Is Paul really dead?

[theenlightenedone]

Haha.

That splithead not make for viable evidence.

Two TOTALLY different photo.

Different lightning.

Distance.

Head position.

Expression.

etc.

etc.

Also not scaled well.

Sorry Faulcon.

Yet again.

Try harder.

[astrochicken]

LOL.. you lot are pretty pathetic.


"Send more troops, send more troops."



Sad.


The truth will set you free eventually. I suppose even to entertain the notion that you've all
been shafted by an imposter for most of your lives would make you all look like right tits. eh?


"Send more troops, send more troops."



Herd-mentality in full force.. but still, it's infintitely better than snatching
handbags from grandmothers and ganging up on the less fortunate.

Looking forward to all the sad new users signing up to post to these threads.

Pathetic.

[fireman]

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



Only sad thing here are Paulconandsnowjobs comparisons...

Try finding one where the actually look at the camera in the angle and THEY ALWAY perfectly match..


http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/Paulconfade1.gif


aprox. twenty years between those, still the same guy:

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/Paulconfiddy1.gif


PID is dead

:)

[astrochicken]

Try finding one where the actually look at the camera in the angle and THEY ALWAY perfectly match..


http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/Paulconfade1.gif



LOL.. oh yeah, you're right..

Funny thing is though.. seeing as how Faul's neck is as wide
as George Foremans it shows the pic has been skewed and distorted
in an attempt to align certain features.

Faul (rocky) Bilboa eh?

[fireman]

:rolleyes:


astro chicken, believe what you want.. if you desperantly want to believe Paul is dead thats fine.

i just posts these, so that not more people fall for Faulcons lies (or "believes").

Funny how most of the time over at Faulcons PID board, they are constantly contradictory with what they see: "thats Paul!" "oh its from 1967, then it must be Faul!" "no, it is Paul, but it's doctored"

:rolleyes:

But if you want to believe in illuminati and that Faul is a hermaphrodite, wore diapers and is actually a 95 year old female spy... then go ahead.

:rolleyes:

[theenlightenedone]

LOL.. you lot are pretty pathetic.




Sad.


The truth will set you free eventually. I suppose even to entertain the notion that you've all
been shafted by an imposter for most of your lives would make you all look like right tits. eh?




Herd-mentality in full force.. but still, it's infintitely better than snatching
handbags from grandmothers and ganging up on the less fortunate.

Looking forward to all the sad new users signing up to post to these threads.

Pathetic.

Haha.

You realise PID getting destroy.

So you find new to complain about.

You complain there are more PIA now.

If the same thing happen with PID.

More "troops" being sent.

You would declare gerat victory and not complain.

Sorry astrochicken.

You lose.

[theenlightenedone]

LOL.. oh yeah, you're right..

Funny thing is though.. seeing as how Faul's neck is as wide
as George Foremans it shows the pic has been skewed and distorted
in an attempt to align certain features.

Faul (rocky) Bilboa eh?


Astrochicken.

Pictures have different angle a bit.

The older pic neck more visable.

Not larger.

Sorry.

You lose.

[formosan termite]

LOL.. you lot are pretty pathetic.




Sad.


The truth will set you free eventually. I suppose even to entertain the notion that you've all
been shafted by an imposter for most of your lives would make you all look like right tits. eh?




Herd-mentality in full force.. but still, it's infintitely better than snatching
handbags from grandmothers and ganging up on the less fortunate.

Looking forward to all the sad new users signing up to post to these threads.

Pathetic.

Hey astrochicken

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v477/devilsadv/eyecomp12pe.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v477/devilsadv/eye01an1yu.gifhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v477/devilsadv/eye01an1yu.gifhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v477/devilsadv/eye03an3mw.gif

Same quirk in iris of the eye.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v477/devilsadv/ear.gif

Same ear.

Paul is alive and was never replaced.

So much for your pathetic dreams of being special because you uncovered some vast conspiracy.

[brainfreeze]

Those were the pics that convinced me PIA ages ago on this very thread.

[formosan termite]

I saw this and it reminded me of a couple of people here:

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes

1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.

A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.

[theenlightenedone]

That sums up good formosan.

Great read.

Thanks.

[socrates]

i saw this and it reminded me of a couple of people here:

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
a useful guide by donna ferentes

1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep"

at least sheep can recognize a wolf when they see one.

2. Relentlessness. they will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (moreover, as per 1. Above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.)

it doesn't matter how difft faul looks from paul, it's still the same person no matter what as far as they're concerned. Why? B/c the illuminati told them so, & they're good little sheep, don't question anything.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases.

i'm flabbergasted anyone could think this was the same person.

7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it.


paul didn't have those freckles.

lol!

Yes he does.....

http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii220/truecolors112/part%203/82202321.jpg http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/2967/copyofbigbrowneyes2.jpg

this 'freckles' business is hilarious. Faulcon brings it up as some great new pid evidence, socrates debunks it in the very next post. What should happen next is that faulcon says 'ok, you got me on that one'....but no, faulcon replies as if her original post on the subject never existed in the first place!

moreover they have a liking (see 3. Above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

now i have posted photographic evidence which completely demolishes your false claim, and proves that paul has not only the same freckles as 'faul' - but in exactly the same places - you completely ignore this evidence and start rambling on about completely irrelevant things in an effort to quickly change the subject.

a person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.

i find it pretty disturbing that some people can't tell the difference between paul & faul even after all of the differences have been pointed out to them. :eek:

http://www.lifeshore.com/smiley/data/media/2/3D_emoticon_194.gif

Man - that Donna Ferentes is sooo right!

[theenlightenedone]

socrates.

Great post.

formosan post sums up Faulcon well.

Great job.

Both of you.

[fireman]

^masterpiece! sums it up quite nicely.


Here is a vintage picture from 1966, taken during the last world-tour:

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


According to Faulcon logic this must be Faul then right?

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/faulcomcomp1.gif


Come on, really! Don't you guys see that PID is a heavy case of selective perception?

[theenlightenedone]

masterpiece!

Hey.

That's word a guy who alot different from me use to say.

Alot different.

Yes.

[socrates]

Here is a vintage picture from 1966, taken during the last world-tour:

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

According to Faulcon logic this must be Faul then right?

Nah - that can't be Paul......

..... because.......

Paul's face was actually round.

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

:eek:

[theenlightenedone]

Replacement good.

http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/5706/failcon.jpg

[socrates]

http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/488/screenhunter1xkg.jpghttp://img39.imageshack.us/img39/9176/screenhunter2h.jpg

http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/488/screenhunter1xkg.jpghttp://img204.imageshack.us/img204/4975/screenhunter4s.jpg

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/7221/screenhunter3q.jpghttp://img187.imageshack.us/img187/3012/screenhunter6.jpg

http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/822/screenhunter5q.jpg


The devil is in the details, huh? lol

http://www.lifeshore.com/smiley/data/media/2/3D_emoticon_186.gif

[theenlightenedone]

Truly excellent post socrates.

You provide best evidence.

[socrates]

Truly excellent post socrates.

You provide best evidence.

You're too kind. :)

[theenlightenedone]

You're too kind. :)

Thank You.

I only tell truth.

[formosan termite]

But, Socrates, Faulcon said Paul didn't have freckles, right?;)

Truly great work, Socrates.

[theenlightenedone]

But, Socrates, Faulcon said Paul didn't have freckles, right?;)

Truly great work, Socrates.

Right.

Airbrush on old pictures.

True.




Not.

[socrates]

But, Socrates, Faulcon said Paul didn't have freckles, right?;)

Lol! Paulcon says a lot of things which aren't true:

Scientists have proven Paul McCartney was replaced.

See?

:)

[socrates]

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/4975/screenhunter4s.jpghttp://img43.imageshack.us/img43/3900/screenhunter1ae.jpg

[theenlightenedone]

Best evidence.

As usual.

Full legal....

Wait.

[socrates]

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/7221/screenhunter3q.jpghttp://img11.imageshack.us/img11/817/frecklesi.jpg

http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/488/screenhunter1xkg.jpghttp://img11.imageshack.us/img11/817/frecklesi.jpg

[jackbumbo]

That's great Socrates! I hope those freckles wont be ignored. However, when they wont be ignored, it'll probably be 'tampered!' replies anyway.

[theenlightenedone]

Now faulcon defeat?

Maybe she wait.

Wait for us to go.

So she can fool new.

[socrates]

That's great Socrates! I hope those freckles wont be ignored. However, when they wont be ignored, it'll probably be 'tampered!' replies anyway.

Yeah, but who cares what the Pidders say. This is for open minded readers to look at and form their own judgement.

Paulcon and her cohorts just don't have an eye for detail like us PIAers. :D

[theenlightenedone]

Paulcon and her cohorts just don't have an eye for detail like us PIAers. :D

Surely they must.

They can find difference in Paul.

[socrates]

Surely they must.

They can find difference in Paul.

But there is no difference. :D

[theenlightenedone]

But there is no difference. :D

Must have VERY good eyes.

[formosan termite]

Now faulcon defeat?

Maybe she wait.

Wait for us to go.

So she can fool new.

I think you are correct.

She waits for us get tired and leave.

[theenlightenedone]

I think you are correct.

She waits for us get tired and leave.

I never tired.

Check thread regurally.

[socrates]

Compare the voices - exactly the same:

http://www.jojoplace.org/Shoebox/66_67interviews.mpg

Did Faul get a voice transplant? :eek:

[faulconandsnowjob]

I see some people are working very hard to suppress the truth. The truth is Paul was replaced back in 1966. It's been proven by forensic science.

Different eye color (among many other differences)

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc205/thebeatlesfour/paul/peeking.jpg
http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/SFF_green_eyes.jpg

[theenlightenedone]

We have told you many time.

Eyes change depending on lightning.

And hazel eye can fade when get older.

Sorry Faulcon.

Same same same.

Try harder.

[faulconandsnowjob]

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/Paulvs.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/SSFBill.jpg

[theenlightenedone]

Changing subject, are we?

Of course bad pictures.

Comparing clear Paul to blurry "Faul"

[socrates]

The truth is Paul was replaced back in 1966. It's been proven by forensic science.

Why do you insist on repeating this pathetic lie?

Really, who do you think you are kidding apart from yourself?

Sad, just sad.

Your "truth" is something you make up to feed your delusions.

Different eye color (among many other differences)

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc205/thebeatlesfour/paul/peeking.jpg
http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/SFF_green_eyes.jpg

Oh yeah?

Eyes change depending on lightning.

That's too hard for Paulconandsnowjob to understand...

http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/9086/screenhunter8o.jpg

How many times do I have to debunk your nonsense?

[theenlightenedone]

Ha.

Faulcon only choose bad pic.

Like many PIDer.

Sorry.

FAILcon.

Try Harder.

[formosan termite]

I see some people are working very hard to suppress the truth. The truth is Paul was replaced back in 1966. It's been proven by forensic science.

Different eye color (among many other differences)

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc205/thebeatlesfour/paul/peeking.jpg
http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/SFF_green_eyes.jpg

Wrong!

Same eyes.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v477/devilsadv/eyecomp12pe.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v477/devilsadv/eye01an1yu.gifhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v477/devilsadv/eye01an1yu.gifhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v477/devilsadv/eye03an3mw.gif

Why do you keep trying the same rubbish? Paul has hazel eyes. Hazel eyes can appear different colors depending on the light. I know. My wife has hazel eyes.

Educate yourself:

http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=30

Eye color - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And no, PID was not forensically proven. Even the scientist in the article said she could not say for sure. You are misrepresenting the facts.

Enlightened one is right. You have to try to do better. I have seen the work of many pidders at NIR and TKIN. You are one of the worst I have seen.

[formosan termite]

Here is part of what the Stanford School of Medicine has to say:

What is surprising to me is that eye color doesn't change more often. Eye color is determined by lots of different genes but it all boils down to how much pigment you have in the front part of your iris at any one time. Lots of pigment means brown eyes, a little bit, blue eyes. Other colors come from intermediate amounts of pigment.

The genes involved in eye color determine how much pigment gets made, how quickly it is degraded and where in your iris to put it. In other words, eye color is an ongoing process that is not necessarily set in stone.

Also see:

http://www.blurtit.com/q104004.html

Your stuff is easily debunked. You need to educate yourself and try harder.

[faulconandsnowjob]

http://www.beatlesagain.com/images/card2.jpg
Eyes = brown

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/browneyes.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/1973_JPMShow_03.jpg

[formosan termite]

http://www.beatlesagain.com/images/card2.jpg
Eyes = brown

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/browneyes.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/1973_JPMShow_03.jpg

Are you daft man? Please read all posts.

HAZEL EYES CAN APPEAR DIFFERENT COLORS DEPENDING ON THE LIGHT.

Hazel
This iris shows a mixture of brown, green, and amber colors.

Hazel eyes are due to a combination of Rayleigh scattering and a moderate amount of melanin in the iris' anterior border layer.[7][25] Hazel eyes often appear to shift in color from a light brown to a medium golden-green. A number of studies using three-point scales have assigned hazel to be the medium-color between the lightest shade of blue and darkest shade of brown. Hazel mostly consists of Brown and Green. The dominant color in the eye can either be green or light brown/gold.[48][49][50][51][52][53][54] This can sometimes produce a multicolored iris, i.e., an eye that is light brown near the pupil and charcoal or amber/dark green on the outer part of the iris (and vice versa) when observed in sunlight. Hazel is commonly found in Europe, the Middle East, Americas, Central Asia and parts of South Asia.

Definitions of the eye color hazel vary: it is sometimes considered to be synonymous with light-brown or gold.[48][50][53][55] In North America, hazel is often used to describe eyes that appear to change color.

Read the links I provided and educate yourself. Your schooling must have been very poor.

[faulconandsnowjob]

Paul - 1965

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

"Paul" - Dec 1966

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/Dec66_06.jpg

[faulconandsnowjob]

http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/9939/001crl.jpg
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/65lookingfine.jpg

[faulconandsnowjob]

This never sat right w/ me. In the song, "A Day in the Life," there is a bit w/ Paul singing. George Martin said Paul has this bit & just stuck it in the song b/c he couldn't (?) develop it into a song, so they didn't know what else to do w/ it. Really? Does that sound right to people? Prolific, talented song-writer Paul who wrote masterpieces like "Yesterday," "Eleanor Rigby," "For No One," etc, couldn't develop that bit into a song? I'm thinking they just had a snippet from Paul that they wanted to use, so incorporated it into a song. Same goes for "Her Majesty," & probably the bit at the end of "Cry Baby Cry."

[formosan termite]

Paul - 1965

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

"Paul" - Dec 1966

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/Dec66_06.jpg

Ah! Changing the subject. Just as predicted.

One color photo taken during the day in sunlight. The other, a close up, taken at night. Poor job.

To do comps properly, it is better to use photos with similar expressions from about the same angle. Go here and see how it is done correctly:

http://maccafunhouse.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=essentials&action=display&thread=3189

[faulconandsnowjob]

Just another fake ear

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/ear1.jpg

[formosan termite]

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/65lookingfine.jpghttp://img41.imageshack.us/img41/7221/screenhunter3q.jpghttp://img11.imageshack.us/img11/817/frecklesi.jpg


HA! Look at those freckles on Paul pre '67. Same as the photos of Paul post '66! They are in the exact same spots.

Thanks for proving Paul is Alive. PIA.

[formosan termite]

Just another fake ear

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/ear1.jpg

What fake ear? You can't even see the ear! Hair is covering it. Rotten picture as well.

Poor job.

[faulconandsnowjob]

Difft shaped faces

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/Paul296-1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/Bill1967talk.jpg

[theenlightenedone]

Only worst proof FAILcon.

What is this "fake ear"?

http://img397.imageshack.us/img397/6746/ear1.jpg

Get it right.

[formosan termite]

only worst proof failcon.

What is this "fake ear"?

http://img397.imageshack.us/img397/6746/ear1.jpg

get it right.

masterpiece

[theenlightenedone]

Thank You formosan.

You also provide best evidence.

[jackbumbo]

Full legal proof, theenlightenedone!

[toty1994]

It's been a few weeks now since that 'Wired' article appeared. Apart from on a handful of Italian boards it doesn't seem to have been picked up anywhere else. I'm quite surprised by this given the magazine is a well known msm publication - it would've been fascinating if it had created a buzz in other parts of the world. Still, early days I suppose.

My views on PiD have not changed btw (same reasons others have outlined re the article), I just think it'd be great fun if this latest twist became a hot topic world-wide. It certainly has the potential to do so.

[astrochicken]

It's been a few weeks now since that 'Wired' article appeared. Apart from on a handful of Italian boards it doesn't seem to have been picked up anywhere else. I'm quite surprised by this given the magazine is a well known msm publication - it would've been fascinating if it had created a buzz in other parts of the world. Still, early days I suppose.

My views on PiD have not changed btw (same reasons others have outlined re the article), I just think it'd be great fun if this latest twist became a hot topic world-wide. It certainly has the potential to do so.

It would be nice to see it going mainstream, but assuming that you were the imposter, with billions in the bank, then how much would you spend to stay alive and prevent the MSM picking up on this?
That is, after all, the way the world works isn't it?
Think back to the whole homosexual callboy ring doing midnight tours of the whitehouse during the Bush Sr. presidency.

[toty1994]

It would be nice to see it going mainstream, but assuming that you were the imposter, with billions in the bank, then how much would you spend to stay alive and prevent the MSM picking up on this?
That is, after all, the way the world works isn't it?
Think back to the whole homosexual callboy ring doing midnight tours of the whitehouse during the Bush Sr. presidency.

But it already has gone mainstream really, it's out there - 'Wired' is a popular magazine and this story has made the front cover of the Italian version. Someone even posted a picture of a newstand sporting a big poster of it. Wouldn't an imposter with billions in the bank have prevented it from going even this far if it remotely worried him?

[formosan termite]

From Faulconjob:
This is something that just occurred to me in trying to think about how they got Faul to sound so much like Paul. They could have a voice double, or technology that can closely mimic someone's voice. The thing that occurred to me today was this: is it possible they made a copy of Paul's mind somehow & downloaded it into Faul's brain?


A copy of Paul's mind? What, after he was dead? Downloaded into Faul's brain? This is your champion of PID? How can anyone take this person seriously?

[theenlightenedone]

But it already has gone mainstream really, it's out there - 'Wired' is a popular magazine and this story has made the front cover of the Italian version. Someone even posted a picture of a newstand sporting a big poster of it. Wouldn't an imposter with billions in the bank have prevented it from going even this far if it remotely worried him?

Excellent point.

If I was double.

I would not want get caught.

[theenlightenedone]

Full legal proof, theenlightenedone!

Thank you.

My Full Legal Proof is indesputable.

[faulconandsnowjob]

I find it a little amusing how non-scientists are so quick to dismiss forensic evidence that doesn't support their pre-conceived notion. If science proves w/ a biometrical analysis that Paul was replaced by a double, then it must be wrong. lol This is just another example of confirmation bias, imo. I might add that the scientists originally set out to prove PIA, but unlike *some* people, they were willing to follow the evidence & come up w/ a theory that fit the evidence, & didn't try to make the evidence fit their theory.

Big difference in eyebrows & ears:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v462/OnlyBeatles/VintagePaul-Faul67Comp.jpg

[socrates]

Difft shaped faces

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/Paul296-1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/Bill1967talk.jpg

Er, no: (Let's add a tache too)

http://img373.imageshack.us/img373/2003/paultubonbeard.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/Bill1967talk.jpg

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/diverse%20photos/aNOTHERGREATFADE.gif

Difft shaped faces

http://www.lifeshore.com/smiley/data/media/2/3D_emoticon_194.gif

Yet more ridiculous disinfo from Paulconandsnowjob.

[socrates]

If science proves w/ a biometrical analysis that Paul was replaced by a double, then it must be wrong.

It hasn't been proven. How many times do we have to point this out to you? How many times are you going to make a fool out of yourself by spouting this ridiculous lie?

EVERYBODY HERE KNOWS THE SCIENTISTS DIDN'T CLAIM IT WAS PROOF.

You claim to be a lawyer yet you claim that article proves Paul was replaced. :rolleyes:

Really, what freakin planet are you on?

"Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth"
(Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882 - 1945)

[theenlightenedone]

I find it a little amusing how non-scientists are so quick to dismiss forensic evidence that doesn't support their pre-conceived notion. If science proves w/ a biometrical analysis that Paul was replaced by a double, then it must be wrong. lol This is just another example of confirmation bias, imo. I might add that the scientists originally set out to prove PIA, but unlike *some* people, they were willing to follow the evidence & come up w/ a theory that fit the evidence, & didn't try to make the evidence fit their theory.

FAILcon.

We look at your "evidence"

Debunk it.

You ignore our.

It's you who are not following evidence.

Your mind so stuck in PID.

That nothing else is truth.

Let me tell you story FAILcon.

I once was PID.

But I openminded.

I look at PIA proof.

And think.

PID is impossible.

Now I am PIA.

Defender of truth.

Sorry.

I have realise that PID evidence very small.

FAILcon.

Try harder.

[formosan termite]

I find it a little amusing how non-scientists are so quick to dismiss forensic evidence that doesn't support their pre-conceived notion. If science proves w/ a biometrical analysis that Paul was replaced by a double, then it must be wrong. lol This is just another example of confirmation bias, imo. I might add that the scientists originally set out to prove PIA, but unlike *some* people, they were willing to follow the evidence & come up w/ a theory that fit the evidence, & didn't try to make the evidence fit their theory.


So do you believe everything a scientist says? No scientist can ever be wrong? What about these scientists?

Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."
Lord Kelvin, British mathematician and physicist, president of the British Royal Society, 1895

"X-rays will prove to be a hoax."
Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society, 1883.


"Rail travel at high speed is not possible, because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia."
Dr Dionysius Lardner (1793-1859), professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy, University College London

"Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction."
Pierre Pachet, British surgeon and Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, 1872.

"The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from the intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon."
John Eric Ericksen, British surgeon, appointed Surgeon Extraordinary to Queen Victoria, 1873.

Sorry, but the scientists who wrote that silly article even said that their work was not proof. You are lying when you say it is proof. Real scientific work is not just accepted as fact outright without peer review. This was not peer reviewed. It was not published in a scientific journal. It was a lark for the fun of it.

[theenlightenedone]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v462/OnlyBeatles/VintagePaul-Faul67Comp.jpg

Finally two pics that resemble.

Eyebrows differ depend on how much you pick them.

Thought you knew.

Ears we have debunked.

Many.

Many.

Many.

Many.

Many.

Times.

Sorry.

Try harder.

[dedesuperman]

Hello everybody it is my first intervention in the forum of David Icke and I decided to come in the thread of celebrity death on the topic Paul is dead that I find fascinating. I would like to tell you that I was not a fan of Paul McCartney before I discover that the true Paul would have been replaced by a double. I recall myself in my youth when my brother had the red and blue album of The Beatles and unconsciously I listened to the red album more often than the blue album. In truth that doesn't make a long time that I interest on this topic and I never carried attention on the fact that he would have been replaced.

I often came on the forum to read the different topics in particular on the reptilian things without wanting to imply me while letting my commentary. After having study the arguments of the PIA and PID and watch the videos on Youtube and buy the dvd of the movie 'Help' the past year (2008) and to have a particular interest for the song 'The Night Before' because I believe that is the key to understand that the one that we sees sung this song is the true Paul and after that I doesn't recognize this Paul anymore after 1966 because it is absolutely necessary of carried attention to his body language as much the facial, of the intonation of his voice and the way that he smiles because I can tell you that I never reviewed this kind of smile after 1966. As strange as we never saw (and unfortunately ever) Faul sung this particular song (after the year 1966) because it implies an intonation of voice that Faul cannot have because Paul had more vibrato (I believe that there was already some threads explaining the difference of voice in particular the song The Night before) I challenge everybody especially those that are the PIA to find a show when Faul (after 1966) would have sung the Night before? Good luck! Because I believe that the impersonator who are Faul but for those that believe that it is Paul (sadly) will be disappointed to see that he never (Faul) has and I say well ever, sung this particular song. Does have there someone that could answer this question honestly?

Another things that I would like to specify look with attention at the face, the difference of the ears (Paul have a ear's lobe attached not Faul) and Paul's mannerisms in August 1966 and compare it when supposedly that would be him that we sees outside of the EMI studio, really do you think be honest, do you believe that a person in 4 months can change physically like that and drastically? If at least the change would have been gradual but no it is honestly radical change. Come on guys! Overnight it change it's parting hair check the pictures before 1966 and after 1967 and for what reason Paul oups sorry! Faul decided to change his parting hair suddenly? How come?? :eek: Check the page 461 (the parting hair) to see the set of pictures let by faulconandsnowjob before and after. In my book it's impossible, please use your 2 brains and logic to see if it is rationally possible. The facts and the differences named by faulconandsnowjob and ar20 are interesting to stand back and to try to have a particular attention for these details in reason that they have some people in this forum have point it out as myself that I noticed. The stupid theories suggested by the PIA to explain these changes that are whatever and baloney. Thanks for faulconandsnowjob and recently ar20 that they demonstrate with the pictures of the obvious differences.

No matter the counter-arguments that show that Paul died it is scientific or rational it don't seem you take account of it. I believe if you are here on the David Icke forum you must have an open mind - as I DO. Those of PIA seem not to believe that we can use a double in the true life and yet faulconandsnowjob showed a link on wikipedia of the political decoy to the page 461 of this thread. Those of PIA say that it is not possible and information took on wikipedia says that it is made and possible, who says the truth? And who prevents to use a celebrity to replace it by a double or a look alike? It is not impossible! Why not? If it is indeed stupid the theory that Paul has been replaced by a double, why did David Letterman question lately 'Faul' on this topic? We would think about something else that to bring back this theory that has been forgotten by several people and maybe to make realize than exactly 'Faul' is a double.

And lately the scientific magazine that specifies the doubt on the veracity or the identity of Paul McCartney and evidently in reason that the magazine goes in the sense of those that is PID those of PIA believe that it is the bullshit, is where your objectivity? If the magazine would have been in the sense of those that is PIA I am certain that you will have waved this proof in our face and say to us watches another proof that Paul is alive na-na-na-nan-na! :p For theenlightenedone why you change for PIA because we says that the first idea is always the best! :confused: If the first time you believed in the theory of PID that is because you noticed some differences between Paul before 1966 and the one after. Verify carefully the face of Paul again in August 1966 and the one that pretends to be outside the EMI studio December 1966. Personally I find that in four months he changed drastically and non gradual, we doesn't speak of one year but of four months geez. :eek:
In life we has the choice to believe the mainstream medias that evidently lies us with strength or to choose the logic that our eyes unveil us. The change between Paul and "Faul" was sudden, not gradual. Compare the 2 men between 1964-67.

Paul blinks faster & more often than Faul, Paul has a lazy left eye, Faul doesn't. Faul says "you know" too much, he's over exaggerating the mannerisms & the accent, it's a poor impersonation of the Paul from 1966.

Ok this is for now and I would say once you know the truth, the truth makes you free of all lie. Before I were of believer of the Catholic religion and I knew the truth (real christiannity) when I was 20 years old and now I could not ever believe again in this false religion that is the Catholicism. The same for the false and impostor Paul McCartney, believe me this guy that you believe is Paul is not him, is Faul. Suggestion check the video on youtube of Paul (the movie Help) and Faul instead of pictures because we see more the charisma in action of Paul and Faul is the best way to compare the mannerism.

[theenlightenedone]

I would love to read.

But no space between lines.

Make head hurt.

Sorry.

[formosan termite]

Hello everybody it is my first intervention in the forum of David Icke and I decided to come in the thread of celebrity death on the topic Paul is dead that I find fascinating. I would like to tell you that I was not a fan of Paul McCartney before I discover that the true Paul would have been replaced by a double. I recall myself in my youth when my brother had the red and blue album of The Beatles and unconsciously I listened to the red album more often than the blue album. In truth that doesn't make a long time that I interest on this topic and I never carried attention on the fact that he would have been replaced.

I often came on the forum to read the different topics in particular on the reptilian things without wanting to imply me while letting my commentary. After having study the arguments of the PIA and PID and watch the videos on Youtube and buy the dvd of the movie 'Help' the past year (2008) and to have a particular interest for the song 'The Night Before' because I believe that is the key to understand that the one that we sees sung this song is the true Paul and after that I doesn't recognize this Paul anymore after 1966 because it is absolutely necessary of carried attention to his body language as much the facial, of the intonation of his voice and the way that he smiles because I can tell you that I never reviewed this kind of smile after 1966. As strange as we never saw (and unfortunately ever) Faul sung this particular song (after the year 1966) because it implies an intonation of voice that Faul cannot have because Paul had more vibrato (I believe that there was already some threads explaining the difference of voice in particular the song The Night before) I challenge everybody especially those that are the PIA to find a show when Faul (after 1966) would have sung the Night before? Good luck! Because I believe that the impersonator who are Faul but for those that believe that it is Paul (sadly) will be disappointed to see that he never (Faul) has and I say well ever, sung this particular song. Does have there someone that could answer this question honestly?

Another things that I would like to specify look with attention at the face, the difference of the ears (Paul have a ear's lobe attached not Faul) and Paul's mannerisms in August 1966 and compare it when supposedly that would be him that we sees outside of the EMI studio, really do you think be honest, do you believe that a person in 4 months can change physically like that and drastically? If at least the change would have been gradual but no it is honestly radical change. Come on guys! Overnight it change it's parting hair check the pictures before 1966 and after 1967 and for what reason Paul oups sorry! Faul decided to change his parting hair suddenly? How come?? :eek: Check the page 461 (the parting hair) to see the set of pictures let by faulconandsnowjob before and after. In my book it's impossible, please use your 2 brains and logic to see if it is rationally possible. The facts and the differences named by faulconandsnowjob and ar20 are interesting to stand back and to try to have a particular attention for these details in reason that they have some people in this forum have point it out as myself that I noticed. The stupid theories suggested by the PIA to explain these changes that are whatever and baloney. Thanks for faulconandsnowjob and recently ar20 that they demonstrate with the pictures of the obvious differences.

No matter the counter-arguments that show that Paul died it is scientific or rational it don't seem you take account of it. I believe if you are here on the David Icke forum you must have an open mind - as I DO. Those of PIA seem not to believe that we can use a double in the true life and yet faulconandsnowjob showed a link on wikipedia of the political decoy to the page 461 of this thread. Those of PIA say that it is not possible and information took on wikipedia says that it is made and possible, who says the truth? And who prevents to use a celebrity to replace it by a double or a look alike? It is not impossible! Why not? If it is indeed stupid the theory that Paul has been replaced by a double, why did David Letterman question lately 'Faul' on this topic? We would think about something else that to bring back this theory that has been forgotten by several people and maybe to make realize than exactly 'Faul' is a double.

And lately the scientific magazine that specifies the doubt on the veracity or the identity of Paul McCartney and evidently in reason that the magazine goes in the sense of those that is PID those of PIA believe that it is the bullshit, is where your objectivity? If the magazine would have been in the sense of those that is PIA I am certain that you will have waved this proof in our face and say to us watches another proof that Paul is alive na-na-na-nan-na! :p For theenlightenedone why you change for PIA because we says that the first idea is always the best! :confused: If the first time you believed in the theory of PID that is because you noticed some differences between Paul before 1966 and the one after. Verify carefully the face of Paul again in August 1966 and the one that pretends to be outside the EMI studio December 1966. Personally I find that in four months he changed drastically and non gradual, we doesn't speak of one year but of four months geez. :eek:
In life we has the choice to believe the mainstream medias that evidently lies us with strength or to choose the logic that our eyes unveil us. The change between Paul and "Faul" was sudden, not gradual. Compare the 2 men between 1964-67.

Paul blinks faster & more often than Faul, Paul has a lazy left eye, Faul doesn't. Faul says "you know" too much, he's over exaggerating the mannerisms & the accent, it's a poor impersonation of the Paul from 1966.

Ok this is for now and I would say once you know the truth, the truth makes you free of all lie. Before I were of believer of the Catholic religion and I knew the truth (real christiannity) when I was 20 years old and now I could not ever believe again in this false religion that is the Catholicism. The same for the false and impostor Paul McCartney, believe me this guy that you believe is Paul is not him, is Faul. Suggestion check the video on youtube of Paul (the movie Help) and Faul instead of pictures because we see more the charisma in action of Paul and Faul is the best way to compare the mannerism.


Holy cow! What a run-on festival. It is hard to respond because it is difficult to figure out what was said.

But I see we have the old conspiracy theorist trick of making skepics prove something is impossible. I believe everything is possible. But as Capt Jack would say "Not probable." Is it possible? Yes. It is possible that Elvis replaced Paul. It is possible that Faulconjob is Paul. It is just not probable. As we have shown over and over and over and over, there was no considerable change in a few months or a few years. The freckles are the same. The quirk in the iris is the same. The change in eye color is because he had hazel eyes and the color can appear different. Lighting changes, lens types, facial expressions can all cause people to look different in different photos. Faulconjob picks photos from different angles and different lighting conditions precisely because he wants to make them look different. We have shown hundreds and hundreds of photos that show that Paul never changed.

Oh, and Lord Almighty, he changed the part in his hair!:eek: He changed the part in his hair OVERNIGHT! Could you please explain how someone would change the part in his hair over an extended period? Would one do little bits at a time? Based on your illogic, my son has been replaced, because he recently changed his hair style and the part in his hair. Why? Because he wanted a different look. Wow. John Lennon changed his hair style as well.

Become better educated.

[socrates]

Hello everybody it is my first intervention in the forum of David Icke and I decided to come in the thread of celebrity death on the topic Paul is dead that I find fascinating. I would like to tell you that I was not a fan of Paul McCartney before I discover that the true Paul would have been replaced by a double. I recall myself in my youth when my brother had the red and blue album of The Beatles and unconsciously I listened to the red album more often than the blue album. In truth that doesn't make a long time that I interest on this topic and I never carried attention on the fact that he would have been replaced.

I often came on the forum to read the different topics in particular on the reptilian things without wanting to imply me while letting my commentary. After having study the arguments of the PIA and PID and watch the videos on Youtube and buy the dvd of the movie 'Help' the past year (2008) and to have a particular interest for the song 'The Night Before' because I believe that is the key to understand that the one that we sees sung this song is the true Paul and after that I doesn't recognize this Paul anymore after 1966 because it is absolutely necessary of carried attention to his body language as much the facial, of the intonation of his voice and the way that he smiles because I can tell you that I never reviewed this kind of smile after 1966. As strange as we never saw (and unfortunately ever) Faul sung this particular song (after the year 1966) because it implies an intonation of voice that Faul cannot have because Paul had more vibrato (I believe that there was already some threads explaining the difference of voice in particular the song The Night before) I challenge everybody especially those that are the PIA to find a show when Faul (after 1966) would have sung the Night before? Good luck! Because I believe that the impersonator who are Faul but for those that believe that it is Paul (sadly) will be disappointed to see that he never (Faul) has and I say well ever, sung this particular song. Does have there someone that could answer this question honestly?

Another things that I would like to specify look with attention at the face, the difference of the ears (Paul have a ear's lobe attached not Faul) and Paul's mannerisms in August 1966 and compare it when supposedly that would be him that we sees outside of the EMI studio, really do you think be honest, do you believe that a person in 4 months can change physically like that and drastically? If at least the change would have been gradual but no it is honestly radical change. Come on guys! Overnight it change it's parting hair check the pictures before 1966 and after 1967 and for what reason Paul oups sorry! Faul decided to change his parting hair suddenly? How come?? :eek: Check the page 461 (the parting hair) to see the set of pictures let by faulconandsnowjob before and after. In my book it's impossible, please use your 2 brains and logic to see if it is rationally possible. The facts and the differences named by faulconandsnowjob and ar20 are interesting to stand back and to try to have a particular attention for these details in reason that they have some people in this forum have point it out as myself that I noticed. The stupid theories suggested by the PIA to explain these changes that are whatever and baloney. Thanks for faulconandsnowjob and recently ar20 that they demonstrate with the pictures of the obvious differences.

No matter the counter-arguments that show that Paul died it is scientific or rational it don't seem you take account of it. I believe if you are here on the David Icke forum you must have an open mind - as I DO. Those of PIA seem not to believe that we can use a double in the true life and yet faulconandsnowjob showed a link on wikipedia of the political decoy to the page 461 of this thread. Those of PIA say that it is not possible and information took on wikipedia says that it is made and possible, who says the truth? And who prevents to use a celebrity to replace it by a double or a look alike? It is not impossible! Why not? If it is indeed stupid the theory that Paul has been replaced by a double, why did David Letterman question lately 'Faul' on this topic? We would think about something else that to bring back this theory that has been forgotten by several people and maybe to make realize than exactly 'Faul' is a double.

And lately the scientific magazine that specifies the doubt on the veracity or the identity of Paul McCartney and evidently in reason that the magazine goes in the sense of those that is PID those of PIA believe that it is the bullshit, is where your objectivity? If the magazine would have been in the sense of those that is PIA I am certain that you will have waved this proof in our face and say to us watches another proof that Paul is alive na-na-na-nan-na! :p For theenlightenedone why you change for PIA because we says that the first idea is always the best! :confused: If the first time you believed in the theory of PID that is because you noticed some differences between Paul before 1966 and the one after. Verify carefully the face of Paul again in August 1966 and the one that pretends to be outside the EMI studio December 1966. Personally I find that in four months he changed drastically and non gradual, we doesn't speak of one year but of four months geez. :eek:
In life we has the choice to believe the mainstream medias that evidently lies us with strength or to choose the logic that our eyes unveil us. The change between Paul and "Faul" was sudden, not gradual. Compare the 2 men between 1964-67.

Paul blinks faster & more often than Faul, Paul has a lazy left eye, Faul doesn't. Faul says "you know" too much, he's over exaggerating the mannerisms & the accent, it's a poor impersonation of the Paul from 1966.

Ok this is for now and I would say once you know the truth, the truth makes you free of all lie. Before I were of believer of the Catholic religion and I knew the truth (real christiannity) when I was 20 years old and now I could not ever believe again in this false religion that is the Catholicism. The same for the false and impostor Paul McCartney, believe me this guy that you believe is Paul is not him, is Faul. Suggestion check the video on youtube of Paul (the movie Help) and Faul instead of pictures because we see more the charisma in action of Paul and Faul is the best way to compare the mannerism.

You are just repeating the same old PID claims that have been debunked throughout this thread.

We've heard it all before....

Please read this thread again and use your mind not your imagination. Then you may see beyond the illusion of PID and see the TRUTH!

[socrates]

A nice voice comp at the end:

Paul McCartney Is NOT Dead. Here's The PROOF! - YouTube

How anyone listening to those voices can think they are from different people is beyond help.

[theenlightenedone]

Paul blink faster?

Laughing out loud.

[faulconandsnowjob]

Hello everybody it is my first intervention in the forum of David Icke and I decided to come in the thread of celebrity death on the topic Paul is dead that I find fascinating.

Hi, Dede! So good to see you posting here :)

I would like to tell you that I was not a fan of Paul McCartney before I discover that the true Paul would have been replaced by a double.
That's probably why you could tell the difference - b/c you were unbiased. You hadn't been trained/brain-washed into thinking they were the same.

I recall myself in my youth when my brother had the red and blue album of The Beatles and unconsciously I listened to the red album more often than the blue album. In truth that doesn't make a long time that I interest on this topic and I never carried attention on the fact that he would have been replaced.
Same here. I've always preferred Paul over Faul b/c he was the real deal.

...As strange as we never saw (and unfortunately ever) Faul sung this particular song (after the year 1966) because it implies an intonation of voice that Faul cannot have because Paul had more vibrato (I believe that there was already some threads explaining the difference of voice in particular the song The Night before) I challenge everybody especially those that are the PIA to find a show when Faul (after 1966) would have sung the Night before? Good luck! Because I believe that the impersonator who are Faul but for those that believe that it is Paul (sadly) will be disappointed to see that he never (Faul) has and I say well ever, sung this particular song. Does have there someone that could answer this question honestly?
Maybe that song is outside of Faul's scope.

No matter the counter-arguments that show that Paul died it is scientific or rational it don't seem you take account of it. I believe if you are here on the David Icke forum you must have an open mind - as I DO.
Not everyone on this forum is here to discover the truth. Some are here to suppress the truth, unfortunately.

Those of PIA seem not to believe that we can use a double in the true life and yet faulconandsnowjob showed a link on wikipedia of the political decoy to the page 461 of this thread.
lol. Yeah, those people really need to learn more about intell if they think doubles aren't used. That's just ignorant. Plastic surgery was already being used in the 1940's to improve doubles' appearances.

And lately the scientific magazine that specifies the doubt on the veracity or the identity of Paul McCartney and evidently in reason that the magazine goes in the sense of those that is PID those of PIA believe that it is the bullshit, is where your objectivity?
I really find it funny how non-scientists are quick to dismiss experts' opinions. It's just b/c they don't like the results - confirmation bias, as I've already mentioned. The facts don't fit their pre-conceived notion, so they just dismiss them. If they want to refute the scientists' findings, they're going to have to do better than just say in their layman's opinion, the methodology was somehow flawed. Who cares about their opinion? It doesn't carry any weight unless they're trained in forensic science.

In life we has the choice to believe the mainstream medias that evidently lies us with strength or to choose the logic that our eyes unveil us. The change between Paul and "Faul" was sudden, not gradual. Compare the 2 men between 1964-67.
Actually, there's a big change from Aug 1966 to Dec 1966.

[socrates]

Not everyone on this forum is here to discover the truth.

You certainly aren't. :rolleyes:

[dedesuperman]

Holy cow! What a run-on festival. It is hard to respond because it is difficult to figure out what was said.

But I see we have the old conspiracy theorist trick of making skepics prove something is impossible. I believe everything is possible. But as Capt Jack would say "Not probable." Is it possible? Yes. It is possible that Elvis replaced Paul. It is possible that Faulconjob is Paul. It is just not probable. As we have shown over and over and over and over, there was no considerable change in a few months or a few years. The freckles are the same. The quirk in the iris is the same. The change in eye color is because he had hazel eyes and the color can appear different. Lighting changes, lens types, facial expressions can all cause people to look different in different photos. Faulconjob picks photos from different angles and different lighting conditions precisely because he wants to make them look different. We have shown hundreds and hundreds of photos that show that Paul never changed.

Oh, and Lord Almighty, he changed the part in his hair!:eek: He changed the part in his hair OVERNIGHT! Could you please explain how someone would change the part in his hair over an extended period? Would one do little bits at a time? Based on your illogic, my son has been replaced, because he recently changed his hair style and the part in his hair. Why? Because he wanted a different look. Wow. John Lennon changed his hair style as well.

Become better educated.

Ok for me the eyes color it's appear more brown than green or even hazel if you took the pictures before 1966 and strangely by the fruit of luck the color of his eyes appears all of a sudden of different colors and the explanation of it is the brightness, the angle of view etc. but especially as the color of his eyes is hazel. I can give to you the benefice of the doubt but I maintain that the color of Paul's eyes shows the tone more in the brown that green.

For the hair issue why does Paul keep the same parting of his hair until August 1966 and than all of a sudden toward the end of 1966 the style of hairs change as the facial pace of his face? I don't say that it is impossible to change style but when hair lengthens the side of parting hair come back to the natural either from left to right and no from right to left as we notices on different pictures of Faul after 1966. Lately I asked this question to a professional hairdresser and was his answer. You want to make me swallow that since his very young age he had always the same side of parting hair and suddenly by a beautiful sun of the year 1967 and by magic when his hair lengthens the natural shows rather the inverse of parting hair that Paul had from left to right. Another baloney.

To change style of hair is not a problem that is rather strange that he changes according to the theory of PID that says that he would have died in November 1966 and to make pass easily the double for the truth they made an agreement to change style the four Beatles and in reason that the double didn't have the same parting hair that Paul they found this radical alternative. Evidently it passed as butter in the frying pan for the fans therefore no one noticed anything except those that have a visual acuteness for the details.

And no one of PIA found Faul song The Night before after 1965 (Help movies 1965) in show or tv? I always wait! :rolleyes:

[socrates]

Ok for me the eyes color it's appear more brown than green or even hazel if you took the pictures before 1966 and strangely by the fruit of luck the color of his eyes appears all of a sudden of different colors and the explanation of it is the brightness, the angle of view etc. but especially as the color of his eyes is hazel.

Why are these eye colours different?

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/SFF_green_eyes.jpghttp://img269.imageshack.us/img269/9086/screenhunter8o.jpg

Did Faul suddenly put in his contacts? Boy, he'd have to do it fast since there is less than a second between those 2 screen shots! :rolleyes:

For the hair issue why does Paul keep the same parting of his hair until August 1966 and than all of a sudden toward the end of 1966 the style of hairs change as the facial pace of his face?

It changed BEFORE PID. :rolleyes:

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

You really need to read this thread properly. It's all been debunked.

Please educate yourself and stop listening to the nonsense of the PIDDERS.

And no one of PIA found Faul song The Night before after 1965 (Help movies 1965) in show or tv? I always wait! :rolleyes:

And that is supposed to prove PID? :rolleyes:

That argument is as ridiculous as the He Doesn't bite His Nails In This 2 Minute Video Clip So That Proves He's An Impostor claim.

[hells hero]

I find it a little amusing how non-scientists are so quick to dismiss forensic evidence that doesn't support their pre-conceived notion. If science proves w/ a biometrical analysis that Paul was replaced by a double, then it must be wrong. lol This is just another example of confirmation bias, imo. I might add that the scientists originally set out to prove PIA, but unlike *some* people, they were willing to follow the evidence & come up w/ a theory that fit the evidence, & didn't try to make the evidence fit their theory.

Big difference in eyebrows & ears:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v462/OnlyBeatles/VintagePaul-Faul67Comp.jpg

difference in age and diet and drug consumption and god knows whaat else too! don't know how big though

[dedesuperman]

Yeah! faulconandsnowjob :) it's time to me to join the debate I was tired to remain in silence and to be a witness that certain person can not see the difference between 2 people. After being a spectator of this debate for one year or two I had need to say my opinion because I was ever a fan of the Beatle until I notice these differences.

Anyway I think that the debate goes continue until one day someone in the artistic world decides to say the truth concerning the big hoax of the history, of have been seduced by a look-alike. Or maybe not the threat of the illuminatis would be the weapon to dissuade those that would be ready to reveal it as was surely John Lennon it wanted and warned the world of that hoax, it is why he made killed by Chapman a scapegoat. Think about it folks!

Same shit about JFK they put the blame on Lee Oswald when we knows that it is an inside-job like September 11.

Wake-up people!

[socrates]

Paul blink faster?

Laughing out loud.

You couldn't make it up, could you? http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/4869/wwwmyemoticonscomgigglexh7.gif

[socrates]

Still waiting for an answer.......

Ok for me the eyes color it's appear more brown than green or even hazel if you took the pictures before 1966 and strangely by the fruit of luck the color of his eyes appears all of a sudden of different colors and the explanation of it is the brightness, the angle of view etc. but especially as the color of his eyes is hazel.

Why are these eye colours different?

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/SFF_green_eyes.jpghttp://img269.imageshack.us/img269/9086/screenhunter8o.jpg

[socrates]

http://images.zaazu.com/img/waiting-bored-waiting-boy-smiley-emoticon-000413-large.gif

[socrates]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/Clock.gif

[socrates]

http://www.manysmileys.com/files/n/DJ/Pu/nDJPu2Gv24348250.gif

[socrates]

http://images.zaazu.com/img/sleep-f-animated-animation-female-smiley-emoticon-000388-large.gif

[dedesuperman]

Still waiting for an answer.......
By the way I forgot to say that Paul's eye still in tone in brown (light brown) it is you and other PIA says that to depend of the lightning or the point of view or because his eyes are hazel it affects the change of color to brown, green or even blue :D not me.

Maybe that I expressed badly but I correct while saying that his eyes are brown or in the tone of brown but not green or blue or whatever. :rolleyes:

Another think maybe the problem of his eyes color on pictures and video start after 1966 when the double took his place (the real Paul)

And tell me Socrates why this Faul cannot sing the song 'The Night before' after 1966? It is because he cannot duplicate the kind of voice that the real Paul have or because he's afraid to be discovered as a impostor!!!!!
If it is therefore the true Paul he doesn't have need to be afraid to sing this song since it is he according to you and PIA. Faul sings the song 'Yesterday' therefore he can also sing it this particular song, why not? Could you tell me one reason why we hears it only in the movie 'Help' and not elsewhere :confused:
I'm still waiting :rolleyes:

[theenlightenedone]

By the way I forgot to say that Paul's eye still in tone in brown (light brown) it is you and other PIA says that to depend of the lightning or the point of view or because his eyes are hazel it affects the change of color to brown, green or even blue :D not me.

Maybe that I expressed badly but I correct while saying that his eyes are brown or in the tone of brown but not green or blue or whatever. :rolleyes:

Another think maybe the problem of his eyes color on pictures and video start after 1966 when the double took his place (the real Paul)

And tell me Socrates why this Faul cannot sing the song 'The Night before' after 1966? It is because he cannot duplicate the kind of voice that the real Paul have or because he's afraid to be discovered as a impostor!!!!!
If it is therefore the true Paul he doesn't have need to be afraid to sing this song since it is he according to you and PIA. Faul sings the song 'Yesterday' therefore he can also sing it this particular song, why not? Could you tell me one reason why we hears it only in the movie 'Help' and not elsewhere :confused:
I'm still waiting :rolleyes:

Why not Roger Water sing as well anymore?

Why not Bob Dylan sing as well?

Voice changes.

Eyes changes.

But apparently.

Your stupidity not change.

[formosan termite]

I can't believe you are still on this hair parting thing. The four were tired of the mop top image and they wanted to change. Look at John's hair style. It changed in the same period. Why did it change around the time of PID? They changed at that time because they felt like it. Paul did not die at that time. It is just that some irrational people look at the hair change and conclude that it must be two different people. You got to give faulconjob some credit though. Two years ago she couldn't even spell moron and now she is one.

dedesuperman. Please answer the following.

1) How is it that "Faul" has the exact same freckles in the exact same spots as Paul?

2) How is it that "Fau"l has the exact same malformation of the iris as Paul given that this can not be done through surgery?

3) Have you ever visited maccafunhouse and researched all of the evidence there? If not, why since you say you are open minded?

4) How is it that "Faul" has the exact same scar on his chin as Paul?

5) Why don't you answer Socrates' question regarding the eyes?

[faulconandsnowjob]

This was using facial recognition software. The match percentage isn't very high for supposedly the same person.

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/Paul_Faul_face_recog_1.jpg

[faulconandsnowjob]

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/Paul_Faul_face_recog_2.jpg

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/Paul_Faul_face_recog_3.jpg

[formosan termite]

Oh come on. Wow. Really scientific. A face recognition program called "Celebrities and Fun." Sounds really serious.:rolleyes:

Try not picking some post '66 picture where Paul isn't making a strange face. Don't you know that we see through that game? You pick the worst pictures to compare. Different expressions. Different angles. And, gee, how sophisticated is this software. I bet I can two pictures of myself and come up with worse percentages.

[faulconandsnowjob]

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/Paul_Faul_face_recog_4.jpg

[dedesuperman]

Why not Roger Water sing as well anymore?

Why not Bob Dylan sing as well?

Voice changes.

Eyes changes.

But apparently.

Your stupidity not change.

Listen buddy we talk about some change about a man called Paul McCartney of a less of one year, the shape of his face, the voice, the eyes color and not to forget the different mannerism between Paul and Faul. Could you please check the interview of Paul in August 1966 and the interview outside the EMI studio, I supposed that you are not see the differences.:rolleyes:

A good impersonator can by the practice to have the same voice nearly that the original but ever perfectly. Did you ever try to listen the comedian Steve Bridges to imitate George W. Bush? You can see him in the first episode (Season 1) of NCIS just in the beginning, you could believe that it is the true George W. Bush but I know is not him but I am certain that some people would believe that it is him.

Each person in the forum has different opinion me personally I don't find that Faul has the same voice of Paul I find that the voice of Faul is higher while Paul has more vibrato (more bass) I confess to mistake almost that his voice is like Paul even me I believed that it was him.

How come the eyes color change? Because supposedly Paul would have hazel eyes! And because his eyes are hazels, automatically that is going to change! If I trust on the pictures before 1966 it's seem to me that the color of his eyes is like to mine brown and actually is still the same color brown.

First of all I'm not stupid I am awake and very observer. This is my answer for you.

[faulconandsnowjob]

From "Paul is dead" on Wikipedia:

Biometric analysis

In 2009, two Italians, Francesco Gavazzeni (IT analyst) and Carlesi Gabriella (medico-legal), studied images of Paul McCartney taken before and after the alleged death, and claimed there is high probability that it is not the same person, based on analysis of the shape of the skull and jaw, the curve of the jaw, the ear of palate and teeth.[17].

17. ^ Wired Italia, "Chiedi chi era quel «Beatle»", July-August 2009

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

[faulconandsnowjob]

Listen buddy we talk about some change about a man called Paul McCartney of a less of one year, the shape of his face, the voice, the eyes color and not to forget the different mannerism between Paul and Faul.
It's so obvious Paul was replaced. Some people just don't want to see it - or don't want others to see it.

A good impersonator can by the practice to have the same voice nearly that the original but ever perfectly.
Oh, sure. Doubles are trained to study their targets:

...The political decoy is an individual who has been selected because of their strong physical resemblance to the person they are impersonating. This resemblance can be strengthened by plastic surgery. Often, such decoys are trained to speak and behave like their 'target'...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_decoy

How come the eyes color change? Because supposedly Paul would have hazel eyes! And because his eyes are hazels, automatically that is going to change! If I trust on the pictures before 1966 it's seem to me that the color of his eyes is like to mine brown and actually is still the same color brown.
Paul's eyes always looked brown. There's no way they could have changed to green. Especially not in 1 year. That's preposterous.

First of all I'm not stupid I am awake and very observer. This is my answer for you.
Yes, of course, you are. The people who are blinded by the veil of illusion probably don't want to believe you can see something they can't. As for the disinfo agents, they sure as hell don't want other people to see it, b/c then people might start figuring out how much they've been mindf**ked.

[dedesuperman]

I can't believe you are still on this hair parting thing. The four were tired of the mop top image and they wanted to change. Look at John's hair style. It changed in the same period. Why did it change around the time of PID? They changed at that time because they felt like it. Paul did not die at that time. It is just that some irrational people look at the hair change and conclude that it must be two different people. You got to give faulconjob some credit though. Two years ago she couldn't even spell moron and now she is one.

dedesuperman. Please answer the following.

1) How is it that "Faul" has the exact same freckles in the exact same spots as Paul?

2) How is it that "Fau"l has the exact same malformation of the iris as Paul given that this can not be done through surgery?

3) Have you ever visited maccafunhouse and researched all of the evidence there? If not, why since you say you are open minded?

4) How is it that "Faul" has the exact same scar on his chin as Paul?

5) Why don't you answer Socrates' question regarding the eyes?

Yes I'm still on the hair parting thing because everything is important as I said Paul McCartney always had the same parting side of his hair since is young age and now because some of PIA says he would like to change as the others members of the Beatles that's explained the change. Yeah right! If I'm really innocent and stupid I am going to swallow it. As i said before if is hairs start to lengthens we should see the side of his original parting hair to left to the right for Paul and right to the left for Faul.

1) How is it that "Faul" has the exact same freckles in the exact same spots as Paul?
Did you already think that these freckles has can be added to the original pictures to agree to those of Faul or vice versa? These Illuminatis think about all the details they are not born of yesterday lol!

2) How is it that "Fau"l has the exact same malformation of the iris as Paul given that this can not be done through surgery?
In 20th Century everything is possible to delude us the kind people.

3) Have you ever visited maccafunhouse and researched all of the evidence there? If not, why since you say you are open minded?
Yes of course. That's why I took the time to study everything pros and cons before I decided to post. Unfortunaly for you I believe more in the theory that Paul has been replaced for some reason that I already mentioned. It is more while looking at the videos that convinced me that the one that we calls Paul is an impostor! :)

4) How is it that "Faul" has the exact same scar on his chin as Paul?
See the answer at number 1

5) Why don't you answer Socrates' question regarding the eyes?
It's already done my friend!

Ok now it's the time for me to go sleep! Next debate! :D

[faulconandsnowjob]

Yes I'm still on the hair parting thing because everything is important as I said Paul McCartney always had the same parting side of his hair since is young age and now because some of PIA says he would like to change as the others members of the Beatles that's explained the change. Yeah right! If I'm really innocent and stupid I am going to swallow it. As i said before if is hairs start to lengthens we should see the side of his original parting hair to left to the right for Paul and right to the left for Faul.

Paul's hair grew left to right. Faul's grew right to left.

http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/4475/faulpaul2.jpg

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

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

1) How is it that "Faul" has the exact same freckles in the exact same spots as Paul?
Did you already think that these freckles has can be added to the original pictures to agree to those of Faul or vice versa? These Illuminatis think about all the details they are not born of yesterday lol!
Those freckles are not in the exact same spots. It's funny how people will rely on freckles when the nose, eyebrows, jawline, eye color, etc, don't match up. Anyway, it could have been photo tampering, which has been proven. There are also ways to make fake freckles. Doesn't anyone know anything about disguises?

2) How is it that "Fau"l has the exact same malformation of the iris as Paul given that this can not be done through surgery?
In 20th Century everything is possible to delude us the kind people.
Oh, please. They don't even have the same eye color. :p

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc205/thebeatlesfour/paul/peeking.jpg
http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/SFF_green_eyes.jpg

4) How is it that "Faul" has the exact same scar on his chin as Paul?
See the answer at number 1
Plastic surgery or photo tampering.

5) Why don't you answer Socrates' question regarding the eyes?
It's already done my friend!
There is no suitable explanation for Paul's eyes changing color from brown to green other than there's a difft guy pretending to be him.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/PaulBill20years.jpg

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

[toty1994]

And tell me Socrates why this Faul cannot sing the song 'The Night before' after 1966? It is because he cannot duplicate the kind of voice that the real Paul have or because he's afraid to be discovered as a impostor!!!!!

I've seen this point about 'The Night Before' mentioned a few times. I don't see the significance as it's one of many songs The Beatles never performed live anyway (look it up). Also, the song is one of the lesser known in The Beatles canon - a relatively obscure album track. It's not particularly surprising McCartney has never performed it live since imo.

[theenlightenedone]

Listen buddy we talk about some change about a man called Paul McCartney of a less of one year, the shape of his face, the voice, the eyes color and not to forget the different mannerism between Paul and Faul. Could you please check the interview of Paul in August 1966 and the interview outside the EMI studio, I supposed that you are not see the differences.:rolleyes:

A good impersonator can by the practice to have the same voice nearly that the original but ever perfectly. Did you ever try to listen the comedian Steve Bridges to imitate George W. Bush? You can see him in the first episode (Season 1) of NCIS just in the beginning, you could believe that it is the true George W. Bush but I know is not him but I am certain that some people would believe that it is him.

Each person in the forum has different opinion me personally I don't find that Faul has the same voice of Paul I find that the voice of Faul is higher while Paul has more vibrato (more bass) I confess to mistake almost that his voice is like Paul even me I believed that it was him.

How come the eyes color change? Because supposedly Paul would have hazel eyes! And because his eyes are hazels, automatically that is going to change! If I trust on the pictures before 1966 it's seem to me that the color of his eyes is like to mine brown and actually is still the same color brown.

First of all I'm not stupid I am awake and very observer. This is my answer for you.

How come the eyes color change? Because supposedly Paul would have hazel eyes! And because his eyes are hazels, automatically that is going to change! If I trust on the pictures before 1966 it's seem to me that the color of his eyes is like to mine brown and actually is still the same color brown.

Paul had hazel eyes.

He say so himself.

Eye color change.

Depends on lightning.

Some eyes fade when get older.

Hazel can do this.

Making it look green or gray.

Look it up.

First of all I'm not stupid I am awake and very observer

Very good observer?

Can't be if you PID.

[socrates]

This was using facial recognition software. The match percentage isn't very high for supposedly the same person.

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/Paul_Faul_face_recog_1.jpg

According to this piece of junk software, Paul has a 75% likeness to Lucille Ball!

http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/1899/screenhunter9c.jpg

http://www.lifeshore.com/smiley/data/media/2/3D_emoticon_194.gif

If PIDDERS are relying on some junk software that says Lucille Ball looks more like Paul McCartney than 'Faul' then it shows how gullible they are.

Perhaps the illuminati should have gotten Lucille Ball to personate Paul instead of Faul!

[socrates]

Paul's eyes always looked brown.

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc205/thebeatlesfour/paul/itscold.gif

:rolleyes:

[socrates]

as I said Paul McCartney always had the same parting side of his hair since is young age

Are you for real?

LOOK!

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

http://www.dontgo.co.uk/openyoureyes/open-your-eyes.gif

1) How is it that "Faul" has the exact same freckles in the exact same spots as Paul?

Did you already think that these freckles has can be added to the original pictures to agree to those of Faul or vice versa? These Illuminatis think about all the details they are not born of yesterday lol!

Usual PID 'Get Out' - "doctored photos". :rolleyes:

Gimme a freakin break!

Where's the undoctored photos then?

PIDDERS never produce the "undoctored" photos to substantiate their claim.

Therefore, your claim is baseless, groundless and without any foundation whatsoever.

Why don't you learn to think for yourself instead of trotting out the same old PID excuses?

5) Why don't you answer Socrates' question regarding the eyes?
It's already done my friend!

No you haven't answered my question.

Why are the colours of the eyes different?

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/SFF_green_eyes.jpg
http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/9086/screenhunter8o.jpg

[formosan termite]

Paul's hair grew left to right. Faul's grew right to left.



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/PaulBill20years.jpg

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

Well lookie here in the very same post. Right below where she tells us about the hair, she uses these photos to show the eyes.

Note the hair in these photos.

Hair falling in the same direction. Faulcon's lie exposed by his own photos.

[formosan termite]

1) How is it that "Faul" has the exact same freckles in the exact same spots as Paul?
Did you already think that these freckles has can be added to the original pictures to agree to those of Faul or vice versa? These Illuminatis think about all the details they are not born of yesterday lol!

Prove it. Show some undoctored photos, then show the doctored counterparts. That should be easy. You made the accusation. Burden of proof is on you.

2) How is it that "Fau"l has the exact same malformation of the iris as Paul given that this can not be done through surgery?
In 20th Century everything is possible to delude us the kind people.

So, everything is possible for the all powerful Illuminati? Shiver my timbers. Let us use some logic. First you say the Illuminati are all powerful and think about all the details. They have methods unknown to any eye surgeon or plastic surgeon. Amazing. But these same omnipotent Illuminati screwed up the eye color, screwed up the parting of the hair, messed up on height, messed up on the shape of the face and got the ears all wrong. You can't have it both ways.

If they are talented enough to be able to reconstruct a malformation in the iris of the eye, they certainly could get the color right. Especially since they think of all the details, as you say. If their surgeons are so advanced, they should have gotten the ears correct and the shape of the face. And they could have found someone of the right height, or reduced his height since they have such amazing techniques.

Your own statements contradict themselves. Everything is possible to the all powerful Illuminati. But then you say the screwed up just about everything.

You need to do better.

[socrates]

Paul's hair grew left to right. Faul's grew right to left.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/PaulBill20years.jpg

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

http://www.lifeshore.com/smiley/data/media/2/3D_emoticon_194.gifhttp://www.lifeshore.com/smiley/data/media/2/3D_emoticon_40.gifhttp://www.lifeshore.com/smiley/data/media/2/3D_emoticon_194.gifhttp://www.lifeshore.com/smiley/data/media/2/3D_emoticon_40.gif

[dedesuperman]

Are you for real?

LOOK!

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

http://www.dontgo.co.uk/openyoureyes/open-your-eyes.gif



Usual PID 'Get Out' - "doctored photos". :rolleyes:

Gimme a freakin break!

Where's the undoctored photos then?

PIDDERS never produce the "undoctored" photos to substantiate their claim.

Therefore, your claim is baseless, groundless and without any foundation whatsoever.

Why don't you learn to think for yourself instead of trotting out the same old PID excuses?


No you haven't answered my question.

Why are the colours of the eyes different?

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/SFF_green_eyes.jpg
http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/9086/screenhunter8o.jpg

First of all to answer your question concerning the colours of the eyes if I take the screen shot on Strawberry fields forever it appears to me that Faul have presented the same color in the first and second screen shot but the second one is less obvious because of the lightning I explained:

Ok if I take the first screen shots that you show me of Strawberry fields forever while watching with attention he presents in the tone mixes green and gray around and to center we sees the color kind of hazel because of the light that hits directly on the eye we clearly sees the difference, for the second screen shot we can discern the color hazel that is centered around the iris but the gray appears a little on the side to our left (we dont see any green in that shot), light touch less evidently the eye that is why we discerns less in detail.

I don't understand why the pictures of Paul appears to me more in the tone of brown before and after 1966 suddenly the color of his eyes shows another tone is in the gray and the green and hazel. But I only say what I observe while trusting on the pictures and videos. I like less the pictures because it is easier to touch them while manipulating them.

My logical thought tells to me that it is not the same person even though apparently Paul would have said that his eyes are hazel according to a magazine because while trusting on the pictures I notice the brown color instead of the one that we sees on Strawberry Field forever.

I would like to know where come the first picture of Paul that you presented because for the most pictures I saw of him it's the first one that I saw the parting hair different from the others of which I recognize his usual look. :confused:

Ok we can carried attention to the details of his physics but most important it is the personality and the charisma that Paul shows to the people. When I look up some of video of Paul before 1966 and Faul after 1966 (that we can see on youtube) it appears to me that his charisma disappeared (video after 1966). It is something that I cannot explain but that I feel. I would not say that it is Paul to please for those that are PIA when inside of me I don't feel that it is him. I would like to be able to say that it is Paul but I don't feel at all sorry :(

[formosan termite]

According to this piece of junk software, Paul has a 75% likeness to Lucille Ball!

http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/1899/screenhunter9c.jpg



If PIDDERS are relying on some junk software that says Lucille Ball looks more like Paul McCartney than 'Faul' then it shows how gullible they are.

Perhaps the illuminati should have gotten Lucille Ball to personate Paul instead of Faul!http://www.lifeshore.com/smiley/data/media/2/3D_emoticon_194.gif

ROFL!

What a software! Lucille Ball more closely resembles Paul than Faul! The all powerful omnipotent Illuminati! LOL!

Another demonstration of Faulcon's amazing scientific analysis! ROFL! She's as good as the "scientists" in her tabloid Italian magazine.

Didn't you do any control tests on this software first, Failconjob? Test a pre '67 Paul against another pre '67 Paul? You really aren't very good at this are you? "We are laughing at the superior intellect."

[socrates]

First of all to answer your question concerning the colours of the eyes if I take the screen shot on Strawberry fields forever it appears to me that Faul have presented the same color in the first and second screen shot

No - the colours look different. Please try again.


but the second one is less obvious because of the lightning

Or the FIRST one is less obvious because of the lighting! :rolleyes:

for the second screen shot we can discern the color hazel that is centered around the iris

No -there is no hazel in the eye whatsoever - the eye colour is too dark to see that.

However, Paul has hazel eyes. So you are saying 'Faul' has the same hazel eyes as Paul? But before you said the eye colour was different! :eek:

You are just contradicting your own argument.

And you cannot see the iris, whatsoever.

You really do need to open your eyes. Stop imagining things.

When I look up some of video of Paul before 1966 and Faul after 1966 (that we can see on youtube) it appears to me that his charisma disappeared (

Oh, please! :rolleyes:

[formosan termite]

Ok we can carried attention to the details of his physics but most important it is the personality and the charisma that Paul shows to the people. When I look up some of video of Paul before 1966 and Faul after 1966 (that we can see on youtube) it appears to me that his charisma disappeared (video after 1966). It is something that I cannot explain but that I feel. I would not say that it is Paul to please for those that are PIA when inside of me I don't feel that it is him. I would like to be able to say that it is Paul but I don't feel at all sorry :(

Is this Chris?

Here we go. You want us to forget the hard evidence; that is not important. You just FEEL he is different. No. Let us deal with reality, not emotional psychobabble. Either Paul is dead or he is not. Your feelings about it mean nothing. If the hard evidence shows that Paul is alive then he is alive. Feeling are not important. If someone accused you of fraud and murder, and you had evidence that you were innocent, would you want the jury to judge you based on hard evidence or their feelings. Feelings can be wrong. Fact is fact.

As far as personality and charisma, that can change with maturity and personal events. People change. And it can happen quickly. They went through a lot from 1963 through 1966. None of us will ever understand what they went through. I think part of it, too, is that they were tired of the mop-top persona that they were projecting and they started acting more like themselves. There wasn't that much of a change, anyway.

[keystone]

I vote yes. Cause Of Death: Terminal boredom from this thread. Speaking of which can't someone put it (the thread tht is) out of its misery? Please?

:D

[dedesuperman]

No - the colours look different. Please try again.




Or the FIRST one is less obvious because of the lighting! :rolleyes:




No - that colour is not hazel. And you cannot see the iris.

You really need to open your eyes.



Oh, please! :rolleyes:

I repeat the two screen shot shows the same color is it you that you are blind :mad: because is the same Faul that appears in this video! To reason that light hits less on the eye in the second screen shot doesn't want to say that the green is not anymore, I admit that I see the color hazel more that the gray but it doesn't mean that the other colors disappeared and for the iris we guesses where it is situated on the eye, no need to be super-intelligent to guess!

If the color is not hazel because you say that Paul has say is hazel which color is it then?

Light hits more in the first screen shot because we sees the contour of the eye better and the different colors are the green, gray and hazel while the second screen shot we sees more hazel and a few the gray but not the green.

[formosan termite]

We'll try this again.

Paul's eyes are hazel. That is a fact.

It is also a fact that hazel eyes can sometimes look brown and sometimes look green or gray. That is a fact. Look at the links that I have posted. I also have personal experience. My wife has hazel eyes. They sometimes look brown, sometimes green. My son is the same way.

Also, it is a fact that the color of the eyes can change. It is not written in stone. This is a fact. See the link I posted to the Stanford school of medicine.

In some of the photos of Paul pre '67, they eyes look green, in others they look brown. Typical for hazel eyes. That is a fact.

Fact. Not feelings. Fact.

Oh, and sorry if this bores anyone. But if there is a thread I am bored with, or not interested in, then I just don't go there and read it.

[socrates]

I repeat the two screen shot shows the same color

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/2919/screenhunter15k.jpg

Er, okaaaaay..... :rolleyes:

because is the same Faul that appears in this video!

Of course - and the lighting effects our perception of his eye colour.

Just like in the still photos which appear to show 'Faul' with green eyes.

Yet you insist his eyes look the same colour in both screen caps, when they patently don't.

If the color is not hazel because you say that Paul has say is hazel which color is it then?

What? Please speak in English not Babblefish.

for the second screen shot we can discern the color hazel that is centered around the iris...... and for the iris we guesses where it is situated on the eye, no need to be super-intelligent to guess!

Do you need to be "super intelligent" to imagine you can see hazel in this eye....

http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/2719/screenhunter14y.jpg

Yeah, erm, hazel... Riiiiiiight. :eek:

Sorry - the eye doesn't have enough light reflecting off it to show any hazel. (Although his eyes are hazel.)

It just 'looks' dark brown.

You are saying you can see hazel in 'Faul's' eye. Paul has hazel eyes. So now you are just contradicting your own Faul Has Different Coloured Eyes argument.

WTF?! :confused:

Light hits more in the first screen shot because we sees the contour of the eye better and the different colors are the green, gray and hazel while the second screen shot we sees more hazel and a few the gray but not the green.

Now you are saying the eyes in the 2 screen shots show different colours. :rolleyes:

Yet you said:

I repeat the two screen shot shows the same color

You also said:

it is you and other PIA says that to depend of the lightning or the point of view or because his eyes are hazel it affects the change of color to brown, green or even blue :D not me.

But then you write about the light affecting what colours we perceive in the first screen capture:

Light hits more in the first screen shot because we sees the contour of the eye better and the different colors are the green, gray and hazel while the second screen shot we sees more hazel and a few the gray but not the green.

Sorry, but you are obviously seriously confused about all this. Your poor logic and self contradiction is absolutely bewlidering.

I can see no further point in discussing this with you.

[socrates]

Paul's eyes always looked brown. There's no way they could have changed to green. Especially not in 1 year.

That's preposterous.

The thing that occurred to me today was this: is it possible they made a copy of Paul's mind somehow & downloaded it into Faul's brain?

http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u213/Tamme57/ANIMAL%20Pics%20and%20Comments/WTF.jpg

[theenlightenedone]

dede you bringing no viable evidence.

I'm sorry.

The eyecolor has been debunked many, many time.

Sorry.

Try harder.

If you can.

[faulconandsnowjob]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v462/OnlyBeatles/niceheightcomparison.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/WlarusGirl/All_About_The_Beatles_11.jpg
http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii220/truecolors112/part%204/74253752.jpg
http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/BEATLES1963.jpg

Then suddenly, a big height difference. Hmmmm.... What could possibly explain that? lol

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g146/lilis456/dreamer2.jpg

[faulconandsnowjob]

Try harder.

If you can.

Try harder to see past the illusion.

If you can.

[theenlightenedone]

Try harder to see past the illusion.

If you can.

Faulcon.

You always make laugh.

You're good at that.

But proving PID.

You fail.

Sorry.

[jackbumbo]

There is no chance, no untried operation
All hope lies with her and none with me
Imagine though, the shock from isolation
When Faulcon is no longer PID....

[formosan termite]

Then suddenly, a big height difference. Hmmmm.... What could possibly explain that? lol

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g146/lilis456/dreamer2.jpg

Hmmmm. What big height difference? Paul is the about same height as George and John. Just a little taller. Both George and John were 5'10". Paul is 5'11". That matches what we see in this picture.

[faulconandsnowjob]

http://jojoplace.org/Shoebox/Wired_Italy_August_2009/Wired_Teeth_Crop.jpg

Chiedi chi era quel «Beatle»
********************/m26vj9

... In Figure IV shall note the rough discrepancy of the trend of the curve mandibular, the pogonion DOES NOT COINCIDE AS THE commessura speech (the corners of the mouth).

In comparison with the image is the cover internal Sgt. Pepper's (figure (iii) is also noted a discrepancy of dimensional commessura speech that the moustasches (a completely new nellook by Paul post 1966) are unable to camouflage. Also the different performance of the pavilions headsets is not completely hidden by the new cut of hair.

The existence of images of the mouth open of Paul McCartney before the 1966 (essentially live pictures of the artist while he sings) has also made possible a comparison on the look of teeth.

The figure v Paul dated 1966 show a marked endognazia, or a palate close to form the ogiva. There is a minimum distance between the canines, with misalignment of upper-right canine for lack of space in arch. There is also an arch of narrow chin also at the level. And molar. The Arch over the figure you left track dental arch different with the incisors central and lateral completely visible, and not aligned rotated on their axis. There is also a uniform of the color of the crowns in all the elements of arch superior, that is we expect a ceramic encapsulation of the teeth. It is important stress that no prosthetic rehabilitation is able to create a bone that discrepancy, cellular and palatal. Aspects that in a person shall be only through a surgical very invasive the suturing palatal and consequent orthodontic treatment and prostheses Co. these interventions, very difficult today, were particularly painful and almost impossible in the 1960s

[dedesuperman]

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/2919/screenhunter15k.jpg

Er, okaaaaay..... :rolleyes:



Of course - and the lighting effects our perception of his eye colour.

Just like in the still photos which appear to show 'Faul' with green eyes.

Yet you insist his eyes look the same colour in both screen caps, when they patently don't.



What? Please speak in English not Babblefish.


Do you need to be "super intelligent" to imagine you can see hazel in this eye....

http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/2719/screenhunter14y.jpg

Yeah, erm, hazel... Riiiiiiight. :eek:

Sorry - the eye doesn't have enough light reflecting off it to show any hazel. (Although his eyes are hazel.)

It just 'looks' dark brown.

You are saying you can see hazel in 'Faul's' eye. Paul has hazel eyes. So now you are just contradicting your own Faul Has Different Coloured Eyes argument.

WTF?! :confused:



Now you are saying the eyes in the 2 screen shots show different colours. :rolleyes:

Yet you said:



You also said:



But then you write about the light affecting what colours we perceive in the first screen capture:



Sorry, but you are obviously seriously confused about all this. Your poor logic and self contradiction is absolutely bewlidering.

I can see no further point in discussing this with you.

First of all I would like specify that my maternal language is not English but French therefore if you see that I make grammatical mistakes don't be surprised if I have mess up my previous post.

Ok Socrates you are right! By my readiness to answer you I contradicted myself and I confess it. I didn't take the time to analyze my own commentary before to post on the eye's issue.
Therefore I restart to clarify my idea.

The two screen shots doesn't not show the same color. The first screen shots we notices 3 colors, hazel, green and gray. Correct me if the color around the iris it is hazel or brown! According to me is hazel, is it that? We see more details in that one because light heads and illuminate the eye clearly. For the second screen shot it is true that it is darker we cannot see the iris and the color noticed and I correct my mistake that I had say previously is a dark brown tone.

Socrates here is the explanation why I have screw-up my post with my contradictions:

I thought that when you had asked me the question on the 2 screen shot on Strawberry fields forever I believed that it was a trick question. It is for this reason that I answered that the two screen shot was similar because according to a source of magazine and according to you and because all PIA believe hazel would be the color of Paul's eyes no matter of the way that we discerns the color. In my understanding I believed that the colors that we saw in the first screen shot included the color hazel that is composed of green, gray or brown (to depend of each individual) and the color that is around the iris I thought that it was hazel. Correct me if I am mistaken! In reason that I said it was hazel in the first screen shot I have concluded that the second would be hazel as well, also since you affirm hazel is the color of the eyes of Paul McCartney, do you understand my reasoning? I hope so! I don't want to mess up again in that one.

Even that I confirm that the color of the eyes that we sees in the screen shot is hazel and brown in the second for me it stays Faul the impostor.

In spite of the facts that you show by the comparisons of pictures that Paul is alive I am not really convinced that it is Paul. The pictures are important to identify a person but in reason that I believe Paul has been replaced it is easier in this case to manipulate a picture (especially after 1966 concerning Faul to make look like as Paul or vice-versa) that is static and without soul comparatively a video or we sees the action and the movement of the person. Is it true how do we knows if such picture has been tampered? I can suppose it but I am not able to proved it.

As I said before that is while looking at the videos showing Paul before 1966 and compared supposedly with the one that is Paul after 1966 I see some differences in the gestures, the mannerism or the movement that he nods the head, the way that he smiles and that he watches and also the nail biting even though you try to ignore is bad habit (tick) which he suddenly lost post-66. I also have the bad habit to gnaw my nails and I have about forty years. I find that there is too much difference or change to say that it is Paul.

I let to you with this.

[socrates]

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

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/BEATLES1963.jpg

Then suddenly, a big height difference. Hmmmm.... What could possibly explain that? lol

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g146/lilis456/dreamer2.jpg

Then suddenly, a big height difference. Hmmmm.... What could possibly explain that? lol

The explanation is that you are deluded and cannot grasp the concept that posture, distances from the camera and the angle a photograph is taken from can affect the perception of relative heights:

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/4523/hu024900.jpg

http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/4935/wa1906462.jpg

http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/4935/wa1906462.jpghttp://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g146/lilis456/dreamer2.jpg

This fact has been continually pointed out to you many times during this thread - with photo proof - and yet you keep on promoting this 'height difference' lie.

Really, what is wrong with you?

[socrates]

First of all I would like specify that my maternal language is not English but French therefore if you see that I make grammatical mistakes don't be surprised if I have mess up my previous post.

No problem. I understand.

Ok Socrates you are right! By my readiness to answer you I contradicted myself and I confess it.

Your readiness to admit your mistake is to be applauded and is a very rare quality amongst PIDDERS.

The two screen shots doesn't not show the same color. The first screen shots we notices 3 colors, hazel, green and gray. Correct me if the color around the iris it is hazel or brown! According to me is hazel, is it that?

Paul has hazel eyes. Therefore you are saying 'Faul' has too.

We see more details in that one because light heads and illuminate the eye clearly. For the second screen shot it is true that it is darker we cannot see the iris and the color noticed and I correct my mistake that I had say previously is a dark brown tone.

Which confirms that light affects our perception of the colour of the eye - which is why 'Faul's' eyes sometimes appear green.

This is something your fellow PIDDERS cannot grasp.

I'm glad that you can see through their gullibility.

[socrates]

The faces simply don't match up.

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/memphis_66_comp.jpg
http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/3143/halfanfhalf.jpg

It depends if you do it right. :rolleyes:

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/diverse%20photos/avatarf.gif

Your deceptions are exposed again.

[formosan termite]

This was discovered by another truth agent:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNhTU6iBzDk&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fmaccafunhouse%2Eproboards%2Ecom% 2Findex%2Ecgi%3Faction%3Ddisplay%26board%3Dpid%26t hread%3D3849%26page%3D1&feature=player_embedded

[formosan termite]

http://jojoplace.org/Shoebox/Wired_Italy_August_2009/Wired_Teeth_Crop.jpg


Geez, that comp of the teeth is so bad, it debunks itself. Of all the hundreds of thousands of pictures of Paul, why would anyone serious pick those two. The photo quality is bad and the teeth are at different angles. Again. there should have been dozens of tests done on scores of pictures. Where are the other data points?

A better one real quick from PIAbolo. Same teeth.

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

[faulconandsnowjob]

The two screen shots doesn't not show the same color. The first screen shots we notices 3 colors, hazel, green and gray. Correct me if the color around the iris it is hazel or brown! According to me is hazel, is it that?



Paul's eyes were hazel/brown & Faul's are green.

http://img392.imageshack.us/img392/4628/screenhunter439us7wd6.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc205/thebeatlesfour/paul/peeking.jpg

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/6675/green1gc6.jpg
http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/SFF_green_eyes.jpg

BTW, there is no way to convince Focrates, Termite, theenlightenedone, or Fireman. It doesn't matter to them what the facts show.

[socrates]

BTW, there is no way to convince Focrates, Termite, theenlightenedone, or Fireman. It doesn't matter to them what the facts show.

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/5844/facepalm.gif

The FACTS show there is no height difference, Paul had freckles, the Wired article does not prove Paul was replaced.... etc.

ALL of which YOU contradict.

I think we can all see who sticks to FACTS faulconpoop, and who doesn't.

Here's just a couple of your classics:

Paul's hair grew left to right. Faul's grew right to left.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/PaulBill20years.jpg

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

Faul's freckles. This is where they're located on his face:

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

Paul didn't have those freckles.


................http://img362.imageshack.us/img362/4705/dejensucomentario1kike0.gif

http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/3843/82202321.jpg

http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/3843/82202321.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/cheezeymoustache3.jpg

http://img374.imageshack.us/img374/6497/screenhunter38.jpghttp://img146.imageshack.us/img146/9188/screenhunter41.jpg

[socrates]

This was discovered by another truth agent:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNhTU6iBzDk&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fmaccafunhouse%2Eproboards%2Ecom% 2Findex%2Ecgi%3Faction%3Ddisplay%26board%3Dpid%26t hread%3D3849%26page%3D1&feature=player_embedded

That's an excellent video.

[faulconandsnowjob]

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/card2.jpg

Notice how it says BROWN eyes.

[socrates]

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/card2.jpg

Notice how it says BROWN eyes.

Do you blindly believe everything you read, faulconpoop? :rolleyes:

I'll take the word of PAUL over some lazy pop journalist who didn't check the FACTS properly:

"Notice" how it says HAZEL eyes:

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/3824/1paulbookhx8.jpg

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

How many times have you got to be shown this magazine cutting?

I think Paul knows the colour of his own eyes better than you do. Yet you continue to spout your 'brown eyes' nonsense despite the FACTS proving otherwise.

Oh, well. Some people don't want to see the truth. :rolleyes:

[faulconandsnowjob]

Contrary to what some people may thing, brown or hazel is not the same color as green.

http://img392.imageshack.us/img392/4628/screenhunter439us7wd6.jpghttp://img155.imageshack.us/img155/6675/green1gc6.jpg

Faul in SFF daring people to see his *green* eyes.

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/8043/cheezeymoustache6vc7fq3.jpg

Now, he usually doesn't even bother to hide it, b/c they know most people will never put it together that Paul was replaced.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/blueeyes3.jpg

[formosan termite]

Faulconjob,

You have been proven wrong over and over and over. Give it up.

I have provided links that show that hazel eyes can look brown or green. One from the Stanford Department of Medicine. Let's see. Who do we believe, Faulconjob, or the Stanford Department of Medicine. I'll go with Stanford.

Who do we believe about the color of Paul's eyes. Some stupid "color card" the source of which we do not know, or pre '66 Paul McCartney himself. Let's see. I think I will believe Paul.

[socrates]

Contrary to what some people may thing, brown or hazel is not the same color as green.

http://img392.imageshack.us/img392/4628/screenhunter439us7wd6.jpghttp://img155.imageshack.us/img155/6675/green1gc6.jpg

Faul in SFF daring people to see his *green* eyes.

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/8043/cheezeymoustache6vc7fq3.jpg

Now, he usually doesn't even bother to hide it, b/c they know most people will never put it together that Paul was replaced.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/blueeyes3.jpg

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/5844/facepalm.gif......http://www.northernsun.com/images/imagethumb/Stupidity%20Doing%20Same%20Thing%20Over%20Button%2 0(0681).jpg

[formosan termite]

Contrary to what some people may thing, brown or hazel is not the same color as green.



Are you mentally challenged? Some people? How about everyone?

Hazel
This iris shows a mixture of brown, green, and amber colors.

Hazel eyes are due to a combination of Rayleigh scattering and a moderate amount of melanin in the iris' anterior border layer.[7][25] Hazel eyes often appear to shift in color from a light brown to a medium golden-green. A number of studies using three-point scales have assigned hazel to be the medium-color between the lightest shade of blue and darkest shade of brown. Hazel mostly consists of Brown and Green. The dominant color in the eye can either be green or light brown/gold.[48][49][50][51][52][53][54] This can sometimes produce a multicolored iris, i.e., an eye that is light brown near the pupil and charcoal or amber/dark green on the outer part of the iris (and vice versa) when observed in sunlight. Hazel is commonly found in Europe, the Middle East, Americas, Central Asia and parts of South Asia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_color#Hazel

[toty1994]

I vote yes. Cause Of Death: Terminal boredom from this thread. Speaking of which can't someone put it (the thread tht is) out of its misery? Please?

:D

He's got a point....and when someone pointed out that faulcon said this...


This is something that just occurred to me in trying to think about how they got Faul to sound so much like Paul. They could have a voice double, or technology that can closely mimic someone's voice. The thing that occurred to me today was this: is it possible they made a copy of Paul's mind somehow & downloaded it into Faul's brain?
...it suddenly hit me that perhaps she's just satirising the whole thing and taking us all for a ride.

Anyway, breaking news! According to some folks on the iamaphoney blog a major revelation regarding McCartney's dna will come to light today! It's going to be earth-shattering apparently.

Hmm..wonder if anything will happen.:rolleyes:

[formosan termite]

Q: What exactly are hazel eyes, and what color are they? Rita Lichtenburg South Africa

A: It seemed like a simple question, when I first read it. Then I went to various sources, and found no consensus.

Hmmm. This is a question for a world-renown expert.

"The question of Hazel eye colour has haunted the literature," muses geneticist Rick Sturm, principal research fellow at the University of Queensland in Australia. "The fact is eye color (like skin and hair color) is a continuous spectrum — from the lightest shades of blue to the darkest brown/black."

Moreover, it's subjective. "Visual impressions of colour can change as often as you change the lighting conditions."

Also, hazel eyes, like blue eyes and all light eyes, reflect colors around them, as a pool reflects the sky.

"Hazel eyes are not one color. It is a name for a combination of colors: golds, greens and browns. My eyes have a dark green circle on the outer edge, going in with lighter greens and specks of gold into a starburst effect with a gold edge, inside that is a lighter brownish gold color with starburst lines inside to the pupil. The colors seem to change with hair and clothing color. The eye color becomes significantly greener with the salt of tears."

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/aprilholladay/2007-03-19-hazel-eye-memory_N.htm

By the way, we're not some stupid kids surfing the net. My wife and kid have hazel eyes. I have been looking into my wife's hazel eyes for over 20 years. They sometimes look brown, sometimes green. My son is the same way, and so was my father-in-law, God rest his soul. I see proof of this every day.

[socrates]

Hmm..wonder if anything will happen.:rolleyes:

LOL!

I won't hold my breath.

[socrates]

Paul's spotty neck:

http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/2721/screenhunter17y.jpghttp://img338.imageshack.us/img338/669/screenhunter16.jpg

[faulconandsnowjob]

I like how PIA'ers use tampered photos in their comps to show how they're supposedly the same person (conveniently ignoring the fact that it's already been proven by forensic science that Paul was replaced.) Anyway, the face on the left has been stretched.

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/paul_stretch.jpg
http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/memphis_66_paul.jpg

When his face is stretched, he looks more like Faul:

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

These comps are more accurate representations:

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

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

[socrates]

I think we can ignore the nonsense from a proven fabricator of the truth, faulconpoop. :rolleyes:

Remember - "the devil is in the details". :)

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/3651/screenhunter18.jpghttp://img204.imageshack.us/img204/4975/screenhunter4s.jpg

[formosan termite]

I like how PIA'ers use tampered photos in their comps to show how they're supposedly the same person (conveniently ignoring the fact that it's already been proven by forensic science that Paul was replaced.)

You have accused us of using tampered photos. The burden of proof is on you. Ok prove it. Show a vintage photo, then show the tampered version that we used. That should be easy enough for you. Prove it.

it's already been proven by forensic science that Paul was replaced

That is a lie. The "scientists" in that article even stated that their work did not constitute proof of anything.

[formosan termite]

...it suddenly hit me that perhaps she's just satirizing the whole thing and taking us all for a ride.



I am beginning to believe you are correct.

[faulconandsnowjob]

paul is dead - the rotten apple 76 - YouTube

paul is dead - the rotten apple 76 - YouTube

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/Paulvs.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/Bill_Sheppard_Mal_Evans_1966_05.jpg

[theenlightenedone]

Still post Africa pic?

Those pics not viable evidence.

1. Paul getting wind in eye

2. Paul making funny face because of wind

3. Hair all blown up

4. Bad quality

Sorry Faulcon.

Try Harder.

[faulconandsnowjob]

Some strange circumstances w/ Mal Evans. He was the one who died in bizarre circumstances in 1976. Mal Evans was shot and killed by the police on 5 January 1976. Before his death Evans was working on a book of memoirs called “Living The Beatles' Legend,” which he was supposed to deliver to publishers 12 January 1976... On the night of Evans' death, his collaborator on his book, John Hoernie, said Evans told him to make sure that he finished "Living The Beatles' Legend." Evans' ashes were lost in the postal system... A suitcase that Evans was carrying at the time of his death, which was supposed to contain unreleased recordings, photos and other memorabilia, was also lost during the investigation. Portions of the book have been published, but not all.

[faulconandsnowjob]

1965 v 1967

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

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

[fireman]

All your PID claims have been debunked over and over again, yet your obsession drives you to spam several forums with these pathetic picture comparisons..

All that is needed to know if Paul Mccartney was replaced or not, is in these 3 videos:


Perfect Pitch - YouTube

Match Point - YouTube

Pattern Recognition (20 years later) - YouTube


Everybody who sees these, will beyond a doubt know that Paulie never died!

Let's get back to our jobs and wifes and quit this ridiculous PID discussion..

[toty1994]

^^
Indeed. The no nonsense, straightforward approach of those vids is far more compelling than iamaphoney's glossy cryptic ones. Unfortunately, they will be overlooked because making vids showing McCartney never died is just not sexy, is it.

[hunger]

paul is dead - the rotten apple 76 - YouTube

[astrochicken]

Brad Pitt Fade

http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/6844/pitt.gif


Kevin Spacey from the front

http://www.mediabistro.com/agencyspy/original/kevin-spacey-2.jpg

Kevin Spacey from the side AND BALD!!!!

http://lifeafterwcg2.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/supermanreturns017.jpg


Noting how the above pics depict the same person (pitt and spacey) regardless of "perspective", "light", "angle", "facial expression", "hair blowing in wind", "BALD/NOT-BALD, "squinting eyes", "making funny face because of wind", constipated, just farted, "bad quality" etc. then these two are most definitely two entirely different people.

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




The above samples show how ludicrous the hired helpers claims are.

As regards the hired helpers.. ie. the influx of new posters claiming "this has been debunked", "wrong perspective", "try harder", blah blah blah..
here's where they found their way on to the DI Forums.


"Send more troops, send more troops."


Herd-mentality in full force....kinda pathetic really.. socrates and fireman/redman/lightman feeling overwhelmed and cornered eh?
"send more troops" LOL

So, in march the trolls with their "try harder" mantra.
Pathetic.

[fireman]

did u even watch those videos?


All that is needed to know if Paul Mccartney was replaced or not, is in these 3 videos:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi0Hz02ssxc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNhTU6iBzDk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNjpxr2_sGg


Everybody who sees these, will beyond a doubt know that Paulie never died!

Let's get back to our jobs and wifes and quit this ridiculous PID discussion..

[toty1994]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QtRk1OUYuU
Same old same old from 'phoney. There's been speculation over the identity of the old man with the blurred out face. He's appeared in several 'phoney vids - apparently commenting on PiD in a vaguely mysterious way. I imagine 'phoney wants his audience to believe this gentleman is an insider who knows 'the truth' - hence the blurring out of his face. In fact, it's Klaus Voormann - an old associate of The Beatles. He designed the sleeve for Revolver. True to form, iamaphoney takes an interview with Voormann about Sgt. Pepper out of context; he's not talking about PiD at all.

[formosan termite]

The above samples show how ludicrous the hired helpers claims are.

As regards the hired helpers.. ie. the influx of new posters claiming "this has been debunked", "wrong perspective", "try harder", blah blah blah..
here's where they found their way on to the DI Forums.



Hired helpers? Hired by whom? I wish I was getting paid for this. Same old CT BS.


Herd-mentality in full force....kinda pathetic really.. socrates and fireman/redman/lightman feeling overwhelmed and cornered eh?
"send more troops" LOL



There was no post on MFH saying "send more troops". That's a lie. Just like PID.

[astrochicken]

Hired helpers? Hired by whom? I wish I was getting paid for this. Same old CT BS.

There was no post on MFH saying "send more troops". That's a lie. Just like PID.

You know what i'm referring to when i say "hired helpers".

LOL. The thread is still there though, albeit minus the posts i referred to.
So MFH deletes said posts (57542) and now i'm a liar? That's even more pathetic.

Here you go though.. some traffic your way
(http://maccafunhouse.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=gossip&action=display&thread=3269)

[theenlightenedone]

Delete what?

No post been deleted in that thread.

You the liar.

[astrochicken]

Delete what?

No post been deleted in that thread.

You the liar.

LOL. You're lacking in respect dude!!

Why on earth should i lie about something like that, that's on the same level as cheating at golf.
You'd be only decieving yourself.


The topic is "paul is dead", don't try and derail it or throw the topic of course.

[toty1994]

The above samples show how ludicrous the hired helpers claims are.

As regards the hired helpers.. ie. the influx of new posters claiming "this has been debunked", "wrong perspective", "try harder", blah blah blah..
here's where they found their way on to the DI Forums.



Herd-mentality in full force....kinda pathetic really.. socrates and fireman/redman/lightman feeling overwhelmed and cornered eh?
"send more troops" LOL

So, in march the trolls with their "try harder" mantra.
Pathetic.

Your tone would suggest the 'send more troops' quote is indicative of some kind of panic from the folks at MFH. However, if anyone cares to click the link you yourself provided they would see it's more mild amusement than anything.

At least it's livened this thread up a bit, doncha think?

[theenlightenedone]

LOL. You're lacking in respect dude!!

Why on earth should i lie about something like that, that's on the same level as cheating at golf.
You'd be only decieving yourself.


The topic is "paul is dead", don't try and derail it or throw the topic of course.

You call MFH liars.

What's different?

[astrochicken]

Your tone would suggest the 'send more troops' quote is indicative of some kind of panic from the folks at MFH. However, if anyone cares to click the link you yourself provided they would see it's more mild amusement than anything.

At least it's livened this thread up a bit, doncha think?


It's certainly livened it up, but i'm not one for organized derailing, which if you read through that specific thread (minus the deleted posts) then you'll have seen it for yourself that that is the intention of the MFH.

What irks me somewhat, is that since the wired magazine came out and the recent letterman interview the board has filled up with *new* members claiming "this has been debunked" and "try harder".

That's all.

[theenlightenedone]

It's certainly livened it up, but i'm not one for organized derailing, which if you read through that specific thread (minus the deleted posts) then you'll have seen it for yourself that that is the intention of the MFH.

What irks me somewhat, is that since the wired magazine came out and the recent letterman interview the board has filled up with *new* members claiming "this has been debunked" and "try harder".

That's all.

No one tell me to join.

I join because it might be fun.

And it is.

Your evidence not hold up well.

Laughing.

[socrates]

Why on earth should i lie about something like that

LOL! Remember this?


Their methods and their evidence proves conclusively that there are severe discrepancies which are impossible when assuming that paul and faul are supposedly identical people,

I'm still waiting for you to provide the quote where they say they have 'proven' anything. :rolleyes:

You'd be only decieving yourself.

That is what PIDDERS do. See above. And see *, below.

The topic is "paul is dead", don't try and derail it or throw the topic of course.

* No it is not! See, there you go again with your fabrications. :rolleyes:

Why can't you PIDDERS stick to FACTS?

The topic is: "IS PAUL REALLY DEAD?"

And notice the question mark too - that's important. :cool:

[faulconandsnowjob]

The above samples show how ludicrous the hired helpers claims are.

As regards the hired helpers.. ie. the influx of new posters claiming "this has been debunked", "wrong perspective", "try harder", blah blah blah..
here's where they found their way on to the DI Forums.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Originally Posted by maccafunhouse(Faul devotees forum)
"Send more troops, send more troops."

Herd-mentality in full force....kinda pathetic really.. socrates and fireman/redman/lightman feeling overwhelmed and cornered eh?
"send more troops" LOL

So, in march the trolls with their "try harder" mantra.
Pathetic.

LOL! I know. It's amazing how they can find people who will continue to blindly claim PIA when it's been proven by forensic science that Paul was replaced, not to mention the difft colored eyes & stature. Let's just say I'm not exactly impressed w/ their mental prowess. :p


You know what i'm referring to when i say "hired helpers".


Yes, we do. But it's fine, b/c it keeps the thread going, & it keeps Paul a topic of conversation. :D

The topic is "paul is dead", don't try and derail it or throw the topic of course.
That is their only purpose for being here.

No one tell (sic) me to join.


You're lying & we know it.

[toty1994]

Quote:
Originally Posted by theenlightenedone
No one tell (sic) me to join.

You're lying & we know it.

What are you on about now? Some people have been told to join this forum, and if they deny it they're lying? How rude. And is that the royal 'we'?

Btw, what's your opinion of JohnCharles2007's 'Match Point' video (not to mention his earlier ones)?

[futurejp]

Hi,

I'm basically new here, though I've been browsing for a bit. I have some questions, and I'm not taking either side, but I haven't read all nearly-500 pages of this thread so forgive me if some of my questions are things you're tired of hearing. And remember, I'm not taking sides, just asking questions, mostly directed at PIDers.

First, do you believe Paul was replaced because he died in an accident? Or was he purposely killed/removed for some reason and therefore replaced?

Whatever the reason for his replacement, how likely do you think it is that they found someone who looked like Paul, sounded like Paul, had musical skills, had the capacity to learn vocals, guitar, bass, and piano for all of Paul's previous works, not to mention learning it left-handed (as I think I read somewhere that Faul is a righty), had the ability to create much new music throughout the following years (by far, not all people who play music can also create it), was able to create that music in a style that always had that familiar Paul feel, was able to still have musical interest and the ability to keep writing and performing for all these years, even through today, never giving half-assed performances or turning his back to the celebrity world (which many "real" celebrities do after 50 years, nevermind an impostor)?

What I generally mean by the above paragraph/question is that I bet if you held a world-wide Paul lookalike contest today, you would find less than a handful of people who even look as close to Paul as Faul does. And chances are that if any of them are musical, it wouldn't be in nearly any of the same ways in which Paul/Faul was/is, and it would take years of training to make them so. So how they could've found a replacement so easily in the 60s is something that for me is difficult to understand.

Now, many of the arguments and posts I've seen to justify these things include facial surgery and memory-implantation or something like that. Forgive my ignorance, because I don't know details for these theories, so I might say things that are just totally inaccurate to what has been said.

If Faul had facial surgery to look like Paul, wouldn't there be a period of at least a few months where there are absolutely no pictures of him? Wouldn't there be scars afterwards? What are the chances that everything successfully worked in the first surgery to make him look as much as possible like Paul? I would think more than one surgery would be necessary. I assume it's possible to shave teeth down and/or make them pointed, but is it possible to actually change the angle of teeth, such as you can see on the upper right (his right) side of P/Faul'us mouth? If (whoever) was so intent on Faul looking like Paul that they had him get surgery or alter his teeth or wear ear/nose/other prosthetics on his face, don't you think they would've suggested he simply comb his hair the other way to look like Paul? There's a definite conflict of concern there.

And what about memory modifications I've read about here? I assume the point of them is that Faul would think he's Paul. If such a technology exists, why hasn't it been publicized and used beneficially? People with great minds whose deaths will come sooner rather than later - Steven Hawking, James Watson - could have their memories and thoughts saved, studied, and even combined with the memories of another great thinker (a colleague or understudy of Hawking, for example) so essentially the thinker's thoughts and memories would never die.

Most famous, long-term bands have at least one dip in their career as far as the quality of their albums go, and it's usually fairly well-known. For example, Aerosmith's first 5 albums are very strong, and then they had a huge 3-album slump in the late 70s/early 80s. Then they came back very strong through 2001 and now they're back down. Led Zeppelin's first 4 albums, at least, are considered very strong and are talked about a lot, but album popularity dips down toward the end of their career. You hear a lot more talk about all songs on Led Zeppelin II than you do about songs like Ozone Baby, for example. And the same happens for most bands.

So how is it possible that around 1966 Paul got replaced, and from what I read, other Beatles got replaced too, and yet the music they created through Let It Be was and is still extremely popular? People still say there are no bad Beatles songs, and even if people go "yeah but I really don't care for these songs:" I've never in my LIFE heard anything even close to someone saying something like "yeah, but everything after Revolver I just don't care for."

If all this is true - if Paul really got replaced, if all these measures were taken to make Faul as close to Paul as possible - why? If Paul's death was accidental and a replacement was found so that the public wouldn't have to know that Paul died, why keep it up for so long? And seeing as how Faul, since he exists in this case, has created some great music since the mid-60s, is it really such a bad thing?

And if Paul was purposely killed and/or replaced with someone else, ...why? Why would any organization want to remove Paul from the public? There are thousands and thousands of people out there right now making much more of an impact on the world than one of the Beatles did in the 60s. Have they all been replaced? If not, why not? What is the reason for this whole thing?

That's all I can think of for now. Remember, I'm just asking, don't bite my head off.

[fireman]

Hi futurejp,

i think you have every right to ask those question. But i will not spend the time answering them in detail.

One short answer: He never died, nore was he replaced. That's about it.

I have been researching this for some years and the PID story is not only highly unrealistic, full of major holes in the "storyline", but also has every aspect been debunked.

It is a heavy case of seletive peception in some hardliner conspiracy theorists that are pushing this theory, while millions and billions do not buy it. (yeah i know, they are "sheeple")

Now come on Faulconandsnowjob, give our new member the illuminati-speech! :rolleyes:

[futurejp]

That's what I believe too, but as much as I might believe he never died, others firmly believe he did. So there's no point calling them crazy or names (the PID equivalent of a sheeple) because they might think I'm just as wrong as I might think they are.

Nonetheless, I'm still obviously interested in the answers to my questions. You know when you watch a movie that starts with an interesting premise, but in order to answer all the questions it raises, it does all these ridiculous things and pulls crazy ideas out of everywhere? That's kind of what I think about this whole thing.

[faulconandsnowjob]

First, do you believe Paul was replaced because he died in an accident? Or was he purposely killed/removed for some reason and therefore replaced?
My personal opinion is that Paul was murdered by TPTB b/c he wouldn't go along w/ some part of the agenda. I think the "car crash" is just one layer of disinformation. Faul was already in play by at least Nov 1966, when he went to Kenya w/ Mal Evans. I think they already had a replacement selected before Paul died.

Whatever the reason for his replacement, how likely do you think it is that they found someone who looked like Paul, sounded like Paul, had musical skills, had the capacity to learn vocals, guitar, bass, and piano for all of Paul's previous works, not to mention learning it left-handed (as I think I read somewhere that Faul is a righty), had the ability to create much new music throughout the following years (by far, not all people who play music can also create it), was able to create that music in a style that always had that familiar Paul feel, was able to still have musical interest and the ability to keep writing and performing for all these years, even through today, never giving half-assed performances or turning his back to the celebrity world (which many "real" celebrities do after 50 years, nevermind an impostor)?
However likely or unlikely, they obviously did it. But the faces don't match (proven by forensic science), the eye color doesn't match, the height doesn't match. He may or may not have been actually playing. He may or may not have written any songs. I don't think any of his songs ever reached the quality of musicianship Paul's did. Just compare "Eleanor Rigby" to "Ever Present Past." It's almost laughable that anyone could think the same person wrote those 2 songs.

What I generally mean by the above paragraph/question is that I bet if you held a world-wide Paul lookalike contest today, you would find less than a handful of people who even look as close to Paul as Faul does. And chances are that if any of them are musical, it wouldn't be in nearly any of the same ways in which Paul/Faul was/is, and it would take years of training to make them so. So how they could've found a replacement so easily in the 60s is something that for me is difficult to understand.
Faul doesn't look that much like Paul, b/c people noticed the difference as early as 1967. They managed to convince/train most of the people that they're the same.

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

I think one of the official doubles for General Montgomery looks more like Montgomery than Faul looks like Paul. There were also some very convincing Saddam Hussein doubles.

If Faul had facial surgery to look like Paul, wouldn't there be a period of at least a few months where there are absolutely no pictures of him?
Faul was basically out of the public's eye from Sept to Dec 1966.

And what about memory modifications I've read about here? I assume the point of them is that Faul would think he's Paul.
I think the consensus is Faul studied Paul's life the old-fashioned way. He forgets details, & that's why biographers complain a lot about his re-writing history.

So how is it possible that around 1966 Paul got replaced, and from what I read, other Beatles got replaced too, and yet the music they created through Let It Be was and is still extremely popular? People still say there are no bad Beatles songs, and even if people go "yeah but I really don't care for these songs:" I've never in my LIFE heard anything even close to someone saying something like "yeah, but everything after Revolver I just don't care for."
My personal opinion is that Paul left behind songs, song ideas, possibly vocal tracks, etc, that got incorporated into songs or were otherwise used. But Mal Evans said he wrote some of Sgt. Pepper w/ Faul, so who knows? They might have had someone writing the songs for them. I always preferred the early stuff (Please Please Me - Revolver) before I even knew about PID.

If all this is true - if Paul really got replaced, if all these measures were taken to make Faul as close to Paul as possible - why?
Everyone knows TPTB murder people. What many haven't figured out yet is that sometimes murdered people get replaced. If a person is popular, that popularity can be exploited to influence people by using a stooge who will carry out whatever agenda "they" want.

If Paul's death was accidental and a replacement was found so that the public wouldn't have to know that Paul died, why keep it up for so long?
That is one reason I don't buy the "car crash" story. It's also why I think TPTB are behind it, b/c the media is on board w/ this charade. And who controls the media?

And seeing as how Faul, since he exists in this case, has created some great music since the mid-60s, is it really such a bad thing?
Yes. Paul's death was covered up b/c he never "officially" died. A double has been used to deceive the people for over 40 yrs. I would say it's a "bad thing."

And if Paul was purposely killed and/or replaced with someone else, ...why? Why would any organization want to remove Paul from the public? There are thousands and thousands of people out there right now making much more of an impact on the world than one of the Beatles did in the 60s.
Paul must not have been a team player. The Beatles were hugely influential in the 1960's.

Have they all been replaced? If not, why not? What is the reason for this whole thing?
It's always about control, imo.

[faulconandsnowjob]

That's what I believe too, but as much as I might believe he never died, others firmly believe he did. So there's no point calling them crazy or names (the PID equivalent of a sheeple) because they might think I'm just as wrong as I might think they are.
That's funny, b/c we have pretty much all the evidence on our side that Paul was replaced. We have a biometrical analysis by forensic scientists proving that the faces don't match pre & post 1966:
http://only1rad.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=faker&thread=1511&page=1

We have shown they don't have the same colored eyes & that Faul is a couple of inches taller than Paul.

Nonetheless, I'm still obviously interested in the answers to my questions. You know when you watch a movie that starts with an interesting premise, but in order to answer all the questions it raises, it does all these ridiculous things and pulls crazy ideas out of everywhere? That's kind of what I think about this whole thing.
I think you just need to inform yourself more about the Illuminati, doubles, intell, etc. It's been proven Paul was replaced.

[socrates]

But the faces don't match (proven by forensic science).

futurejp - you ask relevant questions. However, you have to take what this poster says with a pinch of salt as they are disinfo.

For example, there is NO forensic "proof" that Paul was replaced. FACT. To state that there is "proof" is nothing but a lie. :mad:

[futurejp]

Right. Prior to this year, when those Italian scientists did their study, I'm sure you guys were just as adamant that you were right.

It seems like the general consensus is that Paul was murdered or removed by a group of people for some reason that hasn't been stated. But it must've been important. But we don't know what it is. Kind of like the argument for god some people give: "God exists. We don't know why, we don't know why he put us here, we don't know what God is doing now. But we know he exists. How could everything on this Earth be as it is now without a God?"

If Paul was removed and replaced, and the crash was a coverup, what's the point in all of the supposed lyrics that point to the 'Wednesday morning' stuff? The Eggman, barefoot walking, license plate text, etc. Why mention Paul's ordeal at all? Why would the other Beatles be having a game and a laugh about Paul's removal?

[faulconandsnowjob]

Creating the illusion: Paul in 1964 on left. Both pics with the yellow background are from Sgt. Pepper (1967).

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

[faulconandsnowjob]

For example, there is NO forensic "proof" that Paul was replaced. FACT. To state that there is "proof" is nothing but a lie. :mad:
That's just ignorant. This link shows that forensic evidence is proof, the evidence is admissible in court, & that forensic scientists do qualify as expert witnesses:
http://only1rad.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=faker&thread=1511&page=1

[futurejp]

Another thing, I saw in some thread a whole bunch of handwriting comparisons between Paul and Faul. Completely ignoring the fact that I myself write in largely different handwritings depending on whether or not I'm rushed and/or care about what I'm writing... If Faul did indeed change his appearance and study what must've been thousands of details about Paul's personal life and history, as well as learning all of Paul's songs on multiple instruments, couldn't he at least have studied a bit of how Paul dotted his Is and Js? Seems a little bit ridiculous.

[supertzar]

That's just ignorant. This link shows that forensic evidence is proof, the evidence is admissible in court, & that forensic scientists do qualify as expert witnesses:
http://only1rad.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=faker&thread=1511&page=1

I don't think you even know what they found about McCartney's features and how they did it. You just see a Wired Italy article featuring scientists and go "PROOF! PROOOF!!!" I read the translation and it was a challenge to determine exactly what they were saying about the features pre and post '66.

[socrates]

That's just ignorant. This link shows that forensic evidence is proof, the evidence is admissible in court, & that forensic scientists do qualify as expert witnesses:
http://only1rad.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=faker&thread=1511&page=1

Give it up. You have continually misrepresented the Wired article's finding's by claiming it represents "proof".

That link goes to your thread entitled: "PROOF Paul was replaced".

Your first sentence states: "A scientific team in Italy has proven Paul was replaced in 1966."

Your sig in this forum states: "Forensic science has proven Paul McCartney was replaced in 1966."

All lies. :mad:

Here's the FACT of the matter, directly from the article itself

Carlesi si limita a osservare: I dubbi sono molto forti e le discordanze numerose, ma non ci si può esprimere ancora con assoluta certezza.

http://www.wired.it/magazine/archivi...B-.aspx?page=3

Carlesi states quite clearly: "I have very strong doubts..."

"Strong doubts" does not constitute "proof"!

Carlesi admits they are not 'absolutely certain'.

Nowhere, at any point whatsoever, do those scientists state that their findings "prove" Paul was replaced - period.

Stop fabricating. Your "proof" claim is a downright lie - plain and simple.

[futurejp]

Hey socrates, I went to Socrates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and I found these two pictures of you:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/68/Vatsoc.jpg/150px-Vatsoc.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/42/SocratesCarnelianGemImprintRome1stBCE1stCE.jpg/180px-SocratesCarnelianGemImprintRome1stBCE1stCE.jpg

And based on my comparisons, you've never existed. PROOF!

[socrates]

Hey socrates, I went to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates and I found these two pictures of you:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/68/Vatsoc.jpg/150px-Vatsoc.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/42/SocratesCarnelianGemImprintRome1stBCE1stCE.jpg/180px-SocratesCarnelianGemImprintRome1stBCE1stCE.jpg

And based on my comparisons, you've never existed. PROOF!

Ah - but those photos you show have been "doctored"! :D

[clint web]

However likely or unlikely, they obviously did it. But the faces don't match (proven by forensic science), the eye color doesn't match, the height doesn't match. He may or may not have been actually playing. He may or may not have written any songs. I don't think any of his songs ever reached the quality of musicianship Paul's did. Just compare "Eleanor Rigby" to "Ever Present Past." It's almost laughable that anyone could think the same person wrote those 2 songs.

Compare "Eleanor Rigby" to Hey Jude, Get Back, She came in through the bathroom window etc etc. Your so called Faul wrote those.

What about the rolling stones - compare satisfaction or Brown sugar to say, "Sparks will fly" from their 1994 album Voodoo Lounge. Mick and Keith must have been replaced too.

[socrates]

Compare "Eleanor Rigby" to Hey Jude, Get Back, She came in through the bathroom window etc etc. Your so called Faul wrote those.

What about the rolling stones - compare satisfaction or Brown sugar to say, "Sparks will fly" from their 1994 album Voodoo Lounge. Mick and Keith must have been replaced too.

Good points Clint.

It's "laughable" that some two bit impostor came up with this classic:

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

[futurejp]

Yeah, I was going to suggest The Long And Winding Road. Faul was a poor musician indeed.

[formosan termite]

You know what i'm referring to when i say "hired helpers".



No, I don't. You lie when you say that I do. I have been up front with who I am at MFH. People know who I am, what I do, what I look like and the house I live in. If you say I am something else, you are a liar.

And no. No post was deleted.

[lostworld]

Well this is all pretty interesting...
That Italian article seems to have caused quite the stir among the PIA'ers :rolleyes:

This thread was very much asleep, I know cause I made the last post myself on June 10th.
Then, more than a month later there you all are; Fireman, Supertzar, Socrates, Brainfreeze AND you got some help too; Jackbumbo, "The enligthened one" :D and Formosan Termite.

Coincidence that you all gather up here at the same time? I think not... :rolleyes:
Besides, we know about your pathetic plans over at Maccahouse anyway.
What's that? Astrochicken's posts weren't proof enough? Of course not, everything that can be used against you guys/against PIA will never be acceptable proof for you.
Of course... :rolleyes:

Everything that can be used as "proof" against PID however, passes through a different filter... Isn't that right Socrates?

This is all very transparent. One would think that you would be happy that this thread was asleep for awhile. Instead YOU guys rushed here after that article came out with one main goal; to attack Faulcon and trying to debunk the truth. That's pretty pathetic behaviour...

I'm glad you left the MJ thread though Socrates, since you were spreading your "will to learn" there too :D
Now perhaps you should follow your own advice that you gave me there; "leave some space for others" + "find something better to do". :D

[lostworld]

Faulcon needs to see the light.

Step into the light.

or...

are you afraid?

Light
http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n20/khanmfh/fades/eyeswideopen-1.gif

Step closer.

And what light is that may I ask?
The light of Lucifer...?

Illuminati/to be illuminated/to be enlightened by Luciferian light - is that what you are New Poster?

I wouldn't step into the same light as you, that's for sure... :rolleyes:

[supertzar]

It's 'cause you guys are all "PROOF! PROOF! PROOOOOOOOOOOOFFFFFFFF!!!"

It's not proof. It's not even good evidence.

[faulconandsnowjob]

Then, more than a month later there you all are; Fireman, Supertzar, Socrates, Brainfreeze AND you got some help too; Jackbumbo, "The enligthened one" :D and Formosan Termite.
From Macca's Funhouse b/c Fireman begged for help. lol :p

Instead YOU guys rushed here after that article came out with one main goal; to attack Faulcon and trying to debunk the truth.
It's kind of humorous considering that non-scientists somehow think themselves qualified to "debunk" a biometrical analysis conducted by forensic scientists. And of course, non-lawyers claim to know what is or isn't evidence or proof. lol :p

I'm glad you left the MJ thread though Socrates, since you were spreading your "will to learn" there too :D
Now perhaps you should follow your own advice that you gave me there; "leave some space for others" + "find something better to do". :D[/QUOTE]
We know what Focrates is about. It's his job to debunk PID & derail the thread. It's classic disinfo.

[faulconandsnowjob]

And what light is that may I ask?
The light of Lucifer...?

Purposefully trying to conceal the truth is not "stepping into the light."

[faulconandsnowjob]

Contrary to what some people may believe, forensic science is used to gather evidence that can be offered as proof.

Forensic science (often shortened to forensics) is the application of a broad spectrum of sciences to answer questions of interest to a legal system. This may be in relation to a crime or a civil action. Besides its relevance to a legal system, more generally forensics encompasses the accepted scholarly or scientific methodology and norms under which the facts regarding an event, or an artifact, or some other physical item (such as a corpse) are ascertained as being the case. In that regard the concept is related to the notion of authentication, whereby an interest outside of a legal form exists in determining whether an object is what it purports to be, or is alleged as being.

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

Photographs can be used to establish identity. Here is US federal law on that:

[T]he term "record" means any item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual that is maintained by an agency, including, but not limited to, ... other identifying particular assigned to the individual, such as a finger or voice print or a photograph... 5 USCS § 552a(4).

[T]he term "means of identification" means any name or number that may be used, alone or in conjunction with any other information, to identify a specific individual, including any--
...
(B) unique biometric data, such as fingerprint, voice print, retina or iris image, or other unique physical representation; ...

United States v. Hawes, 523 F.3d 245, 249 (3d Cir. Pa. 2008); United States v. Mitchell, 518 F.3d 230 (4th Cir. S.C. 2008).

... [T]he district court found that duty titles were not comparable to captured immutable characteristics such as finger or voice prints or photographs. The district court reached these conclusions because an individual's duty title changes over time, because multiple people can concomitantly have the same or similar duty titles, and because each individual has predecessor and successor holders of the same duty titles. We agree with the reasoning and conclusions of the district court. In circumstances where duty titles pertain to one and only one individual, such as the examples of identifying particulars provided in the statutory text (finger or voice print or photograph), duty titles may indeed be "identifying particulars" as that term is used in the definition of "record" in the Privacy Act. For the reasons detailed by the district court, however, the [**9] duty titles in this [*188] case are not "identifying particulars" because they do not pertain to one and only one individual.

Pierce v. Dep't of the United States Air Force, 512 F.3d 184, 188 (5th Cir. Miss. 2007).

There seems to be a little confusion about what constitutes "proof."

proof  [proof]
–noun
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2. anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?
...
4. the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.
5. Law. (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.
6. the effect of evidence in convincing the mind...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proof

The legal standard in USA is evidence is admissible if it is relevant. This is definitely "relevant evidence," & would consititute "proof."

From the Federal Rules of Evidence:

Rule 401. Definition of "Relevant Evidence"

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

Rule 402. Relevant Evidence Generally Admissible; Irrelevant Evidence Inadmissible

All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution of the United States, by Act of Congress, by these rules, or by other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority...

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

These forensic scientists would no doubt qualify as experts, & their findings would be admissible. From the Federal Rules of Evidence (USA):

Rule 702. Testimony by Experts

If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule702

It's nonsense to argue that the evidence from expert witnesses showing Paul was replaced isn't proof.

[lostworld]

It's 'cause you guys are all "PROOF! PROOF! PROOOOOOOOOOOOFFFFFFFF!!!"

It's not proof. It's not even good evidence.

I thought it was your good friend Socrates who always demanded proof... :rolleyes:

He should also have taught you that you have to say "in my opinion" after every sentence/claim that you make. Or maybe this is just a rule for us PID'ers?
I think he should apply the same rules for everybody, so:

"It's not proof. It's not even good evidence in my opinion".

There. Now Socrates will be very happy with you... :D

[lostworld]

Purposefully trying to conceal the truth is not "stepping into the light."

True.
And we don't share light with this kind of people Faulcon... :)

[lostworld]

From Macca's Funhouse b/c Fireman begged for help. lol :p

That's really lame... :D


It's kind of humorous considering that non-scientists somehow think themselves qualified to "debunk" a biometrical analysis conducted by forensic scientists. And of course, non-lawyers claim to know what is or isn't evidence or proof. lol :p

Indeed. :D

Think of what would have happened if the article in question had resulted in pro-PIA and WE had done the same contra arguing?
Socrates, Fireman & co would DEFINATELY have called this article solid proof!
So, "proof" depends on which side that benefits from it, in the PIA'ers world.
So now, since it doesn't go along with their beliefs/their agenda - this proof isn't good enough either. Cause nothing pro-PID is. Ever, for them.

We know what Focrates is about. It's his job to debunk PID & derail the thread. It's classic disinfo.
Absolutely. Classic disinfo and very transparent.

Hey, where is that list of classic disinfo tactics we've posted here before...?
I think it's time to post that again. :cool:

[supertzar]

You guys have no understanding of logic. By your way of thinking any scientist who presents evidence "proves" whatever it is they are talking about.

[lostworld]

You guys have no understanding of logic. By your way of thinking any scientist who presents evidence "proves" whatever it is they are talking about.

Well, if these scientists would have come up with proof, evidence or whatever you wanna call it, that was pro-PIA you would have rushed here even faster to rub it in our faces. And you know it...
THEN it would be all good proof, just like I said before.

So, PIA'ers definition of proof ALWAYS depends on which side it favours.
You can not even be humble enough to give this article some credit, instead you organize yourself trying to fight it off even more! It's SO pathetic, really...

Socrates has always demanded scientific proof - well, now he's got it.
Was it good enough? NO! And none of us are surprised... :rolleyes:
That's DISINFO for you...!

[faulconandsnowjob]

That's really lame... :D
Hey, where is that list of classic disinfo tactics we've posted here before...?
I think it's time to post that again. :cool:

Rules of Disinformation
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222

Truth Suppression, Disinformation, Lies, Deceit and Deception
http://www.caught.net/prose/truthno.htm

[faulconandsnowjob]

You guys have no understanding of logic.

Let's examine this assertion.
log⋅ic  [loj-ik] Show IPA
Use logic in a Sentence
–noun
1. the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
2. a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic.
3. the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.
4. reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn't much logic in her move.
5. convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness: the irresistible logic of the facts.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/logic


Everything I've asserted on this thread has been supported by evidence. When I say Faul is taller, I provide a picture he is taller than Paul. When I say Paul & Faul had different colored eyes, I provide pictures showing that. When I say forensics prove Paul was replaced, I provide a link to the article. How is that not "logical"?

By your way of thinking any scientist who presents evidence "proves" whatever it is they are talking about.
Lawyers use expert witnesses to provide proof supporting the argument they're making. I've already posted on expert witnesses, how they are qualified by education, training, etc. I've also posted the definitions of proof & evidence. I think if it's good enough for a court of law, it's good enough for a PID thread on the David Icke forum.

[lostworld]

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic
which forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed
with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of theircharacter by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.

Note: There are other ways to attack truth, but these listed are the most common, and others are likely derivatives of these.

http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html

I guess we know which players here that are stuck on rule 9, 14 and 19 :D

[faulconandsnowjob]

Is it "logical" to believe someone could change his facial features, his eye color, & grow taller in his mid 20's? I think not. The more "logical" explantation is that a different person is pretending to be Paul.

[faulconandsnowjob]

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

I guess we know which players here that are stuck on rule 9, 14 and 19 :D

Thanks for posting that, LW. I think we can definitely see some people making good use of these tactics. :p

[supertzar]

Is it "logical" to believe someone could change his facial features, his eye color, & grow taller in his mid 20's? I think not. The more "logical" explantation is that a different person is pretending to be Paul.

No, it's just incorrect.

[lostworld]

In the end, you can usually spot the professional disinfo players by one or more of seven (now 8) distinct traits:

Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist

1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.

3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.

4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain.Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.

6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.

7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within.

I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.

8) BONUS TRAIT: Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation:

1) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT - FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth.

2) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR - there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to 'get permission' or instruction from a formal chain of command.

3) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay - the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.

I close with the first paragraph of the introduction to my unpublished book, Fatal Rebirth:

Truth cannot live on a diet of secrets, withering within entangled lies. Freedom cannot live on a diet of lies, surrendering to the veil of oppression. The human spirit cannot live on a diet of oppression, becoming subservient in the end to the will of evil. God, as truth incarnate, will not long let stand a world devoted to such evil. Therefore, let us have the truth and freedom our spirits require... or let us die seeking these things, for without them, we shall surely and justly perish in an evil world.

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

[lostworld]

Thanks for posting that, LW. I think we can definitely see some people making good use of these tactics. :p

I'm happy too. :)

Yep, they go just by the book alright...

[lostworld]

No, it's just incorrect.

in your opinion :D

[lostworld]

No, it's just incorrect.

Do you have any proof or evidence backing that claim?
Still, just mirroring your own behaviour here... :cool:

[futurejp]

People, go back to the article. As someone already said, the article itself expresses doubt. Look at this quote that I passed through Google's translator:

http://translate.google.com/translate_t#it|en|Carlesi%20si%20limita%20a%20osse rvare%3A%20I%20dubbi%20sono%20molto%20forti%20e%20 le%20discordanze%20numerose%2C%20ma%20non%20ci%20s i%20pu%C3%B2%20esprimere%20ancora%20con%20assoluta %20certezza.

How can you take the article as absolute 100% proof if the researchers have very strong doubts about discrepancies in number?

[faulconandsnowjob]

No, it's just incorrect.

Let me get this straight. When we see pictures that show Paul post 1966 being taller than pre-1966, having different colored eyes and different facial features, what would be the "correct" deduction?

[faulconandsnowjob]

People, go back to the article. As someone already said, the article itself expresses doubt. Look at this quote that I passed through Google's translator:

http://translate.google.com/translate_t#it|en|Carlesi%20si%20limita%20a%20osse rvare%3A%20I%20dubbi%20sono%20molto%20forti%20e%20 le%20discordanze%20numerose%2C%20ma%20non%20ci%20s i%20pu%C3%B2%20esprimere%20ancora%20con%20assoluta %20certezza.

How can you take the article as absolute 100% proof if the researchers have very strong doubts about discrepancies in number?

The article said Paul would have had to have undergone a series of extensive & painful surgeries to explain the changes, yet there were no signs of the requisite scars. Besides, the article just confirms what I (& others) can see w/ my own eyes. It's OBVIOUS he was replaced.

[faulconandsnowjob]

[B]Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
http://www.whale.to/b/sweeney.html
...
3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally ... with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. ...They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason...
Formosan_Termite, theenlightenedone are great examples of this - answering Fireman's plea to come derail this thread.

4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved...

5) Anti-conspiratorial.They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain.Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.
Yes, why do people who think PID is so "ridiculous" spend so much time trying to debunk it? These people watch the PID threads like hawks. They post constantly, almost as though it were their job... Also, why do people who have so much disdain for belief in the Illuminati post on the David Icke forum?

6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive...
How very interesting. I've wondered how people could continue to insist Paul was never replaced despite literally overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

8) BONUS TRAIT: Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation:

1) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT - FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth.
Oh, yeah, as soon as a PID'er posts, there is a PIA post right away, lest someone catch on to the truth that Paul was replaced.

3) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay - the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.
We've certainly noticed a big counter-offensive after the forensic science article proving PWR, which threatens to betray Faul as a fraud.

[faulconandsnowjob]

No, it's just incorrect.

Ok, I would really like to know exactly what we are "incorrect" about. Are we incorrect that "Paul" was taller post 1967, that he had difft colored eyes, or that the biometrical analysis showed difft facial features? B/c I think we've given ample evidence to show all of those things. If we're not wrong about those things, then how could we be wrong that he was replaced? I mean, logically speaking.

[toty1994]

If the situation were reversed and the scientists had concluded that McCartney had probably not been replaced but were...

a) not certain
b) stated that more research needed to be done by them and others

...how would faulcon et al have reacted?

Unlike myself and some others they would have dismissed the article completely, conceding not even a millimetre of ground. This would be disingenuous, small-minded and hypocritical but it is exactly what would've happened.

I understand faulcon's excitement but she comes across like a plastic doll with a little voice box inside. When the ring cord is pulled it can only repeat "scientists have proven paul was replaced" over and over again. A plastic doll would be incapable of deducing the facts are not nearly as clear cut as that; faulcon, especially being a lawyer, should know better.

Edit^^ Sorry faulcon, a rather crude analogy I know, but I hope you understand the point I make.

[fireman]

Let me get this straight. When we see pictures that show Paul post 1966 being taller than pre-1966, having different colored eyes and different facial features, what would be the "correct" deduction?

Ok, let's talk scientifically..

The correct deduction would be:

Based on the empircal data (picture mentioned above), i (Faulcon) ASSUME (thats the hypothesis) that Paul is dead.

If i (Faulcon) will find pictures that a) show him beeing the same height after 1966, or b) taller then the other before 1966 or c) having different eye colours before 1966 or d) find evidence that eye colour can change due to lightning then my hypothesis will be falsified!

That falsification will be based on the finding that my data is not valid enough to carry that hypothesis that Paul is dead.


Now we have given you enough photographic data to falsify your assumptions, why do ignore that?

How can you be so in to "scienctific proof", while ignoring the most basic principles of science?

[boots]

that he had difft colored eyes,

I have posted the scientific proof that the eye's DO change colour with age and disease.

The photo's that you post faulcon are YEARS apart. NOT proof.

[formosan termite]

Is it "logical" to believe someone could change his facial features, his eye color, & grow taller in his mid 20's? I think not. The more "logical" explantation is that a different person is pretending to be Paul.


No. Because as we have shown over and over and over, the eye color didn't change, he didn't grow taller and the facial features didn't change.

Paul McCartney' pre '67, stated his eyes are hazel. It has been shown in many sources that hazel eyes can shift in color from brown to green to gray depending on the lighting sources or the colors in their environment. That is not in dispute.

We have shown many comps debunking the height and facial feature issues.

And, faucon lies again stating that I came here due to some plea from fireman. That did not happen. It was Faulconjob herself that led me here. It was actually her posts in the comment section of the Wired article that connected me with Faulconjob. I followed her to the PID Miss Him forum then followed her links here as well.

So fireman didn't bring me here. Faulconjob did.

And it was me who first brought up the Wired article on MFH. I first saw about the article on the NIR forum in a thread called "Finally!!!!!!!" started there by a member called "il ras." MFH deals with the PID hoax, so naturally an article about PID in a magazine would catch our interest. And it was Faulconjob's posts in the comment section of the article itself that led me to her, and eventually here. That is the true story of what happened. Not this fanciful story about a plea for help to fellow disinformation agents.

Professional disinformation agent. What BS. Do you really believe this melodramatic stuff? How sad your lives must be.

I am a guy, married with two kids, a dog and a couple of hermit crabs. Our fish just died a few days ago. We have been struggling to pull our lives together after losing our house and most everything we owned, including our pet cat in Katrina; and my two in-laws in the months leading up to Katrina. All of this is no secret. Dealing with the PID hoax stuff has been a nice mental diversion because life has not been pretty down here. It has also been fun to fight for the truth a little after seeing the misinformation that was spread about the whole Katrina episode. I was unable to respond to many of the junk posted by Faulcon and Lostworld today because I was in a training session dealing with an update on Accounting Standards. FASB (Fianancial Accounting Standards Board) 150 and especially FASB 168 which is the Accounting Standards codification which happened July 1st. That's the big thing right now.

http://asc.fasb.org/

Yes, this is the fun exciting life of a professional disinformation agent.:rolleyes: Faulconjob and others here want people to think we are some paid secret agents in some vast conspiracy trying to take over the world like in some bad cartoons my kid watches. The fact is we are not from Kaos. The members at MFH are just regular people. Some are professional musicians, workers in retail, a helicopter pilot, some students and so on. You can see some on myspace and youtube. Visit us at MFH. Nothing secret or underworld about us.

I just wanted to take a moment to let visitors here know the truth about the PIA posters here. What the life of a PIAer really is as opposed the fantasy painted by the PIDDERs.

[boots]

I am a guy, married with two kids, a dog and a couple of hermit crabs. Our fish just died a few days ago. We have been struggling to pull our lives together after losing our house and most everything we owned, including our pet cat in Katrina; and my two in-laws in the months leading up to Katrina. All of this is no secret. Dealing with the PID hoax stuff has been a nice mental diversion because life has not been pretty down here. It has also been fun to fight for the truth a little after seeing the misinformation that was spread about the whole Katrina episode. I was unable to respond to many of the junk posted by Faulcon and Lostworld today because I was in a training session dealing with an update on Accounting Standards. FASB (Fianancial Accounting Standards Board) 150 and especially FASB 168 which is the Accounting Standards codification which happened July 1st. That's the big thing right now.



Hey. I'm very sorry to hear aout your troubles. There is nothing worst than losing your home and having to deal with geeting your life back together. Sorry to hear about the cat. I love cats.

I do hope that things get back to some normality. Wishing you all the beat.

It would be nice if you could fill us all in on how the money system is going. Your info can be a shining light to other sections of the forum;)

[astrochicken]

I am a guy, married with two kids, a dog and a couple of hermit crabs. Our fish just died a few days ago. We have been struggling to pull our lives together after losing our house and most everything we owned, including our pet cat in Katrina; and my two in-laws in the months leading up to Katrina. All of this is no secret. Dealing with the PID hoax stuff has been a nice mental diversion because life has not been pretty down here.


Sorry to hear about your hassles.


Here's where i'm coming from.

1. The "paul is dead" rumours start.
2. 1000's of crying kids camp outside his home, it's in the papers, it's on tv, then Beatles machine goes on the offensive.... 2 years later it (PID HOAX) is apparently *invented* by an american radio host and even makes the cover of TIME magazine.

3. I look at the faces and i see two people.
4. *Paul's* material undergoes the transition from insighted genius to piano dirge extraordinaire with an emphasis on trivial, novelty dancehall music.

5. They stop touring, no more public perfomances.

6. The rest of the beatles start leaving clues bloody everywhere.

7. *Paul* changes from being charismatic and uneffected to being a pretentious wanker.

8. *Paul* consistently slips up during interviews whilst reinventing the past.

George and John (both murdered) release albums called "brainwashed" and "double-fantasy", "mind-control" etc.


In retropsect, the Beatlemania thing looks totally contrived and like one mass-brainwashing experiment.

[fireman]

Sorry to hear about your hassles.


Here's where i'm coming from.

1. The "paul is dead" rumours start.
2. 1000's of crying kids camp outside his home, it's in the papers, it's on tv, then Beatles machine goes on the offensive.... 2 years later it (PID HOAX) is apparently *invented* by an american radio host and even makes the cover of TIME magazine.

3. I look at the faces and i see two people.
4. *Paul's* material undergoes the transition from insighted genius to piano dirge extraordinaire with an emphasis on trivial, novelty dancehall music.

5. They stop touring, no more public perfomances.

6. The rest of the beatles start leaving clues bloody everywhere.

7. *Paul* changes from being charismatic and uneffected to being a pretentious wanker.

8. *Paul* consistently slips up during interviews whilst reinventing the past.

George and John (both murdered) release albums called "brainwashed" and "double-fantasy", "mind-control" etc.


In retropsect, the Beatlemania thing looks totally contrived and like one mass-brainwashing experiment.


1. By my knowlegde the PID hysteria started in 1969, although there might have been a rumoured car crash in 1967.

1000's of crying kids camp outside his home, it's in the papers, it's on tv, then Beatles machine goes on the offensive....

Please show me your source for that. I have never heard of that. Espacially not before 1969

2. I look at the face and see one man

3. Pauls material goes from teenage pop songs to more complex genuis masterpieces

4. They stop touring, no more public perfomances. That is true and the reason why they developed those great skills in the recording studio and revolutionized pop music.

5. Clues? What clues? And if you believe like Faulcon, that the other Beatles (FOHN, FEORGE) where also replaced, why no death clues for them?

6. Paul did not change. He is still to this day a very charasmatic guy. He always calculated his public behaviour very well. In every biography it's said, that he was that bossy guy in the band from the early days on, when he tried to get Stu out of the band.

7. John alsways "slipped" during interviews about the past, told one interviewer this, the other that. So what?

8. the album is called "mind GAMES" :-)

[astrochicken]

Please show me your source for that. I have never heard of that. Espacially not before 1969
....
8. the album is called "mind GAMES" :-)


There were several links in one of these two threads to old bbc footage from pre-69. Maybe another PID'er knows offhand?


Yep.. oops.. "mind games" it was.

[futurejp]

If PIDers think that The Beatles stopped performing live gigs because Paul was in fact Faul, so therefore Faul was incapable of doing the performances, why has Faul been doing his own performances, including dozens of Beatles songs,for decades?

[astrochicken]

If PIDers think that The Beatles stopped performing live gigs because Paul was in fact Faul, so therefore Faul was incapable of doing the performances, why has Faul been doing his own performances, including dozens of Beatles songs,for decades?


Because it's easier pretending to be someone who's never had a solo career and thus nothing to compare to, than pretending to be a part of one of the best and biggest bands of all time.

[fireman]

- they did play live in 1967 (in front of million people in a live televison broadcast)
- they played live in 1968 (hey Jude AND Revolution), you can look up the original live recording at Youtube
- they played live in 1969 (the famous roof top concert)

also

- why did Mal Evans and Paul film that homemovie in Spain and Kenya in late 1966, if that was the first "Faul" movie. Why not just NO FILMING OF THE FREAKIN' IMPOSTER.
- Why did they allow major foto sessions throughout the whole winter of 1966/1967? With full close up face shots of Paul?
- Why did they make music videos in the same winter? (again with full close ups?)

BUT

- They could have just continued touring, Nobody could see them close up in a stadium. Nobody could here them playing anyway...
Or they could have just not make a video, or at least one with no close ups! :-)


Also

- If Beatlemania was initiated by the Illuminati, why did the Beatles wanted to stop all that mania by 1966/1967, just at the time when "agent Faul" entered the stage?


There is just no logic in that story, it is soooo full of MAAAJJJOOR holes, sorry!

[formosan termite]

Sorry to hear about your hassles.


Here's where i'm coming from.

1. The "paul is dead" rumours start.
2. 1000's of crying kids camp outside his home, it's in the papers, it's on tv, then Beatles machine goes on the offensive.... 2 years later it (PID HOAX) is apparently *invented* by an american radio host and even makes the cover of TIME magazine.

3. I look at the faces and i see two people.
4. *Paul's* material undergoes the transition from insighted genius to piano dirge extraordinaire with an emphasis on trivial, novelty dancehall music.

5. They stop touring, no more public perfomances.

6. The rest of the beatles start leaving clues bloody everywhere.

7. *Paul* changes from being charismatic and uneffected to being a pretentious wanker.

8. *Paul* consistently slips up during interviews whilst reinventing the past.

George and John (both murdered) release albums called "brainwashed" and "double-fantasy", "mind-control" etc.




Fair enough. I will present my side.

1. The "paul is dead" rumours start.

Somewhere, I have a picture a pidder sent me of some blurb in a fan magazine saying that there was a rumor about Paul being dead. I wish I could find it. It is on MFH somewhere, but it’s been a long time. It was from late 66 or early 67. No one ever proved it was a real magazine, but I take it as presented. Other than that there is no documentation of any sort before September 17, 1969.

2. 1000's of crying kids camp outside his home, it's in the papers, it's on tv, then Beatles machine goes on the offensive.... 2 years later it (PID HOAX) is apparently *invented* by an american radio host and even makes the cover of TIME magazine.
Other than that one piece from a fan magazine, the first documented written source for the hoax was in the Drake University (Iowa) Times-Delphic article written by Tim Harper, published on 17 September 1969; second was Barb Ulvilden's virtual borrowing of Harper's article in the Northern Star, the newspaper of Northern Illinois University, on 23 September 1969. Both articles seem to have inspired other campuses and writers to pursue the story, though at that point the hoax included none of the familiar Abbey Road clues.

http://www.recmusicbeatles.com/public/files/faqs/pid.html

I have never heard of any story of 1000’s of crying kids or on it being on tv or in newspapers before Sept of 69. If there is documented proof of that, I would like to see it. And it was LIFE magazine, not TIME.

3. I look at the faces and i see two people.
I can’t control what you see, but I do not. We have hundreds of comps at MFH that show the facial features are the same. And keep in mind that lens types and lighting conditions as well as movements of muscles in the face can make people look different in different pictures. And note that some photos for print in magazines, newspapers or album covers may have been squashed or stretched to fit the space alotted.

4. *Paul's* material undergoes the transition from insighted genius to piano dirge extraordinaire with an emphasis on trivial, novelty dancehall music.

People do not stay the same. Paul grew musically just like did Beethoven, Brahms or even Dizzy Gillespie. And the Beatles always wanted to have each album be a new sound and not just sound like the same old thing like Diana Ross and the Supremes.

5. They stop touring, no more public perfomances.
After years of constant touring and pressure to turn out new albums, they were tired and burnt out. And they were getting a little afraid as well. I believe there had been some sort of death threat towards Ringo. My friends and I had a band years ago. We played weddings, dances and other functions just about every weekend for about three years. We got burnt out from that and quit. And we had not 1/1,000 of the pressure that those boys were going through. They were constantly dragged around, cooped up in hotel rooms not able to go out because of the mobs. They had the incident in the Philippines. They were fed up and tired. I can understand that. And they were tired of the phony mom top image that they had been pushing for years. They wanted and needed a change.

6. The rest of the beatles start leaving clues bloody everywhere.
Most of the so called “clues” were made up out of thin air by Fred LaBour and Russell Gibb. The William Campbell thing was made up out of thin air. See the link above.

“The clues, which seem so cleverly and intentionally arranged, have not been proven to be anything more than random coincidences or inaccurate interpretations of existing facts (to wit: John does *not* say "I buried Paul" at the end of "Strawberry Fields Forever", he said by his own admission "cranberry sauce"...etc.)
All four Beatles have denied that they were involved in any way with the hoax, John's denial being particularly fervent.”

The fact is, there is no clue that can’t be explained in some other way. It is just people starting with the premise that Paul is dead, and then picking out things that they think point to that conclusion.

7. *Paul* changes from being charismatic and uneffected to being a pretentious wanker.
I did not see that much difference, but there is a bit of one. Stress and anxiety can cause a change in personality. I have seen that in me and others since Katrina. People are not so secure and comfortable with life. Paul and the others went through a great deal of stress and pressure over the years. They were also maturing and getting on each other’s nerves. Drugs can also alter personality. I have seen that happen as well. But as Jerry Lewis said once in an interview about why he and Dean Martin split and were angry at each other, “people change.” That is a fact

8. *Paul* consistently slips up during interviews whilst reinventing the past.
Paul has lead a very full life, and he is getting older. As one gets older, memory fails. I can not remember things from 10 to 20 years ago hardly at all. It is even hard for me to remember now what my old house was like, or things I did at work 5 years ago. Given his age, I’m surprised he remembers as much as he does. He does well remembering all of those songs he wrote. I am not really aware of any major slip-ups anyway. Please document.

George and John (both murdered) release albums called "brainwashed" and "double-fantasy", "mind-control" etc.
George was not murdered. He died of cancer. That happens. I lost three grandparents to cancer. I lost a co-worker to cancer a couple of years back and there is a lady in our office now who just had surgery for cancer**. Two of the mothers of kids in my son’s class had cancer. I don’t think one is going to make it.

Yes. John was murdered. But “Double Fantasy’? Yes it was an album about the fantasy of love. It was called Double Fantasy because contained songs by John and songs by Yoko. It has nothing to do with mind control or PID.

**UPDATE** Good news today. She found out she does not need chemo or radiation.

[astrochicken]

Fair enough. I will present my side.


It's more fun like this. :)

I'd allways wanted (pre-katrina) to get down to your neck of the woods and soak up this kind of stuff.
Tipitina - YouTube

[formosan termite]

It's more fun like this. :)

I'd allways wanted (pre-katrina) to get down to your neck of the woods and soak up this kind of stuff.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBSN7WOPkQ0

Thanks for that clip. Great stuff. We have great music here.

But don't let Katrina stop you. We are coming back, and every spring we have the Jazz and Heritage Festival.

http://www.nojazzfest.com/

Here is a shot of Paul and Linda when they were here for Mardi Gras

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v477/devilsadv/PMMG.jpg

Oops I don't want to get too far off topic here.

[faulconandsnowjob]

2. .... 2 years later it (PID HOAX) is apparently *invented* by an american radio host and even makes the cover of TIME magazine.

Yeah, except it wasn't invented by Russ Gibb. Someone called into his radio show saying Paul was dead - that's what started it in USA in 1969.

3. I look at the faces and i see two people.
I guess the pornstar tash & clip on ears threw a lot of people off :D

4. *Paul's* material undergoes the transition from insighted genius to piano dirge extraordinaire with an emphasis on trivial, novelty dancehall music.
I think "Ever Present Past" might just be one of the worst songs ever.

8. *Paul* consistently slips up during interviews whilst reinventing the past.
Well, you can't expect him to remember all the details of someone else's memories. :p

George and John (both murdered) release albums called "brainwashed" and "double-fantasy", "mind-control" etc.
That's a big HELL-O.

[faulconandsnowjob]

If PIDers think that The Beatles stopped performing live gigs because Paul was in fact Faul, so therefore Faul was incapable of doing the performances, why has Faul been doing his own performances, including dozens of Beatles songs,for decades?

B/c the girls noticed Faul wasn't very cute. Maybe they didn't think they could pull it off in the late 1960's. W/ time, they could attribute the changes to "aging."

[fireman]

B/c the girls noticed Faul wasn't very cute. Maybe they didn't think they could pull it off in the late 1960's. W/ time, they could attribute the changes to "aging."


Only that the girls loved Paul in 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968...until 2009!!

:)

BTW, you like my new avatar? :p

[theenlightenedone]

And what light is that may I ask?
The light of Lucifer...?

Illuminati/to be illuminated/to be enlightened by Luciferian light - is that what you are New Poster?

I wouldn't step into the same light as you, that's for sure... :rolleyes:

You seriously think I disonformant?

Haha.

I am normal guy.

No Illuminati.

Ask my parents.

Ask my family.

I give e-mail adress and phone number.

If you like.

Sorry.

Illuminati poor excuse to act smart.

"aha, I know who you are! You are illuminatus!"

Do you feel strong saying that?

[formosan termite]

You seriously think I disonformant?

Haha.

I am normal guy.

No Illuminati.

Ask my parents.

Ask my family.

I give e-mail adress and phone number.

If you like.

Sorry.

Illuminati poor excuse to act smart.

"aha, I know who you are! You are illuminatus!"

Do you feel strong saying that?


This was exactly the type of comment that turned me PIA back in 2003. The people back then were making more and more outlandish claims regarding PID. Things like Don Knotts replacing Brian, and Paul dying from explosive diahrea due to IBS. And Paul's body having been launched into space by NASA to orbit the earth forever. These claims were made without any evidence or documentation whatsoever. I had the audacity to question these claims. So, immediately I was branded a paid government agent and part of the powers-that-be. It was so ludicrous. Of course I knew it was a lie, but these people had no trouble throwing out stupid accusations with nothing to back it up. I saw that, by their standards, if someone doesn't blindly accept any theory they come up with, then that person must be part of the cover-up and conspiracy. You can see that same thing going on here. If you don't blindly accept what Faulconjob says, then you are part of the illuminati, a follower of lucifer, and a paid disinformation agent. No healthy skepticism or questioning allowed. If you disagree with their theories, you are not just wrong, you are evil.

[theenlightenedone]

This was exactly the type of comment that turned me PIA back in 2003. The people back then were making more and more outlandish claims regarding PID. Things like Don Knotts replacing Brian, and Paul dying from explosive diahrea due to IBS. And Paul's body having been launched into space by NASA to orbit the earth forever. These claims were made without any evidence or documentation whatsoever. I had the audacity to question these claims. So, immediately I was branded a paid government agent and part of the powers-that-be. It was so ludicrous. Of course I knew it was a lie, but these people had no trouble throwing out stupid accusations with nothing to back it up. I saw that, by their standards, if someone doesn't blindly accept any theory they come up with, then that person must be part of the cover-up and conspiracy. You can see that same thing going on here. If you don't blindly accept what Faulconjob says, then you are part of the illuminati, a follower of lucifer, and a paid disinformation agent. No healthy skepticism or questioning allowed. If you disagree with their theories, you are not just wrong, you are evil.

That was excellent comment formosan.

Illuminati is stupid.

Anyone seen movie "Angels and Demons"?

In movie Illuminati just used as disguise.

To hide.

Just as you PIDers do.

You use Illuminati as excuse to make debunkings seem fake.

To hide fact that you can't debunk PIA.

Sorry.

Try harder.

[faulconandsnowjob]

ASK WHO WAS THE "BEATLE"
********************/mw83db

... In the absence of fingertips and DNA samples of the methodology used all'antropometria identification and, in particular, to craniometria, based on some specific points. In the face of anyone, unchangeable and codified by the French nell'Ottocento Paul Broca. What are these? In scientific terms we could not define the distance between the pupils, the intersection between the nose and arched sopraccigliari the point where the base of the nose is detached from the upper lip, the shape of the jaw and Regulation, the ear. Then there's the shape of the skull...

The first step is to then find and select images to be able to proportion the best photos for quality and range, and provide measurements and comparisons...

Two images pre'66, made a comparison and carried on a single scale of reference for making the same proportions, show a perfect coincidence of the main key points. In particular, the mandibular curve, ie the line that leads to the computer to define the perimeter of the lower face, say from ear to ear via the chin, is substantially identical. The margin of error is less than one percent. "For the perfect coincidence between two images is virtually impossible," says Gavazzeni, by convention it is considered acceptable at most 2.5 percent of difference. Beyond this limit, the divergence is such as to suggest the difference in identity between the two entities in question. Since in this case the spread is less than one percent, the problem does not arise: the two photos certainly depict the same person. " It was at this point to search for other photos with similar characteristics, but after the alleged "incident"...

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

That McCartney, certainly portrayed in the first half of 1967, was flanked by another picture, a few years later, taken between 1971 and 1972. The aim was to repeat the operation of comparison already made with images from the early sixties and then proceed with comparative findings from two groups of pictures. Again, the two new images is a good compatibility. It only remains to compare the image data prior to the date of the alleged incident and subsequent ones. "The surprise was great," says Gavazzeni: The mandibular curve between the two sets of photos showed a discrepancy of over 6 percent, well beyond the threshold of error. But there was more. Changed the development of the mandibular profile: before 1966 each side of the jaw is composed of two curves Net, since 1967 appears to be a single curve. There is therefore a curve morphological different...

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

Gabriella Carlesi adds an additional element: "Compared to the previous picture, that of Sgt Pepper's show clearly that the commessura lip, that is the line formed by the lips of the two, it was suddenly stretched. Which obviously is not possible and that the whiskers can not camouflage. In other words, the phenomenon is all too frequently these days, the lips can be inflated and increased in volume, but the width of the lip commessura can not vary that much. May be slight, but this is not the case for the photos examined: here the difference between the before and after is too strong to have been caused by any surgery. And more, always under the mustache of the McCartney Sgt Pepper's, maybe it was trying to hide something else: what the experts call it the nose-spinal or sottonasale. This is the point between the two nostrils where the nose begins to fall off the face: "This is also in this case a distinctive feature that medicine can not alter surgery. It can change the shape of the nose but not the nose-cord, "says Gabriella Carlesi. "And McCartney from the first group of photos and the second point that clearly varies...

The challenge was made intriguing, would go ahead because other important issues waiting to be examined. Starting with the one in which Gabriella Carlesi excel and for which enjoys international fame: dental identification. More McCartney sings and shows you smiling more Carlesi collects food items for his doubts: "To me the proof of evidence is the shape of the palate, yet more than the teeth." ...

There are impossible things and things that are possible but at the cost of operations long, painful and never perfect. Especially if done in the sixties. Now, careful examination of some pictures of McCartney before and after the 1966 autumn leaves, it must be said, in amazement: "First of all there is right upper canine," observes Carlesi Gabriella. "In the photos prior to 1966 is known as protruding relative to the line of teeth. It's the classic case of a tooth that lack of space it ends up misaligned, pushed out by the pressure of other teeth. It is curious that the same dogs in the photos from 1967 forward, but without ever protruding apparent reason: the images show that the space would have to be aligned with the neighboring teeth. It's like if you wanted to recreate is a detail in a mouth where quell'anomalia would have never been able to express. " The real crux of the reasoning of dental identification suggested by Gabriella Carlesi covers the whole palate of McCartney that before 1966, appears close to the point of justifying various misalignments of the teeth, although in less obvious forms of upper right canine. After the publication of Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, however, the palates of McCartney widens considerably, to the point that the front teeth does not rotate on its axis more as before. With the only on, than the usual canine. "A change of the shape of the palate, Carlesi concludes, 'in the Sixties was not impossible but would be very traumatic, the result of an actual intervention maxillo-facial. In practice McCartney should have been subjected to an operation that would involve the opening of the suture palate, broken bone and then a long prosthetic and orthodontic treatment. In other words, for a change so sensitive in the sixties to McCartney would be required not only a particularly painful and bloody, but also the use of a fixed orthodontic multiband then, for over a year. Which would not have been possible to hide and would be obvious repercussions on the performance of a vocal professional singer. "But above all," concludes Gabriella Carlesi, "reasons that Paul McCartney might have to undergo such an ordeal?"...

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

Technically called trago. All we have two, one by ear, but the characteristics are different for every human being. "In Germany, a recognition procedure craniometrico, identification of the right ear even tantamount to fingerprint, ie the collection of fingerprints," recalls Carlesi. But what trago? It is the small cartilage covered with skin that overhangs the entrance to the ear and ear canal, like the whole ear, not be changed surgically. How then to explain the differences between the right ear of Paul McCartney in a previous snapshot to 1966 and probably a built in the late nineties? It is not only to betray trago a different conformation as well as other parts, just above the ear canal entrance, measurements and dell'antelice propeller. Things that ordinary mortals might seem irrelevant or unclear, but instead, every day, allowing the experts to locate and identify persons, bodies, photographs...

[formosan termite]

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


Yes we have read the article.

Let us look at the teeth issue.

First, are either of these "scientists" certified forensic odontologists? No. And out of all of the hundreds of thousands of photos they could have used, why would serious scientists pick these two? They are at different angles and the one on the right is of extremely poor quality.

Let us look at what really is involved in having proof.

Ray Krone was sentenced to death for the murder of Kim Ancona, 36, a bar manager who was killed at the CBS Lounge restaurant where she worked. Krone was a regular customer at the restaurant/bar and knew Ancona. Krone had an alibi and his 10-1/2 shoe size did not match the 9-1/2 size shoe print left at murder scene. Hairs and partial fingerprints found did not match Krone either. However, police felt Krone's teeth matched a bite mark on the victim. Krone was dubbed the "Snaggletooth Killer" because one of his top front teeth stuck out. At trial, Dr. Raymond Rawson, a nationally known forensic odontologist, testified that he was 100% certain that bite mark on the victim matched Krone. After Krone's conviction was overturned, a retrial jury convicted him again in 1996 despite defense testimony from three forensic dentists that the bite mark did not match. This time the judge sentenced him to life in prison, citing doubts about whether Krone was the killer. In 2001, DNA testing of blood found on victim was matched to the actual killer, Kenneth Phillips, and Krone was released after serving 10 1/3 years.

In this case we had a nationally known forensic odontologist say he was 100% certain that a bite mark came from the accused. And this guy had the accused's actual teeth to measure and evaluate, not just some grainy 40 year-old photograph. And guess what. He was wrong. A guy went to jail because of it. And we are supposed to accept the word of people who are not forensic odontologists and who are only using poor photographs for comparison? I think not.

Let us see what experts say should be the standard of proof.

The Innocence Project believes that all forensic disciplines need to be scientifically validated through truly independent research and peer review before the methodologies are used in criminal cases where life and liberty are at stake. Moreover, even if the methodology is valid, bias, incompetence, or a lack of adequate internal controls can compromise the integrity of the results.

This research does not meet the standard.

[faulconandsnowjob]

Some people won't be convinced no matter what the evidence shows (makes me think of the info on disinfo agents posted earlier). I really have to wonder about the motives of people who post here insisting Paul wasn't replaced when the evidence clearly shows he was.

[formosan termite]

(makes me think of the info on disinfo agents posted earlier).

:rolleyes: **sigh** "disinfo agent". Still pushing that after what I posted earlier? Yeah, the life as a disinfo agent has been so wonderful.:rolleyes: Unlike others here, you really are cold-hearted.


I really have to wonder about the motives of people who post here insisting Paul wasn't replaced when the evidence clearly shows he was.

The evidence clearly shows that he wasn't replaced. As demonstrated, that silly article does not meet the standards of proof. Even the "scientists" admit that in the article.

You didn't answer the question. Is either a certified forensic odontologist?

And the answer to that would be "No".

[faulconandsnowjob]

More on how photos have been tampered with - for one, to make Faul's head seem rounder.

ASK WHO WAS THE "BEATLE"
Fabio Gigante Andriola and Alessandra | 15 July 2009


... And the surprises do not end there because the relentless Gavazzeni, like a boxer who feels close the ko of the opponent, not the spring taken on the photo where McCartney, unaware, mentions a somewhat smug 'perplexed: "To the naked eye is known what will be a constant in the photos from that moment on, a couple of photo retouching fairly obvious to an expert eye. There is a gray area that covers the outside corner of left eye. Only for some time not seen before. And going to peep at that point, where for years there was one dark spot, now there is a cross between a scar and a sign of skin stretched like an aesthetic touch. The most immediate explanation is that probably, already in the sixties, has been made for an action on the eyes but it is still something imperfect, that for a long time has gone forward a mask. " Then there is a detail concerning the conformation of the skull: "Indeed, the impression is that the shape of the head was given a 'more rounded', Gavazzeni says:" So in the reduced effective length, by a trick used at the time and realized that being printed. Eff CTIVITIES change the conformation of the skull of an adult is something impossible. Yet, judging from the photos, is exactly what it shows...

********************/mw83db


Looks to me like the Sgt Pepper pic of Faul on the far right is a blend of Faul & Paul.
http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/sgt_pepper_blend.jpg

I'm not sure how they did it, but they could overlay negatives to blend images together by the early 1900's.

[faulconandsnowjob]

The evidence clearly shows that he wasn't replaced. As demonstrated, that silly article does not meet the standards of proof. Even the "scientists" admit that in the article.
Unless you're a scientist, how could you possibly make that determination? You can't. You don't even know what you're talking about :rolleyes:


You didn't answer the question. Is either a certified forensic odontologist?

I realize you have to try to discredit the scientists in any way you can, but that will be a tough one. lol

ASK WHO WAS THE "BEATLE"
Fabio Gigante Andriola and Alessandra | 15 July 2009

********************/mw83db

... Gabriella Carlesi and Francesco Gavazzeni are an odd pair: she is un'anatomopatologa, he a computer scientist. She is an expert in the recognition craniometrico, he puts the potential of computers available to a discipline born in the mid nineteenth century: the craniometria note. According to Zingarelli, "is the science that deals with the measurement of the skull in relation to anthropology and comparative all'Anatomia...

Now, to identify a person has absolute damage the two exams: the fingerprints and the DNA (if the sampling is done properly, which is not always the case). In the absence of fingertips and DNA samples of the methodology used all'antropometria identification and, in particular, to craniometria, based on some specific points. In the face of anyone, unchangeable and codified by the French nell'Ottocento Paul Broca. What are these? In scientific terms we could not define the distance between the pupils, the intersection between the nose and arched sopraccigliari the point where the base of the nose is detached from the upper lip, the shape of the jaw and Regulation, the ear. Then there's the shape of the skull.

In general, however, prefers to speak topographic anatomy, rather than specific points, to "regions", because within a few inches of skin can be more useful to establish similarities and differences. The Anthropometrics and craniometria, as have an nineteenth century are the basis of biometrics, the science used today for personal recognition by the most sophisticated intelligence of the world. Vast database of biometric data of terrorists are quickly and looked cross and, based on algorithms generated by the points of the face, reveal the true identity of people shot from cameras or photographed airports. As a Carlesi and Gavazzeni, meet their responsibilities and, as happens in the show, really see what we humans can not even imagine...


SCIENCE craniometria Anthropometrics and are the basis of biometrics that, for purposes of intelligence or medical conditions, measure the physiological variables of a human being through mathematical or statistical methods.

[formosan termite]

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



Oh, God. The old Sun King stuff from six years ago. This is like old home week. The one on the right is from the original 1967 album cover and is unaltered. The middle photograph came from the CD version of the cover. It was stretched vertically and cropped to make it fit.

See this link to see how that middle photo was stretched when doing the CD version.

http://www.tlcgraphic.com/paul2.html

[supertzar]

Oh, God. The old Sun King stuff from six years ago. This is like old home week. The middle photograph came from the CD version of the cover. It was stretched vertically and cropped to make it fit. The one on the right is the unaltered photo.

Is it really the same photo only stretched? In the one on the right his lips are slightly parted, aren't they? And the collar is not in the same position at all.

[formosan termite]

Unless you're a scientist, how could you possibly make that determination? You can't. You don't even know what you're talking about :rolleyes:

You? The one who talked about them downoading Paul's mind into Faul's mind have the nerve to say others don't know what they are talking about? LOL! Wow. Where is the scientific basis for being able to download a mind? Especially with 1966 technology.

I can read. I have read about what the standard of proof is. I can read the article and see that there has been no peer review or independent verification. And I can read the article that clearly states that the "scientists" themselves do not claim it is proof.

Prove me wrong. Take this article and use it as a basis to sue Faul for fraud and report back after eveyone stops laughing. This article has been out for a while now. No one takes it seriously.


I realize you have to try to discredit the scientists in any way you can, but that will be a tough one. lol



Answer the question. Is either a certified forensic odontologist?

Hint: The answer is "No."

**Hey. The first post on page 500**

[formosan termite]

Is it really the same photo only stretched? In the one on the right his lips are slightly parted, aren't they? And the collar is not in the same position at all.

No, not the same photo. There were many photos from that same photo shoot. The photo on the right with the more rounded face is from the original gatefold in the 1967 record album cover.

On the one in the middle you can look at the hair and see the funny angles and strait lines. Someone did a sloppy job cropping it. It looks like my kid cut it out with scissors.

See this link.

http://www.tlcgraphic.com/paul2.html

[formosan termite]

LOL! The truth is revealed. The photo they used was stretched! DOCTORED! No wonder the measurements don't work.

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/doctored1.gif

h/t Diabolo1

[faulconandsnowjob]

Photos have been doctored since Faul replaced Paul to improve the resemblance. That is nothing new. We've given several examples of that.

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

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/sunglasses1-1.jpg

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

[socrates]

LOL! The truth is revealed. The photo they used was stretched! DOCTORED! No wonder the measurements don't work.

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/doctored1.gif

h/t Diabolo1

Great observation.

Which proves how unscientific the Wired article is. So much for faulconpoop's "proof". LOL! :D

The scientists should have used original photos, not dodgy photos handed to them by who knows?

Question is, who chose the photos to be used and where did they get them from? A PIDDER?

Let's look at the ear photos used:

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/p7.jpg

Exactly the same photos as in Sunking's comp here:

http://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/animations/ears_comparison.gif

http://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/animations.html

What a coincidence! :eek:

(Thanks to Fireman for the above)

Something's very fishy about this Wired article and the photos used.

Look's like those scientists have been set up with some dodgy PID photos.

[formosan termite]

No, they have been flipped, stretched and doctored by pidders to make people think he looks different.

And now we have something important. This article now appears to be set up by the pidders from the start. We all know Sun King is Italian. Who supplied these "scientists" with these particular photos. Why were these chosen to the exclulsion to all others?

Look at the photos used for the ear comparison:

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/p7.jpg

Now go to Sun King's web site and look at the ear comparison's there:

http://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/animations.html

Here is an animation from Sun King, main Italian pidder himself:

http://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/animations/ears_comparison.gif


Take a look. An exact match. The photos used by the "scientists" in the article exactly match the ear comparisons on the pidder website of Sun King. What are the chances that the these "scientists", with all of the hundreds of thousands of photos available, taken over more than 40 years would happen to choose the exact same photos, cropped the same way, as presented on the website of Sun King, who is happens to be pushing PID? Slim to none.

Who gave the "scientists" the idea to do this comparison? Possibly a pidder?

Who provided the photos used? A pidder?

Seems so.

**Seems the wise Socrates beat(led) me to it. LOL! Oh well, I will keep mine for emphasis.**

This article was a pidder set up from the beginning.

[formosan termite]

Guess what. Another was found.

Remember the teeth comparison?

http://i32.tinypic.com/2wlwwmf.jpg


Guess where was found the EXACT SAME comparison...


Yep, on this site again:

http://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/show-case.html


http://i30.tinypic.com/2h58vbd.gif

LOL! This is hillarious.

Some scientific proof! All of these photos from the magazine article came from the PID website of Sun King. The same genius that says that Paul was replaced by the clone of a female WWII spy, who also happened to be the real Paul's mother. That is right. This scientific proof came from the guy who states that Paul was replaced by the female clone of his own mother.

So. These scientists did not get the idea on their own. They did not go to archives and get authentic original photos. These photos came from a PID website with a heavy PID bias. The pidders created this mag article and then, without giving everyone the full story, came out and declared that it is scientific proof of PID. It was NOT an independent scientific analysis. This article, and fraudconandsnowjob are frauds.

**I neglected to note that this was another masterpiece from Diabolo1**

[elisa]

Hey guys!

Total newbie here. I landed on David Icke's forums by chance, and have been around for not very long, but a while. Although I find some stuff a bit over the top, I must admit that I've spent reading threads more than I should, lol.

Sadly, this is almost the only thread that I feel I can understand at least, so I joined :)

Apparently there's a bit of a war waging around here, so I'm not totally sure about my posting anything. After all, I didn't even know that this Paul thing was still going on nowadays, I thought it was the urban legend that was being commented. I never heard the particulars, so I came in. Anyway, even if I haven't read the whole 500 pages, I've read a good bunch. There are points I see and points I can't bring myself to see, but well, that's because I am biased.

For those of you who firmly believe that Paul isn't Paul, my personal experience is nothing, so you can skip if you like. For the others, well, I'm not part of any PIA movement or web or anything, but in my family we do believe Paul is very much alive and well.

Back in the 60s, my grandfather was working in one of the zillion nightclubs in London. Grandpa...well, let's say he had some very characteristic and visible trait. One night, he had the chance to serve the Beatles, whom he found fantastic and all. In person, it seems he found them as animated and funny as they seemed to be. He even got to be the target of some jokes (Ringo instigator,lol). But he always said it was nothing hurtful or malicious (not that I doubt it, but he was such a fan that he could have been called every name in the book and find them hilarious, bless him).

The thing is that he always recalled with special sentiment how Paul and George didn't carry on with the joke that much. Actually they were very sensitive and sweet, especially Paul, who even started a little chat with him.

Grandpa only saw them one other time, just a wave at them I believe, nothing closer.

The thing is that years later, and I'm talking like 10 or more years later, Grandpa and my father had a chance encounter with Paul. Paul stood looking at him squinting a bit, then said: "hey, I know you, right? Do you remember me?"

And that's why in my family we all love Paul. We were never allowed any different :p

Of course, this is just a story. A story that could be totally made up for all you know, which is ok because I don't believe everything I read. But well, it is proof enough for me, who have heard Paul's anecdote forever. And here I am, spreading it further :D . I can almost hear Grandpa's cheering from wherever he is, lol.

No, but jokes apart, if 'Faul' recognised my grandpa, I suppose it's because he recalled seeing him before. And when they met, Paul was Paul for PIDs and PIAs all together.

On the other hand, I can see why some people might see another person. Paul really looked different after that break time they took. His face looked less rounded (lost of cheeks, I guess) and the hair...really, some trends should be banned at the first symptom of appearing, but well. To me, he looked still Paul.

I'm really intrigued with the PID theory, though. I'll try and search how some things are explained, like the voice, which I particularly can't hear any different, or the hands, that I have the habit of checking out on anyone. They seem the same to me, I don't know. Or the teeth. Or those freckles.

I also will see what this article with the proofs is about. Haven't heard of it yet, so I'll try and see.

Anyway, peace! I'm off now to keep on browsing around.

Elisa ~

[formosan termite]

Hey guys!

Total newbie here. I landed on David Icke's forums by chance, and have been around for not very long, but a while. Although I find some stuff a bit over the top, I must admit that I've spent reading threads more than I should, lol.

Sadly, this is almost the only thread that I feel I can understand at least, so I joined :)

Apparently there's a bit of a war waging around here, so I'm not totally sure about my posting anything. After all, I didn't even know that this Paul thing was still going on nowadays, I thought it was the urban legend that was being commented. I never heard the particulars, so I came in. Anyway, even if I haven't read the whole 500 pages, I've read a good bunch. There are points I see and points I can't bring myself to see, but well, that's because I am biased.

For those of you who firmly believe that Paul isn't Paul, my personal experience is nothing, so you can skip if you like. For the others, well, I'm not part of any PIA movement or web or anything, but in my family we do believe Paul is very much alive and well.

Back in the 60s, my grandfather was working in one of the zillion nightclubs in London. Grandpa...well, let's say he had some very characteristic and visible trait. One night, he had the chance to serve the Beatles, whom he found fantastic and all. In person, it seems he found them as animated and funny as they seemed to be. He even got to be the target of some jokes (Ringo instigator,lol). But he always said it was nothing hurtful or malicious (not that I doubt it, but he was such a fan that he could have been called every name in the book and find them hilarious, bless him).

The thing is that he always recalled with special sentiment how Paul and George didn't carry on with the joke that much. Actually they were very sensitive and sweet, especially Paul, who even started a little chat with him.

Grandpa only saw them one other time, just a wave at them I believe, nothing closer.

The thing is that years later, and I'm talking like 10 or more years later, Grandpa and my father had a chance encounter with Paul. Paul stood looking at him squinting a bit, then said: "hey, I know you, right? Do you remember me?"

And that's why in my family we all love Paul. We were never allowed any different :p

Of course, this is just a story. A story that could be totally made up for all you know, which is ok because I don't believe everything I read. But well, it is proof enough for me, who have heard Paul's anecdote forever. And here I am, spreading it further :D . I can almost hear Grandpa's cheering from wherever he is, lol.

No, but jokes apart, if Faul recognised my grandpa, I suppose it's because he recalled seeing him before. And when they met, Paul was Paul for PIDs and PIAs all together.

On the other hand, I can see why some people might see another person. Paul really looked different after that break time they took. His face looked less rounded (lost of cheeks, I guess) and the hair...really, some trends should be banned at the first symptom of appearing, but well. To me, he looked still Paul.

I'm really intrigued with the PID theory, though. I'll try and search how some things are explained, like the voice, which I particularly can't hear any different, or the hands, that I have the habit of checking out on anyone. They seem the same to me, I don't know. Or the teeth. Or those freckles.

I also will see what this article with the proofs is about. Haven't heard of it yet, so I'll try and see.

Anyway, peace! I'm off now to keep on browsing around.

Elisa ~


That is a great story. That was quite nice of Paul.

[socrates]

Hi Elisa. What a great anecdote.

The fact that Paul recognised your grandfather is proof enough for you and him that Paul was never replaced. How would an imposter know?

Paul is alive. :)