technology/demos/p100mm.jpg

Same lampost. Same church. Same distances from each other.

BUT....

DIFFERENT apparent heights to each other in each photo!

You'd need two lampposts in the photo to get away with this one, Socrates.

They don't look like different heights.

[socrates]

Ar20, socrates isn't here to objectively look at the evidence.

And you are?!!! :eek:

All you can do is post the same photos over and over again insisting they show 2 different people.

He's here to keep people from seeing the Truth that Paul was replaced.

No - I'm here to show why PID is the biggest load of nonsense on this whole forum.

He can't explain how the same man has 2 different faces, though :D

Says the poster who can't and refuses to explain jack shit. :rolleyes:

I have challeged you to rebutt my explanations for your errors in critical thinking, objectivety and common sense. Your response?

Nothing.

All you do is post photos. You do not discuss, explain, detail, expound or proffer any details when your evidence is challenged...

You just ignore opposite evidence and post another load of meaningless photos, as if that somehow proves your belief. :rolleyes:

Reality check: It doesn't. You just come over as someone who doesn't want to debate and discuss. It appears you are just on the ICKE forum to propogate PID propoganda.

[ar20]

...I never thought I'd see the day when I'd spend a Saturday Night discussing lampposts. :p

[socrates]

You'd need two lampposts in the photo to get away with this one, Socrates.

They don't look like different heights.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!

Ok, so the churches and lampost 'look' the same height in relation to each other in each photo...


http://www.photozone.de/images/3Technology/demos/p100mm.jpghttp://www.photozone.de/images/3Technology/demos/p50mm.jpghttp://www.photozone.de/images/3Technology/demos/p35mm.jpg


RRRRIGHT............

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

[faulconandsnowjob]

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y60/Trueclues/JohnonfloorAA.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v462/OnlyBeatles/walrus016_a.jpg

[socrates]

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y60/Trueclues/JohnonfloorAA.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v462/OnlyBeatles/walrus016_a.jpg

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y60/Trueclues/JohnonfloorAA.jpghttp://gaygamer.net/images/the-beatles.jpg.jpeg

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y60/Trueclues/JohnonfloorAA.jpghttp://static.open.salon.com/files/beatles1236350687.jpg

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y60/Trueclues/JohnonfloorAA.jpghttp://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Alley/2589/beatax.jpg

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y60/Trueclues/JohnonfloorAA.jpghttp://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44436000/jpg/_44436808_statue.jpg

[socrates]

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y60/Trueclues/JohnonfloorAA.jpghttp://www.craigmorrison.com/Beatles%20on%20Sullivan%201964.jpg

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y60/Trueclues/JohnonfloorAA.jpghttp://members.home.nl/jpgr/1961hamburg.jpg

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y60/Trueclues/JohnonfloorAA.jpghttp://img245.imageshack.us/img245/3928/34601613.jpghttp://img245.imageshack.us/img245/6232/85725131.jpg

Case closed!

[socrates]

...i never thought i'd see the day when i'd spend a saturday night discussing lampposts. :p

lol! :)

[boots]

And you are?!!! :eek:

All you can do is post the same photos over and over again insisting they show 2 different people.



No - I'm here to show why PID is the biggest load of nonsense on this whole forum.



Says the poster who can't and refuses to explain jack shit. :rolleyes:

I have challeged you to rebutt my explanations for your errors in critical thinking, objectivety and common sense. Your response?

Nothing.

All you do is post photos. You do not discuss, explain, detail, expound or proffer any details when your evidence is challenged...

You just ignore opposite evidence and post another load of meaningless photos, as if that somehow proves your belief. :rolleyes:

Reality check: It doesn't. You just come over as someone who doesn't want to debate and discuss. It appears you are just on the ICKE forum to propogate PID propoganda.

Socrates. You have done well in exposing the PID theory. Their evidence is flimsy at best.

Some will get never get it.:rolleyes:

.

[boots]

Totally different shaped heads:

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

http://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/show-case/profiles.jpg

This is the worst evidence there is for the PID er's.

The hair in the left photo is cut short, Paul has naturally thick hair which would bulk it on top of the crown. FFS my hair does the same thing.

The photo on the right makes his hair look flatter because it is longer. Simple

[faulconandsnowjob]

Keep on grasping at straws to explain away these drastic height differences... :rolleyes:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/WlarusGirl/sleeve4.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v462/OnlyBeatles/pid_on_magazine_p68.jpg

[socrates]

Socrates. You have done well in exposing the PID theory. Their evidence is flimsy at best.

Some will get never get it.:rolleyes:

Thanks boots.

I'm here to show others why PID claims are ridiculous. It's very sad that some people are so blinded by their belief that they abandon all logic, common sense and critical thinking to the false gods of naivety and wishful thinking.

[socrates]

This is the worst evidence there is for the PID er's.

The hair in the left photo is cut short, Paul has naturally thick hair which would bulk it on top of the crown. FFS my hair does the same thing.

The photo on the right makes his hair look flatter because it is longer. Simple

Yep - I've already explained that. :rolleyes:

What planet are they on? :D :D

[socrates]

Keep on grasping at straws to explain away these drastic height differences... :rolleyes:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/WlarusGirl/sleeve4.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v462/OnlyBeatles/pid_on_magazine_p68.jpg

Like these...

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

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Your continued insistence on height differences, despite all the proof I've posted showing 'apparent' height differences before 1966, just shows how closed-minded you are to facts and reality.

Sad.

[faulconandsnowjob]

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

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/WlarusGirl/All_About_The_Beatles_11.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v462/OnlyBeatles/theBeatles19676.jpg

[socrates]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/WlarusGirl/All_About_The_Beatles_11.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v462/OnlyBeatles/theBeatles19676.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/WlarusGirl/All_About_The_Beatles_11.jpghttp://img299.imageshack.us/img299/7038/beatles5.jpghttp://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2008/04/20/amd_beatles.jpghttp://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/03/04/article-0-03BE8B4C000005DC-370_468x316.jpghttp://www.bullspress.dk/Global/Licensing/Images/Top%20Image/Licensing_Beatles.jpg

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[boots]

Thanks boots.

I'm here to show others why PID claims are ridiculous. It's very sad that some people are so blinded by their belief that they abandon all logic, common sense and critical thinking to the false gods of naivety and wishful thinking.

Amazing that they can't see how by posting pics that are totally irrelevant to the evidence that has been presented by you.

I see Faulcon wont answer to the 2 eyes post:rolleyes:

.

[socrates]

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

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v462/OnlyBeatles/theBeatles19676.jpghttp://cm1.theinsider.com/media/0/93/77/sQ3NHXF7q0B6o.0.0.0x0.400x475.jpeg

[socrates]

Amazing that they can't see how by posting pics that are totally irrelevant to the evidence that has been presented by you.

I see Faulcon wont answer to the 2 eyes post:rolleyes:

Faulcon doesn't answer any questions. Neither does she respond to PIA evidence with a reasoned, detailed response.

She just posts more meaningless photos.... :rolleyes:

She's not here to debate, obviously. She's in the wrong place, then. This is supposed to be a discussion forum.

I'm glad open-minded people such as yourself, boots, can see the PIDers for what they are. :)

[faulconandsnowjob]

Even Ringo's big old hair doesn't make up the huge difference - lol.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/WlarusGirl/All_About_The_Beatles_11.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/WlarusGirl/heightAA.jpg

[boots]

Faulcon doesn't answer any questions. Neither does she respond to PIA evidence with a reasoned, detailed response.

She just posts more meaningless photos.... :rolleyes:

She's not here to debate, obviously. She's in the wrong place, then. This is supposed to be a discussion forum.

I'm glad open-minded people such as yourself, boots, can see the PIDers for what they are. :)

Well for a Lawyer it's not doing her any good.

I see most of her cronies have left the debate, with good reason. :rolleyes:

I did once think that Paul was dead, but certainly not now, I really hadn't looked into it but once I did it was quite obvious that he did NOT die.


More silly photo's from faulcon. Please dear, go and eat some more veggies.

[hunter77]

Well for a Lawyer it's not doing her any good.

I see most of her cronies have left the debate, with good reason. :rolleyes:

I did once think that Paul was dead, but certainly not now, I really hadn't looked into it but once I did it was quite obvious that he did NOT die.


More silly photo's from faulcon. Please dear, go and eat some more veggies.

too true boots, hes definately alive and stinking rich:) and drawing his old age pension to go with his 875 million quid:)

[boots]

too true boots, hes definately alive and stinking rich:) and drawing his old age pension to go with his 875 million quid:)


The bastard, wish I wrote some "silly little love song's" LOL

Drawing a pension. WTF. Shit, must have one good accountant and lawyer;):)

[socrates]

Even Ringo's big old hair doesn't make up the huge difference - lol.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/WlarusGirl/All_About_The_Beatles_11.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/WlarusGirl/heightAA.jpg

It sometimes didn't pre 1966, either...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/WlarusGirl/All_About_The_Beatles_11.jpghttp://img242.imageshack.us/img242/7813/beatles1.jpg

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Strange, eh faulcon? Perhaps Faul slipped in now and again for a bit of a practice before he started full time in 1966. :D :D :D

[faulconandsnowjob]

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

[socrates]

Well for a Lawyer it's not doing her any good.

No, it certainly isn't.

I see most of her cronies have left the debate, with good reason. :rolleyes:

They'll be back - unfortunately! :)

I did once think that Paul was dead, but certainly not now, I really hadn't looked into it but once I did it was quite obvious that he did NOT die.

I think the difference between yourself and the PID believers is that you looked at the evidence critically, rationally and with objectivety. Because of this, you could see the PID evidence was totally flawed.

I think a lot of PID believers accept the PID myth because they want to. They want to feel as if they belong to a special group of people who can 'see' what most other people can't.

More silly photo's from faulcon. Please dear, go and eat some more veggies.

LOL!!! :D :D :D

[socrates]

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

http://www.photozone.de/images/3Technology/demos/p100mm.jpghttp://www.photozone.de/images/3Technology/demos/p50mm.jpghttp://www.photozone.de/images/3Technology/demos/p35mm.jpg

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[faulconandsnowjob]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/paul_1963_1967.jpg

[hunter77]

The bastard, wish I wrote some "silly little love song's" LOL

Drawing a pension. WTF. Shit, must have one good accountant and lawyer;):)

he should of been hung for the frog choros;):D

[faulconandsnowjob]

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

[hunter77]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/paul_1963_1967.jpg
with a tash and without, welll done, as for the chubbiness of the face there was alot of drugs done in the 60's and 70's . when eye used to get off it my weight and facial features changed daily:rolleyes:

[faulconandsnowjob]

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/AnotherPaulJane.jpghttp://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/MoreFaulandJaneyaaa.jpg

[faulconandsnowjob]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t816msm5nBc&feature=PlayList&p=3DB7371263F724FE&index=36

[toty1994]

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?



Much that has been debunked keeps getting regurgitated, but always as if posted for the first time - the alternative explanations previously raised often completely ignored. Were the sceptics to just give up and leave you to it, newbies to this thread could think none of your beliefs had ever been challenged at all. That's the main point I think.

Something worthy of regurgitation is 'identical iris patterns'. However often it is brought up, though, I suspect the deafening silence will continue.

[boots]

with a tash and without, welll done, as for the chubbiness of the face there was alot of drugs done in the 60's and 70's . when eye used to get off it my weight and facial features changed daily:rolleyes:

Very true.

The right photo of "faul" with those eye brow's. Fair dinkum, if my right one looked like that I'd being seeing a doctor.:rolleyes:

.

[boots]

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/AnotherPaulJane.jpghttp://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/MoreFaulandJaneyaaa.jpg



Your point being?

.

[socrates]

Your point being?

Can't you see boots? :eek:

Why, Faul has a tiny head growing out of his shoulder and Paul doesn't - more proof they are different people:

http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/4537/beattles7.jpg

:D

[boots]

Can't you see boots? :eek:

Why, Faul has a tiny head growing out of his shoulder and Paul doesn't - more proof they are different people:

http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/4537/beattles7.jpg

:D

Ahh shit your Soooo right. How could I have missed it.

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/1523/3demoticon40.gif (http://img5.imageshack.us/my.php?image=3demoticon40.gif)

[toty1994]

Just came across this. Well I never :eek::D



William Shears Campbell, also know as Billy Shears, but better known as Sir Paul McCartney says he is sick and tired of impersonating the former Beatle and wants out.

Shears, who replaced McCartney in 1966 after the real McCartney died in a car crash says the ruse has gone on long enough and that now he has rid himself of Heather Mills he wants to go back to being plain old Billy.

"When John Lennon called me up and asked me to be Paul I was honored" said the lookalike "I thought it would last a few months, until they announced the truth. Then Lennon died and then George died and Ringo, well Ringo never knew - they told him to keep his big nose out of things."

The clues have been around for years. The 'Paul is Dead' backward recordings, the Sgt Peppers album cover and of course the crap McCartney/Shears produced after the Beatles split.

Stella Campbell, Shear's clothes designing daughter says she is glad that she can at last drop the McCartney name. "Stella Campbell sounds much better than McCartney. I prefer
it to be honest. I may change track now - and design clothes that people can actually afford."

Shears says he is selling everything and returning to obscurity. "The last forty years have been a roller coaster ride for me and I am surprised no one ever noticed I couldn't hit a note, nor write lyrics like the real Paul. Oh well."

[toty1994]

Another good parody, quite old. Some of the stuff on those pid forums goes way further than this in terms of being convoluted and contrived, beyond parody really. Still, made me chuckle.:)



1963:

On the front cover of _With the Beatles_, Ringo's face is not in line with those of the other Fabs. Clearly a clue that the "Ringo" on this album is different form the others: obviously, he had died between the first two albums and been replaced.

1964:

On the cover of _A Hard Day's Night_, George is the only Beatles with his back to the camera in any of the photos, and he's the only one with a cigarette ("a coffin nail"). These are the signals that George had died.

On the _Long Tall Sally_ EP, George wears a different style of coat than the other three, again indicating that he's different, having been replaced. (Technically, George and Ringo both should be shown as different, but presumably whoever is in charge of planting the clues [Paul? John? EMI? Spiritual entities?] decided that having George and Ringo in one style of coat and Paul and John in a second style would make it difficult to figure out just which pair of Beatles is supposed to be gone. Therefore, for these two records they concentrated on announcing the most recent death).

On the _Beatles for Sale_ LP, the Beatles all wear black, and the record includes the song "Baby's in Black." Black of course is a traditional color of mourning--just the state you'd expect Paul and John to be in after the deaths of two of their comrades.

1965:

On the cover of the _Nowhere Man_ EP, Ringo is sitting on a stone monument, obviously meant to symbolize his tombstone. (Apparently the 'forces' deciding what clues to drop decided to give Ringo a new clue so he'd be even with George).

On the cover of the _Help!_ album, the Beatles are holding their hands in semaphore positions. However, instead of spelling out "help" as one would rightly expect, they spell out "NUJV." This is an abbreviation for "New unknown John vocalist," indicating that John had died and been replaced. And since the odds of the Beatles just 'coincidentally' picking four letters that match that phrase must be millions to one, this MUST be a planned clue. On this album, the Beatles (what's left of them, that is) stopped indicating a member's death by showing him as different than the others. Indeed, since Paul was now the only non-replacement in the band, *he* was shown as the different one (ie, with his back to the camera on the back cover of _Sgt Pepper_) to indicate that he was alive. That this would later be interpreted as evidence of Paul's demise must have been a crushing irony to the one remaining original Beatle.

In "I'm Looking through You," (from _Rubber Soul_), Paul sings "You don't look different, but you have changed"--a reference to the three replacements he had to surround himself with.

1966:

On _Revolver_, John#2 sings the song "I'm Only Sleeping." Sleep is, of course, a metaphor for death (cf Hamlet's "Too sleep, perchance to dream" soliloquy).

Also from Revolver, in "She Said She Said" John#2 sings "I know what it's like to be dead," which the original John did indeed know by now.

In "Eleanor Rigby," Paul sings "Father McKenzie/ wiping the dirt from his hands as he walks from the grave/No one was saved." 'Father McKenzie' is obviously a metaphorical reference to Paul McCartney (after all, what are the odds that Paul would by mere coincidence come up with a character whose last name begins with 'Mc' just like his own?!), who had far too often walked from the graves of his fellow band members. And indeed none of the other Beatles had been 'saved' from death.

1967:

In "Strawberry Fields," John#2 says "I buried Paul." At first, this may suggest that Paul had joined the other three Bealtes in dying. However, earlier John#2 sings "Nothing is real," which shows that his latter comment is not a 'real' clue, but rather a red herring to throw the unwary off of the real trail.

On the _Sgt. Pepper_ album, the Beatles introduce Billy Shears to replace Ringo#2 (that is the original Ringo's replacement) who is the real victim of the November 1966 car crash that figures so prominently in the "Paul Is Dead" theory. How anyone ever thought that Billy Shears was Paul's replacement is hard to fathom. After all, the next song following the "Let me introduce to you the one and only Billy Shears" bit is sung by 'Ringo'. And 'Ringo' would provide further confirmation in 1973's "I'm the Greatest" when he admits "My name is Billy Shears/It has been for so many years." In the face of this evidence, the thought that Billy Shears could be Paul's replacement seems faintly ridiculous.

Furthermore, it's well known that "A Day in the Life" describes the famed November 1966 car crash. However, everyone seems to have overlooked an obvious clue as to the victim of the car crash planted within "A Day in the Life": the ringing alarm clock!! Why would the Beatles include something that was 'ring'-ing unless it was to show that the song is about 'Ring'-o?!?

A similar identity-clue hidden within a death-clue appears on the front cover of the _Magical Mystery Tour_ album. When the album is held upside down, the word 'Beatles' spells out the phone number of a London mortuary. However, the word 'Bealtes' is spelled out in stars--as in Ringo STARR! If the Beatles had really meant to indicate where Paul's body had been (as the "Paul is dead" theory insists), why would they use the one common symbol that was also a band memeber's last name? Obviously, this couldn't be a mere coincidence.

Also, one more clue from _Sgt. Pepper_ needs to be discussed. On the front cover, someone holds a hand over Paul's head. This clearly mimics the actions of a priest in blessing the living--and Paul could certainly consider himself as blessed, as he was the only Beatle fate had spared.

The front cover of the _Magical Mystery Tour_ album features one other clue. The titles of "Magical Mystery Tour", "The Fool on the Hill" and "Your Mother Should Know" are arranged as follows:


Magical...

...On The...

...Should...


Going counter-clockwise from the 'M', the capital letters spell out 'MOST' which is meant to indicate that MOST of the Beatles had died and been replaced. (After all, the odds of the capitals in a bunch of song titles coincidentally spelling out such a word must be millions to one).

Also, on the inside cover of _MMT_, reference is made to "four or five magicians"--an allusion to the four replacements, plus Paul who serves as 5th magician--the 'magic' being the ability to keep the Beatles going despite the secret deaths of three members.

As for songs: John#2 sings "I Am the Walrus." Walruses are death symbols to Scandinavians. (Or maybe that was Eskimos. Or perhaps Falkland Islanders. I can't quite remember.)

And in 'Hello, Goodbye", Paul sings "I don't know why you say goodbye, I say hello," a reference to the original Beatles (and one replacement) dying (Saying "Goodbye") and Paul surviving to say "hello" to their replacements.

1968:

In "Glass Onion," John#2 sings "Here's another clue for you all/The walrus was Paul." However, in this song, as in "Strawberry Fields," John#2 also sings "Nothing is real," thus tipping off the alert listener to the fact that this 'clue' is a mere red herring.

In "I'm So Tired," John#2 sings about cigarettes ("coffin nails").

Furthermore, at the end of "I'm So Tired," John#2 says several nonsense syllables which, when played backwards, become "Paul, I'm dead." However, due to the poor sound quality, many insist mistakenly that it's "Paul is dead." (Much like the people who mistakenly insist on claiming that the words at the end of "Strawberry Fields" are 'cranberry sauce')

[Actually, most Paul Is Dead subscribers think the gibberish says "Paul is a dead man, Miss him, miss him, miss him!" If you listen closely, you can see it actually says "Paul isn't dead, man. We miss him, miss him, miss him!" and is John, speaking from the beyond, for himself and the two other dead Beatles, missing their friend Paul who is still on earth. -- dh]

In "Yer Blues," John#2 sings "If I ain't dead already" in ironic reference to John (that is the real John) indeed being dead already.

1969:

On the cover of _Abbey Road_, a VW has the license plate "281F," which can, of course be read, as '28IF' and denotes that John (born in Oct, 1940) would have been 28 when _Abbey Road_ was released (Sept. 1969) IF he had lived. Also, the use of the "281F" plate is really a clever clue-within-a-clue, since the substitution of '1' for 'I' must have been inspired by the fact that _Abbey Road_ was released only *1* month before John's birthday. Possibly the poignancy of that juxtaposition was what inspired the decision to mention John's age (had he lived) on the cover rather than George's or Ringo's (presumably the decision to not refer to all their ages was motivated by the difficulty in parking three cars so one could read all their license plates).

John#2's song "I Want You (She's So Heavy)" is abruptly cut off, clearly as a metaphor for the real John's life being abruptly cut short back in 1965.

In "Come Together," the line "come together, over me" refers to a burial (where, of course, the mourners 'come together' over the grave). Later in this song, the line "one and one and one is three" indicates that three original Beatles were buried. Why isn't it "1+1+1+1 is four"? Because...

The "I'd like to be under the sea" lines in "Octopus's Garden" indicate that Ringo#2 (that is, the replacement who was replaced by Billy Shears) was buried at sea. Thus, there was no gravesite for others to 'Come Together' over. Therefre, its "1+1+1 is three." QED.

[humito]

i like the frog chorus !!:D

[faulconandsnowjob]

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwFxYWmglv4&feature=PlayList&p=3DB7371263F724FE&index=39

[socrates]

i like the frog chorus !!:D

Me too! :)

[humito]

lol...........not more rotten apple and iamaphoney.............what drivel !

[faulconandsnowjob]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/alittleupset.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/faul_airport_closeup.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jdg5jgbaPwE&feature=PlayList&p=3DB7371263F724FE&index=41

[socrates]

lol...........not more rotten apple and iamaphoney.............what drivel !

Can't compare that crap to The Frog Chorus.

Macca's the man! :)

[faulconandsnowjob]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/comparison6667copy.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jkh6Spmd0xU&feature=PlayList&p=3DB7371263F724FE&index=42

Hey Faul (Extended Version) - YouTube

[tien an]

My mum says this 'Paul is dead' mullarkey is just that; mullarkey.
She should know.

[jojo]

My mum says this 'Paul is dead' mullarkey is just that; mullarkey.
She should know.

if it looks like shit, smells like shit.... it usually is shit :D

[white horse]

if it looks like shit, smells like shit.... it usually is shit :D

Mullarky of Kintyre?

[merlincove]

has someone told Paul that he is dead? He certainly takes himself a little too seriously to be someone he isn't?

[white horse]

has someone told Paul that he is dead? He certainly takes himself a little too seriously to be someone he isn't?

382 pages on Paul dead/not dead?

I thought it was John who was dead?

... or is he?

[jojo]

who gives a toss if he is alive or dead... *his music is still shit! :D

*frog chorus in mind

[hunter77]

who gives a toss if he is alive or dead... *his music is still shit! :D

*frog chorus in mind

wings were worse what a pile of shite:(

[hunter77]

wings were worse what a pile of shite:(

the best work by a former beatle was ringo star on THOMAS THE TANK ENGINE, IMO:)

[ex sheep]

has someone told Paul that he is dead? He certainly takes himself a little too seriously to be someone he isn't?

:D

Hey I didn't Know this thread was here, how very interesting.

Should this not be in today's news if he's dead, or am I missing something here:confused:

[jojo]

382 pages on Paul dead/not dead?

I thought it was John who was dead?

... or is he?

no, he was in the local SPAR shop the other night buying fags for elvis and jade goody.

[jojo]

the best work by a former beatle was ringo star on thomas the tank engine, imo:)

:d:d:d:d

[merlincove]

:D

Hey I didn't Know this thread was here, how very interesting.

Should this not be in today's news if he's dead, or am I missing something here:confused:

I've just checked and there's nothin in the papers about it, i don't know.

jojo, the frog chorus was bad, incredibly bad, even for a dead man that was bad.

[hunter77]

the best work by a former beatle was ringo star on THOMAS THE TANK ENGINE, IMO:)

but here lies anther conspiracy look how ringos face has changed over the years:D

http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn166/bluegoddess777/ringo.jpg
http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn166/bluegoddess777/how-thomas-the-tank-engine-works-1.jpg:D:D:D

[white horse]

:D

Hey I didn't Know this thread was here, how very interesting.

Should this not be in today's news if he's dead, or am I missing something here:confused:

I think someone should give us a precis of the issue as 300+ pages is a bit much to read thorugh to get the gist;

But I remmember my mum talking about this years ago, she said that at the time there were apparantly rumours in a couple of papers, adn the on Sgt Pepper Paul had his back to the camera; the skuttle-but was that Paul was dead/incapacitated, they releasded the album quickly and unfinished, and worried about what to do later.

[jojo]

but here lies anther conspiracy look how ringos face has changed over the years:D

http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn166/bluegoddess777/ringo.jpg
http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn166/bluegoddess777/how-thomas-the-tank-engine-works-1.jpg:D:D:D

im crying! :D

[ex sheep]

Look I haven't got time to go through 383 pages, is he deed or what, and how come this thread filled up so quickly if it hasn't even been on sky news yet.

[white horse]

look i haven't got time to go through 383 pages, is he deed or what, and how come this thread filled up so quickly if it hasn't even been on sky news yet.

384

[ex sheep]

im crying! :D

me too :D:D:D

[tien an]

I think someone should give us a precis of the issue as 300+ pages is a bit much to read thorugh to get the gist;


OK; here goes:
"paul is dead", "no he's not", "yes he is", "ee fookin' i'nt!", "COURSE HE IS!"....






But I remmember my mum talking about this years ago, she said that at the time there were apparantly rumours in a couple of papers, adn the on Sgt Pepper Paul had his back to the camera; the skuttle-but was that Paul was dead/incapacitated, they releasded the album quickly and unfinished, and worried about what to do later.

Does my mum know your mum?

[metacomet]

Whether or not Paul is really dead, it has been shown (in my opinion) in this thread an in others (like the Stepford thread) that some shmaltzy imposter was most definitely put out for a time as 'Paul'.

People were suspicious then and they are still suspicious that this wasn't the real guy.

People tend to be right about these things... our ability to judge faces to an incredibly sharp degree has been with us for millions of years. It is very hard to 'trick us' without flashing lights, lots of loud noises, etc. This is why Hollywood operates the way it does.

[faulconandsnowjob]

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akg9xpyQqWY&feature=PlayList&p=3DB7371263F724FE&index=44

[socrates]

Look I haven't got time to go through 383 pages, is he deed or what, and how come this thread filled up so quickly if it hasn't even been on sky news yet.

It's not been on Sky News because Paul aint dead. :)

He's never been dead.

Not even once. :D

[faulconandsnowjob]

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvQReaxHKu8&feature=PlayList&p=3DB7371263F724FE&index=46

[fireman]

No, although Faulcon desperatly wants him dead, he isn't..

Faulcon you are comparing pictures with bad quality, totally different angles, that are 20 years apart.

If you were using better pictures, you would see, that he ain't dead. He sure changed a little bit, due to age, drug use, different hairstyle ect...


See:

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/3-3.gif

Same guy!


Forehead size? Exactly the same:


http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/sameforehead-fade1.gif

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

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

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




Same guy

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



Where IS THE DIFFERENCE?

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/classic_comp_cut1.gif


http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/classic_fade1.gif

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


1966 - 1967 , one year and some LSD trips appart, still the same guy:

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/6667-1.gif


Look for another conspiracy, 'cause Paul is alive (still!)

[boots]

but here lies anther conspiracy look how ringos face has changed over the years:D

http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn166/bluegoddess777/ringo.jpg
http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn166/bluegoddess777/how-thomas-the-tank-engine-works-1.jpg:D:D:D



http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/1523/3demoticon40.gif (http://img18.imageshack.us/my.php?image=3demoticon40.gif)

[toty1994]

I think someone should give us a precis of the issue as 300+ pages is a bit much to read thorugh to get the gist;




OK; here goes:
"paul is dead", "no he's not", "yes he is", "ee fookin' i'nt!", "COURSE HE IS!"....

That pretty much sums up the bulk of these 385 (!) pages. It has been entertaining, though.:D

[socrates]

1966 - 1967 , one year and some LSD trips appart, still the same guy:

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/6667-1.gif

Great comparison fireman!

Do you know what photo shoot the first pics from? Is it the suitcase one?

[humito]

frog chorus is for kids remember...........they loved it !

rupert rocks...........maybe a fake scarf tho


http://www.childofthe1980s.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/rupert-and-the-frog-song.jpg click to enlarge

[fireman]

Great comparison fireman!

Do you know what photo shoot the first pics from? Is it the suitcase one?

Thanks. Yep, thats from the suitcase-shoot. :)

[faulconandsnowjob]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/PaulFaul6667.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WtsNe_o70c&feature=PlayList&p=3DB7371263F724FE&index=49

Great comp. The guy on the far left doesn't look like Paul at all. lol

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

[fireman]

The guy on the far left doesn't look like Paul at all. lol


Yeah, i disagree..

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/1-4.gif

15-20 years between those two.. :D


Regarding your other comp: it's worth nothing. They are having totally different facial expressions, so you can't compare them.

Look at this, 4 x Paul, 4 different guy? No! Notice that the the 2 on right look most alike! funny, isn't it?

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/3-4.gif

DEBUNKED! :D

[faulconandsnowjob]

This picture of Paul (left) has been tampered with. His face is longer than it should be. It was an attempt to make him look more like Faul. Apparently, some people have fallen for it. :rolleyes:

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

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G36JwI6rXt4&feature=PlayList&p=3DB7371263F724FE&index=50

[fireman]

There is absolutely no logic in the assumption that 1 out of 50 photos is supposed to be "doctored" or "tampered" with. And it's always those against your case... If you say it's doctored, proove it! Show me the undoctered version of that picture! You can't? :p


Regarding that Beatles monthly book photo with the mustache:

In that issue there are photos of ALL 4 BEATLES with painted on mustaches... So, no, it was not to make Paul look like Faul, it was to update on the Beatles new look...

DEBUNKED!

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/BB_3_1967_15.jpg

Oh there is something else.. this DEBUNKS your whole "doctoring"/"tampering" theory! Look at how badly these "fake mustaches" where done in 1966/1967. And you think the illuminati painted these? And you think they faked pictures and nobody could tell?

:-)

[faulconandsnowjob]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Cs5UIDjuo8&feature=PlayList&p=3DB7371263F724FE&index=51

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

[faulconandsnowjob]

There is absolutely no logic in the assumption that 1 out of 50 photos is supposed to be "doctored" or "tampered" with.

You are really naive if you think photos haven't been doctored. It's already been proven time & again. I'm not here to prove anything to you. You've already proven you have no powers of discernment. However, I will post this doctored "official" photo b/c it happens to be my personal favorite.

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

[toty1994]

This picture of Paul (left) has been tampered with. His face is longer than it should be. It was an attempt to make him look more like Faul. Apparently, some people have fallen for it. :rolleyes:


When you're stating stuff like this as fact, can't you at least start providing the sources from where you get such information in your posts? Because if it is a fact that the pic has been tampered with to make him look like Faul, you must have got it from somewhere, yes?

[faulconandsnowjob]

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKVsolNITdA&feature=PlayList&p=3DB7371263F724FE&index=52

[fireman]

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




1) You know yourself that Paul is blowing up is cheeks in the right photo!


2) Here is a proper comparisons, using the same photo as above


http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/BEARD.gif
http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/BEARD_FIDDY.gif


3) You are talking about docotred or tampered photos and the you are using this yourself:

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


4) Funny how you ignored my above post debunking your statement about the "doctored" mustache in the Beatles monthly book...

:rolleyes:

[metacomet]

DEBUNKED! :D

LOL!

I love Debunkers.

So sure of themselves.

"Case Closed!" And they waltz out of the room.

[fireman]

LOL!

I love Debunkers.

So sure of themselves.

"Case Closed!" And they waltz out of the room.

...well,yeah. for lack of a better word, i said debunked. But far more important is what i posted. You know faulcon and her two PID friends are running around and posting statements and theories and fiction as if they where facts.

that annoys me, so at least i am trying to debunk some of them, which is easy enough..

please read the last posts and you'll see what i mean. :)

[faulconandsnowjob]

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJAfaVxWo5g&feature=PlayList&p=3DB7371263F724FE&index=53

[fireman]

No, sorry Faulcon, both Paul

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/forfaulc2.jpg?t=1240348869

and in this one Paul looks most unlike himself both in 1966 and 1968! :D

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/forfaulc1.gif?t=1240349044

Again you ignored the above post.. scared of the truth?

:)

[jojo]

but here lies anther conspiracy look how ringos face has changed over the years:D

http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn166/bluegoddess777/ringo.jpg
http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn166/bluegoddess777/how-thomas-the-tank-engine-works-1.jpg:D:D:D

I think this is far more worthy of a discussion!

[faulconandsnowjob]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v462/OnlyBeatles/paul_faul_1962_1970.png

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTXKC9CMRjE&feature=PlayList&p=3DB7371263F724FE&index=54

[metacomet]

I'm seeing different very eyebrows in these photos. (No not Thomas the train :p ) The only way I could conceive it as being the same set of eyebrows is if Paul had gone through a late puberty of sorts... or he had his eyebrows 'preened' as a youth (possible).

It might not have been impossible for them to find someone with similar facial structure and eyes... but maybe it was impossible for them to find someone with the same eyebrows.

[faulconandsnowjob]

Metacomet: you're starting to see past the mental prison the Illuminati has constructed for you :)

[socrates]

Metacomet: you're starting to see past the mental prison the Illuminati has constructed for you :)

Yeah, you keep believing that absolute bunkum. :rolleyes: I think the illuminati have more important things to do than worry about bloody Paul McCartney.

The only prison around here is the prison PIDers have built for themselves that prevents them from escaping out of their fantasy world.

Meanwhile, Paul is STILL Paul and their aint nothing you can do to change that fact.

[socrates]

I'm seeing different very eyebrows in these photos.

Please explain the difference:

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/classic_comp_cut1.gif

Same eyes:

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

[metacomet]

Please explain the difference:


I'm not going to swing at any curve balls in this thread. You cherry picked two photos which you knew were similar :rolleyes:

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

Faul has bushier eyebrows on the side.

Like I said, maybe younger Paul had a later kind of puberty or maybe he groomed his eyebrows. Older males get bushier eyebrows but not until their 40's from what I have seen.

[socrates]

I'm not going to swing at any curve balls in this thread. You cherry picked two photos which you knew were similar :rolleyes:

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

They are "similar" cos it's the same eyebrows! :eek:

But - You're the one saying they're "different", so please explain the differences.

And can you see any differences here:

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

If so, please tell us.

[ex sheep]

Cant you just get a dna test on one of those eyelashes. does anyone do cleaning for the mccartney household, or deliver any pizza's.






.

[socrates]

Cant you just get a dna test on one of those eyelashes. does anyone do cleaning for the mccartney houshold, or deliver any pizza's.

Lol. But good point. But the Piders won't do anything as effectual as that.

They prefer to spend their lives posting endless photo comparisons on forums. :rolleyes:

[white horse]

Paul is Dead - YouTube

[merlincove]

a little bit of Paul died when the frog chorus came out.

the rest had been lain to rest on the mully kin tyre

jeese, every mornin i look in the mirror and think who the feck is that?

[metacomet]

They are "similar" cos it's the same eyebrows! :eek:

*shrug* You chose two pictures where you knew the eyebrows were similar, making your job easy. The issue was pictures where the eyebrows are clearly different.

I already pointed at the picture where I think the eyebrows are different.

You are setting up a strawman.


And can you see any differences here:
http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/3931/eyes5.jpg

You just posted the same image that I said was a cherry-picked strawman :confused: Are you high ? Maybe you thought I meant another image.


If so, please tell us.

Fine, I'll take a swing at this curveball. The iris' are different colors, most likely because the top one has higher contrast (older film?) Not conclusive.

The bridge of the nose is completely different. Don't kid yourselves.

You can't see the entirety of the eyebrows which is why I called that a cherry picked photo.

Stop trying to make your job so easy, skeptics! :mad:I am not on either side of the fence but I am calling it like I see it... I don't like limp-wristed debates.

[socrates]

*shrug* You chose two pictures where you knew the eyebrows were similar, making your job easy. The issue was pictures where the eyebrows are clearly different.

Bunkum! The issue is not if it's "easy" to tell the difference. :mad: It's about if the eyebrows are not from the same person.

You're the one saying they're different. :rolleyes:

The fact that you're quibbling about the fact that they are similar shows you cannot see any differences.

You just posted the same image that I said was a cherry-picked strawman :confused: Are you high ? Maybe you thought I meant another image.

Stop wriggling. :rolleyes:

Fine, I'll take a swing at this curveball. The iris' are different colors,

WTF?!!

They are black and whitle photos!

And you ask if I'm on drugs? :eek:

The bridge of the nose is completely different. Don't kid yourselves.

The first photo is too low contrast and not detailed enough to deduce that.

You can't see the entirety of the eyebrows which is why I called that a cherry picked photo.

I never asked you about the eyebrows on that pic. I just asked if you could see any differences between the two photos.

Stop trying to make your job so easy, skeptics!

Saying that two black and white photos show two different coloured eyes makes it very easy. :D

[metacomet]

WTF?!!

They are black and whitle photos!

Are you telling me you don't see a difference in the shades of grey?

Or are we just being stupid for the fun of it?

Did I not say the iris' were inconclusive?

Or are we just being stupid for the fun of it?

Did I not explain that the photos you have forced me to take a swing at were cherry picked strawmen?



The first photo is too low contrast and not detailed enough to deduce that.


Oh ok. So we're going to do exactly what I said not to do... kid ourselves. You'll use the contrast issue even though I'm the one who pointed it out? :rolleyes: Limp-wrists ahoy!

[faulconandsnowjob]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7jWfzqt3PU&feature=PlayList&p=3DB7371263F724FE&index=55

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

[crystaljunkie]

*shrug* You chose two pictures where you knew the eyebrows were similar, making your job easy. The issue was pictures where the eyebrows are clearly different.

I already pointed at the picture where I think the eyebrows are different.

You are setting up a strawman.



You just posted the same image that I said was a cherry-picked strawman :confused: Are you high ? Maybe you thought I meant another image.



Fine, I'll take a swing at this curveball. The iris' are different colors, most likely because the top one has higher contrast (older film?) Not conclusive.

The bridge of the nose is completely different. Don't kid yourselves.

You can't see the entirety of the eyebrows which is why I called that a cherry picked photo.

Stop trying to make your job so easy, skeptics! :mad:I am not on either side of the fence but I am calling it like I see it... I don't like limp-wristed debates.

The bottom one has a much clearer focus and so renders the colours differently.

[faulconandsnowjob]

I really hate how Faul has portrayed Paul as being so gay. Not that there's anything wrong w/ it, but Paul wasn't gay or effeminate at all.

Paul:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/tryingonshirt.jpg

Bill/Faul:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/Billinwhite2a.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/BillSheppardPoseFlauntITandSHAKEITH.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/faulgaynow.jpg

As though trashing Paul's musical legacy weren't bad enough. :mad:

[metacomet]

Here's my gut feeling: and you skeptics can just STFU for a second.

The original Paul was an avatar of sorts. An important soul. He had 'it'. They used 'it' to start the Beatles and then sacrificed Paul. This has happened to more than one person in the music industry.

This is not beyond comprehension for those of us who have done our homework on how Hollywood etc. operates. It is however, impossible to have conversations about this with people who refuse to consider these things. Most people are not willing to admit that sacrifices happen at all, let alone in the entertainment industry and to 'celebrities'.

Most people are not willing to accept that celebrities have look-a-likes, let alone complete replacements or clones.

The Paul McCartney that I knew growing up as a kid was an old fart, with queer tendencies (as shown above). His eyes are empty of all happiness, like he's inherited a life that is not his own.

I had no idea who the real Paul was until I started looking back in time, then I stumble onto threads like this...

I can take this topic seriously.

Skeptics... I don't blame you for thinking this is all a big joke.

[faulconandsnowjob]

The original Paul was an avatar of sorts. An important soul. He had 'it'. They used 'it' to start the Beatles and then sacrificed Paul. This has happened to more than one person in the music industry.
That is exactly right. It's horrifying to think that the Illuminati, who control the entertainment industry just like everything else, can kill & replace someone w/out anyone noticing. It has happened. It happened to Paul. :mad: And you are right about the sacrifice, too, b/c the Illuminati are Satanists.

[metacomet]

Faulcon, I had a thread started about Satanism and Mind Control in the music industry.

It's simply not a secret that Satanists and Luciferians are across the board at the top of the music industry. This information is out there. All the major artists, from Bono to Madonna have openly displayed their Satanism, but they do it in ways that the average person can't grasp because they are so far gone into a fantasy world where everything is 'safe' and 'just for fun'.

I have studied this enough that I can take these kind of topics seriously.

Most people are incapable of coming to terms with human sacrifice. These are the people who need to google Ted Gunderson etc.

Most people are so far gone into their safe little fantasy world that they can never and probably will never allow this kind of information into their scope of reality.

It doesn't matter if they believe Paul was killed or not... they aren't capable of swallowing this information to begin with. Satan is just a cutesy religious idea to them :rolleyes: They don't understand that there is hardcore shit to be accounted for.

[faulconandsnowjob]

^ I think you're right. I think it is too horrifying for a lot of people to even contemplate. Well, I guess this is how the Illuminati gets away w/ it - right under people's noses. They're probably watching this PID movement laughing at how so many people refuse to see the differences even after they're pointed out. Oh, well. Sad, but I guess that's the way it is... Still, there are some people who are capable of seeing it, & those are the ones I'm trying to reach :)

Faul showing the Illuminati he's a team player:

http://www.deepspace4.com/pages/answers/theoddfellows/images/theoddfellows.jpg

Here is a very interesting thread on Faul & the Illuminati:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread358780/pg1

http://www.paulisdeadhoax.com/images/yelhand.gifhttp://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Rock-n-Roll/mccartney-fondles_ram.jpg

[orbandsceptre27]

Hi all - been away for abit (alot of study going on at the moment) but when I viewed this "steaming pile" and the many comments which followed.... well lets just say it needed to be addressed.

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/8468/ab4.jpg

The issue of the eye colour is one which was put to bed before last Christmas. At that time the present poster (who now goes by the name of Socrates) was posting as Lightman. Lightman posted on this thread most days (as a debunker) and has completely ceased posting here since the new id Socrates was taken up. It`s the same person posting under two different id`s - I could write a whole thread on him lol. If people go back further Redman was the resident debunker (Red..man/Light..man - you couldn`t make this stuff up). When Redman ceased posting here, Lightman started up. I never realised what a disinfo poster/shill was until I started this thread!

If people view the above images -

Paul had brown eyes/his permanent replacement has green eyes (not hazel, there`s a big difference). He sometimes wears the dark brown contacts but has often been pictured without them as shown on this and Accuracys thread.

Socrates/Lightman has claimed that the iris patterns of both men are identical. This is entirely false.

Above - Examine the right column photos under Paul. Why is the rim of the second eye a glowing brown and the bottom/third picture a glowing green. Because both colours were added to each eye. The contrast was turned up strongly and both colours added. In the second picture brown was added, in the third picture green. If this is not the case why are there traces of brown and green along the rims of the eyes - not just the iris??? :)

Five out of six (if not the whole six) are Fauls eyes - made to look like Pauls. Socrates the shill is up to his old tricks and it`s easy to fall into the trap. If five out of six are Fauls, then of course the iris patterns are going to be identical!


http://img84.exs.cx/img84/2710/eye013fb.gifhttp://img84.exs.cx/img84/5522/eye023fo.gifhttp://img84.exs.cx/img84/1884/eye033hx.gif
http://img84.exs.cx/img84/3627/eyecomp12pe.gif
http://img84.exs.cx/img84/5761/eye02an0rz.gifhttp://img84.exs.cx/img84/5761/eye02an0rz.gifhttp://img84.exs.cx/img84/7515/eye03an3mw.gif

Now look again at the bottom three eyes in the above images - See the eye on the left and the eye in the centre have brown colouring again around the rim and in the bottom left corners.

The eye on the right clearly has green around the rim, and in the bottom left corner -

You`re a cheeky bugger Socrates/Lightman but not near as smart as you make out. :)

[orbandsceptre27]

Ooh the eye challenge, can we recognise which eyes are from whom?

A challenge for the PIDers:

The PIDers claim they can see differences in the eyes.

Yes we can.

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

In other words take this eye challenge from the resident shill which (of course) is perfectly fair.... or is it??

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

Emm....errrrr let me see - Pictures two and five, well they`re the only colour pictures you`ve put up.......... and the eyes are turned away....so we can`t see them - the eyes, you are talking about the eyes right??

Pictures two, three, four and six - Eh huh....... there`s no colour, and I bet Faul himself couldn`t make out if they were his or not.

Would anybody seriously buy a used car from this man? :)

[faulconandsnowjob]

Yea - Orb is back! :)

That is funny that Lightman or Socrates or whoever was doing comps of Faul's eyes to show the iris pattern was the same. LOL! :p But yeah, the iris pattern is supposedly the same even tho the color is difft. Ok... :rolleyes:

[orbandsceptre27]

Boots I hope this is just a phase your going through..... dating the local thread shill - whatever will the neighbours think? :)

http://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/show-case/profiles.jpg

This is the worst evidence there is for the PID er's.

The hair in the left photo is cut short, Paul has naturally thick hair which would bulk it on top of the crown. FFS my hair does the same thing.

The photo on the right makes his hair look flatter because it is longer. Simple

Take a closer look at this picture Boots, you might have missed a few important things and remember Billy (on the right) is a double - he`s got to look very similar to Paul but there are differences.

First look at the top of Bills lip in conjunction to the nose and compare to Paul in the first picture - It`s much longer!

Look at the inside of Bills nose and how again it is longer than Pauls when you measure both up to the eye.

But most importantly (and this has been pointed out in another photo comparison) if you draw an imaginery line across Bills face (right picture) to the bottom of his ear.... Look how much higher up his face Bills ear is compared to Paul. the bottom of Pauls nose and the bottom of Pauls ear allign up almost perfectly, whereas Bills ear is higher up. :cool:

Now stay with me "ear" my friend ;) -

This is where the old fake ear that Howie so well spotted comes in,

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g134/antiKitano/PDVD_003.jpg

I hemmed Fireman into a corner over this more than once - he won`t admit it, because Fireman/Redman/Lightman/Socrates (well you know the score man).

The picture is not tampered and taken directly from this footage, it`s a video frame -

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

^ Freeze at 1.20!

Can anyone in all honesty say this these men are the same person?? Look at the eye colour again -

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

[hey_dude]

The PID crowd just get more and more deluded. So now members of the Icke forum are deliberately altering images of Paul Mccartney to look more like his non-existent replacement? Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. :rolleyes:The only people dumb/obsessed enough to do anything like that are the PID crowd who are known to stretch pictures of post '67 Paul to alter his appearance.

And Orb, stop posting disinfo related to Paul's eye colour in your attempts to delude people. Paul has and always has had HAZEL eyes. Get it? http://www.tlcgraphic.com/images/1963HazelEyesSm.gif

[orbandsceptre27]

I see Hey Dude all your posts are on this thread (bar one) with zero constructive analysis - enjoy your stay :)

[orbandsceptre27]

Yea - Orb is back! :)

That is funny that Lightman or Socrates or whoever was doing comps of Faul's eyes to show the iris pattern was the same. LOL! :p But yeah, the iris pattern is supposedly the same even tho the color is difft. Ok... :rolleyes:

Hey Faulcon, you`ve been fighting a tiresome battle on this thread with more ridicule than most people could take - You`re a true friend and a damn good person :cool:. Same as Lostworld, Truthseeker and many more. Truthseeker is very sick at the moment, with a big operation coming up so our prayers are with her. As I was saying I`m loaded down with study at the moment but will try to post when I can.

Welcome too to Metacomet, Ar20 and Pipsicle - thank you all for adding so much to this deep but intriguing subject.

[metacomet]

The conspiracy theorists are about to make a comeback in this thread.

How dare we pose such outlandish theories that a famous person could be replaced ?

^ I think you're right. I think it is too horrifying for a lot of people to even contemplate. Well, I guess this is how the Illuminati gets away w/ it - right under people's noses.

Lucifer gets away with everything due to people's inability to cope with the truth. Goes far beyond this topic alone, but yes, it's true.

Like your sig:


The eye sees only what the mind is prepared to comprehend.
~ Henri L. Bergson

[metacomet]

And Orb, stop posting disinfo related to Paul's eye colour in your attempts to delude people. Paul has and always has had HAZEL eyes. Get it? http://www.tlcgraphic.com/images/1963HazelEyesSm.gif

Sorry mate,

Deep, dark brown is not Hazel.

I have Hazel eyes. Young Paul does not.

How long did it take you to find a pic where the light caught his iris at just the right angle? Well done. Those are still brown eyes.

[sunsoflight]

It's awfully quiet in here this morning, who died?

[ex sheep]

All this eyelashes thingy is debunked,

steppewar shaves his eyebrows regularly so at times they look different.






.

[fireman]

Also his eyebrow was messed up by the moped accident in 1966..

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

That is that...

[hey_dude]

I see Hey Dude all your posts are on this thread (bar one) with zero constructive analysis - enjoy your stay :)

Actually I've made plenty of constructive analysis - quite unlike you. I've looked at your posts and they basically consists of baseless accusations of tampering and branding everyone who disagrees with you a disinformation agent. Get a life . :p

And the fact that I've only posted in this thread is relevant how?

[hey_dude]

Sorry mate,

Deep, dark brown is not Hazel.

I have Hazel eyes. Young Paul does not.

How long did it take you to find a pic where the light caught his iris at just the right angle? Well done. Those are still brown eyes.

Wrong answer you silly git. Paul knows his own eye colour better than you do. This courtesy of lightman earlier in the thread.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=671311&highlight=hazel#post671311

http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/9052/2paulbook1vu6.jpg

It took google images 0.13 seconds to find that image with a simple search of "Paul mccartney eyes", by the way. So yeah, it didn't take me too long.

Get beasted son. :cool:

[faulconandsnowjob]

A lot of this has to do w/ mind control. The Illuminati has been able to use the media to convince almost everyone that Faul is Paul. Ok, a lot of people did notice back in 1969 that something wasn't right, but if LIFE magazine says it's Paul, it must be, right? lol :rolleyes: I guess some people like their mental prison, b/c they sure are resistant to breaking free of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xED03f2gJ90&feature=PlayList&p=3DB7371263F724FE&index=56

http://digilander.libero.it/p_truth/paul_mccartney_last_images/paul_mccartney_last_image.jpghttp://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/billy_shears_on_mal_evans_video/billy_shears_on_mal_evans_video_12.jpg

[faulconandsnowjob]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYHv0uwMY5c&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Edavidicke%2Ecom%2Fforum%2F showthread%2Ephp%3Ft%3D30205%26page%3D389&feature=player_embedded

In addition to the fake ear at 1:20 that Orb pointed out, this video also shows Faul playing guitar right-handed. Paul was *left-handed.*

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

[orbandsceptre27]

Also his eyebrow was messed up by the moped accident in 1966..

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


YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

^ Paul McCartney in Paperback Writer, after his moped accident and before his replacement.

So who`s this guy below -

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

57 seconds in - ".....pop music is the classical music of now.........." - hello Billy you dozy man. :)

[orbandsceptre27]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYHv0uwMY5c&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Edavidicke%2Ecom%2Fforum%2F showthread%2Ephp%3Ft%3D30205%26page%3D389&feature=player_embedded

In addition to the fake ear at 1:20 that Orb pointed out, this video also shows Faul playing guitar right-handed. Paul was *left-handed.*

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

Great point Faulcon - Here`s Bill again (below) handling Pauls bass like hes just been given semtex.

Billy Shears is Right-Handed - YouTube

[socrates]

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/8468/ab4.jpg

The issue of the eye colour is one which was put to bed before last Christmas.

Yes, it was proven that Paul's eyes were hazel. :rolleyes:

Paul had brown eyes

Completely and totally wrong.

/his permanent replacement has green eyes

Wrong.


PID believers have used eye color as evidence to prove that Paul was replaced with a double in 1966-67. They claim that the original Paul had brown eyes and the fake Paul has green eyes. Indeed recent images of Paul do show him with what appear to be very green eyes (As displayed in the image below left).

http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/4939/87119617.jpg

The image above right, however, has a more natural color balance. Accurate imaging has always been an issue. Ever take a home movie and notice it looks stale green compared to movies on the big screen? Canon, Inc, in promoting it's high end line of digital camcorders states that "The green component of a video signal contains 60% of the picture detail, and the red and blue components only 40%. " This is why their high end cameras have 3 sensors. One for red, one for green, and one for blue. Most digital cameras do not have 3. They only have one. This can account for the inaccurate colors in regular lighting.

Paul's eyes still look hazel to me.
http://www.paulisnotdead.com/blog1.php/2008/07/29/puppy-dog-brown-eyes?page=3

He sometimes wears the dark brown contacts

Stop making things up. :rolleyes:

Socrates/Lightman has claimed that the iris patterns of both men are identical. This is entirely false.

Above - Examine the right column photos under Paul. Why is the rim of the second eye a glowing brown and the bottom/third picture a glowing green. Because both colours were added to each eye. The contrast was turned up strongly and both colours added. In the second picture brown was added, in the third picture green. If this is not the case why are there traces of brown and green along the rims of the eyes - not just the iris??? :)

You obviously do not understand about midtones and highlights. Did you actually READ the explanation of what was done to those photos? Obviously not.

The images immediately below are a side by side comparison of Paul's right eye from the Fool On The Hill video (Left) and a 1964 printed magazine (right). Although the Fool on the Hill image seems clear, keep in mind that there does appear to be a slight gaussian blur.

You can tell by looking at how soft the shadows surrounding his eye appears. This blur has diminished the contrast in some of the details we might have otherwise seen in his iris. By increasing the mid tones and highlights in the green and red channels, we see a dark area near the bottom of his iris.

Five out of six (if not the whole six) are Fauls eyes - made to look like Pauls

Any proof? Nah, thought not.

Nice to see the troll back with his usual nonsense. :D

[socrates]

Wrong answer you silly git. Paul knows his own eye colour better than you do. This courtesy of lightman earlier in the thread.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=671311&highlight=hazel#post671311

http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/9052/2paulbook1vu6.jpg

It took google images 0.13 seconds to find that image with a simple search of "Paul mccartney eyes", by the way. So yeah, it didn't take me too long.

Get beasted son. :cool:

FACTS directly from Paul do not get in the way of PID delusions. :rolleyes:

[faulconandsnowjob]

This is where the old fake ear that Howie so well spotted comes in,
Fake Faul ears:

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

Hey Faulcon, you`ve been fighting a tiresome battle on this thread with more ridicule than most people could take -
Thanks, Orb! Well, those people are clueless, so who cares what they think? I don't even read their posts usually. :D It's pitiful that they refuse to see what is right in front of their faces. They can't see how mind controlled they are.

[socrates]

Fake Faul ears:

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


This has been discussed before. :rolleyes:

Why would anyone want to wear a fake ear over a normal ear when it would make more sense and look more realistic to surgically reshape an ear, especially if the person had already had extensive surgery to look more like someone else?

Modifying an ear would be a piece of cake in comparison to facial reconstruction.

The fake ear claim is blatent nonsense.

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g134/antiKitano/PDVD_005.jpg

It's just a wayward strand of hair from his sideburn.

[faulconandsnowjob]

Can anyone in all honesty say this these men are the same person?? Look at the eye colour again -

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

No, of course it's not the same person. Not the same eyes color, not the same height, not the same personality, not the same faces, not the same musical talent. When you add it all up, it's simply not the same guy. :rolleyes:

How dare we pose such outlandish theories that a famous person could be replaced ?
The Illuminati can foment coups, assassinate presidents, even topple tall buildings, but replacing a rock star is clearly beyond their scope. LOL!

[faulconandsnowjob]

Lucifer gets away with everything due to people's inability to cope with the truth.
No joke. The Illuminati obviously knows how to get people to believe whatever they want. Even when the differences are pointed out, people still can't see them b/c they've been trained to see them as being the same person. Can't people even entertain the thought that maybe the media has been lying to them, & what they portray as the truth isn't actually the truth?

All this eyelashes thingy is debunked,
Observant people will note that Paul had gorgeous, thick, dark eyelashes. Faul does not, never did.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/973742.jpg

[ar20]

http://mybeatlescollection.net/images/P1013512.jpg

[faulconandsnowjob]

^ It's funny how someone can resemble Paul & yet not be cute at all. I think it comes down to the different shaped face & the nose that points down. Paul had more of an upturned nose.

[fireman]

http://mybeatlescollection.net/images/P1013512.jpg





Faulcon claims to be such a great observant, and yet she doesn't even realize that the above photo has been flipped!

Here is the right one unflipped. With a fade, yes, its the same guy, 3 years later!




http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/unflipped_fade1.gif



PID is dead... PAUL IS ALIVE.. yay..:D

[socrates]

Faulcon claims to be such a great observant, and yet she doesn't even realize that the above photo has been flipped!

Faulcon busted again! LOL. :p

[orbandsceptre27]

Faulcon claims to be such a great observant, and yet she doesn't even realize that the above photo has been flipped!

Here is the right one unflipped. With a fade, yes, its the same guy, 3 years later!

It`s still Faul.... flipped, upside down, inside out so how can she be wrong!


http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/unflipped_fade1.gif


PID is dead... PAUL IS ALIVE.. yay..:D


More like you`re dead Fireman....... brain dead. :)

[faulconandsnowjob]

You can flip Faul over, under, sideways, down, flip him however you want - it doesn't magically transform him into Paul. And anyway, I don't give a flip won't you think & I'm flipping you off right now. :D

Meanwhile, Paul is still dead & Bill is still a fake.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdrrBWta9tE&feature=PlayList&p=3DB7371263F724FE&index=57

[metacomet]

I myself find it cute that the skeptics are comparing pictures of the same person to ... himself...

Kind of defeats the purpose of this entire investigation, doesn't it???

"Look... these are the SAME PERSON! Case CLOSED!"

... "But... that's not the original Paul."

*crickets and silence*

[orbandsceptre27]

I myself find it cute that the skeptics are comparing pictures of the same person to ... himself...

Kind of defeats the purpose of this entire investigation, doesn't it???

"Look... these are the SAME PERSON! Case CLOSED!"

... "But... that's not the original Paul."

*crickets and silence*


Very true Metacomet - People are so conditioned from seeing Bill they believe him to be Paul. "Paul McCartney" is just a label on some pop icon they take for granted.

Here`s a great vid of the original Paul in "The Night Before" (from Hello).

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. - It`s slowed down slightly so you can take a closer look.

Note the gate/bite between the upper and lower jaws. Paul had a completely different jawline that`s much more visable when you view old footage. You can look at pictures all day but it`s the film/music and interview clips which struck me straight off.

[orbandsceptre27]

Faulcon, I had a thread started about Satanism and Mind Control in the music industry.

It's simply not a secret that Satanists and Luciferians are across the board at the top of the music industry. This information is out there. All the major artists, from Bono to Madonna have openly displayed their Satanism, but they do it in ways that the average person can't grasp because they are so far gone into a fantasy world where everything is 'safe' and 'just for fun'.

I have studied this enough that I can take these kind of topics seriously.


That`s interesting - If you look at the film "Help" it is basically all about ritualism and sun worship. There are two posters on this forum, McMenek1 and Lateral V, who go into the manipulation of sun (666/outer) and moon (333/inner) frequencies in detail - very important material. Matthew Delooze also goes into this in much detail.

On the Abbey Road album alone there are two songs entitled "Sun King" and "Here Comes the Sun" - The music and entertainment industry is all about keeping the focus on the outer-self (666) and preventing mergence with higher-self (333).

666 and 333 = 999 The Christos/Christ frequency. An awakening in consciousness is not what TPTB want so we are hypnotised and manipulated from outside.

That`s why we have disinformation agents picking names like Socrates - to keep people in the left brain/facts/logic. As Astrochicken has pointed out many times, we need to incorporate right brain (intuition/higher-self) with the left (the 333 with the 666).

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

"666 Conducer" - 666 Conducer by Black Rebel Motorcycle Club - YouTube - Notice how the bass drum becomes the sun.
Songs like this are pointers -

Noone knows her name but they see her youth.... and use her (333)
....You`re a 666 Conducer.... how do you do the things you do sir? (666).

http://www.blackrebelmotorcycleclub.com/

[colinax]

That`s interesting - If you look at the film "Help" it is basically all about ritualism and sun worship. There are two posters on this forum, McMenek1 and Lateral V, who go into the manipulation of sun (666/outer) and moon (333/inner) frequencies in detail - very important material. Matthew Delooze also goes into this in much detail.

On the Abbey Road album alone there are two songs entitled "Sun King" and "Here Comes the Sun" - The music and entertainment industry is all about keeping the focus on the outer-self (666) and preventing mergence with higher-self (333).

666 and 333 = 999 The Chrisos/Christ frequency. An awakening in consciousness is not what TPTB want so we are hypnotised and manipulated from outside.

That`s why we have disinformation agents picking names like Socrates - to keep people in the left brain/facts/logic. As Astrochicken has pointed out many times, we need to incorporate right brain (intuition/higher-self) with the left (the 333 with the 666).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmsXNAv3orY&feature=channel_page

"666 Conducer" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dmqs0cITZ3Y - Notice how the bass drum becomes the sun.
Songs like this are pointers -

Noone knows her name but they see her youth.... and use her (333)
....You`re a 666 Conducer.... how do you do the things you do sir? (666).

http://www.blackrebelmotorcycleclub.com/
yeah I hate facts and logic too.

[orbandsceptre27]

yeah I hate facts and logic too.

I don`t, logic is important.

[supertzar]

When you add it all up, it's simply not the same guy. :rolleyes:





It's interesting how you use the eye-roll emoticon. I use it to express that someone made a comment that is worthy of getting eyes rolled at it. You seem to direct the eye-rolling at your own comments, faulcon. What do you mean when you flatly state it's "not the same guy" and then roll your virtual eyes?

[orbandsceptre27]

It's interesting how you use the eye-roll emoticon. I use it to express that someone made a comment that is worthy of getting eyes rolled at it. You seem to direct the eye-rolling at your own comments, faulcon. What do you mean when you flatly state it's "not the same guy" and then roll your virtual eyes?

You mean like your friend Socrates -

This has been discussed before. :rolleyes:

Jez what`s eating you Supertzar....? :rolleyes:

[supertzar]

You mean like your friend Socrates -



Jez what`s eating you Supertzar....? :rolleyes:


Soc is rolling his eyes because a point was brought up that has already been addressed. That is the way I use it - as a comment on what someone else has said or done.

[faulconandsnowjob]

666 and 333 = 999 The Chrisos/Christ frequency. An awakening in consciousness is not what TPTB want so we are hypnotised and manipulated from outside.

That`s why we have disinformation agents picking names like Socrates - to keep people in the left brain/facts/logic. As Astrochicken has pointed out many times, we need to incorporate right brain (intuition/higher-self) with the left (the 333 with the 666).

That is so interesting, Orb. I'm really starting to see how much mind control is involved in all of this. The really surprising thing to me is how resistant some people are to seeing how they've been mind controlled. You can point out to them how they've been trained to see 2 different guys as being the same, you can point out all the differences, & yet they can't see it. I don't know if it's b/c they are really just not able to see it, or if they just don't want to see it. I don't really care. I'm just trying to reach the people who aren't hopeless.

I don't think putting the pieces together should be this hard. I think people on the David Icke forum should have a reasonable level of knowledge about the Illuminati & what they are capable of. If you think these people are incapable of killing & replacing someone, well, maybe you ought to do some more research. Just a friendly suggestion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6Si7vuzN2M&feature=PlayList&p=3DB7371263F724FE&index=58

[orbandsceptre27]

Soc is rolling his eyes because a point was brought up that has already been addressed. That is the way I use it.

Go and ask him if he roles them clockwise or anti-clockwise Supertzar, then see where you stand... would you believe him eitherways? :)


That is so interesting, Orb. I'm really starting to see how much mind control is involved in all of this. The really surprising thing to me is how resistant some people are to seeing how they've been mind controlled. You can point out to them how they've been trained to see 2 different guys as being the same, you can point out all the differences, & yet they can't see it. I don't know if it's b/c they are really just not able to see it, or if they just don't want to see it. I don't really care. I'm just trying to reach the people who aren't hopeless.

I don't think putting the pieces together should be this hard. I think people on the David Icke forum should have a reasonable level of knowledge about the Illuminati & what they are capable of. If you think these people are incapable of killing & replacing someone, well, maybe you ought to do some more research. Just a friendly suggestion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6Si7vuzN2M&feature=PlayList&p=3DB7371263F724FE&index=58

There are so many people on this forum claiming to be awake Faulcon, I feel the most important thing is for people to realize they`re asleep first. The only genuine "awake" poster I`ve come across on these threads is Sevenworlds. If people really want to "wake up" they`ll read material from an awakened individual.

I agree with you about mind-control. To some extent we all live with illusion - We have to realize we know nothing about anything.... then we begin to see/hear more clearly, the illusion falls away and we`re left with what we`re left with.

The problem with most people is wanting to be right/strenghtening the ego. There is no right or wrong only what`s there/what is. Enough of my preaching for one day lol. :)

[hey_dude]

http://mybeatlescollection.net/images/P1013512.jpg

OMG! "Faul" has brown eyes in this picture? :eek:What's up with that? I guess the "powers that be" must have tampered with the photo to make "Faul" resemble Paul more. :eek: But it seems they forgot to change all of the alleged blatant physical differences between "Paul" and "Faul" when they altered the eye colour (These physical differences are of course only evident to those who have been somehow "enlightened" by our PID friends) . :eek: Those silly negligent illuminati agents. :rolleyes:

[reggievandam]

Hey, Everyone! Check this out! IAMAPHONEY'S got his own fanclub now! LOL!:D

I was searching the Paul is dead - Rotten Apple Series when I found THIS:

http://therottenappleseries.proboards.com/index.cgi?


THE ROTTEN APPLE SERIES FORUMS! Check it out! Looks like some cool guys and gals there, probably from some of the other PID forums too!

CHEERS! ~ REG :cool:

[hey_dude]

Hey, Everyone! Check this out! IAMAPHONEY'S got his own fanclub now! LOL!:D

I was searching the Paul is dead - Rotten Apple Series when I found THIS:

http://therottenappleseries.proboards.com/index.cgi?


THE ROTTEN APPLE SERIES FORUMS! Check it out! Looks like some cool guys and gals there, probably from some of the other PID forums too!

CHEERS! ~ REG :cool:

The clowns there need help. Mental help. Paul is alive as has been well established by now.

[hey_dude]

That`s interesting - If you look at the film "Help" it is basically all about ritualism and sun worship. There are two posters on this forum, McMenek1 and Lateral V, who go into the manipulation of sun (666/outer) and moon (333/inner) frequencies in detail - very important material. Matthew Delooze also goes into this in much detail.

On the Abbey Road album alone there are two songs entitled "Sun King" and "Here Comes the Sun" - The music and entertainment industry is all about keeping the focus on the outer-self (666) and preventing mergence with higher-self (333).

666 and 333 = 999 The Christos/Christ frequency. An awakening in consciousness is not what TPTB want so we are hypnotised and manipulated from outside.

That`s why we have disinformation agents picking names like Socrates - to keep people in the left brain/facts/logic. As Astrochicken has pointed out many times, we need to incorporate right brain (intuition/higher-self) with the left (the 333 with the 666).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmsXNAv3orY&feature=channel_page

"666 Conducer" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dmqs0cITZ3Y - Notice how the bass drum becomes the sun.
Songs like this are pointers -

Noone knows her name but they see her youth.... and use her (333)
....You`re a 666 Conducer.... how do you do the things you do sir? (666).

http://www.blackrebelmotorcycleclub.com/

You've got to be kidding me. That's a stretch to say the least. At worst it's demonising some of the most prominent humanitarians of the 20th century.

[boots]

Boots I hope this is just a phase your going through..... dating the local thread shill - whatever will the neighbours think? :)

G'day orbandsceptre27:) In a word NO. I want solid hard facts.

http://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/show-case/profiles.jpg

Q: The left photo is grainy, the right, clear. Hard to make a comparison. Q : What year was the left taken and what year was the right one taken or how many month's apart?



Take a closer look at this picture Boots, you might have missed a few important things and remember Billy (on the right) is a double - he`s got to look very similar to Paul but there are differences.

First look at the top of Bills lip in conjunction to the nose and compare to Paul in the first picture - It`s much longer!

Look at the inside of Bills nose and how again it is longer than Pauls when you measure both up to the eye.

But most importantly (and this has been pointed out in another photo comparison) if you draw an imaginery line across Bills face (right picture) to the bottom of his ear.... Look how much higher up his face Bills ear is compared to Paul. the bottom of Pauls nose and the bottom of Pauls ear allign up almost perfectly, whereas Bills ear is higher up.


That might be true I can see that in these photo's but it's not a good comparison. It's not enough too convince me as they are 2 different photo's and one is closer up, with different angles So how about getting a GOOD comparison??



This is where the old fake ear that Howie so well spotted comes in,

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g134/antiKitano/PDVD_003.jpg



Nope, cant buy that. Here is why. If someone was to put on a fake ear then they would have made it so that no mark would have shown up. That's pathetic. If there was such a marked line as this, then it's all most falling off. Show us something better than this.



The picture is not tampered and taken directly from this footage, it`s a video frame -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYHv0uwMY5c&feature=channel_page ^ Freeze at 1.20!


A lot of muso's will swap hands just fucking around. If your a guitar player who has been playing the same stuff for ages you like to try different thing's for a change. I know and have seen Ritchie Blackmore do this in a backstage photo.


Can anyone in all honesty say this these men are the same person?? Look at the eye colour again -

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


Thanks not good enough mate, sorry the age difference is enormous for starter's and if it's the eye thing, well. They do change.

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

Eye color can change with age

Q: Is it possible for eye color to change as we age? My aunt used to have brown eyes but now, at the age of 80, her eyes are green/grey. My eyes seem lighter than before, too. Emily, Newport Beach, California

When I was born, I had dark blue eyes. As a child, my eyes became hazel brown. Now that I am much older, they have turned a bright green. Why are my eyes changing color so much? Judy, Kenner, Louisiana

I was born with brown eyes. They changed to olive green and are now (I’m past 50) changing to light green and turquoise. Why does this happen? Wanda, Memphis, Tennessee

What exactly are hazel eyes? I say hazel eyes change colors. I’ve read that eyes don’t change color but how do you explain millions of people saying their eyes change? Someone please explain! Bryan, Washington D.C.

A: You get the idea. Changing eye color baffles people. It’s the most-asked question I get.
http://www.wonderquest.com/images/2004-10-08-eye.jpgLight eyes. [National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health]

OK, all. Eye color can change over time because of age or, unfortunately, disease.
Eye disease is a cause of color change. So, ask a doctor to examine your eyes if you notice a slow loss of color. The change could be due to Fuch’s heterochromic iridocyclitis, Horner’s Syndrome, and pigmentary glaucoma, says Brian DeBroff (http://info.med.yale.edu/clinop/debroff.html), ophthalmology professor at Yale University.
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 (http://www.imb.uq.edu.au/index.html?id=11690), a Principal Research Fellow at the Institute for Molecular Bioscience at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia.




So can you come up with some real proof, so that I can look at it with open eye's;)


Proof with date's on the photo's. Thanks.


.

[faulconandsnowjob]

There are so many people on this forum claiming to be awake Faulcon, I feel the most important thing is for people to realize they`re asleep first.
Yeah... Some people seem to really like the fantasy world the Illuminati has created for them, though. Well, whatever floats your boat.

[fireman]

lol., wow Faulcons logic never fails..

http://www.thadguy.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/lazy-conspiracy-theorist.png

[faulconandsnowjob]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osokARmzFBk&feature=PlayList&p=3DB7371263F724FE&index=59

No, Faul. You're really not that guy.

[fireman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osokARmzFBk&feature=PlayList&p=3DB7371263F724FE&index=59

No, Faul. You're really not that guy.


Again PID and Iamaphoney work with lies, deception and editing tricks!

Here is the real interview unedited:

Paul Mccartney on the phone - the real interview - YouTube

It's actually quite charming!

:p Faulcon, you should realize: the only ones doctoring and liying are the PID hoaxers like Iamaphoney!

[astrochicken]

I agree with you about mind-control. To some extent we all live with illusion - We have to realize we know nothing about anything.... then we begin to see/hear more clearly, the illusion falls away and we`re left with what we`re left with.


I thought that is what most people go through, maybe not though.

When you're 18, you think:

1. your parents are full of shite and
2. you think you know everything

As you get older you start to realize that you don't
actually know fuck all about anything.

That is the starting point for any personal growth or transcendentalism of any kind and also the precise moment you drop any preconceptions of the world and the way you think it works.

Starting from scratch is fucking awesome.

[sunsoflight]

The Rotten Apple Forums is pretty much dead. It is run by a guy named Mikey and his sidekick fourthousandassholes.

Waves to faulconandsnowjob.....hope all is well. I've been busy and decided to come catch up on the latest, as much as that is possible with so so many pages of posts.

Sun

[faulconandsnowjob]

Hey, Sun! It's great to see you on here. We've missed you on PID MH! :)

[faulconandsnowjob]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3J1K-RsezY&feature=PlayList&p=3DB7371263F724FE&index=60

[fireman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3J1K-RsezY&feature=PlayList&p=3DB7371263F724FE&index=60

Thanks for posting that. Another very good example of how Iamaphoney is hoaxing and editing to produce fake "evidence".


The part "are you natural or double" was produced for a russian PID hoax video and is clearly overdubbed. Still, Iamaphoney presents it as "evidence". :rolleyes:



Here is the transcript of the Red Square interview!

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


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

Guess what... he overdubbed something.


Original

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

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



The Phoney version:

Q: Are you natural or a double?

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


PID is a big hoax, and Iamaphoney is the king of hoaxers.. still, so many people believe everything that has a youtube label above.. :rolleyes:

[faulconandsnowjob]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj3RwJ4-mak&feature=PlayList&p=3DB7371263F724FE&index=61

[fireman]

You don't even care if the videos are faked, right?

That pretty much sums up the PID world.. life would be empty without PID, wouldnt it? ;)

Why do you ignore facts that are showing you that it's all a hoax?

Thanks for posting that. Another very good example of how Iamaphoney is hoaxing and editing to produce fake "evidence".


The part "are you natural or double" was produced for a russian PID hoax video and is clearly overdubbed. Still, Iamaphoney presents it as "evidence". :rolleyes:



Here is the transcript of the Red Square interview!

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


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

Guess what... he overdubbed something.


Original

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

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



The Phoney version:

Q: Are you natural or a double?

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


PID is a big hoax, and Iamaphoney is the king of hoaxers.. still, so many people believe everything that has a youtube label above.. :rolleyes:

[ar20]

You don't even care if the videos are faked, right?

That pretty much sums up the PID world.. life would be empty without PID, wouldnt it? ;)

Why do you ignore facts that are showing you that it's all a hoax?

I'll side with you on this one Fireman.

Some Iamaphoney clips are deliberately edited to justify PiD.

There was one I watched that had a clip of John Lennon on the Dick Caveat show, I already watched the original so I noticed right away -- phoney clipped out parts when John was asked about Paul being dead.

Goes a little like:

"There was a big thing ahout paul being dead, could you answer that?"

Lennon

"It had nothing to do with me" *slows video, Lennon licks lips like Clinton when lieing then looks over to Yoko.


BUT...

At the end of the video with Paul in Russia, he turns to the crowd and goes "Baaa! Baaa!" like a sheep to them, so I doubt that's edited in.


In all fairness, I've seen a PiA video where the photo comparisons had 2 Fauls superimposed (the same image from the otherside none the less :eek:), so it's not just PiD doing this. :p

Phoneys videos are still great though, if you get by the blatant propaganda in some of them, he does have a lot of unique info -- I also doubt he'd still be churning them out for a laugh if he wasn't serious about it all.

[ar20]

Also, Paul fans...

Anyone explained Heather Mills "Huge Secret" yet?

Beyond belief secret about Paul, that the public couldn't handle, and is NOT infidelity? (certainly doesn't sound like wife beating either)...

paul is dead - the rotten apple 63 u - YouTube

[faulconandsnowjob]

^ Well, I'm a Paul fan, but not really a Faul fan. To me, it's pretty obvious what Heather Mills is referring to. I'm also wondering what evidence she put in a boz & sent to a friend in case someone offs her.

[fireman]

I'll side with you on this one Fireman.

Some Iamaphoney clips are deliberately edited to justify PiD.

There was one I watched that had a clip of John Lennon on the Dick Caveat show, I already watched the original so I noticed right away -- phoney clipped out parts when John was asked about Paul being dead.

Goes a little like:

"There was a big thing ahout paul being dead, could you answer that?"

Lennon

"It had nothing to do with me" *slows video, Lennon licks lips like Clinton when lieing then looks over to Yoko.


BUT...

At the end of the video with Paul in Russia, he turns to the crowd and goes "Baaa! Baaa!" like a sheep to them, so I doubt that's edited in.


In all fairness, I've seen a PiA video where the photo comparisons had 2 Fauls superimposed (the same image from the otherside none the less :eek:), so it's not just PiD doing this. :p

Phoneys videos are still great though, if you get by the blatant propaganda in some of them, he does have a lot of unique info -- I also doubt he'd still be churning them out for a laugh if he wasn't serious about it all.


Thanks Ar20 for giving an honest response. Its really annoying that alot of PID believers are against everything you say just because you believe PIA. So other then Faulcon you are not ignoring the fact that Iamaphoney is reediting (hoaxing?) material to make his case.. thanks for that.

Regarding the goat sound: i think it is also overdubbed. The original russian PID video that Iamaphoney used is very silly. At one point when Paul is scratching his face with the microphone, they overdubbed the sound of an electric shaver! ;) So it would't be too far out to assume that the goat-thing is also overdubbed by them..
:)

[faulconandsnowjob]

More from Heather

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CA4Fg3xihY&feature=PlayList&p=3DB7371263F724FE&index=62

[dream9]

Wow, those statements from Heather are shocking! This is the first I've seen them.:eek:

[ar20]

More from Heather

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CA4Fg3xihY&feature=PlayList&p=3DB7371263F724FE&index=62

At the very least, it's suspicious... I doubt she'd do that all for publicity because she actually seems genuine.


This is a smoking gun because from a PiD perspective, the Paul I'm seeing, this wouldn't have happened or been said.

[metacomet]

Hey fireman,

http://davidicke.com/forum/image.php?u=22323&dateline=1239011660

Why are the eyebrows different?

Pointed this out earlier in the thread with other pictures...

Faul has different eyebrows than Paul?

[fireman]

Yeah, i already answered your question, maybe you overlooked it:

his eyebrow was messed up by the moped accident in 1966..

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

That is that...


The other thing is that my avatar for example is made out of two different pictures, that why they dont look exactly alike. But mainly its the scar from the moped accident that made his left eyebrow look little different..

These are the little details that proof, that Paul is alive!

[white horse]

Hey Faulcon - she seemed pretty riled up didn't she! Funny how now I watch that clip in a whol enew light; The interviewer just was not engaged on teh same wavelength at all, did not know what she was talking about at all!

It is possible she has deluded herself maybe after seeing all this stuff on the net, but something really seems to have got to her!

Paul/Faul's people did a good PR hatchett on her in any case!

[metacomet]

NOW it makes sense. The rest of his face was exactly similar, eyebrows really threw me for a loop.

I have still seen a handful of pictures where the guy simply doesn't look like Paul :confused: Mouth, chin, nose... all different except for the eyes.

In my opinion there is a whole lot of comparing of Paul to himself in this thread and only a handful of real 'Faul' pictures to choose from.

I wonder if there really was a Faul who stepped in for a bit and just vanished afterwards. This could lead to discussion of having cloned the original Paul in the meantime and I don't think this thread is ready for that :p

[white horse]

NOW it makes sense. The rest of his face was exactly similar, eyebrows really threw me for a loop.

I have still seen a handful of pictures where the guy simply doesn't look like Paul :confused: Mouth, chin, nose... all different except for the eyes.

In my opinion there is a whole lot of comparing of Paul to himself in this thread and only a handful of real 'Faul' pictures to choose from.

I wonder if there really was a Faul who stepped in for a bit and just vanished afterwards. This could lead to discussion of having cloned the original Paul in the meantime and I don't think this thread is ready for that :p

O I don't know - we got super mighty morphing shape shifting space lizards elsewhere - bring it on Comet. watch got??! :D

[howie]

Heather Mills has been silenced since that GMTV interview, Jane Asher is not allowed to talk about him either, I heard a local radio show warn people not to ask questions about Paul McCartney before she came on to talk about her new book.

[faulconandsnowjob]

^ And the hatchet job on Heather by the Illuminati-controlled media was to make sure no one would pay attention to her IF she ever spilled the beans about Paul/Faul. Of course, she won't b/c she has a kid to worry about. For those who don't know, the Illuminati will actually kill people who go against them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCQtP4AjVg8&feature=PlayList&p=3DB7371263F724FE&index=63

In my opinion there is a whole lot of comparing of Paul to himself in this thread and only a handful of real 'Faul' pictures to choose from.
Paul wasn't around after Sept 1966. There are doctored pics of him that appear after that, though.

Other people have mentioned the possibility of Paul having been cloned. I know there are clones, but I don't think Faul looks like Paul enough to be a clone. However, there could be a familial connection. But then again, there are lookalikes who aren't related at all.

[orbandsceptre27]

This could lead to discussion of having cloned the original Paul in the meantime and I don't think this thread is ready for that :p

Cloning doesn`t come into it -

The present Faul is a double. There are significant differences between Paul McCartney and the man who permanently replaced him already highlighted many times.


YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. - imposter.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. - imposter (BBC interview 1968).

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

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. - McCartney (Hamburg, June 1966)

Paul McCartney Interviewed By David Frost - YouTube - McCartney (interviewed by David Frost, 1964)

[orbandsceptre27]

Hey Boots,


Q: The left photo is grainy, the right, clear. Hard to make a comparison. Q : What year was the left taken and what year was the right one taken or how many month's apart?

http://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/show-case/profiles.jpg

You`ll have to ask Faulcon the precise dates of both photos` as she put the comparison together.

It isn`t difficult to see that the ear of the person in the right picture is higher up in conjunction with his nose, than that of the figure on the left (McCartney). As I was saying before the distance between the upper lip and nose of the man on the right, is greater than that of the man on the left. McCartney on the left, also has a shorter nose.

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

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/f_fauxpaulmccm_1473996.jpg
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/f_fauxpaulmccm_307f62f.jpg

If someone was to put on a fake ear then they would have made it so that no mark would have shown up.

It`s a video clip Boots. I initially thought the same as you and dismissed it as a hoax pic. However Howie came up with the original footage and it`s clearly visable on the film.

Have a look at the footage and freeze at 1 minute 20 seconds - YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

His hair should have been covering it, but wasn`t.

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

The age difference is enormous for starter's and if it's the eye thing, well. They do change.
http://www.wonderquest.com/eye-color-age.htm

Eye color can change with age

Do you think eye colour can change from dark brown to green in the space of a year? -

http://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/mmt_frames/faul.jpghttp://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/mmt_frames/faul_green_eye.jpg

^ Faul in "Fool on the Hill" 1967.

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/Beatle_Paul_cover.jpg - Vintage magazine cover of Paul.

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

Q: Is it possible for eye color to change as we age? My aunt used to have brown eyes but now, at the age of 80, her eyes are green/grey. My eyes seem lighter than before, too. Emily, Newport Beach, California

My mother has had green eyes all her life lol. What you`re inferring is they changed drastically within 6 months to a year.


So can you come up with some real proof, so that I can look at it with open eye's

What`s real proof my friend? What constitutes proof to you may not be for someone else. We`re not in court.

I would suggest watching and listening to old recordings/interviews of Paul and comparing them to more recent recordings of the imposter, who came on the scene in late 1966 - I hope this has helped somewhat.

[orbandsceptre27]

Heather Mills has been silenced since that GMTV interview, Jane Asher is not allowed to talk about him either, I heard a local radio show warn people not to ask questions about Paul McCartney before she came on to talk about her new book.

That`s interesting Howie - I`ve also read her relationship with Paul is the one part of her public life (Jane Asher) she refuses to discuss and has avoided it in her memoirs.

[accuracy]

It`s a video clip Boots. I initially thought the same as you and dismissed it as a hoax pic. However Howie came up with the original footage and it`s clearly visable on the film.

Have a look at the footage and freeze at 1 minute 20 seconds -
His hair should have been covering it, but wasn`t.


Great you tube video's recently posted in the past
couple of days!!

Faul is ever more exposed!

:)

[faulconandsnowjob]

http://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/show-case/profiles.jpg

Grainy or not, it's clear to see that their heads are difft shapes. The pic on the left is Paul ~ 1964. The one on the right is Faul early '70's, I believe (it's not my comp, btw). It doesn't matter, tho, b/c the point is that both men have been represented as "Paul McCartney." Is someone really going to argue that head shape can change w/ age?

So can you come up with some real proof, so that I can look at it with open eye's (sic)
Photos & videos are "real proof." What do you want? Do you want us to produce a body? Would you believe it, even if we did? Come on, you're not really interested in knowing the Truth, are you? You have a preconceived notion about what the Truth is, & if the evidence doesn't conform to your preconceived notion, then it isn't "real."

Faul is ever more exposed!
Oh, yeah :)

[toty1994]

I can understand why pid believers get excited by that video with Heather Mills-McCartney, but if you've seen the original footage minus iamaphoney's comically spooky treatment and manipulative editing, it's not nearly as dramatic. He leads his his viewers (like sheep, if you will ;)) to assume that she can only have been referring to Paul being an imposter. As far as I'm aware, no-one knows what she was really talking about.

That Jane Asher apparently refuses to talk about her relationship with McCartney is interesting, but again, the assumption that it must be because Paul was replaced hardly qualifies it as a 'smoking gun'! I came across this amusing paragraph from a recent interview with her...

Asher will be 60 next year, but her face is strangely unlined and she still has the same freckles, and the same slightly edgy prettiness of the far younger Asher - the teenager that became Paul McCartney's first serious girlfriend. Asher won't talk in public about Paul McCartney. She clams up at the very mention of the Beatles, or the smiley Maharishi Yogi, or anything at all that refers to that period of her life. It can hardly be gratifying for a respected actress and prolific author, who has fronted countless television series and charities, to be questioned about a boyfriend from over 40 years ago. But Paul McCartney is what Jane Asher is most famous for. And not being able to mention him makes the interview a bit like trying to have a normal conversation with someone who is pretending not to be wearing a gas mask.

[orbandsceptre27]

I can understand why pid believers get excited by that video with Heather Mills-McCartney, but if you've seen the original footage.......

Can you provide a link Toty1994?

[faulconandsnowjob]

^ Are you really expecting him to contribute something constructive to this thread?

[orbandsceptre27]

I was hoping Toty1994 might surprise us with some constructive analysis for once Faulcon... since (s)he`s seen the original interview. :)

[faulconandsnowjob]

^ Here's hoping :)

[hey_dude]

Paul's alive.

[faulconandsnowjob]

^ Prove it.

[toty1994]

Thanks for the vote of confidence, faulcon :p

It's not very exciting, orbandaceptre - mostly about cakes!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/3646969/Butter-wouldn't-melt.html

Here's another interview where her reluctance to talk about McCartney is briefly mentioned. You may find the title of the piece interesting - 'Asher: People think I'm Dead!'
http://www.mirror.co.uk/life-style/real-life/2007/11/02/asher-people-think-i-m-dead-115875-20051086/

Edit: oops, just realised you were talking about the video - will find it.

[hey_dude]

^ Prove it.

Iris patterns, identical facial assymetry, identical voice, identical mannerisms, same man.

Besides, the burden of proof is actually on you, considering all evidence points to the fact that Paul Mccartney is alive, well and the most succesful solo musician of all time. C'mon, prove that Paul Mccartney s dead without using your silly meaningless photographs that show nothing but a man who aged and lost weight.

[orbandsceptre27]

Heather Mills has been silenced since that GMTV interview, Jane Asher is not allowed to talk about him either, I heard a local radio show warn people not to ask questions about Paul McCartney before she came on to talk about her new book.

That`s interesting Howie - I`ve also read her relationship with Paul is the one part of her public life (Jane Asher) she refuses to discuss and has avoided it in her memoirs.


Thanks for the articles Toty1994, they back up exactly what myself and Howie were saying on the last page. :)


Try to commit Jane to a conversation about her relationship with former Beatle Sir Paul McCartney and you fight a losing battle........
"I never talk about that," Jane says firmly. "Private life is private life."

But one subject she is chatty about is food. - from The Mirror, "Asher - People think I`m Dead."


Asher won't talk in public about Paul McCartney. She clams up at the very mention of the Beatles, or the smiley Maharishi Yogi, or anything at all that refers to that period of her life.

....Paul McCartney is what Jane Asher is most famous for. And not being able to mention him makes the interview a bit like trying to have a normal conversation with someone who is pretending not to be wearing a gas mask. - from The Telegraph.

Looking forward to viewing that interview link you previously mentioned...

[toty1994]

Thanks for the articles Toty1994, they back up exactly what myself and Howie were saying on the last page. :)


Do they? You mean


Heather Mills has been silenced since that GMTV interview, Jane Asher is not allowed to talk about him either, I heard a local radio show warn people not to ask questions about Paul McCartney before she came on to talk about her new book.

But how would you know Mills 'has been silenced' or that Asher 'is not allowed' to talk? You don't, it's what you imagine to be the case - that is all. Personally, I doubt we've heard the last from Mills and only those entrenched in pid world would dismiss Asher's perfectly reasonable statement "I never talk about that," Jane says firmly. "Private life is private life."

Anyway, as requested here is the entire original GMTV interview. All Iamaphoney did was to take one small snippet and sprinkle his magic conspiracy dust all over it.

Heather Mills Outburst on GMTV Pt.1 - YouTube
Heather Mills on GMTV again Pt.2 - YouTube
Heather Mills on GMTV again Pt.1 - YouTube
Heather Mills on GMTV again Pt.2 - YouTube

Now watch the iaap vid again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CA4Fg3xihY&feature=PlayList&p=3DB7371263F724FE&index=62

Is it just possible you think I have a point? I suspect not, but maybe you'll surprise me.:)

As for Heather's 'box of evidence'...

Heather Mills is ready to go public with explosive revelations about her marriage to Paul McCartney contained in tape recorded "therapy" sessions they held as their marriage disintegrated.

Miss Mills has hours of recordings of Sir Paul sharing his darkest inner thoughts with her as the couple tried to talk through their marital difficulties.
The Daily Mail has learned that the sessions were recorded on audio tapes at Sir Paul's Peasmarsh estate in West Sussex in 2005 so they could be played back as the couple "worked through" their problems.

They are understood to make up the dynamite "box of evidence" to which Miss Mills referred in TV interviews this week.
The tapes apparently feature Sir Paul and her talking often heatedly and at length about physical fights and fidelity in his first marriage to Linda.
They are also said to row about his love of alcohol and cannabis, a row which turned physical between Miss Mills and the Beatle, his treatment of Heather behind closed doors and detailed discussions about their sex life.
There are also wider-ranging recordings where Sir Paul talks about his life before Miss Mills - including remarks about other members of the rock aristocracy and the McCartney clan.
The tapes have been described as "incredibly explosive".
Miss Mills said this week that she had death threats from an "underground movement" which made her want to kill herself so her four-year-old daughter Beatrice could live a safer life.
She then said she had taken steps to ensure that the "truth will come out" about their marriage if she was ever murdered.
"I have a box of evidence that's going to a certain person should anything happen to me, so if you top me off, it's still going to that person, and the truth will come out," she said.
Last night, she continued her media onslaught against Sir Paul in the U.S.
During a TV interview she pointedly referred to having "recorded every single conversation" she had with Sir Paul as their marriage disintegrated because she thought "no one would believe her" about how the break-up was all his fault.
The recordings have remained secret until now. The Mail first learned of their existence last November when one found its way to a British TV company.
One of the tapes - said to contain Sir Paul admitting to Miss Mills that he hit Linda "once or twice" - surfaced again this week when it was played off-camera during a round of TV interviews in Britain on Wednesday.
There are other recordings which contain Heather and Sir Paul locked in discussions about the appropriateness of his level of his alcohol and cannabis consumption.
Another allegedly contains an admission from Sir Paul that he and Miss Mills came to blows during an argument.
Other more intimate recordings involve Sir Paul's feelings about sex with Heather, and what attracted him to her, talking in detail about the pros and cons of their sexual exploits.
A source at a major British TV production company who has heard the tapes said: "Heather played edited excerpts from a number of audio tapes to us.
"She came for a meeting with her friend Ben Amigoni.
"They are long rambling talks between Heather and Paul - she describes them as his therapy sessions. We got the highlights. She told us that he was definitely aware that he was being recorded."
However, he added: "It didn't sound as if he knew he was being recorded - but that is just my opinion. Paul clearly loves to talk about himself, but he may be regretting that now.
"After Heather had left us that day, my opinion was that in isolation they were dynamite, but looked at in the context of an entire marriage, they might be quite unrepresentative of what actually went on."
A source close to Sir Paul defended his drink and drugs consumption, saying: "He does have a problem, but it's not anything to do with alcoholism.
"His problem is with tolerance. If he has more than about three or four whiskies, he falls over. He simply cannot drink a lot.
"And in terms of the dope, I think the only problem he had was her ignorance about it.
"She's the one who went on regional TV and said that everyone who smoked cannabis should be put in prison."

Heather Mills has 10 secret tapes containing details about her sex life and bitter rows with estranged husband Sir Paul McCartney.

The former model - who recently claimed she had a "secret box of evidence" to use in her bitter divorce from The Beatles legend - claims the recordings prove Paul took Viagra pills to spice up their sex life, accepted blame for the breakdown of their marriage and mocked her disability.

A source told Britain's News of the World newspaper: "Some of the details about their sex life will sicken a lot of people and make them see Paul in a different light.

"There are recordings Heather says prove Paul referred to her as a, 'One-legged b***h'.

"She says it's clear from the tape that Paul apologised for the marriage breakdown and for how he treated her.

"Heather believes these tapes will put the record straight and she isn't scared to let these personal details get out."

Heather, who has a prosthetic limb after losing her left leg below the knee following a motorbike accident in 1993, also allegedly has evidence of "spiteful phone calls" from Paul's daughter Stella.

The source added: "Stella ranted, 'I hope you lose your other f***ing leg.' Heather says her tapes will back this up.

"The relationship between Heather and Stella has reached rock bottom - they can't stand each other. Heather is convinced her tapes will show the world the real Stella. They are explosive."

Heather has reportedly stored the box of evidence in a Coutts bank vault. Only she and her sister, Fiona, know the access code.

So, box of evidence = pid revelations?... Or is it just the inevitable assumption one would expect from those who still, inexplicably, take iamaphoney's videos seriously?

[fireman]

Do they? You mean




But how would you know Mills 'has been silenced' or that Asher 'is not allowed' to talk? You don't, it's what you imagine to be the case - that is all. Personally, I doubt we've heard the last from Mills and only those entrenched in pid world would dismiss Asher's perfectly reasonable statement "I never talk about that," Jane says firmly. "Private life is private life."

Now watch the iaap vid again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CA4Fg3xihY&feature=PlayList&p=3DB7371263F724FE&index=62

Is it just possible you think I have a point? I suspect not, but maybe you'll surprise me.:)

As for Heather's 'box of evidence'...



So, box of evidence = pid revelations?... Or is it just the inevitable assumption one would expect from those who still, inexplicably, take iamaphoney's videos seriously?

Great post!

Iamaphoneys videos have debunked and proven hoaxes over and over again. But Faulcon the lawyer seems to be not so interested in real evidence..

Speaking of evidence, Faulcon said the photographs she is posting are "evidence".

Lets take an example from the eye colour discussion.

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

This does not count as evidence, it has been coulorized!
Really no need to be a lawyer to see that! They would have laughed at you in court!!:p

BTW, lets make a quick comp with that and another of your favorite "Faul" pictures:

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


same guy
http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/necompvint_fade.gif

wow, perfect match
http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/necompvint_fiddy.gif

and a little photoshop fun for friends of "doctoring". This is "Faul" with Pauls hair... No, its just Paul with pre-1966 moptop:

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


So, yeah, PAUL IS ALIVE

[ar20]

Great post!

Iamaphoneys videos have debunked and proven hoaxes over and over again. But Faulcon the lawyer seems to be not so interested in real evidence..

Speaking of evidence, Faulcon said the photographs she is posting are "evidence".

Lets take an example from the eye colour discussion.

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

This does not count as evidence, it has been coulorized!
Really no need to be a lawyer to see that! They would have laughed at you in court!!:p

BTW, lets make a quick comp with that and another of your favorite "Faul" pictures:

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


same guy
http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/necompvint_fade.gif

wow, perfect match
http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/necompvint_fiddy.gif

and a little photoshop fun for friends of "doctoring". This is "Faul" with Pauls hair... No, its just Paul with pre-1966 moptop:

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


So, yeah, PAUL IS ALIVE


Thanks for doing this btw :eek:

You prove PiD to be right every time you make a fade.

Those are clearly not the same guy... even when you match the shape profiles up. :p

Honestly thanks, because those on the fence must have a little common sense to even see the differences.

[socrates]

Totally different shaped heads:

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

Oh, really?

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/sff_comp2.jpg

The only difference is the way his hair lies on the back of his head...

http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/4020/6b6a.jpg http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/1908/b6ba.jpg

It isn`t difficult to see that the ear of the person in the right picture is higher up in conjunction with his nose, than that of the figure on the left (McCartney).

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/sff_comp2.jpg

In the above photo, we can clearly see that it's NOT....

http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/3103/36364386.jpghttp://img27.imageshack.us/img27/2028/b6a.jpg

It's all about the angle of the head.

Two pics of Paul, pre PID:

http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/2642/b6b.jpg
Ear lobe nearly level with bottom of nose.

http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/848/b6ao.jpg
Ear lobe no where near level with bottom of nose.

PIDers use the very same 'inconsistencies' as evidence of a replacement - yet they also appear when comparing pics of Paul. :)

Once again, PID evidence crumbles into dust when examined objectively.

[socrates]

You prove PiD to be right every time you make a fade.

Would a PIDer say anything else?

Those are clearly not the same guy... even when you match the shape profiles up. :p

Would a PIDer say anything else?

You could give them DNA proof they are the same man and they wouldn't accept it.

Honestly thanks, because those on the fence must have a little common sense to even see the differences.

PID and common sense are mutally incompatable. :p

[howie]

Here is part one of the GMTV interview use the search box to find part 2

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.


Iamaphoney has not edited the interview to suit his theory, all the information is there, the parts about her early career as a model &
the press stalking her are irrelevant to the Rotten Apple videos.

She says "I'm not allowed to talk about it" for legal reasons during the divorce case, afterwards there was a clause to stop her talking about her marriage when she was awarded the £20million+ hush money.

Miss Mills, 40, had been fighting for £2.5million a year from 65-year-old Sir Paul to cover such costs as security for her and her daughter.

But she is understood to be expecting much less in the final agreement, which is also linked to a confidentiality clause.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-533751/46million-divorce-settlement-makes-Heather-Mills-UKs-richest-women.html


The full Jane Asher interview

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/3646969/Butter-wouldnt-melt.html

She contradicts herself by saying she will not talk about that period of her life (the 1960s) & then talks about the films & Television shows she starred in during the mid 60s but does not mention her relationship with Paul.


"I haven't broken it off, but it is broken off,finished...I know it sounds corny, but we still see each other, and love each other, but it hasn't worked out. Perhaps we'll be childhood sweethearts and meet again, and get married when we're about seventy."
- Jane Asher 7/20/1968


"We nearly did get married. But it always used to fall short of the mark and something happened. And one of us would think it wasn't right...Jane and I had a long good relationship."
- Paul McCartney 7/1968

[fireman]

Ar20, really, there are no differences. You only see 2 different man because you are desperatly looking for differences. But little differences are normal:
its 2 diffferent pictures taken years apart!!




Look at these pictures of Paul and tell me why you think these are of the same man , while the above (or any other of my comps) are not:





http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/diverse%20photos/Paul%20comps/OhneTitel-4.gif

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/diverse%20photos/Paul%20comps/OhneTitel-7.gif

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/diverse%20photos/Paul%20comps/OhneTitel-9.gif

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/diverse%20photos/Paul%20comps/OhneTitel-6.gif

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/diverse%20photos/Paul%20comps/OhneTitel-3.gif

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/diverse%20photos/Paul%20comps/OhneTitel-1.gif



These are all of Paul 1962 -1966. Same guy? According to PID theory: YES!







My point is, if you think the guy looks different post 1966, then Paul has never been alive!

PNE (Paul never existed)

:D


PID is like brainwashing that makes you see things that are not there.

:(

[socrates]

http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/351/b666.jpghttp://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/Beatle_Paul_cover.jpg

http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/351/b666.jpghttp://www.tlcgraphic.com/images/1963HazelEyesSm.gif

"Different coloured eyes!!!!"

PID logic states that this is evidence they are two different people.

Only problem with that....

ALL the photos are Paul PRE PID. ;)

[socrates]

^ It's funny how someone can resemble Paul & yet not be cute at all. I think it comes down to the different shaped face & the nose that points down.

Like this?

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/2176/beatlepaulcover.jpg

Paul had more of an upturned nose.

Like this?

http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/351/b666.jpg

Only trouble with your theory is that these two photos are of Paul PRE PID.

http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/351/b666.jpghttp://img17.imageshack.us/img17/2176/beatlepaulcover.jpg

PIDers simply cannot accept that the 'differences' they can 'see' are not real.

[toty1994]

Iamaphoney has not edited the interview to suit his theory, all the information is there, the parts about her early career as a model &
the press stalking her are irrelevant to the Rotten Apple videos.
Yes, but if you watch the entire interview from the beginning the moment seized upon by iaap is seen in context. By using that one moment, then piling on his usual creepy atmospherics and cryptic 'insider knowledge' stylings, of course he is attempting to manipulate his audience. If he were able to convince viewers by not employing such blatant tactics - just telling it straight and without the theatrics - then maybe more people would've sat up and listened by now. Why doesn't he?


She says "I'm not allowed to talk about it" for legal reasons during the divorce case, afterwards there was a clause to stop her talking about her marriage when she was awarded the £20million+ hush money.
Not unexpected considering the reported contents of Heather's 'box of evidence', which, although possibly very damaging to McCartney, doesn't appear to contain anything pertaining to the pid theory. You just assume it does and that is enough it seems.

She contradicts herself by saying she will not talk about that period of her life (the 1960s) & then talks about the films & Television shows she starred in during the mid 60s but does not mention her relationship with Paul.


"I haven't broken it off, but it is broken off,finished...I know it sounds corny, but we still see each other, and love each other, but it hasn't worked out. Perhaps we'll be childhood sweethearts and meet again, and get married when we're about seventy."
- Jane Asher 7/20/1968


"We nearly did get married. But it always used to fall short of the mark and something happened. And one of us would think it wasn't right...Jane and I had a long good relationship."
- Paul McCartney 7/1968
Why would she have a problem talking about her work during that period? Her relationship with McCartney, on the other hand, was and is her private business; as she said, "private life is private life". No contradiction.

As for that 1968 quote, presumably it was one of the last she made on the subject before making the decision not to talk about it again. What's the problem?

[orbandsceptre27]

http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/351/b666.jpghttp://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/Beatle_Paul_cover.jpg

http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/351/b666.jpghttp://www.tlcgraphic.com/images/1963HazelEyesSm.gif

"Different coloured eyes!!!!
PID logic states that this is evidence they are two different people.

Only problem with that....

ALL the photos are Paul PRE PID.

One of the best posts you`ve made so far on this thread Socrates - you`re switching to the dark side of the force? :D

[faulconandsnowjob]

Iris patterns, identical facial assymetry, identical voice, identical mannerisms, same man.
Except none of the above are identical IF you compare Paul v. Faul. I realize you can't tell the difference.

Besides, the burden of proof is actually on you, considering all evidence points to the fact that Paul Mccartney is alive, well and the most succesful solo musician of all time. C'mon, prove that Paul Mccartney s dead without using your silly meaningless photographs that show nothing but a man who aged and lost weight.
You obviously have no clue that photos are evidence & prove Paul was replaced. I realize that you hate when photos are posted b/c they directly contradict what you so desperately want to believe - that Paul was never replaced. Yeah, sorry. Maybe you should just accept reality?

These are so obviously not the same guys. I'm actually going to save it so I can post it as a comp somewhere.

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

You can see the face moving all over the place.

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

These heads are completely difft shapes.

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

Fireman, why are you posting these obviously doctored photos?

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/diverse%20photos/Paul%20comps/OhneTitel-7.gifhttp://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/diverse%20photos/Paul%20comps/OhneTitel-6.gif

One of the best posts you`ve made so far on this thread Socrates - you`re switching to the dark side of the force?
Too late.

[orbandsceptre27]

Here is part one of the GMTV interview use the search box to find part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGXQB3o_gnc


Iamaphoney has not edited the interview to suit his theory, all the information is there, the parts about her early career as a model &
the press stalking her are irrelevant to the Rotten Apple videos.

Exactly Howie.

She says "I'm not allowed to talk about it" for legal reasons during the divorce case, afterwards there was a clause to stop her talking about her marriage when she was awarded the £20million+ hush money.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-533751/46million-divorce-settlement-makes-Heather-Mills-UKs-richest-women.html

The full Jane Asher interview

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/3646969/Butter-wouldnt-melt.html

She contradicts herself by saying she will not talk about that period of her life (the 1960s) & then talks about the films & Television shows she starred in during the mid 60s but does not mention her relationship with Paul.


"I haven't broken it off, but it is broken off,finished...I know it sounds corny, but we still see each other, and love each other, but it hasn't worked out. Perhaps we'll be childhood sweethearts and meet again, and get married when we're about seventy."
- Jane Asher 7/20/1968


"We nearly did get married. But it always used to fall short of the mark and something happened. And one of us would think it wasn't right...Jane and I had a long good relationship."
- Paul McCartney 7/1968

[hells hero]

don't you guy's who belive Paul died in '66 ever wonder that you've lost the plot?

[orbandsceptre27]

don't you guy's who belive Paul died in '66 ever wonder that you've lost the plot?

Open your eyes and loose the plot.

[toty1994]

She contradicts herself by saying she will not talk about that period of her life (the 1960s) & then talks about the films & Television shows she starred in during the mid 60s but does not mention her relationship with Paul.


"I haven't broken it off, but it is broken off,finished...I know it sounds corny, but we still see each other, and love each other, but it hasn't worked out. Perhaps we'll be childhood sweethearts and meet again, and get married when we're about seventy."
- Jane Asher 7/20/1968


"We nearly did get married. But it always used to fall short of the mark and something happened. And one of us would think it wasn't right...Jane and I had a long good relationship."
- Paul McCartney 7/1968
How does bolding those particular bits make any difference? The first one seems a bit pointless as we already know she doesn't talk about Paul. The second one's a little odd - so she didn't end the relationship. Ok, and...? The third one -something happened...erm ok, so I'm guessing you think "something happened" probably refers to Paul's death and subsequent replacement? So bolding such a vague statement which could mean anything isn't clutching at straws?

Open your eyes and loose the plot.
Eh?

[orbandsceptre27]

It's not very exciting, orbandaceptre - mostly about cakes!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/3646969/Butter-wouldn't-melt.html

Here's another interview where her reluctance to talk about McCartney is briefly mentioned. You may find the title of the piece interesting - 'Asher: People think I'm Dead!'
http://www.mirror.co.uk/life-style/real-life/2007/11/02/asher-people-think-i-m-dead-115875-20051086/

Edit: oops, just realised you were talking about the video - will find it.

You brought forward these articles Toty1994, and I appreciate them - I`m drawing attention to the fact that Jane Asher doesn`t want to talk about her relationship with Paul McCartney, something myself and Howie have already alluded to.


Heather Mills has been silenced since that GMTV interview, Jane Asher is not allowed to talk about him either, I heard a local radio show warn people not to ask questions about Paul McCartney before she came on to talk about her new book. - Page 395

That`s interesting Howie - I`ve also read her relationship with Paul is the one part of her public life (Jane Asher) she refuses to discuss and has avoided it in her memoirs. - Page 396


The Telegraph - Asher won't talk in public about Paul McCartney. She clams up at the very mention of the Beatles, or the smiley Maharishi Yogi, or anything at all that refers to that period of her life.

....Paul McCartney is what Jane Asher is most famous for. And not being able to mention him makes the interview a bit like trying to have a normal conversation with someone who is pretending not to be wearing a gas mask.


The Mirror - Try to commit Jane to a conversation about her relationship with former Beatle Sir Paul McCartney and you fight a losing battle........
"I never talk about that," Jane says firmly. "Private life is private life."



...Have you found the link for the interview yet Toty1994? -

I can understand why pid believers get excited by that video with Heather Mills-McCartney, but if you've seen the original footage....

[toty1994]

...Have you found the link for the interview yet Toty1994
Yes, I posted it earlier (page 397) but it's disappeared for some reason. Search 'Heather Mills outburst' on youtube - the entire interview's there.

[orbandsceptre27]

Yes, I posted it earlier (page 397) but it's disappeared for some reason. Search 'Heather Mills outburst' on youtube - the entire interview's there.

I can understand why pid believers get excited by that video with Heather Mills-McCartney, but if you've seen the original footage minus iamaphoney's comically spooky treatment and manipulative editing, it's not nearly as dramatic

Ok well can you at least put up the iamaphoney video you`re referring to?

[toty1994]

More from Heather

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CA4Fg3xihY&feature=PlayList&p=3DB7371263F724FE&index=62
It was this one faulcon posted that I was referring to.

[faulconandsnowjob]

BTW, Jane Asher is from an Illuminati family & her father was a psychiatrist. Just saying.

[orbandsceptre27]

paul is dead - the rotten apple 63 Mil L y - YouTube

No editing here to shape iamaphoneys theory Toty1994.


Here`s the full GMTV interview in two segments -

1. Heather Mills Outburst on GMTV Pt.1 - YouTube

- "I have protected my husband, I know everything and I know the truth..." 4.31.

- "I have protected Paul for this long and I`m trying to protect him but I am being pushed to the edge." 6.10.

- "I could sell my story right now - I`m trying to protect Paul and our daughter....."

^ What`s this truth she keeps talking about and why does she need to protect "Big Macca"??


2. Heather Mills Outburst on GMTV Pt.2 - YouTube

- "I have a box of evidence that`s going to a certain person should anything happen to me.......... and the truth will come out. There is such a fear from a certain party of the truth coming out."

What`s this box of evidence and who`s the certain party who would fear the truth coming out.......


paul is dead - the rotten apple 63 u - YouTube

- "People don`t want to know what the truth is cause they could never ever handle it, they would be too devastated."

[faulconandsnowjob]

^ I don't think Faul has to worry. Even though the Truth has been exposed & the differences btw him & Paul have been pointed out in excruciating detail, most people simply refuse to see it or believe it. Even if Heather said he's a fake, people would just say she's trying to smear him. So, unless he fesses up or Paul's body turns up, he doesn't have a thing to worry about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArDBGyYbwLY&feature=PlayList&p=3DB7371263F724FE&index=64

Paul was replaced whether people want to accept it or not.

[toty1994]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CA4Fg3xihY

No editing here to shape iamaphoneys theory Toty1994.


Here`s the full GMTV interview in two segments -

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-d1ohpvHlu0

- "I have protected my husband, I know everything and I know the truth..." 4.31.

- "I have protected Paul for this long and I`m trying to protect him but I am being pushed to the edge." 6.10.

- "I could sell my story right now - I`m trying to protect Paul and our daughter....."

^ What`s this truth she keeps talking about and why does she need to protect "Big Macca"??


2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwLBPiz50PA

- "I have a box of evidence that`s going to a certain person should anything happen to me.......... and the truth will come out. There is such a fear from a certain party of the truth coming out."

What`s this box of evidence and who`s the certain party who would fear the truth coming out.......


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCQtP4AjVg8

- "People don`t want to know what the truth is cause they could never ever handle it, they would be too devastated."
I can only refer you to my recent posts on iamaphoney, Heather's box of evidence, your assumptions about 'the truth', and why the use of bolding doesn't automatically transform those assumptions into facts. I'm guessing you've already seen these posts and rejected them, but my response to the above would still be the same.

[boots]

http://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/show-case/profiles.jpg

Grainy or not, it's clear to see that their heads are difft shapes. The pic on the left is Paul ~ 1964. The one on the right is Faul early '70's, I believe (it's not my comp, btw). It doesn't matter, tho, b/c the point is that both men have been represented as "Paul McCartney." Is someone really going to argue that head shape can change w/ age?

Fair enough, it's not your comp.

But no their heads are not a different shape, that is the hair cut that makes it look like that

6 year's makes a lot of difference when your young, not only that but weight is another factor.

Photos & videos are "real proof." What do you want? Do you want us to produce a body? Would you believe it, even if we did? Come on, you're not really interested in knowing the Truth, are you? You have a preconceived notion about what the Truth is, & if the evidence doesn't conform to your preconceived notion, then it isn't "real."


Oh, yeah :)

Dont get shirty. I am looking for the truth ,as I have stated before. I did believe in PiD and now I am certainly leaning the other way.

.

[boots]

Hey Boots,



http://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/show-case/profiles.jpg

You`ll have to ask Faulcon the precise dates of both photos` as she put the comparison together.

It isn`t difficult to see that the ear of the person in the right picture is higher up in conjunction with his nose, than that of the figure on the left (McCartney). As I was saying before the distance between the upper lip and nose of the man on the right, is greater than that of the man on the left. McCartney on the left, also has a shorter nose.

I was a bit perplexed about this too (the ears and nose alignment) But can you explain this post by socrates



In the above photo, we can clearly see that it's NOT....

http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/3103/36364386.jpghttp://img27.imageshack.us/img27/2028/b6a.jpg

It's all about the angle of the head.

Two pics of Paul, pre PID:

http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/2642/b6b.jpg
Ear lobe nearly level with bottom of nose.

http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/848/b6ao.jpg
Ear lobe no where near level with bottom of nose.




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

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/f_fauxpaulmccm_1473996.jpg
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/f_fauxpaulmccm_307f62f.jpg



It`s a video clip Boots. I initially thought the same as you and dismissed it as a hoax pic. However Howie came up with the original footage and it`s clearly visable on the film.

Have a look at the footage and freeze at 1 minute 20 seconds - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYHv0uwMY5c&feature=channel_page His hair should have been covering it, but wasn`t.

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



Looked at that vid over and over (took me ages to download it) (slow connection) and I cannot see this in any part's of the vid (about 3.30min) no sign of it. really though, if you have a good look at the top pic it certainly looks like a hair ,as it comes across the sideburn?


Do you think eye colour can change from dark brown to green in the space of a year? -

http://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/mmt_frames/faul.jpghttp://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/mmt_frames/faul_green_eye.jpg

^ Faul in "Fool on the Hill" 1967.

Yes the eye color can change within a space of a year, it was on the web page I put in the previous post.

Regarding these two photo's. No the eye color is the same. Yes??





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



My mother has had green eyes all her life lol. What you`re inferring is they changed drastically within 6 months to a year.


The photo just above is not conclusive the young Paul on the right is taken with less light and gives the appearence of dark brown eye's the older one on the left is, as I have said before due to old age or even a disease of the eye (web site). My eye's changed from blue to a grey green within a space of a year.




What`s real proof my friend? What constitutes proof to you may not be for someone else. We`re not in court.

I would suggest watching and listening to old recordings/interviews of Paul and comparing them to more recent recordings of the imposter, who came on the scene in late 1966 - I hope this has helped somewhat.

This what this thread is about orbandsceptre proving that PiD or not.

Thanks for this can you explain more of the PiD theory?

.

[faulconandsnowjob]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OB9qBmiRzBk&feature=PlayList&p=3DB7371263F724FE&index=65

[socrates]

One of the best posts you`ve made so far on this thread Socrates - you`re switching to the dark side of the force? :D

Why should my post signify that? It demonstrated that Paul's eye colour appeared different BEFORE PID - this rebutting the 'Faul has different coloured eyes so this proves he's an imposter' claims.

[socrates]

It`s a video clip Boots. I initially thought the same as you and dismissed it as a hoax pic. However Howie came up with the original footage and it`s clearly visable on the film.

Why isn't it "clearly" visible here?

http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/3193/70544178.jpg

Or.... er, here:

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/8840/61044004.jpg

If that really were a fake ear, the outline would remain consistent throughout.

The fact that a 'bit' of it has very nearly 'disappeared' (you can just about make out a little blurry line in the 2nd pic) in the two pics I've just posted proves the outline of the ear is NOT how it appears in YOUR pics.

Now you see it....

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/f_fauxpaulmccm_307f62f.jpg

Now you don't....

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/8840/61044004.jpg

It is just a stray hair from Paul's sideburn.

Simple!

[faulconandsnowjob]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emZpFS4XJ1c&feature=PlayList&p=3DB7371263F724FE&index=66

[toty1994]

^^^
I think you're shooting yourself in the foot posting these Iamaphoney videos. It's 3 years on from his 'preparing for revelation' mission statement, a revelation that is permanently imminent but never comes. Pid believers were excited and took it seriously for a year or so, but now only a hardcore few remain by the look of it - and no wonder. He could be a clever hoaxer, perhaps influenced by Chris Morris (Brass Eye, Blue Jam) but without the laughs. His 'Rotten Apple' series could be just an elaborate advert for his own music (as in the vid above). There are other theories but one thing has become increasingly obvious - whatever his motives he's playing a game; a game that will only end in tears for the few still waiting for that revelation.

That said his vids have artistic merit and are weirdly entertaining.

[faulconandsnowjob]

^ I think you're just not getting his videos b/c you don't have enough information or knowledge.

[sunsoflight]

You're right, Faulcon. Bill hasn't one thing to worry about, even fifty years from now people will still be talking about this with no end in sight. That is, if there are still people on this globe.

I could use this "magic conspiracy dust" myself.

I may rejoin "Miss Him" forum even if I mainly just read the posts. I still stop in from time to time.

[toty1994]

^ I think you're just not getting his videos b/c you don't have enough information or knowledge.

I think iaap will reveal his 'revelation' eventually but it will not be what you're expecting. ;)




even fifty years from now people will still be talking about this with no end in sight.

It'll be this thread, by then up to page 153,000,908.:D

[faulconandsnowjob]

I think iaap will reveal his 'revelation' eventually but it will not be what you're expecting.
IAAP has been revealing the truth all along. You just have to know how to read the clues to put the pieces together.