Is Paul really dead?

[toty1994]

Originally Posted by armoured_amazon
I've stood next to him several times; he's pretty small.
Good for you, so are mushrooms. :)

How can you dismiss someone's direct personal experience in such an offhand manner? We're not talking photographs or video here, armoured_amazon says she has actually stood next to Paul McCartney on several occassions.

I'd say he's about 5ft8 or 9??? He looks taller because he's skinny but up close he's nowhere near 6ft.

I just looked on google for his official height which says 5ft11. With lifts in his shoes, maybe :D

So, from real life encounters, she even doubts Paul is as tall as his official height, never mind four inches over it!

Come on, surely you can concede that this at least casts doubt on one aspect of the theory.

[armoured_amazon]

He's in again in a few months; I'll try my best to get someone to take a sneaky picture of us beside one another (it's forbidden upon to take pics of him there but I'm not a student any more so I shall 'forget' the rule lmao)

[lostworld]

Paul McCartney 1964 - YouTube

That's a wonderful video of Paul Faulcon!

Faul never had the gorgous, expressive and innocent eyes that Paul had.

And even if it's a detail (the truth often lies in the details); he also never had the same thick and long eyelashes!

[lostworld]

Paul McCartney 1964 - YouTube


YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.1967

Only 3 years apart! :eek:
These videos are one of the best evidence's that Paul was replaced. The man in -67 is much more arrogant, has different mannerisms, is not charming, doesn't have "it" and - most important - he has another face!

LOOK, really LOOK and compare eyes, eyelashes!, nose etc.
LISTEN to the way he talks, his voice. Maybe it's easier to HEAR if you close your eyes. Really, for not getting distracted and for not letting your eyes respond to your programmed picture of "Paul".

It's all there for you to see.
Open your mind. :)

[faulconandsnowjob]

armoured_amazon: so, you think he's shorter than 5'11"? Interesting. As you said, Paul's official height was 5'11". There are some PID'ers who think he may have been shorter, but I think he was about the same height as George & John, & they were supposedly 5'11".

There was definitely a rather tall Faul there for a while (Sgt. Pepper Faul/ Bill). I am pretty sure there have been at least 2 Fauls, but I really think there were more like 3-4. Some of them may have just been temp stand-ins/doubles for a day. Anyway, it seems the one armoured_amazon has seen is not the same tall Faul. Interesting...

Faul never had the gorgous, expressive and innocent eyes that Paul had.
Paul def had something his doubles never had. Authenticity, for one! But yeah, Paul was def hot - Faul(s) not :-P

[clint web]

There was definitely a rather tall Faul there for a while (Sgt. Pepper Faul/ Bill). I am pretty sure there have been at least 2 Fauls, but I really think there were more like 3-4. Some of them may have just been temp stand-ins/doubles for a day. Anyway, it seems the one armoured_amazon has seen is not the same tall Faul. Interesting...

It now starts to become utterly ridiculous when we have a big gang of McCartney doubles. Just the one replacement is a big leap of faith but many of them? 3 or 4

faulconandsnowjob: I have now lost all faith in anything you say. 4 McCartney doubles? you say this just because someone knows that Paul is not too tall. It's becoming rather pathetic. Sorry to say that but it's how I feel.

[lostworld]

I also think the Paul we see today can be somebody else than Faul.
Possibly.

Also - don't forget that people get a bit shorter with age...

[faulconandsnowjob]

faulconandsnowjob: I have now lost all faith in anything you say. 4 McCartney doubles?
LOL! I have looked at so many pictures of Paul & Faul(s) that it seems obvious to me that there were several doubles of his. If you had looked at all the pics I have, you'd probably think that, too. All I can say is, try doing some research. Sorry to say that, but that is what is is generally lacking w/ the people who can't possibly fathom Paul might have been replaced. They have not put the hours into figuring out what's going on w/ Paul/Faul. This celebrity replacement/doubles program is rather more involved than I thought at first, too. It's not just about Paul, but figuring out he was replaced seems to be the 1st step. I suppose it helps if you are well informed in other areas, as well, such as how the Illuminati work, & CIA/intell methods.

[clint web]

Paul seems quite tall in 1965 when they got the MBE.

I thought he was supposed to be taller than john only after 1966.

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/2914/paulbigar4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
By salvadormarley (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/salvadormarley)

[lostworld]

Only one Paul... :)

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/6811/jamespaulmccartneysmallka5.jpghttp://img205.imageshack.us/img205/1134/77227814pd6.jpghttp://img205.imageshack.us/img205/7624/57169600gs2.jpg

[lostworld]

http://img234.imageshack.us/img234/6198/paulmccartney2007061627vu0.jpghttp://img386.imageshack.us/img386/2334/79750835lu0.jpg

[faulconandsnowjob]

I thought he was supposed to be taller than john only after 1966

Yep. Well, at least one of the Faul's was taller than John. Paul was slightly shorter than John, actually. Find a picture w/ feet on the ground. Also, bear in mind that some pics have been tampered w/ to make Paul taller. I'm not saying that's what happened w/ that pic, but it's possible.

[lostworld]

Here you go! All pics are from 1965.

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/1695/3230005vz7.jpghttp://img247.imageshack.us/img247/2754/3295263ri2.jpg

http://img386.imageshack.us/img386/9545/3134304og0.jpg

[lostworld]

Paul looks taller than John though... :confused:

[lostworld]

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/8104/3271974sw8.jpg

Also from 1965. Not with their feet but they all seem to be standing straight.
Paul def looks taller than John...

Faulcon, where are pics of Paul looking shorter than John? Please post. :)

[faulconandsnowjob]

Paul

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/WlarusGirl/All_About_The_Beatles_11.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v462/OnlyBeatles/beatles-clowning.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/WlarusGirl/beatles---help.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v462/OnlyBeatles/teatime.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/WlarusGirl/m2jpgr175.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v462/OnlyBeatles/niceheightcomparison.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/WlarusGirl/jpairport.jpg

[faulconandsnowjob]

Faul

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v462/OnlyBeatles/lookatBillandGeorgeshoulders.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v462/OnlyBeatles/walrus016_a.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/WlarusGirl/ng97AA.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v462/OnlyBeatles/Life1968.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v462/OnlyBeatles/Magical15.jpghttp://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g146/lilis456/dreamer2.jpg

[orbandsceptre27]

You are bringing nothing of worth to the argument so gtfo. You expect to bring people round to your way of thinking with rudeness and arrogance? I don't think so, idiot.

Put on a happy face :) ;)

[orbandsceptre27]

paul is dead-the rotten apple 30 e - YouTube

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
This is the interview you were referring to Clint.

[toty1994]

I see that 1968 Paul and John interview has been posted again. A few days ago I made what I thought were good points about it, which have so far remained unanswered:


This clip keeps cropping up as pid evidence largely due to that wink. I find it ironic because the clear, lingering, close up shots of McCartney's visage (what a risk to take, letting them do that!!) do not reveal the long faced, hazel eyed, suddenly aged 'Faul' we apparently should be seeing in 1968. What we do see is a fresh-faced, still youthful and brown eyed* Paul McCartney. Forget that though... the wink is the important thing!:D

*Some time ago the eye colour problem was clearly explained in detail and with sound references, as I recall. It was ignored.

Still no answer to this then? Surely one of you has one?

Hey, I have a (ahem) theory:)...

It seems to me that skeptical posts are often ignored unless they are perceived to be insulting or ridiculing in tone. I suspect this is because focussing on the ridicule (which is mostly what happens) is easier than actually addressing the points otherwise being made. If a post is free of insult or ridicule but contains a good point of argument, it tends to be ignored completely. Interesting...Whether this is done consciously or not, it's still a good deflecting tactic! ;)

Anyway, back to the video. So 'Faul' has brown eyes here, how can that be? Wait a minute, I think I've discovered the stock answer to such points:

I am pretty sure there have been at least 2 Fauls, but I really think there were more like 3-4.

Is that it, really?

[orbandsceptre27]

I see that 1968 Paul and John interview has been posted again. A few days ago I made what I thought were good points about it, which have so far remained unanswered:




Still no answer to this then? Surely one of you has one?

Hey, I have a (ahem) theory:)...

It seems to me that skeptical posts are often ignored unless they are perceived to be insulting or ridiculing in tone. I suspect this is because focussing on the ridicule (which is mostly what happens) is easier than actually addressing the points otherwise being made. If a post is free of insult or ridicule but contains a good point of argument, it tends to be ignored completely. Interesting...Whether this is done consciously or not, it's still a good deflecting tactic! ;)

Anyway, back to the video. So 'Faul' has brown eyes here, how can that be? Wait a minute, I think I've discovered the stock answer to such points:



Is that it?


Or maybe.............. your posts have been answered previously again and again under similarly worded questions.

Not that you have`nt made good points Toty - you have.

I personally see more sense in posting information and allowing people to make up their own minds on it.

Unfortunately, we get the same debunkers on here who value their own egos more than allowing people the freedom to analyse and make up their own minds.

[armoured_amazon]

It now starts to become utterly ridiculous when we have a big gang of McCartney doubles. Just the one replacement is a big leap of faith but many of them? 3 or 4

faulconandsnowjob: I have now lost all faith in anything you say. 4 McCartney doubles? you say this just because someone knows that Paul is not too tall. It's becoming rather pathetic. Sorry to say that but it's how I feel.

Lmao :D

I also think the Paul we see today can be somebody else than Faul.
Possibly.

Also - don't forget that people get a bit shorter with age...

Both good points.

[faulconandsnowjob]

So 'Faul' has brown eyes here, how can that be?
Uh, haven't you heard of color-tinted contacts? Or maybe 1 (or more) of the Fauls has brown eyes. This/these Faul(s) has/have brown eyes. What's your point?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/faulia.jpghttp://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/show-case/faul_3-4.jpg

http://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/images/faul_81.jpghttp://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b375/Cavern61/Bill1.jpg

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

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/WlarusGirl/sbscomparison28zr.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/67y_coat.jpg

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

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

Oh, wait, here's one w/ green eyes:

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

And yes, I know that colored contacts were not available commercially until the early 1980's. I'm sure they were in existent prior to that.

And about answering your questions about the video, I believe we already addressed that video. It is your responsibility to go back to earlier posts & read them. We recognized your face cutouts as being Faul & even identified the video from which you took them. What else is there to say?

[orbandsceptre27]

It now starts to become utterly ridiculous......
faulconandsnowjob: I have now lost all faith in anything you say.

When have you ever had any faith in what us PIDers have said ehh................ and you`re still here, wonder why? :)

[faulconandsnowjob]

^ I know, right? Like he was ever even open-minded about it. LOL!

[orbandsceptre27]

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
The original Paul McCartney

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

Paul not long after his moped accident - his top lip was cut and required stitches. No trace of the major "scaring" across his left cheek (just below the nose line) which was clearly evident on this recently posted photo.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/82/220354565_7da83b2275.jpg?v=0

Don`t see it in the interview either (the SAME interview from which the photo is supposedly taken)

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

[orbandsceptre27]

Where are those dark brown eyes?

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

[toty1994]

Uh, haven't you heard of color-tinted contacts? Or maybe 1 (or more) of the Fauls has brown eyes. This/these Faul(s) has/have brown eyes. What's your point?

And yes, I know that colored contacts were not available commercially until the early 1980's. I'm sure they were in existent prior to that.

And about answering your questions about the video, I believe we already addressed that video. It is your responsibility to go back to earlier posts & read them. We recognized your face cutouts as being Faul & even identified the video from which you took them. What else is there to say?

It really is a multitude of Fauls then? I'd heard the theory that there may have been more than one but 3,...4,...7,...10? Do you just pluck a number out of the air?

However many there were, they were all completely different people, each one miraculously able to replicate the original so convincingly as to fool virtually everyone on the planet for 40 years. Correct?

So...why not give them all brown eyes? Why not make them all the correct height? Where did one Faul go when another took over his shift?

The 'many Fauls' theory certainly makes it easier to explain some of the things that don't add up with only one replacement. However, it spawns many new questions that, in the end, make it seem even more nonsensicle! No offence, but it almost sounds like you're making it up as you go along.

By the way, the 'face cutouts' wern't mine - nothing to do with me.:)

[orbandsceptre27]

See my above post Toty and also freeze this vid at 1.03.

Now ONE QUESTION for you - What colour are his eyes at 1.03 in this video so eloquently named "Fool on the Hill" ??

fool on the hill - YouTube

[orbandsceptre27]

^ I know, right? Like he was ever even open-minded about it. LOL!

Would he ever? :)

[faulconandsnowjob]

The Fool on the Hill Faul had green eyes, for sure.

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

It really is a multitude of Fauls then? I'd heard the theory that there may have been more than one but 3,...4,...7,...10? Do you just pluck a number out of the air?
I think I said 3-4. And no, I don't just "pluck a number." I have looked at tons of photo comps. At some point, you start to realize that even the Fauls don't look alike. I have not tried to pin down how many Fauls there are, but I think if you look at the photo array of Fauls I posted earlier, you could probably tell yourself that there is more than 1.

However many there were, they were all completely different people, each one miraculously able to replicate the original so convincingly as to fool virtually everyone on the planet for 40 years. Correct?
No, not everyone. Most people don't pay attention, & believe whatever the mainstream tells them. People in England figured out Paul was replaced in 1967. In 1969, a lot of people figured it out in USA. BTW, PID was recently named the 14th biggest "conspiracy theory" of all time by BBC. So, I guess it can't be such a miniscule number of people who believe it then.

So...why not give them all brown eyes? Why not make them all the correct height? Where did one Faul go when another took over his shift?
No idea. It would be merely speculation on my part to offer a theory.

The 'many Fauls' theory certainly makes it easier to explain some of the things that don't add up with only one replacement.
Yes, it does.

However, it spawns many new questions that, in the end, make it seem even more nonsensicle! No offence, but it almost sounds like you're making it up as you go along.
More research uncovers more inconsistencies. I am creating a new paradigm to account for the anamolies. I am not the only one who thinks there were more than 1 or 2 Fauls. However, this isn't the main thrust of the argument. As long as people can see that there was at least 1 Faul, then it's all good :)

[toty1994]

See my above post Toty and also freeze this vid at 1.03.

Now ONE QUESTION for you - What colour are his eyes at 1.03 in this video so eloquently named "Fool on the Hill" ??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIsou0IRIQU

Well, I watched it and to be honest they look neither brown or hazel at 1:03 - if anything a bit of both.

Then I remembered coming across this a while back -


Puppy Dog Brown Eyes?
This one is a shocker to everyone regardless of if they have even heard of the PID theories. Paul McCartney does not have and has never had brown eyes.

Many magazines, fan sites, and adoring fans have written about his "puppy dog big brown eyes". They are mistaken. Paul himself said in a pre 1965 interview that his eyes are hazel. Hazel is defined as a mix of brown and green with hints of gray.

http://www.paulisnotdead.com/media/blogs/pind/eyes/1paulbook.jpg

http://www.paulisnotdead.com/media/blogs/pind/eyes/2paulbook1.jpg

It's from a site called 'Paul Is Not Dead' so I imagine that will immediately invalidate it for you. However, do you find it possible the magazine image hasn't been doctored? If so, Paul himself is quoted as saying his eyes are hazel 'pre 1965'. Confusing, eh?:)

[orbandsceptre27]

Well, I watched it and to be honest they look neither brown or hazel at 1:03 - if anything a bit of both.

Then I remembered coming across this a while back -


Puppy Dog Brown Eyes?
This one is a shocker to everyone regardless of if they have even heard of the PID theories. Paul McCartney does not have and has never had brown eyes.

Many magazines, fan sites, and adoring fans have written about his "puppy dog big brown eyes". They are mistaken. Paul himself said in a pre 1965 interview that his eyes are hazel. Hazel is defined as a mix of brown and green with hints of gray.

http://www.paulisnotdead.com/media/blogs/pind/eyes/1paulbook.jpg

http://www.paulisnotdead.com/media/blogs/pind/eyes/2paulbook1.jpg

It's from a site called 'Paul Is Not Dead' so I imagine that will immediately invalidate it for you. However, do you find it possible the magazine image hasn't been doctored? If so, Paul himself is quoted as saying his eyes are hazel 'pre 1965'. Confusing, eh?:)

You`re links aren`t working......... you`ve logged out.......... and you can`t tell that the eyes are not those of Paul McCartney (Couldn`t you have claimed you`re colour blind, or something along those lines? :p)

Faulcon was emailed a while back by a poster from France who was "shocked" by the difference shown up by "Fool on the Hill" in particular!

You could have at least said - maybe he`s just a double for this particular vid.

But you know if you admit to that the flood gates may open, and suddenly ............. hey presto - we`re talking about DOUBLES! :)

[orbandsceptre27]

Those brown eyes! :D

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

[orbandsceptre27]

Again it`s easy to see, James Paul McCartney had dark brown eyes.

http://991.com/newgallery/The-Beatles-Beatle---Paul-McC-402416.jpg

http://www.coverbrowser.com/image/bravo/514-1.jpg

[light_man]

Those brown eyes! :D

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

Er, not really....

http://www.tlcgraphic.com/images/1963HazelEyesZoom2.gif

Any actual evidence - apart from crappy photos - that Paul had brown eyes???

"In 1964, Teen Screen Life Story printed a magazine all about Paul. It contained interviews with Paul and the other Beatles on Paul. Notice how he states his eye color is hazel.
http://www.tlcgraphic.com/paul4.html

The PID eye colour nonsense toty1994 mentioned, is debunked here:

http://www.paulisnotdead.com/blog1.php/Eyes/

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hCOFMI86S64

[light_man]

Again it`s easy to see, James Paul McCartney had dark brown eyes.

http://991.com/newgallery/The-Beatles-Beatle---Paul-McC-402416.jpg

http://www.coverbrowser.com/image/bravo/514-1.jpg

http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/2892/screenhunter400dl2.jpg
http://www.paulisnotdead.com/blog1.php/2008/07/29/puppy-dog-brown-eyes?page=2

[faulconandsnowjob]

This one is a shocker to everyone regardless of if they have even heard of the PID theories. Paul McCartney does not have and has never had brown eyes.

Sorry, but that's disinfo. James Paul McCartney definitely had brown eyes. That's really beyond dispute at this point.

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j178/lilis678/DB1005_BEATLES_6.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/paulringoear.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/cheers2.jpghttp://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/roundtheworld8.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/PaulFaul6667.jpghttp://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b375/Cavern61/paul_mccartney_untouched_2.jpghttp://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a389/Genie_Dalek/browneyes3.jpg

[light_man]

It now starts to become utterly ridiculous when we have a big gang of McCartney doubles.

LOL. You said it! :)

faulconandsnowjob: I have now lost all faith in anything you say.

Huh? What's took you so long, dude?! :)

[light_man]

Sorry, but that's disinfo. James Paul McCartney definitely had brown eyes. That's really beyond dispute at this point.

No, it's NOT beyond dispute actually. I'll give you the quote again, since you obviously didn't read it.

In 1964, Teen Screen Life Story printed a magazine all about Paul. It contained interviews with Paul and the other Beatles on Paul. Notice how he states his eye color is hazel.

As I said, any actual evidence to back your claim up apart from crappy photos which could have been "doctored"?

[faulconandsnowjob]

What is this? Is this supposed to be Paul? LOL!

http://www.tlcgraphic.com/images/1963HazelEyesZoom2.gif

It's probably Faul from Fool on the Hill

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

Paul had BROWN eyes

Brown:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/64lookup.jpg

Brown:

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/Beatle_Paul_2-1.jpg

And what do you know? Brown again! LOL!

http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee248/AleForNoOne/0665whitaker.jpg

[orbandsceptre27]

No, it's NOT beyond dispute actually. I'll give you the quote again, since you obviously didn't read it.



As I said, any actual evidence to back your claim up apart from crappy photos which could have been "doctored"?

`
:D :D :D Haha......The evidence is up - you`re desperate lightman!

NOW you`re dealing with "probabilities" lmao.......

Are you sure they`re hazel? - "probably" - another agent who can`t see what`s in front of him.

[faulconandsnowjob]

Any actual evidence - apart from crappy photos - that Paul had brown eyes???

Sorry, lightman, I don't think we can produce Paul's actual eyeballs. What other evidence is there as to eye color other than photos & video? Yes, we could find early references to eye color in early magazines, I suppose, but so? Can you show any pictures of PAUL w/ green/hazel eyes? Yeah, didn't think so.

[orbandsceptre27]

Sorry, lightman, I don't think we can produce Paul's actual eyeballs.

:D Classic!

[light_man]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/cheers2.jpghttp://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/roundtheworld8.jpg

A PERFECT example of why your photo evidence is so crappy!

Photo on left: Paul has BROWN hair.

Photo on right: Paul has BLACK hair.

And you use those to show his eyes are the SAME colour!!!!

http://msp127.photobucket.com/albums/p159/gerbruggeman/F4S/laughing.gif

Old photos, old magazine covers are not reliable evidence because film processing, re-touching, lighting conditions will not provide accurate colour reproduction.

A CLASSIC example is the two photos above where Paul has different coloured hair!

How many times have I got to point this out to you???

Deary me! :mad:

[faulconandsnowjob]

Um, yeah... I don't think so.

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/GreenEyedPaul02.gifhttp://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/mmt_frames/faul.jpg

[clint web]

In that last image with the red background, it appears as if Ringo has brown eyes too but he did in fact have bright blue eyes. Photos can be very deceiving.

[faulconandsnowjob]

Photos can be deceiving, but when so many show Paul had brown, what is the problem? "Paul" didn't have hazel eyes until after 1966.

[light_man]

What is this? Is this supposed to be Paul? LOL!

http://www.tlcgraphic.com/images/1963HazelEyesZoom2.gif

Er, YES!!!!

You've just proven AGAIN that you cannot tell a Paul photo from a 'Faul' photo!!!!

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p159/gerbruggeman/F4S/laughing.gif http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p159/gerbruggeman/F4S/laughing.gif http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p159/gerbruggeman/F4S/laughing.gif

It's from 1963 or 1964. Here it is in FULL:

http://www.tlcgraphic.com/images/1963HazelEyesSm.gif

Oh man, this is too easy! :) :) :)

[light_man]

Photos can be deceiving, but when so many show Paul had brown, what is the problem?

Er..... because they can be deceiving!!!

DUH! :mad: :mad: :mad:

[orbandsceptre27]

You`re pretty desperate when you have to resort to ridicule -

..................but ridicule when you CAN`T TELL BROWN FROM GREEN/GRAY - pathetic :D

This one`s for "The Fool on the Hill," disinfo extraordinare Lightman/Redman/Fireman

- FREEZE at 1.04, are those BROWN EYES Lighman - NO -

HERE`S YOUR DOUBLE -

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.


http://www.goodluckdeluxe.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/old-man-laughing.jpg

[clint web]

Colours on photos can be very deceiving. Sometimes john looks as though he has red hair, other times he seems to have dark brown.

[light_man]

You`re pretty desperate when you have to resort to ridicule -

..................but ridicule when you CAN`T TELL BROWN FROM GREEN/GRAY - pathetic :D

This one`s for "The Fool on the Hill," disinfo extraordinare Lightman/Redman/Fireman

- FREEZE at 1.04, are those BROWN EYES Lighman - NO -

HERE`S YOUR DOUBLE -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_k9_NeMUQc&feature=related


http://www.goodluckdeluxe.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/old-man-laughing.jpg

Now, now. Don't get all pissy with me because you know I'm right. :)

Chill out. I'm not ridiculing anybody.

[orbandsceptre27]

Colours on photos can be very deceiving. Sometimes john looks as though he has red hair, other times he seems to have dark brown.

Yeah...... you do realise he`s no longer with us either right?? :p

[light_man]

Colours on photos can be very deceiving. Sometimes john looks as though he has red hair, other times he seems to have dark brown.

Try telling these PID'ers that, dude. Your wasting your time.

They just post another load of photos thinking they provide some kind of evidence.

It's plainly ridiculous to any rational person who understands about photos.

[orbandsceptre27]

Try telling these PID'ers that, dude. Your wasting your time.

They just post another load of photos thinking they provide some kind of evidence.

It's plainly ridiculous to any rational person who understands about photos.


You should have told us you were COLOURBLIND Lightman......... then I would have understood hehe...! :D

[faulconandsnowjob]

Yes, lightman must be getting desperate. It's hard to argue w/ all the photos we have to back up our position, so what else can he do but try to discredit any way he can. I hope no one is buying the argument that photos are somehow not evidence. I've already posted law on that that photos absolutely can be used as evidence to establish identity.

Paul def had brown eyes.

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

You should have told us you were COLOURBLIND Lightman......... then I would have understood hehe...!
LMAO! Yes, that would explain some things :-)

[light_man]

you should have told us you were colourblind lightman......... Then i would have understood hehe...! :o :d

:) :) :)

[faulconandsnowjob]

James Paul McCartney's BROWN eyes

http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii220/truecolors112/41.jpghttp://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii220/truecolors112/124744290_fa3b9e6435.jpghttp://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii220/truecolors112/191029.jpghttp://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii220/truecolors112/62-1.jpghttp://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii220/truecolors112/k182.jpghttp://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii220/truecolors112/k272.gifhttp://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii220/truecolors112/k288.jpg

Is anyone going to seriously keep arguing that he had hazel eyes? Talk about not wanting to face facts. Hello!

[light_man]

Yes, lightman must be getting desperate.

Er, remind me... Who is this again:

http://www.tlcgraphic.com/images/1963HazelEyesSm.gif

:) :) :)


It's hard to argue w/ all the photos we have to back up our position

Oh, it's very easy to argue against your silly photos - you're just too stubborn to accept that your photo evidence is worthless.

For example, the two photos you posted with Paul having completely different coloured hair!!!

I hope no one is buying the argument that photos are somehow not evidence.

I bet you do!

I've already posted law on that that photos absolutely can be used as evidence to establish identity.

So the photos showing Paul with hazel eyes will establish his identity then?

Good. That's that one cleared up then.

Paul def had brown eyes.

No, sorry. Crappy, low resolution photos that are decades old and could have been doctored prove nothing.

And I've already pointed out that photos can be deceiving. You just refuse to see reason, logic and common sense about this.

Look at the photos of Paul with BROWN and BLACK hair!

Good grief. :confused:

[light_man]

James Paul McCartney's BROWN eyes

http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii220/truecolors112/41.jpghttp://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii220/truecolors112/124744290_fa3b9e6435.jpghttp://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii220/truecolors112/191029.jpghttp://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii220/truecolors112/62-1.jpghttp://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii220/truecolors112/k182.jpghttp://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii220/truecolors112/k272.gifhttp://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii220/truecolors112/k288.jpg

Is anyone going to seriously keep arguing that he had hazel eyes? Talk about not wanting to face facts. Hello!

http://www.latinoreview.com/images/user/picard-facepalm.jpg

[orbandsceptre27]

No, sorry. Crappy, low resolution photos that are decades old and could have been doctored prove nothing.



You do realise people are going to read what you`re just after saying -

All these photos ehh...... everyone showing a man with brown eyes and in excellent quality.

- Photographic evidence accepted as proof by any court.

AND you conveniently ignore the video of "Fool on the Hill" (again in excellent quality) showing the imposter with green/gray eyes.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

Do you have no shame Lightman? :cool:

[faulconandsnowjob]

^ Yeah, that doesn't really show Paul's "hazel" eyes, now does it? Please, post photos to support your "theory" that Paul had "hazel" eyes. I don't think anyone is buying your argument that Paul's eyes were not brown, but knock yourself out.

http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii220/truecolors112/k1045.jpg

http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii220/truecolors112/thenot-so-subtlelook.jpg

http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii220/truecolors112/cap076.jpg

http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii220/truecolors112/cap086.jpg

http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii220/truecolors112/cap151.jpg

Crappy, low resolution photos that are decades old and could have been doctored prove nothing.

You don't need hi-res to see color. And some of those photos above are screen captures from Help! Anyway, at least he admits some photos could have been doctored (like Dr. Moreau Faul from the Memphis interview (Aug 19, 1966)).

[orbandsceptre27]

http://www.latinoreview.com/images/user/picard-facepalm.jpg

You`re attempts to pass off Capt. Jean Luke Picard as Paul won`t work here Lightman............. people aren`t as stupid as you make them out to be :rolleyes: :D

[light_man]

You do realise people are going to read what you`re just after saying -

All these photos ehh...... everyone showing a man with brown eyes and in excellent quality.

Excellent quality???!!

Are you having a laugh, or what? An example of one of your "excellent quality photos:

http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii220/truecolors112/k182.jpg

You're telling me you can tell if Paul has brown or hazel eyes in that fuzzy photo?!

Size of file: 56.16 kb!!!

An average digital camera will take a photo of 4 or 5 MEGA BITES!

"Exellent quality"? You are spouting absolute drivel.

Photographic evidence accepted as proof by any court.

Yeah, I bet a court would accept a crappy 56.16kb resolution photo proves Paul McCartney had brown eyes! :)

Do you have no shame Lightman? :cool:

You're pulling my leg, right? :) :) :)

[light_man]

people aren`t as stupid as you make them out to be :rolleyes: :D

What, people who believe there were gangs of Paul McCartney doubles running about aren't stupid?

Well I never! :)

[orbandsceptre27]

Excellent quality???!!

Yeah, I bet a court would accept a crappy 56.16kb resolution photo proves Paul McCartney had brown eyes! :)


^
Paul is the one with his thumb up Lightman......... forget about the other two -

and,

A court would be only too willing to accept any of the close up brown-eyed photos we have been showering you with for the last 20 minutes or so. It`s called evidence!

Now is there anything else you`d like to get off your chest on this fine evening?

[faulconandsnowjob]

that Paul had brown eyes

http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii220/truecolors112/mag20bravo37a.jpghttp://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii220/truecolors112/2452020beatles206520photo20session.jpghttp://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii220/truecolors112/HelpChapter328.jpghttp://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii220/truecolors112/Copyofcomehitherlook2.jpghttp://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii220/truecolors112/scan0017.jpghttp://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii220/truecolors112/edsul64.jpg

Still waiting for some pics showing Paul's "hazel" eyes. LOL!

What, people who believe there were gangs of Paul McCartney doubles running about aren't stupid?
Oh, that's funny. Like someone who keeps insisting Paul's eyes were not brown when about 50 photos show they were is not "stupid"? BTW, light_man, what's your education? Just wondering. You seem a little insecure to me, is all. Just don't pretend to know anything about "evidence." I know you're not a lawyer & have no clue.

[orbandsceptre27]

Ahhhh..... no need to rub it in Faulcon,






Ohh.......





and this one - :)







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

[light_man]

As the perception of color is dependent on viewing conditions (e. g. the amount and type of illumination, as well as the hue of the surrounding environment), so is the perception of eye color.

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.

Definitions of the eye color "hazel" vary: it is sometimes considered to be synonymous with light-brown and gold

This is an example of Blue and Green eyes. These are the same eyes, however the color appears to be quite different depending on the surroundings. In the top picture, the eyes appear more blue or grey, but in the bottom picture, the same eyes appear more green. Notice the yellow- or copper- rings around the pupils.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/BlueGreen.jpg

Now, do I have to spell it out any clearer??

Your photo evidence is worthless to any objective, rational person. You can keep posting crappy photos till the cows come home - they still prove nothing.

Photos can be deceptive. That's a fact. Ask any photo expert.

Now, compare the photo above to one of your crappy, low resolution photos:

http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii220/truecolors112/edsul64.jpg

Are you seriously expecting any RATIONAL person to tell if that photo shows brown or hazel eyes?!!

Pull the other one!!!

You are seriously deluded.

[faulconandsnowjob]

Your photo evidence is worthless to any objective, rational person.
LMAO! Oh, that's a good one. Yeah, anyone who would look at a photo to judge eye color must not be "rational." Good grief. Your arguments are really getting weak. What I think is not rational is to keep insisting his eyes were some other color than brown! Maybe you do have some trouble differentiating btw colors...

Obviously, you have not been able to find a pic of Paul w/ hazel eyes. Yeah, good luck w/ that one.

Oh, what's this I see? More pics showing Paul's BROWN eyes. LOL! :-)

http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii220/truecolors112/feb05195rm.jpg

http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii220/truecolors112/BeatlesGranada.jpg

http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii220/truecolors112/56623570.jpg

[light_man]

LMAO! Oh, that's a good one. Yeah, anyone who would look at a photo to judge eye color must not be "rational." Good grief.

Get a grip, I never said that. I said any rational person looking at that photo wouldn't be able to tell if the eyes were brown or hazel!

Why? Cos it's a crappy photo and the lighting is poor. You cannot tell what colour the eyes are.

Your arguments are really getting weak.

CORRECTION. Your misconception of my arguments - which makes your point redundant. Get your facts right.

What I think is not rational is to keep insisting his eyes were some other color than brown! Maybe you do have some trouble differentiating btw colors...

Why don't you learn something about a subject you clearly know nothing about? Maybe then you wouldn't stubbornly cling on to your delusions:

There is some difficulty in defining the eye color "hazel" as it is sometimes considered to be synonymous with brown and other times with green. They have been described as light brown or yellowish brown, or as a lighter shade of brown.

Hazel eyes have also been described as being equivalent to a dark black or charcoal-colored/light black eyes.

In North America, "hazel" is often used to describe eyes that change color, ranging from light brown to green and even blue, depending on what color clothing the person is wearing or what color is predominant in their immediate environment. (Eyes that change only between blue and green are not called "hazel"; the term only describes changeable eye color that includes a brownish shade within its range.)

SOURCE:http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Eye-pigmentation

Go argue with an encyclopedia!! :) :) :)

Obviously, you have not been able to find a pic of Paul w/ hazel eyes. Yeah, good luck w/ that one.

Here you go, I posted it before. You know, the one who said was 'Faul' but was taken in '63 or '64!!! :) :) :)

http://www.tlcgraphic.com/images/1963HazelEyesZoom2.gif

Oh, what's this I see? More pics showing Paul's BROWN eyes. LOL! :-)

NO, I think I'll save my post from showing your crappy photos again which are too low res and poorly lit to show what colour eyes Paul has.

[orbandsceptre27]

^
See I knew it - some lazy-assed chap would go to wikipedia for his "expert analysis" because I`ve said it before Redman/Lightman (and whatever else you`re calling yourself these days) - YOU`RE A LAZY RESEARCHER!

Eye color - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Firstly - Paul McCartney had dark brown eyes - NOT light brown/hazel/green/blue or any other colour. We`ve been saying this all along - they were dark brown!

Secondly - It says it right on the page you just lifted from wiki dark brown eyes may appear black at a glance (JUST AS SOME OF OUR PHOTOS HAVE SHOWN).

THIRDLY - Nowhere does it say in your above quotation that dark brown eyes can/will change in colour, in relation to their surroundings.


The question I have for you Lightman is, why does somebody go to all these lengths to prove people like us wrong, what do you get out of it - it seems like madness to me?? If us PIDers are crazy then you`re completely nuts to be here arguing with us. Why are you constantly on the case?

What is to be gained from it all - You`re constantly running down the PID threads. In fact you`re completey obsessed with it all - You speak about rationality and yet here you are, a complete obsessive almost to the point of madness - DO YOU NOT FEEL STUPID BEING HERE SINCE YOU BELIEVE THE WHOLE LOT IS A LOAD OF RUBBISH? Or is there something else driving you.......?? :)

I mean the majority of people won`t give this area a look in. Unless an individual researches the area in depth, it makes little sense whatsoever. Why would you spend the vast majority of your time on the P.I.D threads solely and completely to debunk? There`s alot more to you than meets the eye Lightman isn`t there! I`ll let people work it out for themselves!

My idea starting a thread like this was to put up material and let people decide on it for themselves. What harm are we doing that you feel you have to attack everything we put up. If you think it`s ridiculous, would you not think that people will see through it all, what is gained by all this arguing?

[orbandsceptre27]

^

AGAIN LIGHTMAN - YOU`VE TAKEN THE WHOLE LOT FROM WIKIPEDIA YOU NUTTER.

I`m off to bed - I`m not getting paid for this!

[faulconandsnowjob]

I said any rational person looking at that photo wouldn't be able to tell if the eyes were brown or hazel!
Oh, ok, so you have a problem w/ ONE of the ~50 pics I showed of Paul w/ brown eyes. Well, then just disregard that one & consider the 49 others.

Why don't you learn something about a subject you clearly know nothing about?
Oh, do you need to be an "eyecolorologist" to be able to tell what color eyes someone has? I wasn't aware that *brown* was so hard to identify. LMAO!

You have claimed to know what does or does not constitutes evidence when you have clearly never studied any rules of evidence, or any law on the subject whatsoever.

Oh, BTW, Paul had BROWN eyes. LOL! :D

http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii220/truecolors112/part%202/paul_mccartney_untouched_1.jpg

http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii220/truecolors112/part%202/helppaul1.jpg

http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii220/truecolors112/part%202/22ps.jpg

http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii220/truecolors112/part%202/img424.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/9660827.jpg

http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii220/truecolors112/part%202/paulrain.jpg

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

Hmmm... Let's see who is "delusional," Lightman.

de·lu·sion (dĭ-lōō'zhən) Pronunciation Key
n.
...
Psychiatry A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence ...

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

Well, I think I have shown that Paul had brown eyes. The fact that you still insist he doesn't seems to be delusional to me.

[toty1994]

I mean the majority of people won`t give this area a look in. Unless an individual researches the area in depth, it makes little sense whatsoever. Why would you spend the vast majority of your time on the P.I.D threads solely and completely to debunk? There`s alot more to you than meets the eye Lightman isn`t there! I`ll let people work it out for themselves!

DO YOU NOT FEEL STUPID BEING HERE SINCE YOU BELIEVE THE WHOLE LOT IS A LOAD OF RUBBISH?



Actually, the pid threads here have gained attention on various other sites. It's not surprising to me that some people from the 'it's a load of rubbish' camp have joined in. Nothing wrong with that imo, though you seem to imply posters like light_man have some sinister alterior motive. What's that about exactly?

In any case pid is, to most, an outrageous urban legend so of course it will be challenged on a forum that is not solely for the believers. Yes, even on a David Icke forum.

[light_man]

^
See I knew it - some lazy-assed chap would go to wikipedia for his "expert analysis" because I`ve said it before Redman/Lightman (and whatever else you`re calling yourself these days) - YOU`RE A LAZY RESEARCHER!

Are you saying the information I gave is wrong? If so, provide evidence that disputes it.

If not, the evidence stands.

Firstly - Paul McCartney had dark brown eyes - NOT light brown/hazel/green/blue or any other colour. We`ve been saying this all along - they were dark brown!

Any independent evidence to back this up, apart from crappy photos?

Er, non so far. Hmmm....

Independent evidence that his eyes were hazel:

"In 1964, Teen Screen Life Story printed a magazine all about Paul. It contained interviews with Paul and the other Beatles on Paul. Notice how he states his eye color is hazel.

This is probably the issue:

http://www.antiquarius.com/?page=shop/flypage&product_id=24745&keyword=bob+editor+morgan&searchby=author&offset=0&fs=1&CLSN_1181=1226071538118101c3a695c467c85ef1

Why don't you buy it?

So, we have evidence from Paul himself, in an interview, that his eyes were hazel.

Therefore, your claims that Paul had brown eyes are palpably incorrect. Paul himself disputes your claims.

Sorry! :)

Secondly - It says it right on the page you just lifted from wiki dark brown eyes may appear black at a glance (JUST AS SOME OF OUR PHOTOS HAVE SHOWN).

Ok, hang on a minute here! You are saying that some of the photos that have been posted to prove that Paul had brown eyes "may appear black"?!!!

Seriously, what have you been smoking! :)

'Here are some photos that prove Paul had brown eyes, although in these particular photos his eyes appear black'.

Classic! :)

THIRDLY - Nowhere does it say in your above quotation that dark brown eyes can/will change in colour, in relation to their surroundings.

Irrelevant. Changing colour is not the issue - it is defining the colour of the eyes that you seem to have trouble understanding.

Hazel: Light golden brown. Having a light golden-brown color
Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hazel

So, there is a fine line between hazel and a 'true' dark brown colour. And your poor quality photos are not going to determine that one way or the other. :)

Therefore, your claim that Paul had brown eyes - as opposed to hazel as Paul himself admitted - is clearly not proven.

Sorry. :)

why does somebody go to all these lengths to prove people like us wrong

Thanks for admitting that! :)

Freudian slip? LOL.

If us PIDers are crazy then you`re completely nuts to be here arguing with us. Why are you constantly on the case?

Because I find it interesting and stimulating to point out all the flaws in your arguments and false reasoning. Your stubborn refusal to even accept the most basic and clear explanations for your 'evidence' is rather fascinating.

I work long hours on the computer, and this thread provides a few minutes of relaxation when I want to take a break.

Why would you spend the vast majority of your time on the P.I.D threads solely and completely to debunk?

Er, I don't spend the majority of my time here actually. It's only because I post on this particular thread that you come to such an erroneous conclusion.

And that's indicative of you PID'ers. You presume so much on the most tenuous 'evidence'. :)

I actually spend most of my time here on Icke reading the Main boards.

There`s alot more to you than meets the eye Lightman isn`t there! I`ll let people work it out for themselves!

Another conspiracy theory? LOL

You seem to see conspiracies everywhere!

What harm are we doing that you feel you have to attack everything we put up. If you think it`s ridiculous, would you not think that people will see through it all, what is gained by all this arguing?

This is a public board to discuss conspiracy theories. It's not a PID board. I'm fully entitled to point out all the various flaws in your arguments.

If you want people to decide for themselves, then an opposing argument should be welcome.

You obviously only want this discussion to go one way - YOUR way. How biased. :(

The fact that you are now complaining shows that you are not open to free discussion as to your theories. What are you so worried about?

Sorry - this isn't a PID board. Go to one of those if you only want agreement with your views.

When I get bored of this I won't post. Your little PID clique have already spammed this forum with 3 or 4 different PID threads and you get pissy with me for posting here. :mad:

[light_man]

Oh, ok, so you have a problem w/ ONE of the ~50 pics I showed of Paul w/ brown eyes. Well, then just disregard that one & consider the 49 others.

NON of your photos demonstrate conclusively that Paul had brown eyes. End of.

Oh, do you need to be an "eyecolorologist" to be able to tell what color eyes someone has?

No - just GOOD QUALITY photos that have adequate lighting and are taken close up in high definition. Everything your photos don't have.


I wasn't aware that *brown* was so hard to identify. LMAO!

Clearly! :)

Hazel is a catch adjectives term used for eyes next to a mixture of colours: a brown, blue or green background near patches and flecks of brown, blue or green.

If an eye is mostly brown near just a short time bit of other colours, you are free to call it brown or hazel. Eye colour naming have no precise rules.
http://www.lasikanswer.com/optical-lasik/1091-lasik-optical-2.html

You have claimed to know what does or does not constitutes evidence

Oh, I have? Please provide a link to this quote.

Well, I think I have shown that Paul had brown eyes.

"Think" is the important word, here. What you "think" is not neccessarily reality.

There is evidence to suggest that Paul himself, in a magazine interview in 1964, said his eyes were hazel.

I have previously given a link to the magazine. Buy it, and disprove that Paul said it.

[astrochicken]

^

AGAIN LIGHTMAN - YOU`VE TAKEN THE WHOLE LOT FROM WIKIPEDIA YOU NUTTER.

I`m off to bed - I`m not getting paid for this!

TOUCHÉ

love it.

[faulconandsnowjob]

So now that it's been established that James Paul McCartney had BROWN eyes, here are some anomalous pics of Faul(s) w/ difft eye colors.

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

^ from "Hey Jude" video

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

^ from "Fool on the Hill"

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

[humito]

http://swamplot.com/ikes-revenge-paul-is-dead/2008-09-17/#more-3272
thought the P.I.D ers on the forum would find this story interesting .if not heard already

[clint web]

In some statements here, it is assumed that the powers that put the so called lookalike in place are willing to do anything to maintain the secret of Paul's double - even going to the lengths of threatening McCartney's close family to keep quiet or else. Yet, they seem to have replaced him with a lookalike who is 4 inches taller with different coloured eyes and hair.

They were also willing to let the Beatles themselves put clues on album covers and in lyrics.

Shoddy job they made for a powerful elite.

I don't see what more can be said in this thread. It's getting like Groundhog day reading each new post - my own included.

There are two camps of thought here and neither will ever change its mind.

[faulconandsnowjob]

http://swamplot.com/ikes-revenge-pau...-17/#more-3272
thought the P.I.D ers on the forum would find this story interesting .if not heard already
Thanks - that's great. Houston is my hometown, too :) I actually know the guy who took this photo:

http://swamplot.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/fab-four-minus-paul.jpg

There are two camps of thought here and neither will ever change its mind.
Yes, true. However, I'm posting for people w/ open minds. It's important for the truth to come out about this.

I don't see what more can be said in this thread. It's getting like Groundhog day reading each new post - my own included.
Well, once you see that Paul was replaced, it opens up a huge can of worms. The 1st step seems to be very difficult for some people, tho.

[light_man]

So now that it's been established that James Paul McCartney had BROWN eyes

http://msp127.photobucket.com/albums/p159/gerbruggeman/F4S/laughing.gif

Your arrogance and stubborn refusal to face facts really is quite astounding.

I mentioned earlier a magazine interview Paul did in 1963 or 1964.

Well, here is the magazine:

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

And here is Paul's quote that he has HAZEL eyes:

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

Oh, dear! That kinda bursts your bubble. :)

Please feel free to contradict Paul McCartney, faulconandsnowjob, and to continue to post numerous poor quality photos in a desperate effort to ignore reality and keep the 'Paul had brown eyes' myth going.

It really does you no good, however.

Who are we to believe about Paul McCartney's eye colour?

Paul McCartney or faulconandsnowjob???

Hmmmm..... That's a tough one! :)

'It has now been established that James Paul McCartney has HAZEL eyes.'

[light_man]

In some statements here, it is assumed that the powers that put the so called lookalike in place are willing to do anything to maintain the secret of Paul's double - even going to the lengths of threatening McCartney's close family to keep quiet or else. Yet, they seem to have replaced him with a lookalike who is 4 inches taller with different coloured eyes and hair.

They were also willing to let the Beatles themselves put clues on album covers and in lyrics.

Shoddy job they made for a powerful elite.

Exactly. And that is one of the reasons this PID garbage is so hard to believe. There are so many holes in their claims and gigantic leaps of logic and reason.

And don't forget, according to faulconandsnowjob there were numerous Paul McCartney doubles running around singing - not just one! :)

And all these doubles looked so much like Paul and could sing and act so much like Paul that the fans never ever noticed it was a completely different person. In spite of the fact that they had different eye colours and were taller than the real Paul!

The fans didn't notice.

Come on!

I don't see what more can be said in this thread. It's getting like Groundhog day reading each new post - my own included.

Yeah, I agree. No matter what proof you provide to debunk their claims they just carry on regardless posting crappy, low resolution photos.

This thread must have more photos of Paul McCartney in it than any other site on the internet!

I think I'll phone the Guinness Book Of Records! :) :) :)

[faulconandsnowjob]

So, light_man, how do you explain this?

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

How do you explain the fact that Paul's eyes were clearly darker than Faul's?

Here is a pic of Paul's eye for the Madame Toussaud wax figure:

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

Doesn't look light to me!

MERSEY BEAT (ed. by Bill Harry, 1977) 11/21-12/5/63 edition it said: "...Paul has dark brown hair and hazel eyes..."

MERSEY BEAT 8/20-8/27/65 edition, in an interview with George's mother, she said: "I've often thought it odd that the three boys, [George, Paul and John] who were quite small when they met, grew up to be the same height and with the same color eyes." Earlier in the article, they mentioned George's (big) brown eyes.

[light_man]

So, light_man, how do you explain this?

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

Easy:

Different lighting - it's obvious! The first is taken outside in good sunlight - so his eyes appear lighter.

The second is taken in dark conditions - so his eyes appear darker.

DUH! Any schoolkid will tell you that.

You are NOT comparing like with like! If you are going to produce photo evidence to prove his eye colour is different then you need to provide high resolution photos, taken in the same light conditions and at the same distance and angle.

Then you can compare like with like.

You are not. It's ridiculous to compare those two photos. :mad:


MERSEY BEAT (ed. by Bill Harry, 1977) 11/21-12/5/63 edition it said: "...Paul has dark brown hair and hazel eyes..."

Yeah, HAZEL! Thanks.

MERSEY BEAT 8/20-8/27/65 edition, in an interview with George's mother, she said: "I've often thought it odd that the three boys, [George, Paul and John] who were quite small when they met, grew up to be the same height and with the same color eyes." Earlier in the article, they mentioned George's (big) brown eyes.

You just don't give up, do you?

Face FACTS. Paul said he has HAZEL eyes. FACT. No argument. It's there in the magazine interview.

Paul has said he has HAZEL eyes. That's good enough for me and any rational person.

Many people thought he had brown eyes - it's a common mistake.

Don't argue with me - argue with Paul! :)

Paul has hazel eyes. END OF STORY.

Are you going to carry on this ridiculous nonsense of posting even more crappy, dark, fuzzy, low resolution photos in a Monty Python effort to try and prove Paul McCartney wrong about his own eye colour? :) :) :)

Please, don't continue to keep digging a hole for yourself.

Paul McCartney says he has hazel eyes. Just accept you are wrong.

I aint going to respond any more about Paul's eye colour. You are just going round and around in circles like Clint said.

I post proof that he has hazel eyes in the form of a direct quote from Paul....

Yet you come back with more low resolution photos, taken at completely different angles, different distances and in completely different light conditions - and insist that they prove Paul McCartney is wrong about his own bloody eye colour!!! :D

It's stupid.

It has been established that Paul has hazel eyes. That's it.

I aint bothering to debunk your 'brown eye colour myth' any more as anyone with any rationality can see that you are a drowning woman clutching at a straw with this now.

Feel free to post even more crappy photos, but I can't be arsed with them anymore. Sorry :)

[orbandsceptre27]

Different lighting - it's obvious! The first is taken outside in good sunlight - so his eyes appear lighter.



I`ve said it before and I`ll say it again you`re a disinfo agent (a very poor one at that) or you`re a trolling nutter.

[orbandsceptre27]

So now that it's been established that James Paul McCartney had BROWN eyes, here are some anomalous pics of Faul(s) w/ difft eye colors.

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

^ from "Hey Jude" video

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

^ from "Fool on the Hill"

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

Great photo comparisons Faulcon - It`s blatantly obvious the difference in eye colour between Paul and his subsequent imposters.

[orbandsceptre27]

http://swamplot.com/ikes-revenge-paul-is-dead/2008-09-17/#more-3272
thought the P.I.D ers on the forum would find this story interesting .if not heard already

Thanks Humito :).

[light_man]

I`ve said it before and I`ll say it again you`re a disinfo agent (a very poor one at that)

You can say it as many times as you like - doesn't mean you are correct. :)

You are perfectly entitled to your delusions. After all, you believe Paul McCartney is dead.

or you`re a trolling nutter.

LOL. Being called a "nutter" by someone who thinks Paul McCartney died 40 years ago! :) :) :)

You just don't like someone disagreeing with your little PID clique on here. Tough. This is not a PID forum, so I'm not a troll.

I'm just as entitled to put across my point of view as you are.

[faulconandsnowjob]

light_man, it's obvious you will do any kind of mental contortioning necessary to rationalize 2 difft men having 2 difft eye colors.

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/Paul296-1.jpghttp://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/pmagclose.jpg

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

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/greeneyesStrawberryFields.jpghttp://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/mmt_frames/faul.jpg

I`ve said it before and I`ll say it again you`re [lightman] a disinfo agent (a very poor one at that).
Yes, obviously.
________

[orbandsceptre27]

So now that it's been established that James Paul McCartney had BROWN eyes, here are some anomalous pics of Faul(s) w/ difft eye colors.

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

^ from "Hey Jude" video

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

^ from "Fool on the Hill"

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

What is being put forward on this thread by people who know of the replacement of Paul McCartney, is that he had significantly different coloured eyes to those of his subsequent replacement.

It is quite evident from this particular picture comparison by Faulcon, to anyone of average intelligence ("the reasonable man" from the courts perspective) that Pauls eyes were of a completely different colour to that of his replacement.

The change from dark brown to green/grey happened within a very short period of time, along with many other anomalies - change in height, jawline, mannerisms, voice pitch and tone etc.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

"Fool on the Hill" - Faulcon has caught the imposters eyes at the clearest moment in front of the camera, which is exactly one minute and four seconds on this particular video of the song.

Contrast this, plus the picture of older Faul, with the numerous pictures of Paul McCartney pre-1966 and the difference is striking.

Paul McCartney had very different coloured eyes to his replacement and this change can be easily spotted on the video, ironically named, "Fool on the Hill" cast not long after Pauls departure.

[orbandsceptre27]

I'm not a troll.

- 96 out of 106 posts and counting on the PID threads as a debunker

- Are you sure?

- Cause that`s pretty close to stalking for most people.

[faulconandsnowjob]

These are all pics of Paul, supposedly. Does anyone really buy that?

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

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

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

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

[orbandsceptre27]

^ Yep - only half are Paul, the other half are of Faul. :cool:

[lostworld]

You can change colour, light and tone all you want - Faul's original eye colour will always be GREEN! He might even wear contacts here, still he can't hide his real colour coming through...

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/5660/cheezeymoustache2cw4.jpghttp://img401.imageshack.us/img401/9168/cheezeymoustache5wh7.jpg
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/7210/cheezeymoustache6vc7.jpghttp://img355.imageshack.us/img355/9475/cheezeymoustache8sz1.jpg
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/5563/cheezeymoustache4pk2.jpg

Paul's eyes will the same way always be BROWN!

http://img67.imageshack.us/img67/7299/jamespaulmccartneysmallcf8.jpghttp://img401.imageshack.us/img401/6577/jamespaulmccartneysmallyw0.jpg
http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/8315/jamespaulmccartneysmallxd3.jpghttp://img206.imageshack.us/img206/1397/jamespaulmccartneysmallcj3.jpghttp://img67.imageshack.us/img67/6470/jamespaulmccartneysmallbl1.jpg

[lostworld]

I actually spend most of my time here on Icke reading the Main boards.


LOL! Why don't you post as much there then? :D
If true, that would be shown on your posts.

[orbandsceptre27]

^ That`s great work Lostworld - "Strawberry Fields" was one eerie piece of filming. They dressed Billy up - put a moustache on him, coloured contacts et voila - he still doesn`t look like McCartney:cool:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=PXa004LONmg&feature=channel_page

[faulconandsnowjob]

They dressed Billy up - put a moustache on him, coloured contacts et voila - he still doesn`t look like McCartney
No, not so much.

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/faul_1967_comp.jpg

Plus, his weak chin is such a give-away!

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

[orbandsceptre27]

^ Yep the jawline is a dead give away :cool:

If you look at any of the videos of Paul singing with the Beatles, but especially in the interviews, it`s easy to see that Paul had a more pronounced lower jaw. I think this hits most people subconsciously - even if they shake themselves and say.... nahh it`s the same guy. They look at the teeth and see they are relatively the same. I`ve said before that the teeth can be fixed - quite easily actually. But the jawline can`t be changed.

Watch this interview again of the present imposter and pay particular attention to the lower jaw line.

Billy here consciously droops his mouth to give the effect of this "strong jaw" (which he doen`t have). He just comes across as plain goofy/dopey when he does it.

Pay particular attention to the first 15 seconds - where Billy says ".......in this society we`ve got" and then says ".........sub-section b, clause a" - Watch how he hangs on the word "got," and then "a." When Billy gets to the end of a statement he "puts on" this droopy mouth which makes him look plain dozy/dopey, long faced (and no, it`s not down to drugs lol).

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zxnCngmi8gg

Now watch Paul speak in the Memphis interview in 1966. Notice the more pronounced lower jawline as he speaks. He is much more natural Well guess what, it was more natural as he was just being himself. Take a look -

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=f1CidMWUfbw

Billy had to act out Paul and he did quite a good job - but the flaws are there. As good a doppleganger as he is, there are slight physical imperfections he just can`t mask.

Here`s Paul singing "The Night Before" from "Help." In colour vid it`s also easy to see his more "manly" jaw as some would call it.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=NTb3uifuKDc

[orbandsceptre27]

No, not so much.

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/faul_1967_comp.jpg

Plus, his weak chin is such a give-away!

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

Faulcon in the bottom two pictures which you posted here - If you mentally draw a line from the bottom of Pauls ear (Paul is on the left for those who might ask) to his nose, then do the same with Billy .

See how much higher up Billys nose is judging by his ears, in relation to Pauls nose judging by Pauls ears - The bottom of Billys ear alligns with the top of his moustache.

In other words, Billys nose is higher up than the bottom of his ear than Pauls nose to the bottom of Pauls ear (the locks don`t even hide that big oversight).

[faulconandsnowjob]

Paul in "The Night Before" compared to late 1966 "Paul"

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

http://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/billy_shears_on_mal_evans_video/billy_shears_on_mal_evans_video_12.jpg
http://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/billy_shears_on_mal_evans_video/billy_shears_on_mal_evans_video_20.jpghttp://weybridge.de/pepper/images_photos/19661220_Reporting66/19661220-19_Reporting66_PaulSite_faul_2.jpg

Really?

[faulconandsnowjob]

Orb, you're right. There's NO WAY this is the same person. However, I have not doubt that some people will still try to rationalize the differences in such a way as to keep their paradigm intact that it is the same person. :confused:

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

[orbandsceptre27]

Orb, you're right. There's NO WAY this is the same person. However, I have not doubt that some people will still try to rationalize the differences in such a way as to keep their paradigm intact that it is the same person. :confused:

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


Well it`ll be easier to tell the idiots from the "unidiots." :D

[toty1994]

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/faul_1967_comp.jpg

his weak chin is such a give-away!
/faulconandsnowjob/sff_comp.jpg[/img]

While being distracted by chingate you inadvertently posted the above pic - showing Paul with hazel eyes and 'Faul' with brown eyes.


There are plenty more examples where the Paul=brown/Faul=hazel is reversed, by the way. Here are two I found in less than a minute...on a pid site!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/paulringoear.jpg

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

The point is that there is nothing unusual about this at all, it has a perfectly logical and mundane explanation as has been outlined previously. If the above pics were of a nobody the effect would be the same.

No mystery here.

[lostworld]

Is this enough close up for Lightman & co?
Great photo quality, normal skintone & hair, indoor lightning - STILL Faul's eyes are green/grey and very light :p

http://img55.imageshack.us/img55/7861/56703962av5.jpghttp://img254.imageshack.us/img254/7838/56703982gk6.jpg

[pinkfreud]

just thought i'd point out, eye colour changes with age and does tend to become lighter as you grow older.

[toty1994]

Is this enough close up for Lightman & co?
Great photo quality, normal skintone & hair, indoor lightning - STILL Faul's eyes are green/grey and very light :p

http://img55.imageshack.us/img55/7861/56703962av5.jpghttp://img254.imageshack.us/img254/7838/56703982gk6.jpg

Still irrelevant because:

a. the 'paul had brown eyes' line has turned out to be a popular misconception (not that it really matters when it comes to photos). As has been discovered McCartney himself stated they were hazel in '63 or '64 - before he 'died' and supposed replacement no.1 took over. Unless the magazine from which the statement derives can be proven tampered with by tptb, then there is no reason to doubt it.

b. the two photos above perfectly illustrate previous points made re photography and/or the definition of 'hazel'; it looks like they were taken seconds apart yet his eyes appear noticably darker (almost brown;)) in the right hand one. In any case it just goes to show that these anomalies happen in clear, high resolution photographs too.

pinkfreud: Good point but one that has been (and will be again) either ignored or rejected out of hand.:)

[faulconandsnowjob]

Lostworld, those are great pics of Bill. Thanks! :)

Just thought i'd point out, eye colour changes with age and does tend to become lighter as you grow older.
Please cite something to support that contention. Brown eyes, or dark hazel even, are not going to turn light in 1 year (1966-67). Fool on the Hill Faul's eyes were lighter than Paul's. Remember?

This picture I posted

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/faul_1967_comp.jpg

shows Paul's eyes picking up the blue background. Plus, the picture is a bit washed out. As is this one:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/paulringoear.jpg

However, the eyes are not as light as

http://img55.imageshack.us/img55/7861/56703962av5.jpg

Faul doesn't even bother to wear brown contacts anymore, b/c he knows no one is going to notice he's not Paul. They think he is Paul, even if he doesn't look the same!

Even IF Paul & Faul had the same color eyes, which they don't, there is still an insurmountable problem for you "debunkers." They don't have the same faces.

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

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

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

[toty1994]

you "debunkers."

You love "debunkers" really, they help keep the pid threads at the top!:)

[faulconandsnowjob]

You love "debunkers" really, they help keep the pid threads at the top!
Yes, that is true. Thanks for playing :-)

[lostworld]

http://img55.imageshack.us/img55/7861/56703962av5.jpghttp://img254.imageshack.us/img254/7838/56703982gk6.jpg


Still irrelevant because:

a. the 'paul had brown eyes' line has turned out to be a popular misconception (not that it really matters when it comes to photos). As has been discovered McCartney himself stated they were hazel in '63 or '64 - before he 'died' and supposed replacement no.1 took over. Unless the magazine from which the statement derives can be proven tampered with by tptb, then there is no reason to doubt it.

b. the two photos above perfectly illustrate previous points made re photography and/or the definition of 'hazel'; it looks like they were taken seconds apart yet his eyes appear noticably darker (almost brown;)) in the right hand one. In any case it just goes to show that these anomalies happen in clear, high resolution photographs too.

pinkfreud: Good point but one that has been (and will be again) either ignored or rejected out of hand.:)

Yes, these photos are from the same event.
But in the right pic his eyes are not at all "almost brown" or "noticably darker". Look closer and you'll see that it is the same light colour.
These photos are legit and you can't get much better circumstances...

Come on Toty, you can not possible call this hazel or brown! :rolleyes:

Who is making excuses now? :p

[toty1994]

Not excuses - they clearly look darker in the right pic, which only supports the information re photography previously posted. In any case...

Originally Posted by Paul McCartney circa 1964
My eyes are hazel.

You see what I did there?:D

[lostworld]

Lostworld, those are great pics of Bill. Thanks! :)

No problem! It's SO obvious how much lighter his eyes are...


Faul doesn't even bother to wear brown contacts anymore, b/c he knows no one is going to notice he's not Paul. They think he is Paul, even if he doesn't look the same!

Very true. For many people this is the only "Paul" they know.
The heavy programming of the masses e.g. through the corrupt media has been very effective. If it's presented as something it must also BE what it is presented as, right? ;)
Not many people question what is told to them, and those who do still hesitates and can't believe what is right in front of them, Somehow I think they don't want their illusion to break.

Even IF Paul & Faul had the same color eyes, which they don't, there is still an insurmountable problem for you "debunkers." They don't have the same faces.

True again! :D
Now why would Paul, who was exceptionally good looking, wanna change e.g. his nose? :confused: Especially at such young age!
Where is the logic? Please explain that to me...

http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/4992/74788361kl0.jpghttp://img176.imageshack.us/img176/9350/edsul64sr2.jpghttp://img216.imageshack.us/img216/2275/684376bi7.jpg

[faulconandsnowjob]

Yeah, I still think the eyes are a problem. They just don't match. Sorry.

http://www.jamespaulmccartney.org/album64/album/BeatlesStory651.jpghttp://img55.imageshack.us/img55/7861/56703962av5.jpg

[keystone]

Have you guys any idea how much bandwidth you are burning up with constantly repeating the same images?

Anyway on topic and back to the original question. I don't care! Whether that worries you or not I don't care either. Happy Xmas.

[astrochicken]

SIR Faul Mccartney

says it all really.

[orbandsceptre27]

I don't care! Whether that worries you or not I don't care either.

Spoken like a true mason.

Well maybe I don`t care whether you care about the truth rearing it`s ugly head ;).

Many happy returns.

[faulconandsnowjob]

Have you guys any idea how much bandwidth you are burning up with constantly repeating the same images?
I don't care!

[keystone]

:D

[lostworld]

How many, if not being told so, would EVER think that this person is "Paul McCartney" ? :confused:

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/968/46thannualacademyawardsfk6.jpghttp://img206.imageshack.us/img206/8251/81072169tx6.jpg
Faul at the 46th Annual Academy Awards
(perhaps nominated for "best actor" :D )


http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/9361/82617545mf7.jpghttp://img206.imageshack.us/img206/1538/cheezeymoustache2ua5.jpg

[orbandsceptre27]

Pinkfreud - "just thought I`d point out, eye colour changes with age and does tend to become lighter as you grow older."

Hi Pinkfreud - We`re talking about changes here which happened within a very short space of time, not over decades or even a few years.

These dramatic changes occurred within 6 months and have remained to the present day (see Faulcon and Lostworlds pictures of older Bill/Faul with green eyes.) Paul had dark brown eyes.

I refer you to the video of "Fool on the Hill" which was released in Nov 1967.

Freeze at 1.04 for a close up of Bills green eyes -

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zDJ-015ojec&feature=related

Paul McCartney with brown eyes -

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



pinkfreud: Good point but one that has been (and will be again) either ignored or rejected out of hand.:)

For somebody who has been on this thread for quite some time Toty1994, your comment here is simply pathetic, for the reasons I`ve outlined above.

[faulconandsnowjob]

Faul at the 46th Annual Academy Awards
(perhaps nominated for "best actor")
Hey, he'd deserve it! :D

How many, if not being told so, would EVER think that this person is "Paul McCartney" ?
That's an excellent point. He's Paul b/c the media presents him as such. Well, of course, we all know the media/TPTB would never lie to us, right? LOL!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/compare66.jpg

Really? Yeah, I just don't see it.

[armoured_amazon]

have you guys any idea how much bandwidth you are burning up with constantly repeating the same images?

Anyway on topic and back to the original question. I don't care! Whether that worries you or not i don't care either. Happy xmas.

i don't care!

:d

lolol you guys :D

[toty1994]

How many, if not being told so, would EVER think that this person is "Paul McCartney" ? :confused:


Won't bother with the images so as not to burn up bandwidth:D The problem for you is that only a tiny minority would question that the person in those photos is Paul McCartney - even 'if not being told so'. However sincere you are, it still looks like you simply post the least flattering McCartney pics you can find and declare them to be proof of an imposter. That's why some here have a hard time taking it seriously, never mind the rest of the world. Similarly photos in which he sports facial hair apparently render him unrecognisable as the true JPM to you....this just comes across as satire, like something from 'The Onion'!

[lostworld]

Won't bother with the images so as not to burn up bandwidth:D The problem for you is that only a tiny minority would question that the person in those photos is Paul McCartney - even 'if not being told so'. However sincere you are, it still looks like you simply post the least flattering McCartney pics you can find and declare them to be proof of an imposter. That's why some here have a hard time taking it seriously, never mind the rest of the world. Similarly photos in which he sports facial hair apparently render him unrecognisable to you....this just comes accross as satire, like something from 'The Onion'!

How many, if not being told so, would EVER think that this person is "Paul McCartney" ? :confused:

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/968/46thannualacademyawardsfk6.jpghttp://img206.imageshack.us/img206/8251/81072169tx6.jpg
Faul at the 46th Annual Academy Awards
(perhaps nominated for "best actor" :D )


http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/9361/82617545mf7.jpghttp://img206.imageshack.us/img206/1538/cheezeymoustache2ua5.jpg

The problem for you is that only a tiny minority would question that the person in those photos is Paul McCartney - even 'if not being told so'.
You are absolutely right Toty - that is a problem! And that's why we're also here, not only to get justice for Paul but hopefully to make other people see what's going on. Not just with PID but the bigger picture. PID is a good start though. But the programming unfortunately runs deep. Sorry, there is no better word for it, since the medias grip on people is so strong. I want people to step out of their boxes and THINK and QUESTION. So you're right on - that is a problem that most people don't! :(

However sincere you are, it still looks like you simply post the least flattering McCartney pics you can find and declare them to be proof of an imposter.
Oh, I'm very sincere. Unlike others I wouldn't be here if I weren't (and I'm not talking about you Toty, cause at least you stated before that you were openminded and here out of genuine interest etc)...

Absolutely not! The problem is more to find good pics of Bill, sorry Faul.
Ha can't "hold his face" and is always looking goofy on pics. He is NOT as photogenique as Paul - that should also tell you something. I've never seen bad pics of Paul like is the case with Faul...

The pics posted are very normal pics, Faul is aware that he's being photographed. The two first pics are from the ACADEMY AWARDS - if there ever was a time he should be aware of his facial expressions it should be here :rolleyes:

And if you're not happy with these pics both Faulcon, Orb and I have posted plenty of other comparisons between Paul and Faul - where Faul looks better, allthough he can never look as good as Paul. Like Faulcon says: "Paul is hot, Faul is not". I know I'm not attracted to Faul and that has NOTHING to do with him being an imposter - it has more to do with his (lack of) personality. Paul was charming, smart, humble and fun - Faul is not. Therefore I'm not attracted to him. That's why I also know that they are two different people. Simple as that.

this just comes accross as satire, like something from 'The Onion'!
You said it Toty! :)
I would call this satire too, with Bill as the king of the show - if the story behind it all wasn't so tragic.

[lostworld]

A reminder that Lightman's theory on colour, light and tone doesn't help Bill!

Bills original eye colour will always be GREEN! He might even wear contacts here, still he can't hide his real colour coming through...

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/5660/cheezeymoustache2cw4.jpghttp://img401.imageshack.us/img401/9168/cheezeymoustache5wh7.jpg
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/7210/cheezeymoustache6vc7.jpghttp://img355.imageshack.us/img355/9475/cheezeymoustache8sz1.jpg
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/5563/cheezeymoustache4pk2.jpg

Paul's eyes will the same way always be BROWN!

http://img67.imageshack.us/img67/7299/jamespaulmccartneysmallcf8.jpghttp://img401.imageshack.us/img401/6577/jamespaulmccartneysmallyw0.jpg
http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/8315/jamespaulmccartneysmallxd3.jpghttp://img206.imageshack.us/img206/1397/jamespaulmccartneysmallcj3.jpghttp://img67.imageshack.us/img67/6470/jamespaulmccartneysmallbl1.jpg[/QUOTE]

[lostworld]

Great photo quality - still Bill has light eyes. :D

Green/grey eyes. And Paul's amazing long dark eyelashes also mysteriously disappeared after 1966 :p

http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/8055/56703962av5lr5.jpg

[lostworld]

For Toty especially,
great comparisons of Paul and Faul!

Once again - WHY would Paul have plastic surgery in 1966 at such young age (which is the only explanation people can have for him looking so different)? It makes absolutely no sense!
The answer is, he didn't. They are two different persons!
As I have pointed out many times before, old Faul is not the result of normal aging either.

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/8643/faul1967compdf5.jpg

http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/208/compare66jr2.jpg

http://img234.imageshack.us/img234/6198/paulmccartney2007061627vu0.jpghttp://img386.imageshack.us/img386/2334/79750835lu0.jpg

http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/4992/74788361kl0.jpghttp://img176.imageshack.us/img176/9350/edsul64sr2.jpghttp://img216.imageshack.us/img216/2275/684376bi7.jpg



Paul, Faul and Faul again
http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/6811/jamespaulmccartneysmallka5.jpghttp://img101.imageshack.us/img101/9199/fiveoclockgb5.jpghttp://img205.imageshack.us/img205/1134/77227814pd6.jpg

[faulconandsnowjob]

The problem for you is that only a tiny minority would question that the person in those photos is Paul McCartney - even 'if not being told so'.
You are absolutely right Toty - that is a problem! And that's why we're also here, not only to get justice for Paul but hopefully to make other people see what's going on. Not just with PID but the bigger picture. PID is a good start though. But the programming unfortunately runs deep. Sorry, there is no better word for it, since the medias grip on people is so strong. I want people to step out of their boxes and THINK and QUESTION. So you're right on - that is a problem that most people don't!
We're really trying to help people break out of the false reality that has been created for them by TPTB. I sort of feel like we are the guy in "They Live" who can see the aliens, but nobody else can. I think people don't want to face how much they've been lied to in practically every area - even showbiz.

However sincere you are, it still looks like you simply post the least flattering McCartney pics you can find and declare them to be proof of an imposter.
No, there are some pics of Paul that are not very flattering, but you can tell he's still Paul. The guy w/ the difft colored eyes... yeah, not Paul.

Once again - WHY would Paul have plastic surgery in 1966 at such young age (which is the only explanation people can have for him looking so different)?
The only reason I could think of would be b/c of the moped accident. However, it seems he only broke his tooth & busted his lip. There was no "structural damage" done to his face. You can see his broken tooth in the Paperback Writer video. He still looks good! <333

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

http://www.jamespaulmccartney.org/album64/album/Album_A/paperbackwriterb02.jpg

[faulconandsnowjob]

Paul was very photogenic, but here are some pics of him that I think aren't that flattering.

http://img47.photobucket.com/albums/v145/Kissmekatie/sweetprince.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/64hdn.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/JPM2.png

So, yeah, we're not just saying bad pics of Paul are the double. Actually, some people think Faul/Bill is actually better-looking than Paul. I don't agree, of course :o

[toty1994]

For Toty especially,
great comparisons of Paul and Faul!

Once again - WHY would Paul have plastic surgery in 1966 at such young age (which is the only explanation people can have for him looking so different)? It makes absolutely no sense!
The answer is, he didn't. They are two different persons!
As I have pointed out many times before, old Faul is not the result of normal aging either.


Hi lostworld

Ok, first of all I don't myself think he had plastic surgery in 1966. He does look tired and drawn in some images from the years that followed - making him appear, at most, a little more mature than you might expect in such a short period. I do not, however, see the apparently grotesque metamorphasis that you do.

The thing is, though, that the other Beatles also looked a little different during the same period. I have read the theories that they were all replaced:eek: but could it be, among other reasons, simply indicative of the rock n' roll lifestyle beginning to catch up with them - including McCartney? It's obvious to me, though you don't appear to believe Paul ever took lsd or perhaps any other drug (?).

As for the more recent 'Faul' photos...Well, I was flicking through some family albums the other day and, looking at pics of my father, was reminded of 'pid'. There were photos of him from when he was in his twenties as well as up-to-date ones (he's in his 70's now). I tried to put myself in what I imagine to be the 'pid' mindset and compared these images. It was plain to see that his ears, nose and neck had changed - they were different sizes, different shapes! My God, if the person in those old photos was my father, who the hell is this old fella??:eek:

Upon release from this self-induced 'pid vision' I looked again. The ears, nose and neck had indeed changed - but I deduced they were simply the result of natural ageing. Phew! My dad was still my dad!:)

The point is, of course, that when comparing young and old McCartney photos to those of my own father, similar changes in appearance had taken place over the years; changes that you say are not natural.

[faulconandsnowjob]

Paul 1965 v. Faul 1967

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

Paul 1965 v. Faul 1966

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/salsplainswall.jpghttp://weybridge.de/pepper/images_photos/19661220_Reporting66/19661220-19_Reporting66_PaulSite_faul_2.jpg

Paul 1966 v. Faul ~ 1967

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

Paul ~ 1966 v. Faul 1967
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/compare66.jpg

Paul 1964 v. Faul 1967

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

[lostworld]

Hi lostworld

Ok, first of all I don't myself think he had plastic surgery in 1966. He does look tired and drawn in some images from the years that followed - making him appear, at most, a little more mature than you might expect in such a short period. I do not, however, see the apparently grotesque metamorphasis that you do.

The thing is, though, that the other Beatles also looked a little different during the same period. I have read the theories that they were all replaced:eek: but could it be, among other reasons, simply indicative of the rock n' roll lifestyle beginning to catch up with them - including McCartney? It's obvious to me, though you don't appear to believe Paul ever took lsd or perhaps any other drug (?).

As for the more recent 'Faul' photos...Well, I was flicking through some family albums the other day and, looking at pics of my father, was reminded of 'pid'. There were photos of him from when he was in his twenties as well as up-to-date ones (he's in his 70's now). I tried to put myself in what I imagine to be the 'pid' mindset and compared these images. It was plain to see that his ears, nose and neck had changed - they were different sizes, different shapes! My God, if the person in those old photos was my father, who the hell is this old fella??:eek:

Upon release from this self-induced 'pid vision' I looked again. The ears, nose and neck had indeed changed - but I deduced they were simply the result of natural ageing. Phew! My dad was still my dad!

The point is, of course, that when comparing young and old McCartney photos to those of my own father, similar changes in appearance had taken place over the years; changes that you say are not natural.

Hi Toty!
Ok, let me first give you a bit of my background so you know more where I'm coming from :)
For me, PID is just one piece of the bigger picture. My search for the truth has now lead me to this. Actually, it didn't even start out as a search for the truth - rather as a genuine interest in aliens, UFO´s and archeology at a very young age. I later read Zacharia Sitchin, and what he said about the sumerians and the ancient alien gods fitted with my knowledge on aliens, archeology and all those ancient anomalies that just don't fit into the official version of history that they teach us in school...

Sitchin also talked about man´s creation, how these alien gods are behind it and that this is "the forbidden knowledge". That lead me to do more research on the forbidden knowledge and the protectors of it, the illuminati and their agenda - the NWO.

And this has now lead me to mindcontrol, cloning and replacements...

So, one thing has lead to another really and it´s both terrifying and satisfying when the pieces match the puzzle. I go by facts I can´t deny + my instinct, what makes sense to me.

Ok, first of all I don't myself think he had plastic surgery in 1966. He does look tired and drawn in some images from the years that followed - making him appear, at most, a little more mature than you might expect in such a short period. I do not, however, see the apparently grotesque metamorphasis that you do.
Sorry, I din't mean that you thought he had had plastic surgery.
Good that you notice a difference there though! :)

The thing is, though, that the other Beatles also looked a little different during the same period. I have read the theories that they were all replaced but could it be, among other reasons, simply indicative of the rock n' roll lifestyle beginning to catch up with them - including McCartney? It's obvious to me, though you don't appear to believe Paul ever took lsd or perhaps any other drug (?).
I agree that drugs and drinking can destroy a persons appearance. However, this can not be applied here because of the time factor - these changes only happened within 6 months Toty!

As for the rest of the Beatles being replaced: I really am the wrong person to say anything about this. I am not a Beatles-expert, I'm more a "celeb replacement-expert" ;). I think it's possible that they used stand in-doubles on various occasions but I don't think that anyone was permanently replaced as Paul.

About Paul and drugs: once again, I have too little knowledge of Paul in this area. However, fact is that the government at this time was pushing for some kind of lsd-agenda and wanted their stars in on it. I don't think that Paul was the person who would be willing to sell in drugs to the youth.
I don't think he's completly "innocent" though, since the musicindustry is flooded with drugs, he probably tried some. But like I said, I know too little of Paul to say.

As for the more recent 'Faul' photos...Well, I was flicking through some family albums the other day and, looking at pics of my father, was reminded of 'pid'. There were photos of him from when he was in his twenties as well as up-to-date ones (he's in his 70's now). I tried to put myself in what I imagine to be the 'pid' mindset and compared these images. It was plain to see that his ears, nose and neck had changed - they were different sizes, different shapes! My God, if the person in those old photos was my father, who the hell is this old fella??

Upon release from this self-induced 'pid vision' I looked again. The ears, nose and neck had indeed changed - but I deduced they were simply the result of natural ageing. Phew! My dad was still my dad!

LOL! Interesting little study. I get your point.
Again, there is the time factor. Don't forget that all these changes in Paul basically happened over night! AND not only in his appearance but his personality changed very much too.

One of the most striking things for me is how different Faul's personality is compared to Paul's. Paul had charm, humour, intelligens and were much more humble and polite than Faul. You can also see in interviews how their mannerisms and body language are totally different. Maybe this is easier to sense as a woman - but I´m attracted to Paul but not to Faul. And that has nothing to do with who was the original! I just go by how I perceive the person. And that also tells me that they ARE two different persons.

As for aging: earlobes often sag and ‘grow’ longer by age, the tip of the nose can drop down a bit and the lips often get thinner.
But you still see that the person is the same, the basic core is always the same! With Paul/Faul the difference is too big to just blame on aging.

My mother, like your father, is also in her 70's. Although she has always looked very young for her age, I clearly can see the same face from when she was a child! There are no "facial structure changes" - and there shouldn't be! Only changes in skin and hair.

So, let's hope that your father wasn't replaced Toty... LOL!

Again - here is a perfect example of how it should look:
(You can also watch pics of Sean Connery or Robert Redford - same thing.)

Paul Newman (R.I.P.). A man who aged gracefully and kept his good looks to the end. You can easily see that this is the same man even with many years apart and despite different angles and light. Even when he´s in his eighties and marked by cancer (last pic on the right) :


http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/4491/tn2paulnewman4jc3.jpghttp://img141.imageshack.us/img141/7458/paulnewman1op1.jpghttp://img141.imageshack.us/img141/7001/400pnewman080606mmainz1pr4.jpg

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/6842/paulnewmanbv3.jpghttp://img219.imageshack.us/img219/1228/300newmanpaul060908ho7.jpg

[faulconandsnowjob]

About Paul and drugs: once again, I have too little knowledge of Paul in this area. However, fact is that the government at this time was pushing for some kind of lsd-agenda and wanted their stars in on it. I don't think that Paul was the person who would be willing to sell in drugs to the youth.
The Tavistock Institute was trying to use drugs to control society. It might have been part of a mind-control experiment, or just a diversion from protesting the war, or thinking about stuff too much. Anyway, Paul was not one to encourage kids to take drugs. He wouldn't even encourage people not to drink.

[toty1994]

Hi Toty!
Ok, let me first give you a bit of my background so you know more where I'm coming from :)
For me, PID is just one piece of the bigger picture. My search for the truth has now lead me to this. Actually, it didn't even start out as a search for the truth - rather as a genuine interest in aliens, UFO´s and archeology at a very young age. I later read Zacharia Sitchin, and what he said about the sumerians and the ancient alien gods fitted with my knowledge on aliens, archeology and all those ancient anomalies that just don't fit into the official version of history that they teach us in school...

Sitchin also talked about man´s creation, how these alien gods are behind it and that this is "the forbidden knowledge". That lead me to do more research on the forbidden knowledge and the protectors of it, the illuminati and their agenda - the NWO.

And this has now lead me to mindcontrol, cloning and replacements...

So, one thing has lead to another really and it´s both terrifying and satisfying when the pieces match the puzzle. I go by facts I can´t deny + my instinct, what makes sense to me.

Ok, thanks for that - it's interesting to know where you're coming from. It won't surprise you to learn that I'm pretty skeptical about all that stuff, but it wasn't always the case; I used to be heavily into the paranormal, ufos etc etc -still am to a lesser degree - but the older I've got the less convinced I've become about so much of it (not all). That I remain interested is one of the reasons I'm on this forum, and despite my generally skeptic nature I still subscribe to two of the most famous lines in Shakespeare...

'There are more things on heaven and earth...than are dreamt of in your philosophy"

"We are such stuff as dreams are made on, and our little life is rounded with a sleep"

[lostworld]

^
Thanks Toty!
since you told me about your background some weeks ago, I though it would be good for me to do the same... :)

Those lines from Shakespeare are beautiful!

I actually think it's good to be sceptical. Like I've said before, I don't swallow everything either. The pieces have to fit (to your own truth/beliefs).
Just remember to keep an open mind... :)

Maybe your interest in the paranormal and UFO's had some sort of backlash on you?

Anyway, take care and have a Merry Christmas!

[faulconandsnowjob]

I agree it's good to be skeptical. I am very skeptical of mainstream media. I know TPTB lie to us a lot. I would not put anything past them :(

[humito]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=huNOsFQa_Ns&feature=related

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=4M7raVkA78c&feature=related


A COUPLE OF CLEVER VIDEOS


I know on the odd occaision there are comparisons of post '66 paul ageing but there are plenty of pre 66 fades as well.........looks like the same geezer to me :confused:

[faulconandsnowjob]

Paul doesn't look like Faul to me. Yeah, not in a million years.

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

[humito]

the fireman is iamaphoney 666 :cool:

[clint web]

I know on the odd occaision there are comparisons of post '66 paul ageing but there are plenty of pre 66 fades as well.........looks like the same geezer to me

You really are wasting your time showing proof that he is indeed the same man. I hate to post because it puts this topic to the top of the board. :(

[faulconandsnowjob]

You really are wasting your time showing proof
I have yet to see "proof" that it's the same man. Everything I've seen has shown quite the contrary. Please, if you have proof, please post it.

[orbandsceptre27]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=4E12Oj9pGFs&feature=channel_page

Freeze at 5.44 - Examine his right eyelid and eyebrow (the left side as we view the vid).

- Looks like Bills eyebrow has just come off. The eyelids also look very suspect.

- His hair and goatie also look dreadfully fake imo.

[faulconandsnowjob]

^ a good replica, but not good enough - lol!

It was a fake moustache! :D

[astrochicken]

Some more brain-food.


The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland, Ohio.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/Rock-and-roll-hall-of-fame-sunset.jpg/800px-Rock-and-roll-hall-of-fame-sunset.jpg

Their Logo
http://www.rockhall.com/images/rock-hall-of-fame.png




The Babylonian gate back entrance to the "Kodak Theatre" where the Oscars are handed out.

http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/7788/astrobabylongatedh6.jpg
http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/7788/astrobabylongatedh6.th.jpg (http://img266.imageshack.us/my.php?image=astrobabylongatedh6.jpg)

The oscars themself.

http://img360.imageshack.us/img360/6884/astrooscarsbf2.th.jpg (http://img360.imageshack.us/my.php?image=astrooscarsbf2.jpg)


It's so in-your-face and obvious that i really can't understand why paul's replacement seems so unikely to some.

ps faul's wife was "linda eastman-kodak"

[faulconandsnowjob]

^ Wow! Good work. So, what does that mean? Is the cult of Akhenaton still running the show?

[orbandsceptre27]

So it seems you were using 'fact' as defined in law, which is rather different from the common understanding of the word. In relation to 'pid' the key word from the definitions you site is obviously 'alleged'. The whole story is 'alleged' by you and others who believe it, nothing more. There are no literal facts (eg JFK being shot), just theories and guesswork based on those theories.

No it`s a fact he was replaced.

[faulconandsnowjob]

^ That is what I would have to conclude, based on the fact that there's a different guy (or guys) pretending to be Paul starting in late 1966. And since there don't seem to be any pictures of James Paul after 1966, then I would also have to conclude that the replacement was permanent.

[sillystringmath]

Pardon my ignorance, I have never "followed" this fascinating subject, but has anyone ever done a voice comparison analysis?

[faulconandsnowjob]

Yes, there was a Dr. Truby who did a voice analysis back in 1969.

[Dr. Henry M. Truby of the University of Miami] used samples from three Beatles songs sung by Paul McCartney ("Yesterday," "Penny Lane," and "Hey Jude") and produced three very different sonagrams. Does that mean that there were three McCartneys? "I'm not prepared to say that this is the final word," Truby told Rolling Stone Magazine, "but it's a beginning." (Reeve 69)

Reeve, Andru J., Turn Me On, Dead Man: The Complete Story of the Paul McCartney Death Hoax, Ann Arbor: Popular Culture, Ink, 1994.

Some of us believe that his findings were suppressed.

There is also this at http://digilander.libero.it/p_truth/audio.html

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

Paul's voice pattern is on the left. They were comparing "Your Mother Should Know" (it is thought this is Paul's voice) to "Hello, Goodbye" (believed to be Faul's voice). I have read, & I believe I can hear, that Paul had more vibrato in his voice, which would be consistent w/ the sonagram above.

[toty1994]

No it`s a fact he was replaced.

I get the feeling you will believe that until your dying day, no matter what.

Some of the evidence posted on this forum may, at first glance, appear persuasive. However, closer inspection + the engagement of common sense renders it a long, long way short of 'fact'. I'm not talking about that narrow legal definition, I mean 'fact' as is commonly understood. In that sense, the 'facts' that you and others present have more holes in them than a particularly holey hunk of swiss cheese - in other words not actually 'facts' at all, just theories. Even if all the theories appeared watertight in every respect and everyone here agreed with you that Paul was replaced, you still couldn't call it a fact!

You may think people like myself are 'sheeple' for being incapable of seeing the truth as you see it - but really that is neither here nor there; stating 'it's a fact he was replaced' is just silly.

[brainfreeze]

I get the feeling you will believe that until your dying day, no matter what.

Some of the evidence posted on this forum may, at first glance, appear persuasive. However, closer inspection + the engagement of common sense renders it a long, long way short of 'fact'. I'm not talking about that pointless legal definition, I mean 'fact' as is commonly understood. 'The 'facts', therefore, that you and others present have more holes in them than a particularly holey hunk of swiss cheese - in other words not actually 'facts' at all.

You may think people like myself are 'sheeple' for being incapable of seeing the truth as you see it - but really that is neither here nor there; stating 'it's a fact he was replaced' is just silly.

Emmental :p

[orbandsceptre27]

I get the feeling you will believe that until your dying day, no matter what.

Some of the evidence posted on this forum may, at first glance, appear persuasive. However, closer inspection + the engagement of common sense renders it a long, long way short of 'fact'. I'm not talking about that narrow legal definition, I mean 'fact' as is commonly understood. In that sense, the 'facts' that you and others present have more holes in them than a particularly holey hunk of swiss cheese - in other words not actually 'facts' at all, just theories. Even if all the theories appeared watertight in every respect and everyone here agreed with you that Paul was replaced, you still couldn't call it a fact!

You may think people like myself are 'sheeple' for being incapable of seeing the truth as you see it - but really that is neither here nor there; stating 'it's a fact he was replaced' is just silly.


Well firstly death is an illusion so believing until "my dying day" is irrelevant.

Secondly, I don`t take people who spread disinformation seriously as they`re only here to disrupt, not to see truth.

Thirdly, everything you have said is merely your opinion. I can`t be held accountable for someone elses stupidity - If you want to believe that Bill is Paul McCartney, then be my guest lmao.

[faulconandsnowjob]

Some of the evidence posted on this forum may, at first glance, appear persuasive. However, closer inspection + the engagement of common sense renders it a long, long way short of 'fact'.
Photos showing 2 (or more) men being portrayed as Paul McCartney is indeed "persuasive." What other conclusion could one come to logically other than that he was replaced? Perhaps it's more logical to think he underwent some sort of bizarre metamorphosis? No, the most logical explanation is that the people who claimed to be Paul, but were clearly not, were doubles or replacements. And not to lecture, but anyone who thinks it's beyond the power of the Illuminati to replace someone needs to study up on the Illuminati some more. That is obviously not beyond their power, since they have clearly done it.

In that sense, the 'facts' that you and others present have more holes in them than a particularly holey hunk of swiss cheese - in other words not actually 'facts' at all, just theories. Even if all the theories appeared watertight in every respect and everyone here agreed with you that Paul was replaced, you still couldn't call it a fact!
No, it's not a "theory" that Paul was replaced. A "theory" is used to explain a factual situation.

the⋅o⋅ry   [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ries.
...
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
...
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory

The photos, videos, etc, are evidence of the fact that he was replaced. It is a fact that 2 or more people have been portrayed as "Paul McCartney." Any idea explaining what happened to him or why, & who did it would be the "theory." All we know for a fact at this point is that Paul was replaced.

[humito]

ok so there may be some pictures in circulation that are not mc cartney??? so what? that dosent mean he was killed or died or was replaced forever.......it just means that there are some pics that may or may not be him.............really these days unless you have original prints that can be proven untampered it is unwise to accept pics gleaned from the internet as always truthfull and real.......everyone has the technology these days to do what they like with an image............an example would be evidence from the sgt pepper l.p......................many use the pic depicted of paul ( center fold) as proof of facial change .......however most of the images come from the c.d release and they manipulated the art work and effectivly stretched his head to give a better idea of the origanal slightly fish eyed photograph of the original.............also on the cover his face is in reverse...(we will be reverse).........and yes ' it was a fake moustache'.also there is i believe some footage of a lookalike.............but there is more than ample evidence to show we still have paul mc cartney with us...............check out his owsome new fireman release also .......its great............sounds as creative as pepper was back then...........waiting with baited breath for more death clues from that one..........is very psychedelic im sure there is untold backmasking....................let the devil speak....lol:)

[humito]

Well firstly death is an illusion so believing until "my dying day" is irrelevant.

Secondly, I don`t take people who spread disinformation seriously as they`re only here to disrupt, not to see truth.

Thirdly, everything you have said is merely your opinion. I can`t be held accountable for someone elses stupidity - If you want to believe that Bill is Paul McCartney, then be my guest lmao.

where is your 'proof' that death is an illusion?
if all the evidence that points to pauls death are facts then they will stand up in a court of law...........if PIDERs want the truth out so badly and have incontrovertable evidence of death like they claim then' Faul' could easily be taken to court as a fraud..............d.n.a could then be taken and the truth would be out.............alas it is a fantasy...............I am not opposed to the idea of people being replaced.........IMO its just not true in this case.........that is not to say that occaisonally stooges may have been used.
I find it funny that i posted a vid of micheal jacksons face morphing from a kid to the state its in now...............if anyone is a candidate for replacement its him.........he really does look like a completley different dude.........yet noone seems to think he has been replaced.......also it is testamony to the efficay of major plastic surgery.........it doesnt make you look like a popstar it makes you look like a freak and ya face falls off a lot.........i doubt if it was better in the 60s.........................

[faulconandsnowjob]

We have official pictures, & pictures taken from official videos that show there were at least 2 Paul McCartneys.

Paul from "The Night Before" video (Help!, 1965) compared to Faul from late 1966 interview
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/salsplainswall.jpghttp://weybridge.de/pepper/images_photos/19661220_Reporting66/19661220-19_Reporting66_PaulSite_faul_2.jpg

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

Faul at ~ 2:00
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

Paul (looks like from "Another Girl" video (Help!, 1965)) compared to Faul from "The Fool on the Hill" video (1967)
http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/fool_hill_comp.jpg

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

Paul from the "Paperback Writer" video (1966) compared to an "official" picture of "Paul"
http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/paperback_comp.jpg

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/DR1020_Paul_McCARTNEY_6.jpg

A picture of Paul (w/ George) (circa 1964) compared to "Paul" in "Strawberry Fields Forever" video (1967)
http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/sff_comp.jpg

http://www.jamespaulmccartney.org/album64/album/Original_Beatles2.jpg

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

[faulconandsnowjob]

if all the evidence that points to pauls death are facts then they will stand up in a court of law...........if PIDERs want the truth out so badly and have incontrovertable evidence of death like they claim then' Faul' could easily be taken to court as a fraud..............d.n.a could then be taken and the truth would be out
No one has ever claimed there is evidence that he is dead, only that he was replaced. It is conjecture & speculation that he is dead. I happen to believe that is the most likely scenario.

Pray tell, who would have a cause of action to prove fraud? None of us has suffered anything other than a deminimus (& perhaps generalized) injury. To show standing in US courts,

First, the Plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact," an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not "conjectural" or "hypothetical." Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, the injury has to be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the Defendant, and not the result of the independent action of some third party not before the Court. Third, it must be "likely," as opposed to merely "speculative," that the injury will be "redressed by a favorable decision."  

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 55 (1992)

It's possible someone could meet those requirements, but I don't think it would be that easy.

As I've mentioned before, Bettina Krischbin alleged fraud in her paternity suit against Paul. She alleged a stand-in gave blood to the German court in 1983. Unfortunately, her case was (imo) wrongfully dismissed. More information is available here:
http://only1rad.proboards62.com/index.cgi?board=ot&action=display&thread=1008

[steevo]

Ok can you please make this thread less of a waste of time BY LABELLING YOUR PHOTOS with details of when the photo was taken (ie before his "death" or after his "death"). Otherwise how are we supposed to know what the heck you are going on about. All I see is a bunch of photos. Waste of time.
Thank you and happy christmas :p:)

[faulconandsnowjob]

I see Steevo is busy spreading holiday cheer. :rolleyes:

All I see is a bunch of photos.
Not very observant, huh? You should not need a label to tell the difference between the 2 (or more) Pauls. You should be able to see the difference for yourself. But, for future reference, Paul was most likely replaced in the fall of 1966. Therefore, any photo after that is presumably Faul. I have also taken the liberty of assuming that people on this thread actually know something about the Beatles. For ex, I have assumed people know the video for "Another Girl" was from the 1965 movie, Help!

[toty1994]

Photos showing 2 (or more) men being portrayed as Paul McCartney is indeed "persuasive." What other conclusion could one come to logically other than that he was replaced? Perhaps it's more logical to think he underwent some sort of bizarre metamorphosis? No, the most logical explanation is that the people who claimed to be Paul, but were clearly not, were doubles or replacements. And not to lecture, but anyone who thinks it's beyond the power of the Illuminati to replace someone needs to study up on the Illuminati some more. That is obviously not beyond their power, since they have clearly done it.


No, it's not a "theory" that Paul was replaced. A "theory" is used to explain a factual situation.



The photos, videos, etc, are evidence of the fact that he was replaced. It is a fact that 2 or more people have been portrayed as "Paul McCartney." Any idea explaining what happened to him or why, & who did it would be the "theory." All we know for a fact at this point is that Paul was replaced.

No, just... no! You cannot call......oh, what's the point?! I genuinely can't tell if you're serious anymore. Whatever, your absolute refusal to concede the tiniest point is almost heroic in a perverse way. Happy Christmas.

[faulconandsnowjob]

No, I will absolutely not concede that Paul was not replaced, b/c he was. It's a fact, like it or not.

There seems to be some misapprehension amongst some PIA'ers that "photographs do not constitute evidence in any case unless they are accompanied by testimony of someone with knowledge that the item is what it is claimed to be." This is simply not true, at least, not in the USA. In addition, an "official" picture w/ "Paul McCartney" stamped on it would seem to be evidence that it is claiming to be a picture of Paul.

Federal Rules of Evidence:

Rule 1001. Definitions

(2) Photographs. "Photographs" include still photographs, X-ray films, video tapes, and motion pictures.

(3) Original. ... An "original" of a photograph includes the negative or any print therefrom. If data are stored in a computer or similar device, any printout or other output readable by sight, shown to reflect the data accurately, is an "original".

(4) Duplicate. A "duplicate" is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original, or from the same matrix, or by means of photography, including enlargements and miniatures, or by mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques which accurately reproduces the original.

Rule 1002. Requirement of Original

To prove the content of a ... photograph, the original ... photograph is required, except as otherwise provided in these rules or by Act of Congress.

Rule 1003. Admissibility of Duplicates

A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original unless (1) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original or (2) in the circumstances it would be unfair to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original.

Rule 1004. Admissibility of Other Evidence of Contents

The original is not required, and other evidence of the contents of a writing, recording, or photograph is admissible if--

(1) Originals lost or destroyed. All originals are lost or have been destroyed, unless the proponent lost or destroyed them in bad faith; or

(2) Original not obtainable. No original can be obtained by any available judicial process or procedure; or

(3) Original in possession of opponent. At a time when an original was under the control of the party against whom offered, that party was put on notice, by the pleadings or otherwise, that the contents would be a subject of proof at the hearing, and that party does not produce the original at the hearing; or

(4) Collateral matters. The writing, recording, or photograph is not closely related to a controlling issue.

Rules 401 & 402 make relevant evidence generally admissible.

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. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible.

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

[steevo]

I see Steevo is busy spreading holiday cheer. :rolleyes:


Not very observant, huh? You should not need a label to tell the difference between the 2 (or more) Pauls. You should be able to see the difference for yourself. But, for future reference, Paul was most likely replaced in the fall of 1966. Therefore, any photo after that is presumably Faul. I have also taken the liberty of assuming that people on this thread actually know something about the Beatles. For ex, I have assumed people know the video for "Another Girl" was from the 1965 movie, Help!

Soz I was feeling a little grumpy that day. But SOME of the photos are not labelled.

[faulconandsnowjob]

Federal Rules of Evidence:

Rule 901. Requirement of Authentication or Identification

(a) General provision.

The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.

(b) Illustrations.

By way of illustration only, and not by way of limitation, the following are examples of authentication or identification conforming with the requirements of this rule:

(1) Testimony of witness with knowledge. Testimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be.

(2) Nonexpert opinion on handwriting. Nonexpert opinion as to the genuineness of handwriting, based upon familiarity not acquired for purposes of the litigation.

(3) Comparison by trier or expert witness. Comparison by the trier of fact or by expert witnesses with specimens which have been authenticated.

(4) Distinctive characteristics and the like. Appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics, taken in conjunction with circumstances.

(5) Voice identification. Identification of a voice, whether heard firsthand or through mechanical or electronic transmission or recording, by opinion based upon hearing the voice at any time under circumstances connecting it with the alleged speaker.
...

(8) Ancient documents or data compilation. Evidence that a document or data compilation, in any form, (A) is in such condition as to create no suspicion concerning its authenticity, (B) was in a place where it, if authentic, would likely be, and (C) has been in existence 20 years or more at the time it is offered.

(9) Process or system. Evidence describing a process or system used to produce a result and showing that the process or system produces an accurate result.

(10) Methods provided by statute or rule. Any method of authentication or identification provided by Act of Congress or by other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority.

Rule 902. Self-authentication

Extrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent to admissibility is not required with respect to the following:
...
(6) Newspapers and periodicals. Printed materials purporting to be newspapers or periodicals.

(7) Trade inscriptions and the like. Inscriptions, signs, tags, or labels purporting to have been affixed in the course of business and indicating ownership, control, or origin.
...

Rule 1007. Testimony or Written Admission of Party

Contents of writings, recordings, or photographs may be proved by the testimony or deposition of the party against whom offered or by that party's written admission, without accounting for the nonproduction of the original.

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

[toty1994]

No, I will absolutely not concede that Paul was not replaced, b/c he was. It's a fact, like it or not.
l

You can copy and paste as much law bumph as you like, the bottom line is that it is only a 'fact' because that's how it looks to you. If it turns out you're right and can prove it beyond doubt to those beyond your coterie, then you need to get this factual information out to the wider world asap - you'd uncover a huge conspiracy and be famous overnight!

[humito]

will this game carry on when he does finally peg it?????????:)

[faulconandsnowjob]

You can copy and paste as much law bumph as you like, the bottom line is that it is only a 'fact' because that's how it looks to you.
It's a fact that Paul was replaced b/c there's a different person pretending to be him starting in late 1966. Any reasonable, objective observer can see that. I'm sorry, but I really think that some people can't see the difference b/c they believe them to be the same.

I posted that "law bumph" (is that the technical term? :D) to show that photos can be used as evidence, despite what some people keep claiming.

If it turns out you're right and can prove it beyond doubt to those beyond your coterie, then you need to get this factual information out to the wider world asap - you'd uncover a huge conspiracy and be famous overnight!
We have reached a lot of people thru this forum. However, a book may very well be in order.

will this game carry on when he does finally peg it?????????
It would be nice if the truth would come out when Faul "pegs it." He may be tired of the charade as well.

[light_man]

will this game carry on when he does finally peg it?????????:)

Of course not. They will insist that 'Faul' isn't really dead and will post loads and loads and loads of unconvincing photos to 'prove' it! :)

[faulconandsnowjob]

Of course not. They will insist that 'Faul' isn't really dead and will post loads and loads and loads of unconvincing photos to 'prove' it!
How old are you, lightman? 12? Never mind. This thread isn't about you, & I don't really care.

Anyway, to elaborate more on what I said about people not being able to see the difference between Paul & Faul, here's a video of Derren Brown convincing people that blank paper is really money.

Derren Brown Hypnotizes People to think that paper is Money! - YouTube

[light_man]

It's a fact that Paul was replaced b/c there's a different person pretending to be him starting in late 1966.

It is most certainly not a fact that Paul was replaced. Deluded suppositions, half-baked theories, crackpot claims and crappy photos don't constitute proof of your claims.

All of the PID crap has been debunked. You just refuse to accept it.

I could start claiming Lennon was replaced in 1968 and post loads of crappy photos showing the 'differences' in his appearance compared to pre '68.

Would it make my claims "fact"?

Er..... No.

Any reasonable, objective observer can see that. I'm sorry, but I really think that some people can't see the difference b/c they believe them to be the same.

The vast majority of people "believe" them to be the same because it is quite clearly the same bloody person!

I posted that "law bumph" (is that the technical term? :D) to show that photos can be used as evidence, despite what some people keep claiming.

Photos can be used as evidence - and every one of your crappy photos used to demonstrate that it is not Paul would be dismissed as absurd. Why? Because all you use them for is subjective evidence - not forensic. Credible photo evidence in a case such as this would have to rely on scientific evaluation of the facial characteristics, not merely relying on them 'looking' like another person. And in this your photos are flawed because:

A. Your photos are poor quality.
B. You do not offer exact comparison photos.
C. Most people would disagree that your 'Faul' photos 'look' like someone else.

So, the whole basis of your evidence is flawed and deluded.

Face recognition expert Dr Rob Jenkins:

"I don't think my passport photo which was taken last year, and is valid for another nine years, looks like me.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-481261/ID-cards-fundamentally-flawed-says-face-recognition-expert.html

We have reached a lot of people thru this forum.

Yeah, but how many have been convinced by your claims and how many people think your claims are a stinking pile of horse droppings?! :)

Let's face it, you are hardly inundated with posts agreeing with your theories? Doesn't that tell you something?

You PID'ers are clearly suffering from a form of pareidolia.

Still, it's entertaining to discuss your claims and boggle at your unwillingness to accept obvious truths....

"My eyes are hazel" - James Paul McCartney
"Paul's eyes were brown" - faulconandsnowjob

[light_man]

Anyway, to elaborate more on what I said about people not being able to see the difference between Paul & Faul, here's a video of Derren Brown convincing people that blank paper is really money.

And how does a video of a mentalist using 'jedi mind tricks' on people relate to "people not being able to see the difference between Paul & 'Faul'?

I surmise that such a crackpot analogy has some correlation to a belief that we have all been mentally tricked into believing that 'Faul' is Paul by the illuminati.

If so, please elucidate.

[faulconandsnowjob]

All of the PID crap has been debunked.
Oh, really? You mean like w/ the obviously doctored photo that you posted? Shall we revisit that? You posted the photo on the right, supposedly from the Aug 19, 1966 Memphis interview:

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

This was the official group photo.

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/beatles_last_interview_66_faul.jpg

Do you deny that the photo you posted was doctored? If so, then it proves you are very unobservant, & clearly do not have the skills of discernment perhaps necessary to detect the difference between Paul & Faul.

Oh, yeah, it's clearly the same person, never mind that they have different color eyes!

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

It's getting to the point of pathetic that you can't tell that these are different people.

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/PaulFaul6667.jpg

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

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

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

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/compare66.jpg

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

Please, lightman, post some more doctored photos to "debunk" PID! lol :D

[light_man]

Oh, really? You mean like w/ the obviously doctored photo that you posted? Shall we revisit that? You posted the photo on the right, supposedly from the Aug 19, 1966 Memphis interview:

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

This was the official group photo.

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/beatles_last_interview_66_faul.jpg

Do you deny that the photo you posted was doctored?

Of course I do. There is no evidence to suggest it has been doctored.

And merely giving an opinion - as you do - that it has been doctored, does not constitute EVIDENCE that it has.

If it has been doctored - post the UNDOCTORED photo, then.

Simple. I asked you to do this ages ago. Guess what? You've NEVER posted it.

Why?

Cos there is no UNDOCTORED photo. It is just another example of you inventing things in order to help sustain your ridiculous arguments.

Post the undoctored photo and you will have a case. Otherwise, your opinion that it is doctored has little credibility.

If so, then it proves you are very unobservant, & clearly do not have the skills of discernment perhaps necessary to detect the difference between Paul & Faul.

Ranting and raving at me and making ridiculous accusations won't get you anywhere. And please remember, it was YOU that has identified two photos of Paul pre 'disappearance' as 'Faul'. :) :) :)

Oh, but one of the photos has been "doctored" though - that's why you got it wrong. Only you cannot provide the undoctored photo to prove this.... Hmmmm.......

It's getting to the point of pathetic that you can't tell that these are different people.

"Pathetic" would much more fittingly describe someone who cannot tell that these are the SAME people....

Or someone who refuses to believe Paul McCartney in 1964 when he said he had "hazel" eyes, and instead insists that they were brown....

[faulconandsnowjob]

There is no evidence to suggest it has been doctored.
Then you really have no eye for detail. No wonder you can't tell the difference between Paul & Faul.

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

^ I know this photo has been doctored b/c the eyebrows have been drawn in, the hair has been blackened in, the cheek crease on his left side looks like a "scar." It looks like they took a picture of Paul & a picture of Faul & stuck them together. Unfortunately, for them, the cheeks don't match up. The one of his right side doesn't match up, either, but the "break" in his cheek on his left side is most obvious. Well, obvious to some people who have an eye for detail. i suppose you can't see these things, can you, lightman? No? not surprising.

Another comp for people who can see the difference. And yes, lightman, quite a few people can tell that they're not the same person!

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/ed_sull_comp-1.jpg

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/1966_comp.jpg

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/comp_1968.jpg

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/comp_1967.jpg

[light_man]

Then you really have no eye for detail. No wonder you can't tell the difference between Paul & Faul.

That's because Faul doesn't actually exist.

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

I know this photo has been doctored b/c the eyebrows have been drawn in, the hair has been blackened in, the cheek crease on his left side looks like a "scar." It looks like they took a picture of Paul & a picture of Faul & stuck them together. Unfortunately, for them, the cheeks don't match up. The one of his right side doesn't match up, either, but the "break" in his cheek on his left side is most obvious. Well, obvious to some people who have an eye for detail. i suppose you can't see these things, can you, lightman? No? not surprising.

Don't you know anything about web images?

It's a crappy, 94.67kb, 406px × 500px resolution photo! That means it is grainy and/or pixilated. The photo has a small amount of pixels, causing the image to be jaggy.

That is the simple explanation for all the "doctored" bits you say are most "obvious" to see. :) :) :)

Your arguments are plainly silly. You can "see" eyebrows that have been "drawn in", that "the hair has been blackened in", a "scar" etc. - all from a crappy, low resolution photo that is a mere 94.67kbs????! :)

To put this into perspective: 1024 Kb is equal to 1 megabyte. The average digital camera takes photos of around 8 megabytes!

Now compare 94.67kbs to 8 megabytes! Do the math.

You are - in reality - not seeing eyebrows that have been "drawn in", or hair that "has been blackened in", or indeed a "scar" etc. You are merely seeing the distortions caused by the low resolution of the photo.

But let me indulge your delusions for a moment. Just suppose you were correct (see, I'm trying very hard, here! :)) and that photo has been doctored.

You are saying that a photo of Paul (since it was taken in August 1966) has been doctored to make it look like this 'Faul' geezer.

Why?

Why on earth would the newspaper which is selling that photo (and presumably holds the copyright) want to doctor it???? That is not logical and consistent with your 'Paul was replaced with a lookalike' contention.

For, why would they doctor a photo of Paul that was taken BEFORE he was supposedly replaced????

It doesn't make any sense.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to post the UNDOCTORED photo to back up your claim. :D :D :D

http://beatles.ncf.ca/macca_reponds.jpg

[light_man]

And I'm still waiting for you to answer this:

And how does a video of a mentalist using 'jedi mind tricks' on people relate to "people not being able to see the difference between Paul & 'Faul'?

I surmise that such a crackpot analogy has some correlation to a belief that we have all been mentally tricked into believing that 'Faul' is Paul by the illuminati.

If so, please elucidate.

[faulconandsnowjob]

The implication I made in posting Derren Brown is that some sort of "jedi mind tricks" have been used on you people who can't tell the difference between Paul & Faul. You would probably think blank pieces of paper were money, too, if someone told you they were. It's obvious that you believe 2 people are the same guy b/c you've been told they are. It doesn't really matter how many discrepancies are pointed out to you. Sorry, but different colored eyes should really be enough to show that they're not the same person.

But, anyway, why don't you post some more doctored photos to "prove" your "theory" that Paul & Faul are the same guy? LOL! :D

Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to post the UNDOCTORED photo to back up your claim
Why don't you post the un-doctored photo of that event, if you can find one? I posted a video still from that very same interview (Memphis, Aug 19, 1966). Your picture of Dr. Moreau Faul doesn't really look like Paul! But if you can't spot the "issues" w/ this doctored photo, then you obviously do not have an eye for detail, & your "opinion" that Faul & Paul are the same is not very compelling.

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

So, why do pictures of Paul need to be tampered w/ in the 1st place? To make him look more like Faul!

[toty1994]

Don't you know anything about web images?

It's a crappy, 94.67kb, 406px × 500px resolution photo! That means it is grainy and/or pixilated. The photo has a small amount of pixels, causing the image to be jaggy.

That is the simple explanation for all the "doctored" bits you say are most "obvious" to see. :) :) :)

Your arguments are plainly silly. You can "see" eyebrows that have been "drawn in", that "the hair has been blackened in", a "scar" etc. - all from a crappy, low resolution photo that is a mere 94.67kbs????! :)

To put this into perspective: 1024 Kb is equal to 1 megabyte. The average digital camera takes photos of around 8 megabytes!

Now compare 94.67kbs to 8 megabytes! Do the math.

You are - in reality - not seeing eyebrows that have been "drawn in", or hair that "has been blackened in", or indeed a "scar" etc. You are merely seeing the distortions caused by the low resolution of the photo.


I admitted to being unsure about that particular pic when it was being discussed before. I thought 'hmm, that photo does look unnatural'. However, despite knowing virtually nothing about photography/web images I still presumed there would probably be a logical explanation. The above looks pretty sound to me - particularly after looking randomly at a couple of photography sites which only seem to back it up.

So faulcon, is the information above incorrect? If so, why? If you agree the information is correct but (presumably) deem it irrelevant when it comes to 'Faul' pics - how does that work?

We have reached a lot of people thru this forum. However, a book may very well be in order.

Is this the plan?

[light_man]

The implication I made in posting Derren Brown is that some sort of "jedi mind tricks" have been used on you people who can't tell the difference between Paul & Faul.
http://www.buyfunnystuff.com/images/bfs_slogans/stencil/wtf.png

But neither can you!

Let's remind ourselves of your huge gaff, shall we.....

What is this? Is this supposed to be Paul? LOL!

http://www.tlcgraphic.com/images/1963HazelEyesZoom2.gif

Yup, it's definately Paul I'm afraid. Taken in 1963.

Oh, and notice that his eyes are hazel. :)

http://www.tlcgraphic.com/images/1963HazelEyesSm.gif

The implication I made in posting Derren Brown is that some sort of "jedi mind tricks" have been used on you people who can't tell the difference between Paul & Faul.

How? What evidence have you for this crackpot theory? How, exactly, have I and millions of other people been mentally 'tampered with' in order to believe that 'Faul' is Paul?

And just how have you avoided this grand, mind altering conspiracy? Oh, but hang on a minute.... You couldn't have avoided it because you thought that the above photo was of 'Faul'..... Hmmmmm.....

And if the illuminati were using 'mind tricks' on us to make us believe 'Faul' was Paul, why would they need to use "doctored" photos????

'Faul' has been photographed by thousands of his fans. He has performed live to thousands upon thousands of people.

And yet no one has twigged it's not really Paul, have they?

All the above points disprove your argument that the illuminati think they need to produce "doctored" photos in order to keep the 'Paul Is Alive Myth' going.

The 'myth' is still going along nicely without "doctored" photos being used; ie. fan's photos, live appearances.

See all the great big gaping holes in your theory?

Anyhow, I would have thought that the illuminati would have far more important uses for such advanced 'brain washing techniques' than this; such as making everyone believe the official 9/11 story, or that Vietnam was a bloody great idea...

But seemingly not. The illuminati seem far more interested in using this 40 year old brain washing technology to make us all believe that some geezer who won a look alike competition is Paul McCartney!! :)

Are you serious?!

It's obvious that you believe 2 people are the same guy b/c you've been told they are.

No. I use my own judgement and understanding of how lighting, perspective, angles, focus etc can alter a person's features.

Face recognition expert Dr Rob Jenkins:

I don't think my passport photo which was taken last year, and is valid for another nine years, looks like me.

It doesn't really matter how many discrepancies are pointed out to you.

No, because all your so called "discrepancies" have logical and straight forward explanations; they do not support the reality of 'Faul' and have been debunked over and over again.

Sorry, but different colored eyes should really be enough to show that they're not the same person.

As I have explained, repeatedly, eye colour can appear different in photos due to retouching, lighting, camera angles etc.

The fact that you stubbornly refuse to accept simple, obvious and accepted scientifically provable explanations for the alleged difference in eye colour clearly demonstrates that you are incapable of objective and logical analysis.

Your delusions are so deep rooted in your psyche that any explanation which refutes your belief system is automatically rejected out of hand.

"My eyes are hazel" - James Paul McCartney
'No, no, no! Your eyes are brown.' - faulconandsnowjob :) :)

Why don't you post the un-doctored photo of that event, if you can find one?

For the simple reason that there is NO 'undoctored' photo. You are the one claiming this photo has been doctored, not me. It's up to you to provide evidence for this by providing the 'undoctored' photo.

The fact that I've repeatedly asked you to do this and you have repeatedly failed to come up with it only provides evidence that you are talking out of your bottom.

POST THE 'UNDOCTORED' PHOTO AND BACK UP YOUR CLAIM.

So, why do pictures of Paul need to be tampered w/ in the 1st place? To make him look more like Faul!

That is not answering my question. Explain WHY the Commercial Appeal newspaper would tamper with a photo of Paul to make him look like 'Faul'?

And why would they then sell high resolution, 20 x 30 reprints of the photo where any tampering would become more obvious?

After all, you have spotted that:

the eyebrows have been drawn in, the hair has been blackened in, the cheek crease on his left side looks like a "scar." It looks like they took a picture of Paul & a picture of Faul & stuck them together. Unfortunately, for them, the cheeks don't match up. The one of his right side doesn't match up, either, but the "break" in his cheek on his left side is most obvious.

All this from a crappy, low resolution 94.67kb, 406px × 500px jpeg image!

Imagine how clear all this would be in a high resolution, 20 x 30 photographic reprint?!!!

So why would the Commercial Appeal newspaper sell such an 'obviously' "doctored" photo where their 'dastardly conspiracy' would be unmasked??

Come on, 'explanations' please. :)

http://gallery.pictopia.com/memphiscom/gallery/6245/photo/395357/

[howie]

I can't pretend I'm not him

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=mj2b-nXT-No


Almost alive

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zokT2LZGri4

[faulconandsnowjob]

^ Howie, thanks for those great videos! :-)

light_man, you can't tell an obviously doctored photo has been tampered with. You can't tell that 2 people w/ 2 different color eyes, different shaped noses, different heights, etc, are 2 different people. Your "opinion" on this Paul/Faul thing is worthless. You have proven you have no eye for detail, no ability to discern blatant differences, no ability to distinguish between 2 different people whatsoever. Who cares what you think? Go ahead & cling to your belief that they are the same person no matter what discrepancies there are. I bet you don't even really look at the pictures, b/c they might disrupt your safe little belief about the world. Pathetic. It's obvious they are different people.
I'm amazed at your ability to rationalize so that nothing disturbs your neat little paradigm. Faul is not Paul. Accept it or not, I don't care. You're not going to stop me from trying to open other people's eyes, tho. I'm sure you're successful bullying other people, but as you can tell, it won't work w/ me.

These are obviously not the same person.

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

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

[light_man]

light_man, you can't tell an obviously doctored photo has been tampered with. You can't tell that 2 people w/ 2 different color eyes, different shaped noses, different heights, etc, are 2 different people. Your "opinion" on this Paul/Faul thing is worthless. You have proven you have no eye for detail, no ability to discern blatant differences, no ability to distinguish between 2 different people whatsoever. Who cares what you think? Go ahead & cling to your belief that they are the same person no matter what discrepancies there are. I bet you don't even really look at the pictures, b/c they might disrupt your safe little belief about the world. Pathetic. It's obvious they are different people.
I'm amazed at your ability to rationalize so that nothing disturbs your neat little paradigm. Faul is not Paul. Accept it or not, I don't care. You're not going to stop me from trying to open other people's eyes, tho. I'm sure you're successful bullying other people, but as you can tell, it won't work w/ me.

These are obviously not the same person.

Is that it? :(

Looks like you have given in... :confused:

Ok then, just ignore all the facts, questions and points I raised and resort to repeating your tired old mantras and posting yet more crappy photos of Paul and 'Faul'.

YAWN.

You clearly cannot back up any of the claims you made with a rational argument. You couldn't rebutt one point I made, you couldn't answer any of the various points and questions I raised about your ridiculous 'brain -washing' conspiracy.

You're all hot air.

It's easy to make outlandish claims; but when you are challenged to provide evidence to back them up you can't do it...

You just go back to repeating the same old 'they are two different people and I can tell the difference because I'm really observant and you're not' spiel.... posting the same old crappy photos...

That's not an intelligent, informed argument.

Your claims clearly have no substance or basis in reality.

Listen, an easy way of proving your claims is to get a DNA sample from Mike McCartney, Paul's brother and then one from Paul.

This would be relatively straight forward if you were really determined. I think someone on here knows Paul, don't they?

Get the DNA analysed. If they prove your claims then you have scientific proof and the biggest story in rock history.

You'd make a million selling this story to a newspaper.

But I have a sneaky feeling that there will be some reason preventing you from doing this... :) :) :) :)

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=NuU_yO6SgV0

[faulconandsnowjob]

OMG, I can't believe light_man actually posted something to back up his argument! Incredible. But unfortunately for him, the photos support my position that Paul was replaced. Tough luck, but at least he's trying. LOL! :D

Anyway, I'm in the happy position of being able to let the photos speak for themselves. Anyone w/ a decent eye for detail can tell that he was replaced.

Not even close!

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/1966_comp.jpg

[light_man]

OMG, I can't believe light_man actually posted something to back up his argument!

Are you for real?

You post that, after completely failing to "back up" and answer any of the points and questions I raised in this post:

http://www.buyfunnystuff.com/images/bfs_slogans/stencil/wtf.png

But neither can you!

Let's remind ourselves of your huge gaff, shall we.....

Yup, it's definately Paul I'm afraid. Taken in 1963.

Oh, and notice that his eyes are hazel. :)

http://www.tlcgraphic.com/images/1963HazelEyesSm.gif

How? What evidence have you for this crackpot theory? How, exactly, have I and millions of other people been mentally 'tampered with' in order to believe that 'Faul' is Paul?

And just how have you avoided this grand, mind altering conspiracy? Oh, but hang on a minute.... You couldn't have avoided it because you thought that the above photo was of 'Faul'..... Hmmmmm.....

And if the illuminati were using 'mind tricks' on us to make us believe 'Faul' was Paul, why would they need to use "doctored" photos????

'Faul' has been photographed by thousands of his fans. He has performed live to thousands upon thousands of people.

And yet no one has twigged it's not really Paul, have they?

All the above points disprove your argument that the illuminati think they need to produce "doctored" photos in order to keep the 'Paul Is Alive Myth' going.

The 'myth' is still going along nicely without "doctored" photos being used; ie. fan's photos, live appearances.

See all the great big gaping holes in your theory?

Anyhow, I would have thought that the illuminati would have far more important uses for such advanced 'brain washing techniques' than this; such as making everyone believe the official 9/11 story, or that Vietnam was a bloody great idea...

But seemingly not. The illuminati seem far more interested in using this 40 year old brain washing technology to make us all believe that some geezer who won a look alike competition is Paul McCartney!! :)

Are you serious?!

No. I use my own judgement and understanding of how lighting, perspective, angles, focus etc can alter a person's features.

Face recognition expert Dr Rob Jenkins:

No, because all your so called "discrepancies" have logical and straight forward explanations; they do not support the reality of 'Faul' and have been debunked over and over again.

As I have explained, repeatedly, eye colour can appear different in photos due to retouching, lighting, camera angles etc.

The fact that you stubbornly refuse to accept simple, obvious and accepted scientifically provable explanations for the alleged difference in eye colour clearly demonstrates that you are incapable of objective and logical analysis.

Your delusions are so deep rooted in your psyche that any explanation which refutes your belief system is automatically rejected out of hand.

:) :)

For the simple reason that there is NO 'undoctored' photo. You are the one claiming this photo has been doctored, not me. It's up to you to provide evidence for this by providing the 'undoctored' photo.

The fact that I've repeatedly asked you to do this and you have repeatedly failed to come up with it only provides evidence that you are talking out of your bottom.

POST THE 'UNDOCTORED' PHOTO AND BACK UP YOUR CLAIM.

That is not answering my question. Explain WHY the Commercial Appeal newspaper would tamper with a photo of Paul to make him look like 'Faul'?

And why would they then sell high resolution, 20 x 30 reprints of the photo where any tampering would become more obvious?

After all, you have spotted that:

All this from a crappy, low resolution 94.67kb, 406px × 500px jpeg image!

Imagine how clear all this would be in a high resolution, 20 x 30 photographic reprint?!!!

So why would the Commercial Appeal newspaper sell such an 'obviously' "doctored" photo where their 'dastardly conspiracy' would be unmasked??

Come on, 'explanations' please. :)

http://gallery.pictopia.com/memphiscom/gallery/6245/photo/395357/

I always back up what I've said with reasoned arguments, evidence and logical conclusions.

Unlike you, who IGNORES requests to "back up" your claims and relies instead on repeatedly writing the same mantras and posting the same crappy photos.

Do you know what hypocrisy is???

Blimey - you are quite clearly a few sandwiches short of a picnic.

[light_man]

Anyway, I'm in the happy position of being able to let the photos speak for themselves. Anyone w/ a decent eye for detail can tell that he was replaced.


What is this? Is this supposed to be Paul? LOL!

http://www.tlcgraphic.com/images/1963HazelEyesZoom2.gif

http://www.tlcgraphic.com/images/1963HazelEyesSm.gif
Paul in 1963.


Anyway, I'm in the happy position of being able to let the photos speak for themselves. Anyone w/ a decent eye for detail can tell that he was replaced.


OOOPS! :) :) :)

[faulconandsnowjob]

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

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

[orbandsceptre27]

"I think we all have to pay tribute to Ringo here, and George, and Paul who can`t be with us (woops :) ) ............................ and .............. of course..............John and I guess we miss those guys a hell of a lot."

George Martin.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=mMuEclx74WE&feature=channel_page

[orbandsceptre27]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=t816msm5nBc


"When you think about it I`d never actually done it before, I`d joined the Beatles it was an already................ set up affair..........so I had to think about how I was going to do it."

Bill on joining the Beatles.


John Lennon met Paul McCartney on 6th July 1957. Lennon added him to the group (The Quarrymen) a few days later. George Harrison joined the Quarrymen as lead guitarist after a rehearsal in March 1958.

Stuart Sutcliffe was added on bass in January 1960. Ringo was the last member to join the group which had already gone through a number of name changes before finally settling on "The Beatles."

Bill joined the Beatles in 1966, replacing Paul McCartney when the group was already "a set up affair" like he admitted on film.

[toty1994]

"I think we all have to pay tribute to Ringo here, and George, and Paul who can`t be with us (woops :) ) ............................ and .............. of course..............John and I guess we miss those guys a hell of a lot."

George Martin.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=mMuEclx74WE&feature=channel_page

As I'm sure you're aware Paul was not present at the event and John and George are, of course, dead. The phrase 'clutching at straws' is too kind to describe what you're hinting at here.

As you're also probably aware some believe Ringo was replaced and John is alive so 'those guys' could be Ringo and George!! In this strand of conspiracy thinking it seems the only two Beatles who are definately no longer with us are George and Paul! Of course, it's probably just a matter of time until a new theory emerges that George is alive (unless I've already missed that one). Poor George Martin, it must be hard for him to keep up with it all and remember who's alive and who's dead.

[orbandsceptre27]

^
Here`s the link -

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=mMuEclx74WE&feature=channel_page


As I'm sure you're aware Paul was not present at the event......

Yes I`m very aware he wasn`t there - he was replaced - that`s the idea of this thread.................... "Paul McCartney is not real"......... hello.....

George Martin slips up - stalling after stating "Paul who can`t be with us" - That`s right G M ......... because Paul hasn`t been with the group since late 1966.

Also, why did George Martin continue on to say - "I guess we miss those guys a hell of a lot......." after he knew he messed up - he was implying Paul (as you said of John and George Harrison) was gone/"no longer with us".

Also watch Ringos reaction when he knows G.M has slipped up - he gets very uptight lol.

Watch it again closely Toty.

[lostworld]

^
I'm not gonna read too much into this. It's funny though :)

Thanks for pointing out Ringo's reaction, LOL! :D

[toty1994]

^

Yes I`m very aware he wasn`t there - he was replaced - that`s the idea of this thread.................... "Paul McCartney is not real"......... hello.....

George Martin slips up - stalling after stating "Paul who can`t be with us" - That`s right G M ......... because Paul hasn`t been with the group since late 1966.

Also, why did George Martin continue on to say - "I guess we miss those guys a hell of a lot......." after he knew he messed up - he was implying Paul (as you said of John and George Harrison) was gone/"no longer with us".

Also watch Ringos reaction when he knows G.M has slipped up - he gets very uptight lol.

Watch it again closely Toty.
I saw it ages ago when it was first posted on youtube. It's one of those pid clips that makes me marvel at how followers so eagerly swallow anything, however flimsy, that they imagine constitutes evidence. McCartney was indeed absent - I think it was due to the event happening at the time of his divorce proceedings rather than him being, um, dead. I know the thread's called 'Paul McCartney is not real' but, as you know, some of us think he is indeed 'real', ie not dead.

The rest of your analysis doesn't make much sense to me; George Martin and everyone else would have had 40 years practice avoiding 'slipping up' - can't see him making such an elementary mistake after so long. In any case, what you see as a 'slip up' just looks like 'pid'ers desperately clutching at straws' to me.

As for Ringo's reaction - looking again after reading your description as 'uptight' all I see is him saying 'hello' with his eyes to someone off camera and not much else. Hardly the demeanor of a man who's thinking 'Oh my God, the cat's out of the bag!'.

[orbandsceptre27]

^
I'm not gonna read too much into this. It's funny though :)

Thanks for pointing out Ringo's reaction, LOL! :D


Read whatever you want into it Lostworld lol :).

"Suit" 1min 50 - 2min 12 - Some would disagree with you.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=NHW67xlNIP0&feature=channel_page

[orbandsceptre27]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=mMuEclx74WE&feature=channel_page

Toty1994 - It's one of those pid clips that makes me marvel at how followers so eagerly swallow anything, however flimsy, that they imagine constitutes evidence.

Where did I say it constitutes evidence..........? I`m not the D.A - I`m here to show McCartney was replaced. Everything worthwhile is put forward - whether you deem it so is completely irrelevant.

The rest of your analysis doesn't make much sense to me

That`s because your a disinfo agent - you`re supposed to confuse people lol. Let people make of it what they will................. but you won`t will you.

George Martin and everyone else would have had 40 years practice avoiding 'slipping up' - can't see him making such an elementary mistake after so long

Well there you go - you learn something new everyday.

In any case,what you see as a 'slip up' just looks like 'pid'ers desperately clutching at straws' to me.

In your opinion.

Hardly the demeanor of a man who's thinking 'Oh my God, the cat's out of the bag!'

Like you said........... he`s had forty years practice.

As for Ringo's reaction - looking again after reading your description as 'uptight' all see is him saying 'hello' with his eyes to someone off camera.

Well of course you`d see the piece where he looks into the crowd and not the grimace just before it at 28 - 31 seconds.

He looks at someone off camera after this at 33 seconds.

[toty1994]

your a disinfo agent - you`re supposed to confuse people lol. Let people make of it what they will................. but you won`t will you.

It feels almost an honour to be finally labelled a disinfo agent! Do I get a badge?:)

I have no power to stop people making what they will of all this, just stating what I make of it. Anyone on this forum is free to share whatever opinion they have whether you (or I) like it or not.

[queenofleon]

I LOVE THIS THREAD!

The eyes being completely different colours should confirm any doubt in my humble opinion, and anyone over looking the fact that HIS EYES ARE DIFFERENT COLOURS has their heads in the sand. What more effing evidence do you need?

Also it is interesting that Lesley Ash and Paul split up not long after they switched him. You cant love an imposted not matter how much they look alike.


I think that maybe the reason that Heather was demonised so badly in the Illuminati press is because if she did come out with anything derogatory towards the Precious Paul, no-one will swallow it, cos he is a mellow, weed somking legend and she is a peg legged man eating prostitute.

something fishy is going on defo....

oh and there were apparently witnesses to his car crash but that was all quashed too.

I find it fascinating....the pics dont really show alot cos the look alike , for me is so good, but I do notice a certain gorgeousness that Paul has that doesnt translate through Faul.

[light_man]

The eyes being completely different colours should confirm any doubt in my humble opinion, and anyone over looking the fact that HIS EYES ARE DIFFERENT COLOURS has their heads in the sand. What more effing evidence do you need?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/BlueGreen.jpg
This is an example of Blue and Green eyes. These are the same eyes, however the color appears to be quite different depending on the surroundings.

In the top picture, the eyes appear more blue or grey, but in the bottom picture, the same eyes appear more green. Notice the yellow- or copper- rings around the pupils.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BlueGreen.jpg

[lostworld]

^
So the government is still working on New Year's Eve?

This has already been proved to be another non-credible lightman/fireman/whateverman statement.

Here is why:

A reminder that Lightman's theory on colour, light and tone doesn't help Bill!

Bills original eye colour will always be GREEN! He might even wear contacts here, still he can't hide his real colour coming through...

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/5660/cheezeymoustache2cw4.jpghttp://img401.imageshack.us/img401/9168/cheezeymoustache5wh7.jpg
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/7210/cheezeymoustache6vc7.jpghttp://img355.imageshack.us/img355/9475/cheezeymoustache8sz1.jpg
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/5563/cheezeymoustache4pk2.jpg

Paul's eyes will the same way always be BROWN!

http://img67.imageshack.us/img67/7299/jamespaulmccartneysmallcf8.jpghttp://img401.imageshack.us/img401/6577/jamespaulmccartneysmallyw0.jpg
http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/8315/jamespaulmccartneysmallxd3.jpghttp://img206.imageshack.us/img206/1397/jamespaulmccartneysmallcj3.jpghttp://img67.imageshack.us/img67/6470/jamespaulmccartneysmallbl1.jpg

[lostworld]

Great photo quality - still Bill has light eyes. :D

Not "hazel", not brown - LIGHT. As in lightman :D


http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/8055/56703962av5lr5.jpg

[light_man]

Great photo quality - still Bill has light eyes.

Not "hazel", not brown - LIGHT. As in lightman

Oh really? Hmmm... Keep believing your ill-informed garbage if you want to.

Here's another example of how lighting, camera exposure, angles, surroundings etc can affect the appearance of the eyes....

Hey, and BOTH these are of 'Faul'!

And notice how the photo quality is FAR better than the crappy pics you lot keep posting....

http://media.washingtontimes.com/media/img/photos/2008/05/27/20080527-074103-pic-643834941.jpg
Lighter background and conditions = LIGHTER eye colour

http://media.washingtontimes.com/media/img/photos/2008/05 /27/20080527-074103-pic-643834941.jpg


http://www.beatletour.com/images/mccartney.jpg
Darker background and conditions = DARKER eye colour.

http://www.beatletour.com/images/mccartney.jpg

http://img361.imageshack.us/img361/6697/screenhunter425yw7.jpg
http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/2631/screenhunter426mp2.jpg

SAME EYES...... DIFFERENT COLOUR!

Yet more undeniable proof that THE SAME PERSON'S eyes can appear different!

Oh, but I don't expect the PID clique to accept this. They'll just go on blindly and stubbornly clinging onto to the totally loony argument that a person's eyes
will ALWAYS appear to be the same in photos no matter what the lighting conditions etc. are!

What planet are these guys living on?

They ignore totally concrete, undeniable PROOF such as this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/BlueGreen.jpg

and this:

http://img361.imageshack.us/img361/6697/screenhunter425yw7.jpg
http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/2631/screenhunter426mp2.jpg

Shows you how silly they all are.


Bills original eye colour will always be GREEN! He might even wear contacts here, still he can't hide his real colour coming through...

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/9502/millionaireidiotfailsq9.jpg

Hazel eye color is probably most similar to green genetically.... I believe that part of the problem lies in the fact
that eye colors such as "hazel", "green", & "gray", are really not specific colors in
themselves, but result from a combination of shading patterns regulated by several genes.

Jeff Buzby, Ph.D.
CHOC Research Institute
MadSci Genetics Network

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2004-04/1082588487.Ge.r.html



Paul's eyes will the same way always be BROWN!

LOL!!!!

TRANSLATION:

"I'm completely barmy and refuse to let documented facts get in the way of my delusions."

http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/6784/2paulbook1yw8.jpg

Keep dreaming PID'ers...

HAPPY NEW YEAR! :)

[lostworld]

I LOVE THIS THREAD!

The eyes being completely different colours should confirm any doubt in my humble opinion, and anyone over looking the fact that HIS EYES ARE DIFFERENT COLOURS has their heads in the sand. What more effing evidence do you need?

Also it is interesting that Lesley Ash and Paul split up not long after they switched him. You cant love an imposted not matter how much they look alike.


I think that maybe the reason that Heather was demonised so badly in the Illuminati press is because if she did come out with anything derogatory towards the Precious Paul, no-one will swallow it, cos he is a mellow, weed somking legend and she is a peg legged man eating prostitute.

something fishy is going on defo....

oh and there were apparently witnesses to his car crash but that was all quashed too.

I find it fascinating....the pics dont really show alot cos the look alike , for me is so good, but I do notice a certain gorgeousness that Paul has that doesnt translate through Faul.

Hi Queen,
I couldn't agree with you more! :)

Faul is in many ways a good imposter and I can understand why so many people, who don't question things the way we do, are fooled by him.

But once you know it's pretty obvious that these are two different men.
As a woman, especially, when you find one of them attractive and not the other - and it has nothing to do with who is the imposter or not - it has to do with PERSONALITY. Paul had the whole package; charm, looks, humour and intelligens. Faul is not funny, charming or intelligent.
Paul was hot - Faul is not.
Fact. Plain and simple.

That's why I reacted to the difference in the first place, I was SO disappointed when watching "Paul" in an interview many years ago,
could not believe that this non-articulate and somewhat "slow" man was THE Paul McCartney, the mastermind behind all of those beautiful Beatles-songs.

I know now, as with other celeb-replacements (and mindcontrol victims) that my original instinct was right! :)
And no blind sheeple or disinfo's like Lightman can ever tell me otherwise.

That's the difference between us and them - we search for the truth, we are not satisfied with what the media or the government tell us.
That's why we are on forums like these in the first place. To find others just like us (thank God that you're all out there! :) ) to get new info and inputs from. It's just a confirmation that we're on the right way and that the lies can not be hidden forever.

Just know that your instincts are right and you will be fine with everything that you do. Take care and HAPPY NEW YEAR! :)

The gorgeous and only, James Paul McCartney

http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/1165/thebeatlesbrianepsteinano7.jpg


Bill
http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/9157/82617545ks5.jpg

[lostworld]

Once again,
Lightman's so called "proof":

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/BlueGreen.jpg

His example shows LIGHT eyes. Eyes that are blue/green. Ok that blue may appear to be green in some lightning etc. We can give Lightman that so his ego will get some good sleep this New Year's Eve :)

BUT, Lightman please - give me REAL proof where blue or green eyes turn BROWN! As in James Paul McCartney BROWN (not "hazel") eyes.
It just doesn't happen...

WHO IS SILLY REALLY? Maybe your eyes change colour from colour x to whatever - I know mine don't! I have blue-greenish eyes (I'm a Scandinavian blonde) myself aka LIGHT - NOT hazel, NOT brown! NEVER in any pic do they look brown or even "hazel"! :p
They look red in some pics due to camera flash but that is a whole different thing, lol!

And this:
http://img361.imageshack.us/img361/6697/screenhunter425yw7.jpg
http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/2631/screenhunter426mp2.jpg

Easy :D
Lightman, you're just giving us more proof here!
In the top pic Bill was a good boy and put in his contacts, in the last pic he got sloppy... :p
You can even see in the first pic how the colour of the iris is more "thick" and even. VERY much eye-contacts.

You're not even consistent with your proofs!
The first pic comparison I guess is some anonymous model-comparison, taken with different lightning at the same time. Just to prove how colour in skin and eyes can change due to lightning, right?

THEN you give us two pics of Bill - taken on two completly different occasions, judging by his clothes etc.
IS THAT GOOD PROOF LIGHTMAN?
This just says one thing - sometimes Bill wears his contacts. Sometimes he don't. Thanks for pointing that out even more! :)

Obviously, different tone/lightning of the skin DOESN'T create drastic eyecolour changes! As Lightman himself shows with his first pics that only show LIGHT eyes that differ from blue to green.

Lightman contradicts himself with his so called proofs.
Check out the skincolour on the first "model-pic" then compare to Bills 2 skintone-comparisons. It's about the same difference in skincolour, right?
At least one colder toned and one warmer.
HOW COME THEN THAT THE MODELS EYES ARE LIGHT IN BOTH PICS, BOTH WITH LIGHT AND WARMER/DARKER SKINTONE COLOUR AND BILLS - WITH THE SAME 2 SKINCOLOURTONES AS THE MODEL - JUMP FROM LIGHT TO BROWN? :confused:

Not good proof Lightman... At least not for you.

Eyecolour doesn't change from LIGHT to BROWN unless you photshop or WEAR CONTACTS! Period. Your "proof" actually proves that, lol.

For Bills eyes to become BROWN by turning up the lightning of the skin - you would have to make him a black man :D
THEREFORE - Bill is wearing contacts on that top pic!

[lostworld]

Once more, since Lightman keeps on ignoring this proof:
Pics of Bill and Paul. Same different shades of colour and lightning. Cold and warm light.

Question: WHY REMAIN PAUL'S EYES BROWN AND BILL'S EYES GREEN?
Answer: Because they are two different men with two different eyecolours.
The most logical explanation is also the truth!


A reminder that Lightman's theory on colour, light and tone doesn't help Bill!

Bills original eye colour will always be GREEN! He might even wear contacts here, still he can't hide his real colour coming through...

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/5660/cheezeymoustache2cw4.jpghttp://img401.imageshack.us/img401/9168/cheezeymoustache5wh7.jpg
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/7210/cheezeymoustache6vc7.jpghttp://img355.imageshack.us/img355/9475/cheezeymoustache8sz1.jpg
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/5563/cheezeymoustache4pk2.jpg

Paul's eyes will the same way always be BROWN!

http://img67.imageshack.us/img67/7299/jamespaulmccartneysmallcf8.jpghttp://img401.imageshack.us/img401/6577/jamespaulmccartneysmallyw0.jpg
http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/8315/jamespaulmccartneysmallxd3.jpghttp://img206.imageshack.us/img206/1397/jamespaulmccartneysmallcj3.jpghttp://img67.imageshack.us/img67/6470/jamespaulmccartneysmallbl1.jpg

[light_man]

Once again,
Lightman's so called "proof"

His example shows LIGHT eyes. Eyes that are blue/green. Ok that blue may appear to be green in some lightning etc. We can give Lightman that so his ego will get some good sleep this New Year's Eve.

BUT, Lightman please - give me REAL proof where blue or green eyes turn BROWN! As in James Paul McCartney BROWN (not "hazel") eyes.

How many more times have I got to point it out to you????

Paul had HAZEL eyes! Why are you wittering on about brown eyes for?

Why do you continually post deliberate disinfo when Paul is on record as stating his eyes are hazel?

Look - can't you read?

http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/6784/2paulbook1yw8.jpg

Hazel eyes have combinations of different colours, including brown and green! Hence, under certain lighting conditions etc. his eyes will appear more green or brown.

It's really is quite simple.

Hazel eye color is probably most similar to green genetically.... I believe that part of the problem lies in the fact
that eye colors such as "hazel", "green", & "gray", are really not specific colors in
themselves, but result from a combination of shading patterns regulated by several genes.

Jeff Buzby, Ph.D.
CHOC Research Institute
MadSci Genetics Network

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives...8487.Ge.r.html

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 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.

Surprisingly," 74% of the green/hazel eyes had a brown ring around the pupil. "This major pattern may explain a lot of eye color that is commonly referred to as Hazel.


Readers' answers:

"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."

Christine Bourquin, Castro Valley, California

"My Gramma's eyes are so hazel. They look greenish gold most of the time. But if she wears something that is really green they turn to green, then if she wears blue they almost look dark blue. But the majority of the time they are hazel. She always told us that wasn't a color. Her eyes are sort of green mixed with gold. I wish my eyes were hazel..."

Brittney Martin, Roy, Utah

"Hazel eyes are a mixture of many colors. I have Hazel eyes and mine are rimmed in blue and have flecks of gold, medium brown and green in them. When I wear certain colors my eyes change, kind of like a chameleon."

Kim, Mississippi

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

WHO IS SILLY REALLY?

People who insist Paul's eyes are brown! Oh, that must be you then.

Lightman, you're just giving us more proof here!
In the top pic Bill was a good boy and put in his contacts, in the last pic he got sloppy...

Any evidence he wears contacts? Oh, surprise, surprise.... Absolutely no evidence whatsoever!

Nothing. Zilch. Nada. No sources. No photos. No documented evidence.

Just another figment of your imagination. FACT.

And here you are contradicting yourself. Because you said this previously:


Bills original eye colour will always be GREEN! He might even wear contacts here, still he can't hide his real colour coming through...

So, if his "contacts can't hide his real colour coming through" then this photo should have his eyes showing some green:

http://img361.imageshack.us/img361/6697/screenhunter425yw7.jpg

Er, no! So, that's another theory of yours BUSTED.

The first pic comparison I guess is some anonymous model-comparison, taken with different lightning at the same time. Just to prove how colour in skin and eyes can change due to lightning, right?

THEN you give us two pics of Bill - taken on two completly different occasions, judging by his clothes etc.

IS THAT GOOD PROOF LIGHTMAN?

How many crappy photos of Paul and 'Faul' have you PID'ers posted that have been taken at "completely different occasions"?!!!

Every bloody one!

And some of them FORTY YEARS apart!!!

IS THAT GOOD PROOF?

LOL. You are just dismissing the validity of your own photo 'evidence'. :)

Anyhow, back to your quote:

The first pic comparison I guess is some anonymous model-comparison, taken with different lightning at the same time. Just to prove how colour in skin and eyes can change due to lightning, right?

Yes, amazingly you seem to have grasped the concept illustrated.

THEN you give us two pics of Bill - taken on two completly different occasions, judging by his clothes etc.

Ah, here you have obviously missed the point. It makes no difference if they were taken at different times. What does it matter? The point is the lighting conditions were different.

And because the lighting conditions were different the colour of his eyes appeared different. THAT'S the point.

This just says one thing - sometimes Bill wears his contacts. Sometimes he don't.

Why on earth would he "sometimes.. wear his contacts"?

If he is wearing contacts to fool everybody into thinking he has 'brown' eyes, then he would ALWAYS wear them! It would be a complete waste of time to "sometimes" wear them!

Good grief!

Really, you are talking absolute drivel...

Lightman contradicts himself with his so called proofs.
Check out the skincolour on the first "model-pic" then compare to Bills 2 skintone-comparisons. It's about the same difference in skincolour, right?

HOW COME THEN THAT THE MODELS EYES ARE LIGHT IN BOTH PICS, BOTH WITH LIGHT AND WARMER/DARKER SKINTONE COLOUR AND BILLS - WITH THE SAME 2 SKINCOLOURTONES AS THE MODEL - JUMP FROM LIGHT TO BROWN?

I'm not sure what on earth you are wittering on about here.

Look, it's pretty straightforward. The first Paul photo has better lighting conditions - his eyes appear lighter. The second photo is taken in darker conditions so his eyes appear darker.

You cannot compare the two model photos with the two Paul photos as regards the skin tone because the two model photos were taken at the same angle and distance from the camera and with the same lens. They were perfectly in focus and in high resolution.

The two Paul photos were taken at different angles, distance and with a different camera entirely. The second photo is no where near as high resolution and is not in perfect focus as the first.

Added to this, the exposure is not as good on the second. Also different film was used on the two photos which will affect the colour produced.

Wittering on about the skin tone being different is therefore silly!

Eyecolour doesn't change from LIGHT to BROWN

"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.

You've obviously started drinking for New Year early! :)

For Bills eyes to become BROWN by turning up the lightning of the skin - you would have to make him a black man :D

THEREFORE - Bill is wearing contacts on that top pic!

http://www.dvorak.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/bullshit_detector.gif

Yeah - you've definately had a few!

This is the photo taken in DARKER conditions:

http://img361.imageshack.us/img361/6697/screenhunter425yw7.jpg
Oooh, look! DARKER coloured eyes!

And this is the photo taken in LIGHTER conditions:

http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/2631/screenhunter426mp2.jpg
Oooh, look! [B]LIGHTER coloured eyes!

Get it?

Hazel eye definition varies. For some, hazel eyes range from a light brown to a medium golden-green. In North America, "hazel" is a term used to describe eyes that appear to change color, ranging from light brown to green and even gray, depending on lighting in the environment. A large percentage of hazel eyes have a brown ring around the iris, and either green or blue coloring around the outside of the ring.

http://www.brighthub.com/science/genetics/articles/16272.aspx

"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.
Rick Sturm, principal research fellow at the University of Queensland in Australia.

http://www.wonderquest.com/memory2.htm

Hazel is usually used to describe eyes that contain elements of both green eyes and brown eyes. Some hazel-eyed people have irises which transition from green at the edges to a light or darker brown near the center.

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Eye_color_-_Colors/id/4877722

http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/6784/2paulbook1yw8.jpg

Paul had HAZEL eyes. FACT.

Because Hazel is a mixture of both green and brown then the lighting conditions will show more or less of these two colours.

Darker: His eyes appear more brown.
Lighter: His eyes appear more green.

See?

Your half-baked, misinformed and naive speculations are absolute drivel. Sorry. Go and do some actual research instead of blindly pontificating on things you clearly know nothing about.

It's laughable, it really is.

Now, I'm off to join you in getting completely drunk! I might even have some of that stuff you've been a smokin'. :D

Happy New Year!

[brainfreeze]

Amoured Amazon made a comment earlier about her contact with Paul on a working basis.

Why don't you guys email her and ask what colour she thinks his eyes are.

At least that way you guys get the word of someone from this forum who has no reason to bullshit.

To me Paul as we know him has eyes of green, not hazel. Just look at most of the pics during his divorce.

[lostworld]

Oh Lightman,
where do I start...

Still no comment on this? (pics below)
I guess you have no explanation for it then...

This is PROOF that Pauls eyes were brown and that Bills eyes are green.
If you wanna call brown "hazel" that's fine. The colour in the photos is the same anyway - it's just words.

You keep holding on to that statement where Paul - supposedly if quoted right - says that his eyes are "hazel".
I wasn't there during that interview back then, something tells me that neither were you. Is this your evidence Lightman?
SO WHAT if Paul himself calls his eyes "hazel" in ONE interview of hundreds? I sometimes call my eyes blue, sometimes I say bluegreen. IT DOESN'T MAKE MY EYES BROWN THOUGH!
Just as the word "hazel" doesn't make Pauls eyes green like Bills!

And you can relax btw - I'm not drunk or high. I'm just as sharp as ever.

A reminder that Lightman's theory on colour, light and tone doesn't help Bill!

Bills original eye colour will always be GREEN! He might even wear contacts here, still he can't hide his real colour coming through...

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/5660/cheezeymoustache2cw4.jpghttp://img401.imageshack.us/img401/9168/cheezeymoustache5wh7.jpg
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/7210/cheezeymoustache6vc7.jpghttp://img355.imageshack.us/img355/9475/cheezeymoustache8sz1.jpg
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/5563/cheezeymoustache4pk2.jpg

Paul's eyes will the same way always be BROWN!

http://img67.imageshack.us/img67/7299/jamespaulmccartneysmallcf8.jpghttp://img401.imageshack.us/img401/6577/jamespaulmccartneysmallyw0.jpg
http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/8315/jamespaulmccartneysmallxd3.jpghttp://img206.imageshack.us/img206/1397/jamespaulmccartneysmallcj3.jpghttp://img67.imageshack.us/img67/6470/jamespaulmccartneysmallbl1.jpg

[lostworld]

The question of Hazel eye colour has haunted the literature," muses geneticist Rick Sturm

Nope. It only haunts you Lightman. :p

WHO IS SILLY REALLY?

People who insist Paul's eyes are brown! Oh, that must be you then.


And people who can't tell the difference between blue/green and brown are to be trusted? :rolleyes:

Any evidence he wears contacts? Oh, surprise, surprise.... Absolutely no evidence whatsoever!
Nothing. Zilch. Nada. No sources. No photos. No documented evidence.
Just another figment of your imagination. FACT.


How do you prove that someone is wearing contacts (unless you have the person there physically with you) ?

Your stupid arguments goes right back to you - HOW do YOU prove that he's NOT wearing contacts? :p

Lightman, what is most likely - when the colour of the eyes is totally thick and non-reflecting, check out the iris! -
that this is "reflected colours" around Faul or contacts? When the iris is non-reflecting and thick!
What is most likely?? Give me a break.

This is how disinfos and evil work. You are told to prove the natural.
The unnatural is stated as fact.

Lightman - your mindgames may work on others but it doesn't work with me.

Example: How can I prove to you what colour my eyes are?
I can't take them out for you to dissect them.
This is really the same thing.

How do you prove the colour of your eyes to someone Lightman?
Do you take the person with you in every light, every angle until they are convinced that you are telling the truth? :D

None of us has Pauls or Fauls eyes on a plate in front of us (thank God!) - we are left to what's shown on photos and what is most likely.
I'm sorry - based on what we've seen so far AND the "most likely-factor" - you lose.

It's the same thing as asking someone to prove that the grass is green and not black. It' s just so deranged...
People like Lightman want proof for what's natural and for obvious FACTS.
Not the other way around.
This is when you know that you are dealing with a person who are only here to debunk and bring disinfo - though he will never succeed in this mission.

And here you are contradicting yourself. Because you said this previously:

Quote:
Originally Posted by lostworld
"Bills original eye colour will always be GREEN! He might even wear contacts here, still he can't hide his real colour coming through..."

So, if his "contacts can't hide his real colour coming through" then this photo should have his eyes showing some green:

No I'm not. There is no contradiction. I have never said that lightning isn't a factor Lightman. What I have said is that lightning however NEVER can make blue or green eyes brown!
If you are at all familiar with the concept of coloured eye contacts you should know that some are more "see through" in colour and others are more thick. EVEN the one's that are thick will let your real eye colour come through in some lightning though. That's why I wrote that about Bill earlier, that he might even be wearing eye contacts ( I think he wasn't that sloppy in the beginning ;) ) BUT that his real eyecolour STILL can come through.

Unless you wanna tell me that the real Paul (as you think Bill is) has ANY reason for wearing green contacts?
If you look at my photo-collection of Paul vs Faul, where I change the colour tone from warm to cold etc, Fauls eyes always stays green.
And Pauls eyes, in just the same way, always stays brown!
That is fact. And proof!
The ONLY way for this to be the same man is if contacts are involved,
and then you would have to PROVE to me WHY the hell WHY the real Paul McCartney would be wearing GREEN contacts? :confused:

You see how twisting fact with stupid arguments like that can go both ways?
See how crazy it is?
But that's the way you reason Lightman.
You turn fact to fiction and then you want us to prove that the earth is round, lol? You really are deluded...

How many crappy photos of Paul and 'Faul' have you PID'ers posted that have been taken at "completely different occasions"?!!!

Every bloody one!

And some of them FORTY YEARS apart!!!


LOL. Yep, that's true. :)

Again - I understand your comparison with that model's eyes.
BUT her eyes are LIGHT. AND her eyes are still light even when the colourtone of the pics is darker/warmer. Her eyes just differ from blue to green.

Those pics are taken at the same place and time - just to prove that lightning has an effect.

But you slip up when you wanna use those model-pics to prove your case with Faul.
Since you are such a harsh critic the least I expect from you is that you follow your own strict rules. Otherwise you're just a hypocrite.

I don't care about that the angle on Faul's eyes isn't exactly the same as with the model. That is not the point, I can "forgive" you for that. :)

The mistake and the error-factor is that the pics are not from the same event. Faul could easily be wearing contacts on one event but not on the other. Why? Oh, I guess because he knows that people don't care and won't SEE. After all, he's been getting away with this for over 40 years now!
He either forgets or are just sloppy sometimes.

Faul could even have yellow eyes for all I care - people would still think that this is Paul McCartney. Cause they believe that what is presented to them is the truth. Sadly they don't question the power or the media. And, of course they WANT this to be Paul McCartney too - that is an important factor. Nobody wants what they believe, what they have grown up with, to be a lie. I can understand that.

Ah, here you have obviously missed the point. It makes no difference if they were taken at different times. What does it matter? The point is the lighting conditions were different.

And because the lighting conditions were different the colour of his eyes appeared different. THAT'S the point.


It makes ALL the difference! See above.

HOW COME THEN THAT THE MODELS EYES ARE LIGHT IN BOTH PICS, BOTH WITH LIGHT AND WARMER/DARKER SKINTONE COLOUR AND BILLS - WITH THE SAME 2 SKINCOLOURTONES AS THE MODEL - JUMP FROM LIGHT TO BROWN?

I'm not sure what on earth you are wittering on about here.


You cannot compare the two model photos with the two Paul photos as regards the skin tone because the two model photos were taken at the same angle and distance from the camera and with the same lens. They were perfectly in focus and in high resolution.

The two Paul photos were taken at different angles, distance and with a different camera entirely. The second photo is no where near as high resolution and is not in perfect focus as the first.

Added to this, the exposure is not as good on the second. Also different film was used on the two photos which will affect the colour produced.

Wittering on about the skin tone being different is therefore silly!


My point is that you can experiment with lightning all you want - it will never make blue or green eyes brown (OR HAZEL! God.) Also check - again - my little colour experiment with the pics of Paul and Faul.

If you look at how much the models skin tone have to change to create the change of eyecolour AND then compare it to Faul's skintone it's basically the same levels of colour.
BUT Fauls eyes - unlike the models - manage to change from green to brown (hazel!). Hmm :confused:
That crashes your "proof" and your theory Lightman.
Only contacts OR photoshop can make that drastic colour change. It has NOTHING to do with colourlightning!
That's why I said that you have to "turn up" Faul's skin tone into a black man for him to have "naturally" brown (hazel!) eyes. Understand what I mean?

Why on earth would he "sometimes.. wear his contacts"?

If he is wearing contacts to fool everybody into thinking he has 'brown' eyes, then he would ALWAYS wear them! It would be a complete waste of time to "sometimes" wear them!

Good grief!

Really, you are talking absolute drivel...


See answer above.

HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE ! - yes, even you Lightman.

It really makes no difference if you're drunk or not - you write the same bs anyway :p

George Harrison - Ding Dong
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r61noMrx3qw

Ring out the old
Ring in the new

Ring out the false
Ring in the true

[light_man]

Oh Lightman,
where do I start...

Still no comment on this? (pics below)
I guess you have no explanation for it then...

Urmm, ok since you insist...

The explanation is obvious.

These photos have been clearly doctored. The brightness, contrast and colour saturation are different in each one.

The first photo clearly shows a green tint to Paul's hair. Now, this may be because it's been doctored or because the lighting in the background was green. Hence the eyes will appear more green.

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.

Rick Sturm, principal research fellow at the University of Queensland in Australia.

http://www.wonderquest.com/memory2.htm

Paul with GREEN tint:
http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/5660/cheezeymoustache2cw4.jpg


The second photo has been darkened - don't know why you've bothered with this because his eyes don't appear green! :)

Paul darkened:
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/9168/cheezeymoustache5wh7.jpg

In the following photos the midtones have been clearly manipulated to increase the green tint which is seen in the first photo:

Paul with manipulated midtones to increase green tint:
http://img355.imageshack.us/img355/9475/cheezeymoustache8sz1.jpg
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/5563/cheezeymoustache4pk2.jpg

But to the observant eye, even with this desperate photo manipulation, the light brown shades of Paul's hazel eyes can be seen in the lower part of his eyes, particularly his right, in the last doctored photo:

Enlarged right eye:
http://img385.imageshack.us/img385/7450/screenhunter428qo5.jpg

Anybody can take a photo and manipulate it to show what they want!

To illustrate this, I took the first photo and manipulated the midtones to decrease the green tint and increase the red tones.

Can you guess the result? :)

http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/8732/13rx4.jpg
Oooh, look! AMAZING! Paul has BROWN eyes!

This is PROOF that Pauls eyes were brown and that Bills eyes are green.

http://msp127.photobucket.com/albums/p159/gerbruggeman/F4S/laughing.gif

Yeah - crappy, low resolution, doctored photos which were taken in poor light conditions are "proof"!

You're having a laugh.

If you wanna call brown "hazel" that's fine.

Paul says they are "hazel". This is on public record:

http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/6784/2paulbook1yw8.jpg

There is a subtle difference between hazel and brown eyes:

Hazel is a catch adjectives term used for eyes next to a mixture of colours: a brown, blue or green background near patches and flecks of brown, blue or green.

Brown eyes are just brown, they can be standard lamp or dark, but they are a solid color. Hazel eyes own different colors in them, similar to rings or streaks of different colors.....and they come in tons of variations.

http://www.lasikanswer.com/optical-lasik/1091-lasik-optical-2.html

Once again, your amateur, armchair speculations have been proven to be misleading, innacurate and false.

[light_man]

Any evidence he wears contacts? Oh, surprise, surprise.... Absolutely no evidence whatsoever!
Nothing. Zilch. Nada. No sources. No photos. No documented evidence.
Just another figment of your imagination. FACT.


How do you prove that someone is wearing contacts (unless you have the person there physically with you) ?

If Paul wore contacts he may have mentioned it in an interview....

One of the other Beatles may be on record as mentioning it....

His wife may be on record as mentioning it....

There may be a photo of Paul putting in his contacts....

But since there seems to be no record of any of this kind of evidence that he wears contacts it is plainly obvious that you are merely making this claim up. It is purely an invention of yours. A mere figment of your imagination.

You are ONLY making the claim that he wears contacts to try and wriggle out of the fact that in the photo I posted Paul's eyes appeared brown.

That's the only thing you can come up with to answer this awkward fact.

If you had any documented, verifiable evidence that he wears contacts then your claim could be taken seriously. Since you do not, your claim cannot be regarded as valid and can only be seen as the desperate attempts of someone clutching at straws.

And even if Paul does wear contacts, what evidence have you to back up your claim that they are brown ones?

Non. Yet again, this is where the validity of your claim falls apart. It's veracity is underminded because it has no evidence to back it up.

If you expect people to believe your claims then you need coroboration - plain and simple.

Simply making things up to fit your argument just won't do, I'm afraid.

Your stupid arguments goes right back to you - HOW do YOU prove that he's NOT wearing contacts?

Oh, boy! Are you for real? Really?

Look, YOU are the one making the claim that he wears brown contacts. It is therefore up to YOU to provide valid evidence that he does in order for your claim to be accepted.

It is not up to me to provide evidence that he doesn't!

I claim that Paul's eyes are hazel. My claim is substantiated and is based upon an interview Paul gave around 1963 where he clearly states the colour of his eyes:

http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/6784/2paulbook1yw8.jpg

See how this works? :)

He who makes the claim provides the evidence to substantiate it. Otherwise the claim can only be regarded as being made up.

And you cannot prove a negative. How could I prove Paul doesn't put on some lipstick and a nice frilly dress when he's alone in his bedroom?

I can't. Does that mean he does? Of course not!

sometimes Bill wears his contacts. Sometimes he don't.

Why on earth would he "sometimes.. wear his contacts"?

If he is wearing contacts to fool everybody into thinking he has 'brown' eyes, then he would ALWAYS wear them! It would be a complete waste of time to "sometimes" wear them!

Good grief!

How can I prove to you what colour my eyes are?
I can't take them out for you to dissect them.
This is really the same thing.

No it's not. Paul is on public record as saying his eyes are hazel. He had no reason to lie about it. If he said they were hazel we have no reason to doubt it.

Therefore the evidence that his eyes are hazel is valid and is on public record.

What evidence have you to suggest his eyes are brown? Just loads of crappy, low resolution photos - some of which have been doctored!

I have already established that the appearance of eye colour can be changed by the surroundings and conditions:

"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.
Rick Sturm, principal research fellow at the University of Queensland in Australia.

http://www.wonderquest.com/memory2.htm

So, which evidence is more persuasive?

A quote by Paul McCartney himself that his eyes are hazel?

Or some crappy photos?

Hmmmmm.... That's a toughie! :)

It's the same thing as asking someone to prove that the grass is green and not black. It' s just so deranged...

Maybe to an armchair, amateur speculator like yourself who is ignorant of science. It has been scientifically proven that grass appears green because all of the colours in the rainbow are absorbed into the leaves of the grass except green.

Just simple science. Nothing complicated. No conspiracies. :)

[light_man]

Two crappy photos (since you seem to like crappy ones :) ). Taken decades apart. Yet the similarities are striking....

The shape of the bone structure at the end of the eyebrows leading down towards the top of the nose... The hoods of the eyes... the way the eyelids cover his eyes... the contour of the skin between the nose and mouth... the mouth... The expression...

A look a like? Do me a favour!

Clearly the same man...

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/3814/screenhunter427rh7.jpg


Here is the "best Paul McCartney look a like in the world" (although I'm sure you'll say that 'Faul is!:) )

http://paulmccartneylookalike.com/JohnPaulLookalikes.jpg
http://paulmccartneylookalike.com/

Another one:

http://www.celebrityimpersonators.com/cp/paulmcartney.jpg
http://www.celebrityimpersonators.com/cp/paulmcartney.html

No comparison between them and 'Faul'! :)

They wouldn't fool anybody.

So, to believe that Paul was replaced with someone (and in some versions of the PID myth SEVERAL people) who looked so exactly like him and just happened to be around at exactly the time they needed him/them, who was the same age, and was talented enough to just step into Paul's shoes and play exactly like him and sing exactly like him and be able to fool millions of Beatles fans is just ridiculous.

[orbandsceptre27]

I LOVE THIS THREAD!

The eyes being completely different colours should confirm any doubt in my humble opinion, and anyone over looking the fact that HIS EYES ARE DIFFERENT COLOURS has their heads in the sand. What more effing evidence do you need?

Also it is interesting that Lesley Ash and Paul split up not long after they switched him. You cant love an imposted not matter how much they look alike.


I think that maybe the reason that Heather was demonised so badly in the Illuminati press is because if she did come out with anything derogatory towards the Precious Paul, no-one will swallow it, cos he is a mellow, weed somking legend and she is a peg legged man eating prostitute.

something fishy is going on defo....

oh and there were apparently witnesses to his car crash but that was all quashed too.

I find it fascinating....the pics dont really show alot cos the look alike , for me is so good, but I do notice a certain gorgeousness that Paul has that doesnt translate through Faul.


It is easy to see, queenofleon, that Paul and Bills eyes are completely different colours :) and it shows up Lightmans failings when he yet again hits a PID thread with disinformation and begins taking people out of context.

This coincidently happens when somebody new highlights the apparent differences in eye colour (or brings attention to any of the other major differences between the two). But keep the comments coming :) - the truth cannot be kept under lock and key forever!

[orbandsceptre27]

To me, Paul as we know him (Faul - present imposter) has eyes of green, not hazel. Just look at most of the pics during his divorce.


Exactly - spot on :)

Paul had dark eyes - Bill/Faul has green eyes.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/album.php?albumid=197&pictureid=1620


Now I`m away for the weekend - no doubt Lightman and Toty1994 will be spreading their lies........... but so be it.

Here`s one of the great live vids of the original James Paul McCartney in Shea Stadium, Queens - Great performance (by the whole group) - HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE :)

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=GMrKKDNgt5g

[light_man]

It is easy to see, queenofleon, that Paul and Bills eyes are completely different colours :) and it shows up Lightmans failings when he yet again hits a PID thread with disinformation and begins taking people out of context.

This coincidently happens when somebody new highlights the apparent differences in eye colour (or brings attention to any of the other major differences between the two). But keep the comments coming :) - the truth cannot be kept under lock and key forever!

http://www.devlin.co.za/web/Portals/0/Blog/Humus/Demotivational%20Posters/Delusions.jpg

[orbandsceptre27]

http://www.devlin.co.za/web/Portals/0/Blog/Humus/Demotivational%20Posters/Delusions.jpg


http://www.davidicke.com/forum/album.php?albumid=197&pictureid=1620

This from the man who, when asked to explain the different colour eyes between Faul/Bill (left) and Paul here - claimed it`s the light which makes brown eyes appear green.................!

http://www.images-photography-pictures.net/funny-picture-cat-picture-ehpien-cat.jpg

Ho ho ho ...................... Lightman you outdo yourself sometimes :)

Take time out, have a drink or two - you`re too hard on yourself, with the amount of time you spend debunking the PID threads :)

[light_man]

Paul had dark eyes - Bill/Faul has green eyes.

http://www.beatletour.com/images/mccartney.jpg

Paul had dark eyes - Bill/Faul has green eyes.

http://livingjourney.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/head-in-sand.jpg

Paul had dark eyes - Bill/Faul has green eyes.

http://www.forumammo.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10062/SiskoAnimated.gif

Paul had dark eyes - Bill/Faul has green eyes.

http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/6784/2paulbook1yw8.jpg

Paul had dark eyes - Bill/Faul has green eyes.

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r60/mr740ti/fail/millionaire_idiot_fail.jpg

[light_man]

This from the man who, when asked to explain the different colour eyes between Faul/Bill (left) and Paul here - claimed it`s the light which makes brown eyes appear green.................!

http://www.sidneychurlbert.com/images/WrongAnswer.jpg

I have never claimed that "the light... makes brown eyes appear green", you dimwit.

Good grief! You PID'ers don't believe in facts, do you? Not surprising since you believe this PID crap.

Once again, you're pedaling disinformation and inacuracies.

I have always maintained Paul's eyes are hazel.

Hazel is not a specific colour; it's a mixture of colours, including BROWN and GREEN.

Hazel eye color is probably most similar to green genetically.... I believe that part of the problem lies in the fact
that eye colors such as "hazel", "green", & "gray", are really not specific colors in
themselves, but result from a combination of shading patterns regulated by several genes.

Jeff Buzby, Ph.D.
CHOC Research Institute
MadSci Genetics Network

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives...8487.Ge.r.html

And yes, hazel eyes can appear a different colour depending on the lighting. My source:

Rick Sturm, principal research fellow at the University of Queensland in Australia, who says:

"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."

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

So go and argue with him if you are claiming that light DOESN'T affect the appearance of the eyes.

You'd look pretty stupid, though.

Yet again, the ignorant, ill-informed claims of you PID'ers are shown up for what they are.

Disinformation.

[orbandsceptre27]

[QUOTE=light_man;701687]http://www.beatletour.com/images/mccartney.jpg
[QUOTE]

Ok I`ve got ten minutes - then I catch a train and I`m not back until Sunday/Monday - so you`ve a WHOLE WEEKEND to keep spreading lies and dressing them up with funny pictures and graphics which make you look even more desperate than you already are Lightman :) :)

There are an abundance of pictures (including videos such as "Fool on the Hill") which show Bill with green eyes - This is beyond doubt :) For anyone viewing the picture above of Bill wearing contacts - view this picture comparison of Bill and Paul.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/album.php?albumid=197&pictureid=1620

Also see the video "Fool on the Hill."

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Q90dFGFqzuo&feature=related

Stop the vid at exactly 1.05 - to see Bills green eyes (like the colour of the smiley face :D) .

- We don`t need fancy, funny graphics to highlight what people are already starting to see Lightman ...............

............And there`s not a thing you can do about it - Have a great weekend all :) :) :)

[toty1994]

orbandsceptre27;701597
Now I`m away for the weekend - no doubt Lightman and Toty1994 will be spreading their lies........... but so be it.
There's a thread in the general section called 'How do you spot a disinfo agent?'. For some it seems, it's quite easy - a disinfo agent is any poster who disagrees with whatever 'the truth' is to them. Hence, a fair proportion of blameless forum members are instantly judged shady characters, possibly being paid to post, their mere opinions now deemed 'lies'.

I suggest to you that it's not that easy to spot a disinfo agent; I for one had never even heard the phrase until a few months ago. I would never accuse you of lying despite strongly disagreeing with you - to do such a thing would be nonsensical.

[light_man]

There are an abundance of pictures (including videos such as "Fool on the Hill") which show Bill with green eyes - This is beyond doubt

Which part of this don't you understand?:

"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."

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columni...e-memory_N.htm

Are you really this dense?

Yeah - there are photos that show 'Faul' with what appear to be green eyes. No one disputes that.

But you falsely interpret that to mean that he therefore has green eyes. Such a conclusion is flawed and only shows either:

A.) Your ignorance of how lighting and reflections can change the appearance of the eye colour. Or:

B.) Your stubborn refusal to accept this widely accepted phenomenon because it contradicts your 'Faul 'has' green eyes delusion.

Your crappy photos are worthless as evidence that 'Faul' has green eyes. Your arguments to the contary are nothing but the desperate twitterings of someone whose mind refuses to accept reality and wants to remain in a dream world where their fantasies can run free.

You provide not one shred of corroboration, data or sources to back up any of these claims.

Your whole arguments rest solely on your word alone: 'This claim is true because I say so'.

Not very persuasive!

Why, therefore, should anyone believe you? And further, why should anyone believe your claim that Paul 'had' brown eyes?

"My eyes are hazel."- Paul McCartney, 1963

You are quite welcome to live in your dream world where your claims are automatically true merely because you say they are.

However, I and most other people prefer to live in the real world where claims and arguments are judged on the evidence which is provided to support them.

For anyone viewing the picture above of Bill wearing contacts...

You claim 'Bill' is wearing contacts. The readers will note that this is just another example of you making a claim with no supporting evidence.

You expect us to believe you just because you say so....

No rational, intelligent and objective person would do so.

There are an abundance of pictures (including videos such as "Fool on the Hill") which show Bill with green eyes - This is beyond doubt

Also see the video "Fool on the Hill."

Stop the vid at exactly 1.05 - to see Bills green eyes (like the colour of the smiley face.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Q90dFGFqzuo&feature=related

Well, I took a look at this video. And guess what? At precisely 1.06 seconds Paul opens his left eye quite wide. So I went a second after your 1.05 to get a better look at his eye. The colour can be quite clearly seen.

Uhm, it appears to be hazel or brown. There may be a very slight hint of green, but since hazel eyes are composed of green (amongst others), this is not surprising.

And here is a screen capture:

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/6025/screenhunter431zp0.jpg

Even at 1.05 his eyes don't appear green! So I don't know where you got this silly idea from.

Obviously you have a dodgy monitor! :)

Interestingly, further on in the video there are more close up shots of Paul's eyes. All very clearly showing them appearing BROWN to HAZEL!

2 mins:
http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/9760/screenhunter432mo9.jpg

2 mins, 39 secs:
http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/4196/screenhunter437qz1.jpg



There are an abundance of pictures (including videos such as "Fool on the Hill") which show Bill with green eyes - This is beyond doubt

GREEN eyes:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Greeneyes.jpg

HAZEL eyes:
http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/6898/screenhunter433tv4.jpg

http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/2622/screenhunter439us7.jpg


There are an abundance of pictures (including videos such as "Fool on the Hill") which show Bill with green eyes - This is beyond doubt

http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/1254/failiy2.gif

Dear, oh, dear!

Really, exactly who is spreading "lies", here???

How much more of your disinfo do I have to debunk?

It's fun, though! :)

Enjoy your weekend away.

[faulconandsnowjob]

The eyes being completely different colours should confirm any doubt in my humble opinion, and anyone over looking the fact that HIS EYES ARE DIFFERENT COLOURS has their heads in the sand. What more effing evidence do you need?
I KNOW! It is astonishing to me that *some* people on this thread keep insisting that Paul's & Faul's eyes are the same color. What? B/c Paul once said his eyes were hazel? Ok, maybe they were hazel, but they were still dark - much darker than Faul's.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=197&pictureid=1620

Tons of pictures of light-eyed Faul have been posted. Here are some pics of dark-eyed Paul:

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/pmagclose.jpghttp://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/truePaul.jpg

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a389/Genie_Dalek/browneyes3.jpg

To me, the profiles are also a dead give-away:

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

I think that maybe the reason that Heather was demonised so badly in the Illuminati press is because if she did come out with anything derogatory towards the Precious Paul, no-one will swallow it, cos he is a mellow, weed somking legend and she is a peg legged man eating prostitute.

something fishy is going on defo....
Yes - & she seemed genuinely worried to me in this interview:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=dCQtP4AjVg8&feature=channel_page

I'm sure she knows the type of people she's dealing w/, & knows she has to protect herself.

oh and there were apparently witnesses to his car crash but that was all quashed too.
Perhaps, but I have a strong suspicion the car crash was staged.

I find it fascinating....the pics dont really show alot cos the look alike , for me is so good, but I do notice a certain gorgeousness that Paul has that doesnt translate through Faul.
I know exactly what you are talking about. To me, Paul was about the most gorgeous man that ever lived. Faul... no.

Paul: cool & natural || Faul: not so much :-P
http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g146/lilis456/28a.jpghttp://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b375/Cavern61/pid_on_magazine_p05aaa.jpg

& since Orb mentioned this earlier: Fool on the Hill comparison: Paul on left - 1965. Faul on right - 1967.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=197&pictureid=1624

[faulconandsnowjob]

Someone posted this excellent article on another thread. I'm just going to hit the most pertinent points, but I highly recommend reading the whole thing.

Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation
by H. Michael Sweeney
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222

...
5. Side-track 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...

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial 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.

Example: "Nothing you say makes any sense. Your logic is idiotic. Your facts non-existent. Better go back to the drawing board and try again."

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your evade the issues with your own form of nonsense while others, perhaps more intelligent than you pretend to be, have no trouble with the material ...

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 loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

Example: "I don't see how you can claim Vince Foster was murdered since you can't prove a motive. Before you could do that, you would have to completely solve the whole controversy over everything that went on in the White House and Arkansas, and even then, you would have to know a heck of a lot more about what went on within the NSA, the Travel Office, and on, and on, and on. It's hopeless. Give it up."

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your completely evade issues and attempt others from daring to attempt it by making it a much bigger mountain than necessary. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 12 - enigmas have no solution)?

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.

Example: "The news media operates in a fiercely competitive market where stories are gold. This means they dig, dig, dig for the story -- often doing a better job than law enforcement. If there was any evidence that BATF had prior knowledge of the Oklahoma City bombing, they would surely have uncovered it and reported it. They haven't reported it, so there can't have been any prior knowledge. Put up or shut up."

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your backwards logic does not work here. Has media reported CIA killed Kennedy when they knew it? No, despite their presence at a courtroom testimony "confession" by CIA operative Marita Lornez in a liable trial between E. Howard Hunt and Liberty Lobby, they only told us the trial verdict. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 13 - Alice in Wonderland logic)?

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

Example: "Since you know so much, if James Earl Ray is innocent as you claim, who really killed Martin Luther King, how was it planned and executed, how did they frame Ray and fool the FBI, and why?"

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. It is not necessary to completely resolve any full matter in order to examine any relative attached issue. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 14 - demand complete solutions)? ...

18. Emotionalise, Antagonise, 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".

Example: "You are such an idiot to think that possible -- or are you such a paranoid conspiracy buff that you think the 'gubment' is cooking your pea-brained skull with microwaves, which is the only justification you might have for dreaming up this drivel." After a drawing an emotional response: "Ohhh... I do seemed to have touched a sensitive nerve. Tsk, tsk. What's the matter? The truth too hot for you to handle? Perhaps you should stop relying on the Psychic Friends Network and see a psychiatrist for some real professional help..."

Proper response: "You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You attempt to draw me into emotional response without discussion of the issues. If you have something useful to contribute which defeats my argument, let's hear it -- preferably without snide and unwarranted personal attacks, if you can manage to avoid sinking so low. Your useless rhetoric serves no purpose here if that is all you can manage. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 18 - emotionalise, antagonise, and goad opponents)?

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 may require 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.

Example: "All he's done is to quote the liberal media and a bunch of witnesses who aren't qualified. Where's his proof? Show me wreckage from flight 800 that shows a missile hit it!"...

Note: There are other ways to attack truth, but these listed are the most common, and others are likely derivatives of these. In the end, you can usually spot the professional disinfo players by one or more of seven distinct traits:

1) 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.
...
3) They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussion in the particular public arena. 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.
...
5) Their 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...

[toty1994]

Hi faulcon

I for one find the 'insults and ridiculing' approach that occurs on this thread unhelpful. Equally unhelpful, however, is the implication (by the posting of the above article) that us 'naysayers' are in fact 'disinfo agents'.

There seems to be an unwritten rule (for some) on forums like this: anyone who disagrees with them must be a shill.

btw, the terms 'disinfo agent' and 'shill' were unknown to me until a few months ago. Of course, you can choose not to believe me.

[aya_rei]

Hi faulcon

I for one find the 'insults and ridiculing' approach that occurs on this thread unhelpful. Equally unhelpful, however, is the implication (by the posting of the above article) that us 'naysayers' are in fact 'disinfo agents'.

There seems to be an unwritten rule (for some) on forums like this: anyone who disagrees with them must be a shill.

btw, the terms 'disinfo agent' and 'shill' were unknown to me until a few months ago. Of course, you can choose not to believe me.

I am concerned about this as well, because it becomes an arbitrary form of judgment then if disagreeing with certain theories makes you a shill.

I happen to believe Paul is not dead. I truly hope such belief does not render me a disinfo agent. It would be akin to being declared a witch and thrown at the fire - w/o a fair trial - as far as I am concerned.

[faulconandsnowjob]

I posted that article to make people aware that there are disinfo agents on the Internet. The article gives helpful tips on how to identify & deal w/ them. I have seen some of the tactics in that article used on these PID threads. If you're not a disinfo agent, then it shouldn't bother you. I am just passing on information.

[faulconandsnowjob]

Anyway, back to the topic of Paul having been replaced, here is a new comp:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=197&pictureid=1696

[krakhead]

I posted that article to make people aware that there are disinfo agents on the Internet. The article gives helpful tips on how to identify & deal w/ them. I have seen some of the tactics in that article used on these PID threads. If you're not a disinfo agent, then it shouldn't bother you. I am just passing on information.

Of course it should. You are trying to imply that the people here who are pointing out the falsehoods in your theory are somehow doing so in attempt to 'cover-up' the truth as you see it.

[faulconandsnowjob]

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

[armoured_amazon]

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

People's heads just don't grow like that.

[faulconandsnowjob]

^ LOL :-) Here is another one of his miraculously growing head:

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

[lostworld]

Lightman - come on, you must be slipping... Or tripping. Or both. :D

AGAIN you post something that contradicts your own statements! :p
Oh dear...

Many guys are colourblind you know.
Much more than women are (go all you PID-girls!)

Maybe you should have your eyes checked? :rolleyes:


You post this:

HAZEL eyes:
http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/4347/screenhunter433tv4rp4.jpg

and then this!:

GREEN eyes:
http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/8028/greeneyeseq8.jpg

Lightman - THIS IS EXACTLY THE SAME EYECOLOUR IN BOTH PICS!
4 eyes - 2 pairs: green, green, green and yes, green again!

Just different lightning - remember how you are so found of discussing that, lol? Still - GREEN WILL ALWAYS BE GREEN. NEVER "HAZEL". AND DEF NEVER BROWN!

Just like this, remember?:

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


Also you post this:

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/710/screenhunter439us7sf4.jpg

Hmm, let's compare now:

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/6675/green1gc6.jpghttp://img145.imageshack.us/img145/4347/screenhunter433tv4rp4.jpghttp://img392.imageshack.us/img392/4628/screenhunter439us7wd6.jpg


Now which eyecolour comes closest to Bills eyes in the middle?

I - WHO AM NOT COLOURBLIND BTW - say it's the colour on the left aka GREEN! Yep, I think we have a def winner!

This was really too easy!

[faulconandsnowjob]

^ Personally, I think the difference in eye color is the smoking gun (well, one of the smoking guns). I find it very hard to argue against this:

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/blueeyes3.jpg
http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/6675/green1gc6.jpg

Even if both sets of eyes were technically hazel, they are clearly not the same color. Faul's definitely look more green to me, though.

[light_man]

Lightman - come on, you must be slipping... Or tripping. Or both.

AGAIN you post something that contradicts your own statements! :p
Oh dear...

Many guys are colourblind you know.
Much more than women are (go all you PID-girls!)

Maybe you should have your eyes checked?


You post this:

HAZEL eyes:
http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/4347/screenhunter433tv4rp4.jpg

and then this!:

GREEN
http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/8028/greeneyeseq8.jpg

Lightman - THIS IS EXACTLY THE SAME EYECOLOUR IN BOTH PICS!
4 eyes - 2 pairs: green, green, green and yes, green again!

Just different lightning - remember how you are so found of discussing that, lol? Still - GREEN WILL ALWAYS BE GREEN. NEVER "HAZEL". AND DEF NEVER BROWN!

Just like this, remember?:

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


Also you post this:

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/710/screenhunter439us7sf4.jpg

Hmm, let's compare now:

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/6675/green1gc6.jpghttp://img145.imageshack.us/img145/4347/screenhunter433tv4rp4.jpghttp://img392.imageshack.us/img392/4628/screenhunter439us7wd6.jpg


Now which eyecolour comes closest to Bills eyes in the middle?

I - WHO AM NOT COLOURBLIND BTW - say it's the colour on the left aka GREEN! Yep, I think we have a def winner!

This was really too easy!

LOL. If you think Paul's eyes look green in those photos then you clearly need to go to an optician!!!

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/5835/screenhunter443tw4.jpg

You'd say snow was black if it suited your argument.

Green eyes????
http://www.tlcgraphic.com/images/FOTHeyes-01sm.gif

You're completely barmy. I'm arguing with a mad woman.

[faulconandsnowjob]

You're completely barmy. I'm arguing with a mad woman.

You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You attempt to draw her into an emotional response without discussion of the issues. If you have something useful to contribute which defeats her argument, let's hear it -- preferably without snide and unwarranted personal attacks, if you can manage to avoid sinking so low. :D

[light_man]

You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics.

Lay off the "disinformation tactics" crap. We know your game.

If you have something useful to contribute which defeats her argument, let's hear it.

I already have done. I posted conclusive evidence for all to see that Paul appears to have hazel to brown eyes in that video.

She just comes back and insists they're green! Ridiculous!

preferably without snide and unwarranted personal attacks, if you can manage to avoid sinking so low. :D

If you think calling someone barmy is snide then you should go outside in the real world, missus. Get real!

And it was 'warranted' because if she thinks those photos show green eyes then she definately is barmy!

And I never noticed you complaining when she accused me and totty of telling "lies". Did I complain about it? No. I'm not as thin skinned as some people obviously are.

So, calling somebody a liar is not "snide" as long as it's one of you PID clique?

Again, one rule for you - one rule for the PID clique.

If she can call me a liar then I can call her barmy and a mad woman.

Christ, you'll be telling me to cut out exclamation marks next because they are 'aggressive with violent and upsetting undertones'!

[faulconandsnowjob]

Lay off the "disinformation tactics" crap. We know your game.

We know your game, too :D Cheers!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/cheers2.jpg

New comp:

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

[lostworld]

Lightman - you can relax, I would never go to YOUR optician anyway IF I ever needed to go to anyone...
I assume that's a pic of him you're posting, LOL :D

You attempt to draw her into an emotional response without discussion of the issues.
You are absolutely right Faulcon. He is.
He couldn't argue so instead he attacked me personally.
I don't get upset anymore though. It's so obvious and transparent what he's trying to do.

I don't remember calling somebody here a liar btw. Not using that word.
And I def see a big difference in Toty compared to Lightman btw.

Now - back on topic:
This "madwoman" wants a response from you Lightman. After all, we are only dealing with YOUR OWN PICS now.
The ones that are so much better in quality etc than ours, right?

So these are all pics from your previous post:
http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/6675/green1gc6.jpghttp://img145.imageshack.us/img145/4347/screenhunter433tv4rp4.jpghttp://img392.imageshack.us/img392/4628/screenhunter439us7wd6.jpg

Are you for real gonna tell me that you rather pick the eyecolour on the right, your "hazel", as the better match here? :eek: :D

If so - who is really mad here Madman - sorry Lightman? :p

I want an answer. Judged BY YOUR OWN PICS of what's supposed to be "green" and "hazel".
I wanna hear you say that you chose that hazel-pic on the right as the perfect match. I wanna hear you say that white is the new black, lol :p

And you can't accuse anyone of photo-manipulation etc now either.
These are after all pics you have yourself chosen to post here.

Come on - I'm waiting. :p

[lostworld]

New comp:

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/comp_MMT.jpg
^
Really great comparison Faulcon!

[faulconandsnowjob]

I'm not sure why someone who has a better eye for detail & color is "mad." I think it's just a way to discredit people so that others won't pay attention to what they have to say. It could also be this:

5. Side-track 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.

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

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/6675/green1gc6.jpghttp://img392.imageshack.us/img392/4628/screenhunter439us7wd6.jpg
http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/4347/screenhunter433tv4rp4.jpg
http://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/mmt_frames/faul.jpghttp://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/mmt_frames/faul_green_eye.jpg

Yeah, green.

[lostworld]

^
Well said!

Yep - someone has studied that fifth rule in the "Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation" very well, LOL :D

[toty1994]

Well, I'm away for a while so it'll be fascinating to see if this thread has taken any new turns when I'm back in a few weeks.

And no, I'm not away to attend the next phase of my disinfo agent training course.:D

[light_man]

I don't remember calling somebody here a liar btw.

I didn't mean you - I meant the other one:



Ok I`ve got ten minutes - then I catch a train and I`m not back until Sunday/Monday - so you`ve a WHOLE WEEKEND to keep spreading lies

Didn't see Faulcon rushing on here to start carping on about 'snidey' comments when she wrote that.

As I said: One rule for the PID clique, one rule for the doubters. :)

now - back on topic:
This "madwoman" wants a response from you Lightman. After all, we are only dealing with YOUR OWN PICS now.
The ones that are so much better in quality etc than ours, right?

What's the question of quality got to do with it? It was orbandsceptre27 who started talking about the Youtube video. I can only post photos of the Youtube video at the same resolution as what comes from the computer screen!

Dear, oh, dear! :mad:

I want an answer. Judged BY YOUR OWN PICS of what's supposed to be "green" and "hazel".

I wanna hear you say that you chose that hazel-pic on the right as the perfect match.

There is no "perfect match" for hazel, you dimwit. Hazel isn't a colour in its own right; it's a mixture of colours and some hazel eyes will have more green than other hazel eyes. Some hazel eyes will have more brown...

Lighting and relections will also contribute to the appearance of the eyes. Sometimes the same hazel eyes will appear more green, other times more brown depending on the conditions.

It's really quite easy!

I feel like a primary school teacher here, trying to educate a bunch of clueless kids what colours are!

And you can't accuse anyone of photo-manipulation etc now either.
These are after all pics you have yourself chosen to post here.

Come on - I'm waiting. :p

Oh, you are, are you? Well, I don't think you'll like my answer very much...

Since you can not tell that those photos show Paul with hazel eyes I posted the following question on a photography forum:

http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/488/screenhunter445fh8.jpg

These are the responses I got back:

http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/4835/screenhunter446of1.jpg

http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/8836/screenhunter450wv7.jpg

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/116/screenhunter448ia9.jpg

http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/4822/screenhunter449vy3.jpg

Here's the link: http://www.worldphotographyforum.com/showthread.php?t=3998

Four replies so far - and FOUR responses saying that both those photos show hazel eyes!

These responses are from photographers; well known for having an eye for detail and knowledge of colours.

Their comments are objective and without bias.

Their unanimous answer so far: HAZEL.

Like I said, the colour of Paul's eyes in that video is obviously hazel to any reasonable, objective observer. Trouble is, you PID'ers are so entrenched in your 'Faul' has green eyes nonsense that you refuse to see reality.

Instead, you proffer all kinds of nonsensical garbage in order to propogate your illusions.

Once again, I have provided irrefutable evidence of your disinformation regarding Paul's eyes.

I wanna hear you say that white is the new black

Unlike you - I can tell what a colour is. I'll leave the 'white is the new black' to you.

You can add it your 'green is the new hazel' nonsense!

[lostworld]

Well, I'm away for a while so it'll be fascinating to see if this thread has taken any new turns when I'm back in a few weeks.

And no, I'm not away to attend the next phase of my disinfo agent training course.:D

Maybe off to "rehab" then (aka re-preogramming/mindcontrol) ? :rolleyes:
Sorry Toty - just kidding. :)

Personally, I think there is a big difference between you and Lightman Toty!
I hope I'm not wrong about this... :rolleyes:

The only sad thing is that you seemed to start out as pretty neutral and objective and now it's seems that you are tipping over to Darkman's, sorry Lightman's side, LOL. ;)
I hope that this is not a permanent state though.

The eyecolour thing is crucial here.
Bill wear eyecontacts on some occasions and other times he's just sloppy and don't care... Or he just forgets. It really is just as simple as that. :)
Look at the eyecolour pics! Think about it.
Really. :)

Besides, I've just exposed Lightman's own theories and pics against him. :D

Take care!

[lostworld]

Lightman, I just saw your answer.

Don't worry - I will get back to you asap.
I just have to take care of some other threads first. :)

[faulconandsnowjob]

Lostworld, you did such an awesome job of refuting lightman's claim that Paul & Faul have/had the same color eyes. We have established that Faul on the Hill had green eyes, whilst Paul had hazel/brown eyes. Yeah, that really blew up in lightman's face, huh? LOL! :D

Faul's GREEN eyes
http://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/mmt_frames/faul_green_eye.jpghttp://img155.imageshack.us/img155/6675/green1gc6.jpg

[lostworld]

Lostworld, you did such an awesome job of refuting lightman's claim that Paul & Faul have/had the same color eyes. We have established that Faul on the Hill had green eyes, whilst Paul had hazel/brown eyes. Yeah, that really blew up in lightman's face, huh? LOL! :D

Faul's GREEN eyes
http://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/mmt_frames/faul_green_eye.jpghttp://img155.imageshack.us/img155/6675/green1gc6.jpg

Thanks, I know! :)

Apparently he's now having trouble defending his own pic-comparisons.
"Hazel" seems to be a very convenient eyecolour to cling to - it seems to have a very wide range from bright yellow to deepest black.
Hey - I guess we all, incl the animals, are "hazel" then, LOL!

Apparently white is the new black.
Lightman now says so, so everybody really should take notes from the madman. :D

Oh, this is too much even for me. It's just SO insane! God...

[lostworld]

Everybody - whatever you think the colour of your eyes are, you most probably are wrong. Your eyes are from now on "hazel" - the eye colour of the world!
Just accept it or contact Lightman if you have any complaints :D

Hazel has a wide range from the brightest yellow to the deepest black. It's much more convenient, really :D


"Hazel" - the colour of YOU
http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/8067/hazeleyesyf9.jpg

[light_man]

Bill wear eyecontacts on some occasions and other times he's just sloppy and don't care... Or he just forgets. It really is just as simple as that. :)


TRANSLATION:

I have no evidence whatsoever that Paul wears contacts. It's the only thing I can make up to keep my 'Faul' has green eyes myth fit.

Paul wears contacts because I say he does.

Yeah, come back with that explanation when you have some actual proof to back it up.

Meanwhile, in the real world...

Explain WHY Paul wears contacts? Is it not to disguise the fact that his eyes are green - according to your theory?

So what is the point of him not bothering to put them on sometimes?

Defeats the whole bloody point of wearing contacts in the first place!

You really expect people to swallow this crap?

Besides, I've just exposed Lightman's own theories and pics against him. :D

http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/4822/screenhunter449vy3.jpg

Sure you have. And me and those other people never said those eyes are hazel.... :)

Keep dreaming your illusions.

[light_man]

Lostworld, you did such an awesome job of refuting lightman's claim that Paul & Faul have/had the same color eyes. We have established that Faul on the Hill had green eyes, whilst Paul had hazel/brown eyes. Yeah, that really blew up in lightman's face, huh? LOL!

Yeah, keep backing each other up with your delusions to try and convince yourselves...

Meanwhile - in the real world:

http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/4835/screenhunter446of1.jpg

http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/8836/screenhunter450wv7.jpg

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/116/screenhunter448ia9.jpg

http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/4822/screenhunter449vy3.jpg