Is Paul really dead?

[faulconandsnowjob]

Theodor Adorno: September 11, 1903 (!) – August 6, 1969

Adorno - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[astrochicken]

Theodor Adorno: September 11, 1903 (!) – August 6, 1969

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

LOL.. assuming he was sick and incapacitated before he died, and that the "original" paul had left a lot of good songs behind.. then there's your answer why the faul version of the beatles were crap. ;)

[lostworld]

What to make of this? Does anyone know when this was recorded? Sometime in the 80's?

Paul McCartney cries after John Lennon's death - YouTube

[faulconandsnowjob]

^ That was a little bit better than:

Paul McCartney reaction to news of John Lennon Death - YouTube

Actually, it's possible that Faul would have been upset by John's death. I mean, he did know him for quite a few years. Did you see Faul's reaction to George's death?

Paul McCartney's reaction to George Harrisons Death. - YouTube

Sounds very rehearsed to me.

[astrochicken]

What to make of this? Does anyone know when this was recorded? Sometime in the 80's?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rss-ZVgZz9g&feature=rec-HM-rev-rn

lol @ the title of the clip.

I allways thought crying implied tears.

It looked like he was reading off notes as well.

[faulconandsnowjob]

Paul seemed to be a person of real emotion. Faul, on the other hand, just seems to be faking. Well, his life is a lie, isn't it?

[orbandsceptre27]

I've been wondering lately how many of the songs they actually did write. Their's just to much occult symbology and hand gestures involved, and this all way before the advent of hard rock and heavy metal.

That`s a good point Astrochicken - We`ll probably never know the full truth of who wrote what and whether there an outside influence like Tavistock in the background. I don`t believe they wrote alot of the post `66 songs themselves. According to Illuminati defector John Todd (Collins), much of the early rock n`roll was (and presumably still is) written in "witch language."

http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=john+todd+illuminati+defector&emb=0&aq=f# - The Witchcraft of Rock n`roll.

http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=john+todd+illuminati+defector&emb=0&aq=f# - The Illuminati.

[astrochicken]

That`s a good point Astrochicken - We`ll probably never know the full truth of who wrote what and whether there an outside influence like Tavistock in the background. I don`t believe they wrote alot of the post `66 songs themselves. According to Illuminati defector John Todd (Collins), much of the early rock n`roll was (and presumably still is) written in "witch language."



Children hear and understand things backwards and in reverse and the brain then converts them. Everyone with kids around will have noticed how their "d" "p" "E","L" "h" are quite frequently drawn backwards.

Here's a classic example of a song with a hidden message targetting children and teens. Once attuned you can hear, as an adult, that there's something *wrong* with specific songs.


Ok, a few words in a song. eg. "i buried paul" LOL, doesn't prove anything but when an entire song, and every single word, has an english equivalent when played backwards then even all you sceptics must admit that "something is rotten in the state of Denmark" ??


A song like Katy Perry's "I kissed a girl" is
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=XZXDOYICeFU

You get forcefed this crap in continous rotation and it's not based on talent, who has the best PR office or whose manager gives the most backhanders. Consider britney spears, katy perry, Hannah montana, the jonas brothers etc. of course there's the forwards messages.. be promiscous, "do what thou willt", "you're on your own" etc. and then there's the subliminal occult aspect.

I LOVE, i mean i REALLY LOVE the beatles, but you have to admit, that if you compare BEATLEMANIA to the hype around "stars" of today that there is something contrived about the whole thing.

Free your minds!

[orbandsceptre27]

Children hear and understand things backwards and in reverse and the brain then converts them. Everyone with kids around will have noticed how their "d" "p" "E","L" "h" are quite frequently drawn backwards.

Here's a classic example of a song with a hidden message targetting children and teens. Once attuned you can hear, as an adult, that there's something *wrong* with specific songs.


A song like Katy Perry's "I kissed a girl"
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=XZXDOYICeFU


Wow I didn`t know about children being able to pick things up in reverse :eek: -

Of course doctors say the brain is like a sponge up until the age of 13. The years up to 7 are particularly significant, as nerve endings in the brain are cut off (again for the second and final time at age 13). To learn a language in its native tongue, you have to begin learning it before the age of 7.

[astrochicken]

Wow I didn`t know about children being able to pick things up in reverse :eek: -

Of course doctors say the brain is like a sponge up until the age of 13. The years up to 7 are particularly significant, as nerve endings in the brain are cut off (again for the second and final time at age 13). To learn a language in its native tongue, you have to begin learning it before the age of 7.

That's why TV is so dangerous to children.
Think Derren Brown, globally.

[orbandsceptre27]

That's why TV is so dangerous to children.
Think Derren Brown, globally.

I hear you mate :cool: -

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=zw_7CJ5ozaM&feature=related

George Carlin on dumbing down the population (and who`s in charge) -

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=sgD3rQog9y4&feature=channel_page

[coco]

^ That was a little bit better than:

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

Actually, it's possible that Faul would have been upset by John's death. I mean, he did know him for quite a few years. Did you see Faul's reaction to George's death?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9jKLiVjok4&feature=related

Sounds very rehearsed to me.

Both reactions seemed rehearsed but I think he showed way more compassion with George's passing than with John's. I remember various interviews with Paul/Faul shortly after John's death and he never seemed upset or touched with any emotion toward the event.

After George's passing I saw the interview and remember thinking, 'wow, he seems more emotional about this than he was with John'.

The man has been in the spotlight for many years and perhaps he is being stoic for the press, to preserve his private feelings? Also, we must remember he's no young guy. The older you get, the more people you know die, the more children are born and grow up and have children of their own, the more birthday parties and funerals there are. Such things lose their great sense of event for you; you become less affected. Things can be more difficult emotionally when you're young.

[januspolanski]

If you guys were to list your top 3 pieces of Paul/Faul evidence what would they be and why?

[faulconandsnowjob]

Thanks for those links about how music & TV are used to control people. TV is def a tool to keep people asleep. It's pretty creepy all the back-masking in the songs that goes on. Some of those backwards words in "I Kissed a Girl" (never liked that song :-P) were too intelligible to be backwards gibberish, imo. Anyway, George Carlin was so right! I guess he got away w/ telling the truth b/c it was camouflaged as "comedy"? (maybe like Monty Python?)

Words of wisdom from MP:
Life of Brian - YouTube

Anyway, yeah, I def think this mind-control agenda ties into what happened to Paul, & I'm really glad this thread is finally getting past "Paul was replaced - no, he wasn't - yes, he was," ad nauseum - lol :)

If you guys were to list your top 3 pieces of Paul/Faul evidence what would they be and why?
1. Change in looks (hot to not)
2. Change in talent (genius to mediocrity)
3. Change in personality (funny/charming to kind of annoying)

[astrochicken]

1. Change in looks (hot to not)
2. Change in talent (genius to mediocrity)
3. Change in personality (funny/charming to kind of annoying)


@ Januspolanski Please take note that any *clues* on album covers as perpetuated by the mainstream media as being the entire "paul is dead conspiracy" probably would't even make it in to anyone's top 50 on here.


Anyway, yeah, I def think this mind-control agenda ties into what happened to Paul, & I'm really glad this thread is finally getting past "Paul was replaced - no, he wasn't - yes, he was," ad nauseum - lol :)


Yeah.. watch this thread.. it'll end up being merged in to the "Kurt Cobain was murdered" and the "MK-Ultra/Tavistock" threads.

As it is all part of one giant brainwashing scam.

[faulconandsnowjob]

^ And don't forget the Stepford Wives thread :)

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=46038

[truthseeker49]

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

If you guys were to list your top 3 pieces of Paul/Faul evidence what would they be and why?

Wow, that's a great question. I agree completely with Faulcon's choices. There are some pretty incredible comparisons between Paul & his replacement(s) on my forum.

1) The ears. If you look at vintage photos of Faul from the filming of MMT, his earlobes are small & tight to his head. Paul had big ears that looked like a "cab with it's doors open". I'm pretty sure that Paul himself said that in something that I've seen or read over the years. ;)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/Magical6.jpghttp://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/Beatle_Paul_8.jpg
Paul vs, Faul, from the making of MMT.

2) The shape of their faces/heads. In undoctored/vintage photos of Paul he had a roundish head with a heart shaped face ( in photos prior to August 1966 ). In undoctored/vintage photos of Faul, he has an oblong shaped head with a long thin face ( especially in 1967 ). Also, check out the difference in the size of their foreheads. Paul had a small forehead, Faul has a rather large one.

Paulhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/TPUDec65001.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/faul_airport_closeup.jpgFaul
Paulhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/youngPaulforehead.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/pid_on_magazine_p2.jpgFaul

The above two comparisons are Paul vs. Faul from 1967

3) Body shape & size. Faul is just an all around larger man than Paul was. Paul used to wear lifts or specially made ( elevator ) shoes. He was actually 5 ft. 8 in. in height. Faul was ( when he was young of course ) at least 5 ft 11 in. tall.



http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/SirPaul.jpghttp://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/5efa48d0aaa.jpg Paul
Check out the difference in length between Faul's shin bone & Paul's. Faul's lower leg & his feet are definitely longer/larger than Paul's were.

Continued in next post.

[truthseeker49]

Back to the ears, check out these photos of Faul from 1967. It's plain to see that his ears are vastly different from one photo to the next:

Let's see: Faul's real ear:http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/Magical7.jpg
Now the other photo:http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c250/ladygamer/happywanderer.jpg Faul, fake ear

NOONE's ears can change that drastically over such a short period of time.

Paul http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/beauty2.jpghttp://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c250/ladygamer/happywanderer.jpg Faul, fake ear

Now Paul from 1966:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/sweetprince.jpg http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/bb45-1.jpgFaul,1967

It's also obvious that the early fake ears that Faul used were NOT an exact match to Paul's !

[faulconandsnowjob]

^ Ditto on that. Paul's face was rounder while Faul's was more oval:

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/memphis_66_comp.jpg

Slapping on a mustache doesn't change the shape of your head - lol :-P

I also think Bettina Krishbin's case raises some major red flags (thread here :http://only1rad.proboards62.com/index.cgi?board=friends&action=display&thread=1108) & the fact that there are doctored official photos of Paul. Oh, & that Faul wore ear pieces - very strange:

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

There are so many anomalies, that when you add them all up, they lead to the sad but inevitable conclusion that Paul was replaced.

[orbandsceptre27]

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


Yep...... looks like an ear from a Mr. Potato Head costume set. Billy obviously didn`t realise his lock wasn`t covering it, and hadn`t banked on a close-up camera shot like this occuring!

[januspolanski]

yep...... Looks like an ear from a mr. Potato head

lol

[faulconandsnowjob]

And Faul's changing nose tip:

http://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/bill_story/another_day_45_rpm_cover.jpghttp://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/bill_story/sgt_faul_nose.gifhttp://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/faul_last_photos/faul_profile.jpghttp://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/mmt_story/faul_5.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/WlarusGirl/paul-looking.jpg

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/ed_sull_comp-1.jpg
http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/sff_comp2.jpg

[truthseeker49]

A very active member of my forum posted this showing how "fake" Faul's ears can look:
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/BillEarKintyre.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/BillEarKintyre2.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/BillEarKintyre3.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/BillEarKintyre4.jpg

Faul's ear lobe is dangling...
For comparison...
Paulhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/prettyboyaa.jpghttp://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/beatlespaul.jpg

[truthseeker49]

Faulcon, great post concerning Faul's nose tips ! :D

[faulconandsnowjob]

^ I think his eyebrows have wandered a bit, too. Can post on that later :-P

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

[toty1994]

Wow, so many posts since I was last here! Just saw the ones a few pages back re Phil Ackrill...

I wanted to stay out of this theory cause it absolutely makes no sense to me,
BUT now it bothers me so I have to ask:

(I've seen pics of Viv so I know who she is btw)

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

http://i44.tinypic.com/2efufbd.jpg
phil akrill is who 60if says was paul

How can Phil Akrill be Faul and at the same time himself, as both younger and older? There is absolutely no resemblance between him and Faul what so ever so what about the plastic surgery he must had done...?
How could he then also be himself as older...?
I just don't get it... :confused:


In fact, today Ackrill is an accountant in the entertainment industry. He currently works for the re-formed Move (60's band that once featured fellow Brummies Roy Wood and Jeff Lynne). If you want to see what he looks like now he's even on facebook! I found all this out a while back and posted it on one of the pid forums when one of the posters on there kept insisting Ackrill was McCartney.

[truthseeker49]

Faulcon, that last comparison is GREAT ! The difference in the ears is astounding !
Toty, can you please post some Akrill photos ? I would LOVE to see them. I was left in the dust when that theory first came out. I still don't understand where that idea came from. :confused:

[astrochicken]

Faulcon, that last comparison is GREAT ! The difference in the ears is astounding !
Toty, can you please post some Akrill photos ? I would LOVE to see them. I was left in the dust when that theory first came out. I still don't understand where that idea came from. :confused:

Phil Akrill in the 60's
http://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/mmt_story/bill_green_eyes.jpg
Faul McCartney's son james
http://www.mamapop.com/mamapop/images/2007/12/03/paul_james_mccartney.jpg

Phil Akrill in his old band
http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/1522/diplomatsxo6.jpg


NOTE THE NAME of the band and sing along - "Denny Laine is in my ears and in my eyes....."

[karol2020]

Maybe Paul had a sudden growth-spurt in his 20's? Ok, I'm being sarcastic, but it seems like PIA'ers are able to rationalize away every inconsistency! :eek:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/WlarusGirl/All_About_The_Beatles_11.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/dreamer2.jpg

this one is very good.... clearly we can see that faul seems to be taller!

[astrochicken]

This occult-looking album cover gives me the creeps (the left part)


"The McCartney Years"

http://f.imagehost.org/0907/crowley_digital.jpg

[faulconandsnowjob]

^ Yeah, the occult & intelligence agencies seem to be connected...

Anyway, I just ran across something that supports my contention that there are disinfo agents on this forum (and others) & also about how much TPTB control the mainstream media.

The Pentagon’s War on the Internet
By Mike Whitney

02/13/06 "ICH' -- -- The Pentagon has developed a comprehensive strategy for taking over the internet and controlling the free flow of information. The plan appears in a recently declassified document, “The Information Operations Roadmap”, which was provided under the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) and revealed in an article by the BBC.

The Pentagon sees the internet in terms of a military adversary that poses a vital threat to its stated mission of global domination. This explains the confrontational language in the document which speaks of “fighting the net”; implying that the internet is the equivalent of “an enemy weapons system."

The Defense Dept. places a high-value on controlling information. The new program illustrates their determination to establish the parameters of free speech.

The Pentagon sees information as essential in manipulating public perceptions and, thus, a crucial tool in eliciting support for unpopular policies. The recent revelations of the military placing propaganda in the foreign press demonstrate the importance that is given to co-opting public opinion.

Information-warfare is used to create an impenetrable cloud around the activities of government so that decisions can be made without dissent. The smokescreen of deception that encompasses the Bush administration has less to do with prevaricating politicians than it does with a clearly articulated policy of obfuscation. “The Information Operations Roadmap” is solely intended to undermine the principle of an informed citizenry.

The Pentagon’s focus on the internet tells us a great deal about the mainstream media and its connection to the political establishment.

Why, for example, would the Pentagon see the internet as a greater threat than the mainstream media, where an estimated 75% of Americans get their news?

The reason is clear; because the MSM is already a fully-integrated part of the corporate-system providing a 24 hour per day streaming of business-friendly news. Today’s MSM operates as a de-facto franchise of the Pentagon, a reliable and sophisticated propagandist for Washington’s wars of aggression and political subterfuge.

The internet, on the other hand, is the last bastion of American democracy; a virtual world where reliable information moves instantly from person to person without passing through the corporate filter. Online visitors can get a clear picture of their governments’ depredations with a click of the mouse. This is the liberalization of the news, an open source of mind-expanding information that elevates citizen awareness of complex issues and threatens the status quo.

The Pentagon program is just one facet of a broader culture of deception; a pervasive ethos of dishonesty that envelopes all aspects of the Bush White House. The “Strategic Intelligence” Dept is a division of the Defense establishment that is entirely devoted to concealing, distorting, omitting and manipulating the truth.

In what way is “strategic intelligence” different from plain intelligence?

It is information that is shaped in a way that meets the needs of a particular group. In other words, it is not the truth at all, but a fabrication, a fiction, a lie.

Strategic intelligence is an oxymoron; a tidy bit of Orwellian doublespeak that reflects the deeply rooted cynicism of its authors.

The internet is a logical target for the Pentagon’s electronic warfare. Already the Downing Street memos, Bush’s bombing-threats against Al Jazeera, the fraudulent 2004 elections, and the leveling of Falluja, have disrupted the smooth execution of Bush’s wars. It is understandable that Rumsfeld and Co. would seek to transform this potential enemy into an ally, much as it has done with the MSM.

The Pentagon’s plans for engaging in “virtual warfare” are impressive. As BBC notes: “The operations described in the document include a surprising range of military activities: public affairs officers who brief journalists, psychological operations troops who try to manipulate the thoughts and beliefs of an enemy, computer network attack specialists who seek to destroy enemy networks.” (BBC)

The enemy, of course, is you, dear reader, or anyone who refuses to accept their role as a witless-cog in new world order. Seizing the internet is a prudent way of controlling every piece of information that one experiences from cradle to grave; all necessary for an orderly police-state.

The Information Operations Roadmap (IOR) recommends that psychological operations (Psyops) “should consider a range of technologies to disseminate propaganda in enemy territory: unmanned aerial vehicles, "miniaturized, scatterable public address systems", wireless devices, cellular phones and the internet.” No idea is too costly or too far-fetched that it escapes the serious consideration of the Pentagon chieftains.

The War Dept. is planning to insert itself into every area of the internet from blogs to chat rooms, from leftist web sites to editorial commentary. The objective is to challenge any tidbit of information that appears on the web that may counter the official narrative; the fairytale of benign American intervention to promote democracy and human rights across the planet.

The IOR aspires to "provide maximum control of the entire electromagnetic spectrum" and develop the capability to "disrupt or destroy the full spectrum of globally emerging communications systems, sensors, and weapons systems dependent on the electromagnetic spectrum". (BBC)

Full spectrum dominance.

The ultimate goal of the Pentagon is to create an internet-paradigm that corresponds to the corporate mainstream model, devoid of imagination or divergent points of view. They envision an internet that is increasingly restricted by the gluttonous influence of industry and its vast “tapestry of lies”.

The internet is the modern-day marketplace of ideas, an invaluable resource for human curiosity and organized resistance. It provides a direct link between the explosive power of ideas and engaged citizen involvement. (aka; participatory democracy)

The Pentagon is laying the groundwork for privatizing the internet so the information-revolution can be transformed into an information-tyranny, extending to all areas of communications and serving the exclusive interests of a few well-heeled American plutocrats.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11901.htm

[toty1994]

Toty, can you please post some Akrill photos ? I would LOVE to see them. I was left in the dust when that theory first came out. I still don't understand where that idea came from. :confused:


http://img01.picoodle.com/img/img01/4/4/16/f_philackrillm_eeef98a.jpg
Phil Ackrill early 60's and some other geezer.


http://img29.picoodle.com/img/img29/4/4/16/f_philackrillm_0bd11b8.jpg
Phil Ackrill as he looks now



http://www.themovelive.com/contact.html
This is the page from The Move's website with Ackrill named as their accountant. It adds up that it's the Phil Ackrill for various reasons, eg his connection to the geographical area and band members, the fact that he became an accountant after his time in Denny Laine and the Diplomats etc.

The poster I was questioning on a pid forum was certain there were no known photos of Ackrill post 1971, that in fact he virtually disappeared off the face of the earth. The reason? Because he apparently replaced Paul McCartney. Well, it only took a few minutes googling to find the above.

I wonder if Mr Ackrill is aware of his minor fame in the pid world? Well, for those who would like to find out it would seem he's easily contactable, either via the above link or on facebook!

[lostworld]

The poster I was questioning on a pid forum was certain there were no known photos of Ackrill post 1971, that in fact he virtually disappeared off the face of the earth. The reason? Because he apparently replaced Paul McCartney.

I swore I wasn't gonna go into this again, yet it comes back to haunt me, LOL! :rolleyes:

I had no idea the theory said that there should be no pics of Ackrill after 1971. That makes more sense then.

However, when are these photo's below supposed to be taken?
Cause he looks so much older in this one:
http://i41.tinypic.com/1pz80x.jpg
phil akrill

than he does in this one:
http://i44.tinypic.com/2efufbd.jpg
phil akrill is who 60if says was paul

Is the first photo, where he has longer hair, a beard and looking really old supposed to be before 1971 then? Cause that must be a lot of aging in not so many years apart... :confused:

Oh, I still don't get this...! :p

[faulconandsnowjob]

Illuminati Musicians - YouTube

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

[toty1994]

I swore I wasn't gonna go into this again, yet it comes back to haunt me, LOL! :rolleyes:

I had no idea the theory said that there should be no pics of Ackrill after 1971. That makes more sense then.

However, when are these photo's below supposed to be taken?
Cause he looks so much older in this one:
http://i41.tinypic.com/1pz80x.jpg
phil akrill

than he does in this one:
http://i44.tinypic.com/2efufbd.jpg
phil akrill is who 60if says was paul

Is the first photo, where he has longer hair, a beard and looking really old supposed to be before 1971 then? Cause that must be a lot of aging in not so many years apart... :confused:

Oh, I still don't get this...! :p

Those two photos are of Vivian Stanshall, not Ackrill, so I don't get it either!

It may have been only the person I was questioning claiming there are no post '71 pics of Ackrill, I don't know, but he is still being put forward as a replacement. Even if there were no photos of the guy on the internet other than those 60's pics, it wouldn't be an issue - he's really no more famous than you or I, so why would there be?

[truthseeker49]

Toty, that 1960's photo of Phil Akrill is key. The first thing that struck me are his ears. He has some big ears, eh ? If he is the Faul replacement, why then did Faul have smaller ears which were close to his head during the MMT shoot ??? Phil appears to have ears which would've been fairly easy to surgically adjust to better resemble Paul's.
That does NOT make any sense to me. :confused::rolleyes:

[faulconandsnowjob]

Personally, I don't think Phil Akrill had anything to do w/ Paul's replacement.

[lostworld]

Personally, I don't think Phil Akrill had anything to do w/ Paul's replacement.

Thank you!
Neither do I - mostly cause this STILL makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever!

Thanks Toty for your response. :)

[theweetoon]

After reading this thread "Is Paul really dead?", comparing images and listening to his voice again. I have come to the conclusion that Faul is not Paul. FACT.
Thanks faulconandsnowjob

[orbandsceptre27]

^ Your comment is much appreciated Theweetoon!

Faulcon has done a tremendous job here highlighting the many differences between Paul and his replacement - long may it continue! :)

[evea]

After reading this thread "Is Paul really dead?", comparing images and listening to his voice again. I have come to the conclusion that Faul is not Paul. FACT.
Thanks faulconandsnowjob

its not fact its conjecture until it its confirmed either way it is not fact.... .FACT

there was a young man called paul
who in one photo looked
a little bit small
he had just bended his knee
but unknown to he
he began the phenomenon Faul:)

and his nose will continue to change shape as will his ears they are the only part of the human body that never stops growing.FACT

gain or lose weight face shape changes.FACT

As we age our faces lose fat causing wrinkles and sagging.FACT

As we age our teeth and gums change.FACT

go and get some pics of any man in there 60s and compare the nose to that of them in their 20s
voila!

[faulconandsnowjob]

theweetoon, thank you for your comment. I am so glad more and more people are seeing that Paul was replaced. Unfortunately, the replacement just didn't have his looks or talent. :(

My personal feeling is that people who continue to see these guys as the same despite all the evidence to the contrary need to break free from their programming. Sorry to be harsh, but that is my opinion.

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

[evea]

i think people who believe this need to get a grip... that my opinion:)

[faulconandsnowjob]

i think people who believe this need to get a grip...
I think you need to open your eyes & actually look. That's my opinion :D And we can trade insults all day. I really believe people who can't see the difference have been brainwashed to think they're the same person.

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

Maybe too much TV? :D

[truthseeker49]

Evea, we are totally aware of this. That is why I do my best to only compare photos of Paul with Faul from the late 1960's, 1970's. Comparing him to Faul as an old man would be ludicrous.
Thank you, theweetoon. It makes all the hard work well worth it. :D

[orbandsceptre27]

i think people who believe this need to get a grip... that my opinion:)


Good for you - I didn`t have an opinion on it for at least six months while I looked at the whole area indept.

But that`s life today, people voicing definitive opinions on everything with little or no research.

[evea]

i am looking and see nothing :)

and i dont watch tv not quite sure why you think i do!
do you

[orbandsceptre27]

i am looking and see nothing :)

Well keep looking :)


and i dont watch tv not quite sure why you think i do!
do you

Where did I mention that you watched tv, and what has that got to do with what we`re talking about?

[faulconandsnowjob]

Where did I mention that you watched tv, and what has that got to do with what we`re talking about?
I posited that maybe people who can't tell the difference between Paul & Faul have been brainwashed by watching too much TV. I was only slightly joking :D I actually think it has more to do w/ people being trained to see Faul as Paul b/c he is represented as such in the mainstream media.

But anyway, I think the quote in my signature says it all w/ respect to this issue:

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

[evea]

Good for you - I didn`t have an opinion on it for at least six months while I looked at the whole area indept.

But that`s life today, people voicing definitive opinions on everything with little or no research.


noooooooooooo honestly i see no evidence in these pictures
its the same face
i do portraits for a living and study faces intently from all angles
his looks nothing different
same bone structure
same eye shape
same teeth

its just different hairline/ eyebrow shape/ aging and camera angles/lighting


any discrepencies are in your head not in mine

this isnt because my mind is shut
or that i watch tv......... i dont

i actually think there not there

what actually would change your mind on this

DNA if he did that you would just say the cia tampered with it!

you cannot just dismiss someones viewpoint if it does not agree with yours with such petty retorts as
your mind is shut
you watch tv

that just belittles your arguement


do me a favour find 10 pics of........ i dunno brittany spears and examine them using your same criteria

[evea]

I think you need to open your eyes & actually look. That's my opinion :D And we can trade insults all day. I really believe people who can't see the difference have been brainwashed to think they're the same person.

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

Maybe too much TV? :D

there!

[faulconandsnowjob]

^ My mother is an artist (has done portraits) & specializes in realism. She spotted the difference between the 2 men in 2 seconds. It took me a little longer than that :D

[faulconandsnowjob]

I don't know what to tell you, evea, but these guys are not the same person.

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/memphis_66_comp.jpg

It's a little weird that an artist w/ a supposedly "trained" eye can't see that.

I do have a trained eye, as I've done graphic art professionally in the past.

[evea]

well i dont see it
and im bloody good at portraits:)
anyway ill have to continue this another day as im not off to follow some sheep or watch oprah or something

joke! im doing none of the above
ive got painting to do

bye for now

[orbandsceptre27]

noooooooooooo honestly i see no evidence in these pictures
its the same face
i do portraits for a living and study faces intently from all angles
his looks nothing different
same bone structure
same eye shape
same teeth

its just different hairline/ eyebrow shape/ aging and camera angles/lighting


I won`t be getting my portrait done with you.... I can safely say that! ;)


any discrepencies are in your head not in mine

Obviously!

this isnt because my mind is shut
or that i watch tv......... i dont

There`s not a single person I`ve met that thinks they`re close-minded!

I never said you watch tv and I couldn`t care less if you lived in front of it.

i actually think there not there

So why are you still here, wasting your time??

what actually would change your mind on this

1 miilion dollars...... joking, nothing!

DNA if he did that you would just say the cia tampered with it!

Would I?

you cannot just dismiss someones viewpoint if it does not agree with yours with such petty retorts as
your mind is shut
you watch tv

I never said any of these things but I`ll say this, you assume alot!

that just belittles your arguement

I`m not here to argue with anyone.

One more thing, learn to spell!

[faulconandsnowjob]

And im bloody good at portraits
I suppose we'll have to take your word for it, but forgive me if I'm skeptical. Not being able to tell the difference doesn't speak too highly of your eye for detail. Sorry, not trying to be rude, but that's how I see it.

[karol2020]

Good for you - I didn`t have an opinion on it for at least six months while I looked at the whole area indept.

But that`s life today, people voicing definitive opinions on everything with little or no research.

I´m like you.... :) looking at all the area indept i don´t have a definite opinion..... like some of you have said who have art training or draw portraits, I have a little too, I have made some drawing classes and i paint too, i think this can be a advantage to see these visual details has you have said yet....
but has i said i still don´t know..... orbandsceptre, just by curiosity, do you have a definite opinious now?

[karol2020]

evea, a very good point in favour of the theory is the ears like this one:

http://digilander.libero.it/p_truth/the_truth/faul_paul_eye_distance_comparison.jpg


and I´m saying not about just the earlobes, but about the position and angle of the ears in the head, like paul had the ears in a angle "more open" and going out, dumbo like; faul has it in an angle more straight in the head. And you can see it in many photos, just research for it. This change could be explained only by a surgery done wichh i think he didnt.

[karol2020]

I don't know what to tell you, evea, but these guys are not the same person.

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/memphis_66_comp.jpg

It's a little weird that an artist w/ a supposedly "trained" eye can't see that.

I do have a trained eye, as I've done graphic art professionally in the past.

at this photo we can see the ear angle too

[orbandsceptre27]

I´m like you.... :) looking at all the area indept i don´t have a definite opinion..... like some of you have said who have art training or draw portraits, I have a little too, I have made some drawing classes and i paint too, i think this can be a advantage to see these visual details has you have said yet....
but has i said i still don´t know..... orbandsceptre, just by curiosity, do you have a definite opinious now?

Hi Karol2020 and thanks for your posts -

I am 100% convinced now that Paul McCartney was replaced, no doubts. It took me quite a while to decide, but the longer you spend looking at the whole area Karol the more cracks you begin to see!

Too many changes occurred in too short a space of time. For me, examining old interviews and vids of Paul singing and speaking finally convinced me.

Fauls mannerisms are completely at odds with Paul. I have to log off for a few minutes but I`ll comment further soon.

[orbandsceptre27]

Well Karol to say I`m having a `mare navigating this site tonight is putting it mildly :) - I`ll post again and cross my fingers!

One of the major differences you`ll see between Paul McCartney and his present day replacement is in the jawline. Paul had a fuller, rounder, more manly jaw than his replacement.

This comparative picture below shows this difference and I`ve no doubt if people didn`t "know" Paul McCartney, they would say both men are completely different individuals (which in fact they are). Actually if you watch both pieces of film from which the two snaps are taken, you`ll see what I`m talking about.

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/memphis_66_comp.jpg

Paul (on the left) in this Memphis interview looks very simlar to a friend of mine who I attended secondary school with, and later university. Many at school and uni initially thought we were brothers as we looked very alike and we both have that same type of lower jawline. Faul tries to make up for the difference here by drooping his mouth when he talks, which makes him look dozy. It was obviously effective though as it fooled people.

Pauls gate (gap between his upper and lower teeth) is also much different to Fauls and this again is down to jaw structure. It`s quite obvious in the vid "The Night Before."

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

[faulconandsnowjob]

^ I tried so hard to get everything to line up in that comp, but the heads are just different. <shrugs>

Good observations, Orb. In addition, Faul's nose is longer, Paul's eyes are larger & set farther apart, there is more distance btw the tip of Paul's nose & his upper lip, there is more distance btw Paul's lower lip & the tip of his chin, & as Karol said, Paul's ears stick out more, Paul's face is rounder & fuller, & Paul's chin doesn't come to a point. Oh, & the eyebrows are different. :D

[foxcroft]

"The Night Before" video is, I think, the best performance based evidence... You NEVER heard Faul sing like that in 67 and beyond. Paul's voice was deeper, and had the vocals to project his voice louder, while Faul has a softer, higher octave voice.

Great thread everyone. This discovery has had a deep impact :o

[faulconandsnowjob]

Thank you, Foxcroft & welcome to the thread! :) I totally agree w/ you about Paul's voice.

This whole thing w/ Paul/Faul has def had a huge impact on me.

[accuracy]

"The Night Before" video is, I think, the best performance based evidence... You NEVER heard Faul sing like that in 67 and beyond. Paul's voice was deeper, and had the vocals to project his voice louder, while Faul has a softer, higher octave voice.

Great thread everyone. This discovery has had a deep impact :o

Yes it's a stark contrast alright!:):):)

I want to be you're friend,foxcroft

accuracy

[theweetoon]

theweetoon, thank you for your comment. I am so glad more and more people are seeing that Paul was replaced. Unfortunately, the replacement just didn't have his looks or talent. :(

My personal feeling is that people who continue to see these guys as the same despite all the evidence to the contrary need to break free from their programming. Sorry to be harsh, but that is my opinion.



I concur....faulcon

[astrochicken]

I found this quote by someone like-minded on the net, which sums up 100% how i felt after watching the anthology dvd's, so i can just copy and paste it.

"I sat through 8 volumes of the Beatles Anthology last night/yesterday, which was produced and released in late 1996.

First, Paul McCartney died in 1966.

Psychism aside, you can clearly see how prior to Sept '66, they were really a group of four very close friends. The body language, eye contact, spirit of joy, its all there. Fun, refreshing, easy to connect with on any level.

Paul and Brian die. The Beatles stop touring for all time.

From this point on in the anthology, no one looks at paul. No one, for the rest of the vid series in all that old footage, is smiling anymore. Everyone is wearing a grimmace. No eye contact with Paul, who is trying so hard to be liked by the others and trying to be "over-paul" to make up for the loss.

I video number 8, some editor put in a narrative over an old shot in twickenham studios, late 67/68 and you can see and hear George, giving a guitar/bass lesson to "Faul." And Faul can't do the basic riff and they get into an argument. You can see, three times, george showing paul the basic, easy riff, and paul is just not getting it, and both are frustrated. The original Paul was an inspired bass player.

The harder Faul tries to fit in, the more the others resent him.

These are just the broad strokes, but you can see it all so clearly, once you understand the Beatles were ended in late 66. It's a downhill slide from there. Its all on the video. Pretty sad thing, too. It puts the whole breakup into context."


That also brings to a mind something i'd read and registered years ago stated by an abbey road technichian and by Steve Hoffman ,the remastering genius. (http://www.stevehoffman.tv/discography/)

He said the old beatles (pre-faul) albums will NEVER be remastered as
1. it is chiseled in stone which vocals and which instruments appear on which channel (left/right) and how present they are in the mix.
(It makes sense considering what they have to lose, if the obvious audible difference between paul & faul is remastered with more clarity)
2. the VAULTS (abbey road beatles tapes) are guarded like fort knox.

Basically, you need approval from yoko & paul for anything. Which brings me to the "Love" album of last year,
it's funny how SIR George Martin's farewell gift to the world should also introduce his son Giles, as the heir to the vault. (reminds me of ghostbusters.. ie George Martin (& Giles) are the "Gatekeepers" and paul/yoko are the "Keymasters")

[truthseeker49]

Astrochicken, I am blown away by your post. I hope you don't mind, but I would like very much to post this "verbatim " on my forum. It is an amazing post.
Theweetoon, Foxcroft, welcome aboard !
Faulcon wrote:
This whole thing w/ Paul/Faul has def had a huge impact on me.

That is the understatement of the year. I have been researching this & posting photo comparisons of Paul vs. Faul since 2003.

[faulconandsnowjob]

Astrochicken, great post. I didn't know that about how they guarded the tapes & that they hadn't remastered Paul's playing.

Whoever made the observation about the Anthology really nailed the Beatles' behavior. :(

[faulconandsnowjob]

Has Faul ever sung "The Night Before"? One of my friends who lurks here, but doesn't post, made this observation:

Paul's voice was deeper, and had the vocals to project his voice louder compared to Faul's softer, higher octave voice. Do you remember if Faul would have sung this song 'the Night before?' Strange that Faul never sang this particular song, surely he must know that he could not reproduce the same intonation of voice that Paul had!!! You should put to the challenge the skeptics if they can find Faul sung this song because strangely the song the Night Before we only hear it on the Help movie (and CD) but I believe he never sang it in these concerts. Do you think that I am mistaken on this topic? The first time that I heard this song I immediately was hooked, I believe that his voice is for something. The one of Faul is less intense.

[theweetoon]

Maybe they thought to themselves as brilliant musicians, which they were....
" WHO is this guy, what an idiot, I mean in the name of whatever he canae even get this simple riff up and running.
And we have'nt even heard him singing yet " :D:D

[queenofleon]

Thank you, Foxcroft & welcome to the thread! :) I totally agree w/ you about Paul's voice.

This whole thing w/ Paul/Faul has def had a huge impact on me.

I cant believe it either....I have become obsessed with seeing as much proof as possible!!

[faulconandsnowjob]

I have become obsessed with seeing as much proof as possible!!
LOL - that happened to me, too :) Of course, it's not so bad looking at pics of Paul for us ladies, is it? ;) :D

[faulconandsnowjob]

Maybe they thought to themselves as brilliant musicians, which they were....
" WHO is this guy, what an idiot, I mean in the name of whatever he canae even get this simple riff up and running.
And we have'nt even heard him singing yet "
LOL! I wonder if they had studio musicians playing for him on the records...

[orbandsceptre27]

^ I tried so hard to get everything to line up in that comp, but the heads are just different.

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/memphis_66_comp.jpg

I forgot it was you who put those two shots together - It`s an excellent comparison Faulcon because the differences between Paul and Faul immediately jump out at you.

In addition, Faul's nose is longer, Paul's eyes are larger & set farther apart, there is more distance btw the tip of Paul's nose & his upper lip, there is more distance btw Paul's lower lip & the tip of his chin, & as Karol said, Paul's ears stick out more, Paul's face is rounder & fuller, & Paul's chin doesn't come to a point. Oh, & the eyebrows are different. :D

Bang on the money! :cool: :)

[orbandsceptre27]

"The Night Before" video is, I think, the best performance based evidence... You NEVER heard Faul sing like that in 67 and beyond. Paul's voice was deeper, and had the vocals to project his voice louder, while Faul has a softer, higher octave voice.

I agree with you Foxcroft and welcome to the D.I forum. I remember watching the Anthologies as a teen and thinking how vibrant the Beatles came across in this one vid. I never understood why they went so flat and became so serious within a short space of time. Well now we all know lol!

Great thread everyone. This discovery has had a deep impact

Every realisation in life brings inward change mate, doesn`t matter how big or small it appears to be.

That`s why I`d say to anyone reading this thread - Don`t just believe McCartney was replaced because a group of people here say so. You have to realise it first. This might sound quite obvious, but it`s amazing the amount of crap people believe in life without first questioning it. But the more people sincerely look, the more they will genuinely see!

[astrochicken]

That`s why I`d say to anyone reading this thread - Don`t just believe McCartney was replaced because a group of people here say so. You have to realise it first. This might sound quite obvious, but it`s amazing the amount of crap people believe in life without first questioning it. But the more people sincerely look, the more they will genuinely see!

As the great philosopher Monsieur Laurel ;) said:

"you can lead a horse to water, but a pencil must be lead"

[faulconandsnowjob]

^ Orb, I totally agree. I think I knew in my heart something was wrong, but it took a PID link & some investigation before I could actually see it w/ my eyes.

[orbandsceptre27]

As the great philosopher Monsieur Laurel ;) said:

"you can lead a horse to water, but a pencil must be lead"

Haha :D .....touche!

[foxcroft]

Thanks for the kindly welcome, everyone. :o

A public appearance in Russia.

I think this video has already been posted but I find it quite interesting. Notice at 3:27 he does at throat slitting implication with his microphone then, "sneakily", gives the middle finger. :p
http://youtube.com/watch?v=aUX9qmnlx6U

Also he tells someone, "ohh I can't tell you that... it's a secret".

Then at 5:02, right before he walks off stage makes a goat sound. lol.

[orbandsceptre27]

^ It`s getting much harder for him Foxcroft. More and more people are starting to see through the whole charade. The internet (esp you tube) has been great - Anyone can view the old footage of Paul and then compare to the later Bill. It`s also fairly obvious that some insiders are working to get the truth out - iamaphoney being a prime example. Interest in this area has mushroomed over the last year and a half in particular!

http://www.youtube.com/user/iamaphoney

[faulconandsnowjob]

^ Do you know if Faul ever sang "I'm Looking Through You"? I can't find one of him doing it on youtube...

Someone put this comp together, which I thought was really good:

Paul McCartney is Dead- Yesterday 1966 & 1976 - YouTube

[orbandsceptre27]

^ I`ll have a look later today Faulcon and if I come up with similar comps I`ll put them up.

Yeah Faul really dragged the last out of that. He has this great talent for boring the crap out of me with his singing style. I suppose it comes from trying to mimic Paul and not pushing the boundaries too much. It`s easy to see "Yesterday" is well within Fauls range, whereas Paul was reaching for the higher notes.

[faulconandsnowjob]

^ That would be awesome to have some singing comps. A comp of "The Night Before" would be good, except Faul never did it, did he?

[truthseeker49]

Paul's voice was deeper, and had the vocals to project his voice louder compared to Faul's softer, higher octave voice. Do you remember if Faul would have sung this song 'the Night before?' Strange that Faul never sang this particular song, surely he must know that he could not reproduce the same intonation of voice that Paul had!!! You should put to the challenge the skeptics if they can find Faul sung this song because strangely the song the Night Before we only hear it on the Help movie (and CD) but I believe he never sang it in these concerts. Do you think that I am mistaken on this topic? The first time that I heard this song I immediately was hooked, I believe that his voice is for something. The one of Faul is less intense.

I don't know if Faul ever sang " The Night Before". I agree completely with this person's observations. :)

Queenofleon posted:
I cant believe it either....I have become obsessed with seeing as much proof as possible!!

Keep an open mind & don't let the naysayers snow you. Rules of thumb - Paul had a small forehead, wide-set BROWN eyes, and large ears with attached earlobes. He was small of stature ( 5ft. 8 in. tall ), but he wore either lifts or "elevator shoes" to give himself a few extra inches in height. He has a smaller torso, and his legs are shorter from knees to ankle, with smaller feet. Check out the comparisons on my forum & see for yourself.

Maybe they thought to themselves as brilliant musicians, which they were....
" WHO is this guy, what an idiot, I mean in the name of whatever he canae even get this simple riff up and running.
And we have'nt even heard him singing yet "

LOL! I wonder if they had studio musicians playing for him on the records...

That's a good question. I remember reading awhile ago that either someone from his band or a studio musician that he worked with had commented on "Paul" recording his bass lines seperately. That it was then added to the mix. So, he didn't play along with the others.

Orb wrote:
That`s why I`d say to anyone reading this thread - Don`t just believe McCartney was replaced because a group of people here say so. You have to realise it first. This might sound quite obvious, but it`s amazing the amount of crap people believe in life without first questioning it. But the more people sincerely look, the more they will genuinely see!

That is very true. And if possible, go out & see if you can find vintage material that is unlikely to have been tampered with. Beatle mags, books that were in print prior to September 1966. Your local collectible shop, public library are good places to try first. I'd say E-Bay, but with every day that passes it becomes more likely that bogus material is being put up for sale. I'm sure that ThePowersThatBe are very aware of the PID movement. They know that we base our observations on vintage material. I would not put it past them to falsify said material & then "release" it for purchase. They have virtually unlimited resources at their fingertips.

Foxcroft wrote:
I think this video has already been posted but I find it quite interesting. Notice at 3:27 he does at throat slitting implication with his microphone then, "sneakily", gives the middle finger.


paul is dead - nothing is real 4 Close
You need to upgrade your Flash Player
Also he tells someone, "ohh I can't tell you that... it's a secret".

Then at 5:02, right before he walks off stage makes a goat sound. lol.

I've seen that video before. Paul was very professional. It was very rare to see him act that way. He would've had to have been pretty high to give the finger like that. I have a few photos of Faul "giving the finger " over the years. I think I only have one of Paul doing it. It was taken in the Bahamas, during the filming of Help ! I'm pretty sure that all the boys were smoking "ganja" while they were there ! I'll post it if I can find it.

Orb wrote:
It`s also fairly obvious that some insiders are working to get the truth out - iamaphoney being a prime example. Interest in this area has mushroomed over the last year and a half in particular!

Yep. In fact, many of us suspect that Sir Paul is part of the "iamaphoney" team. I think that he's getting tired of the "charade" himself.

Faulcon, I made it half-way through the Faul vs. Paul "Yesterday" singing comparison. Faul has gone & polished it up "ad nauseum". Paul sang that from his heart. True, Paul's voice was deeper & more gravelly due to the strain on it from his being on tour. Still, the difference in their voices & STYLE of singing is quite obvious.
Orb - you are correct in that Yesterday is well within Faul's vocal range, while Paul was reaching for the higher notes.

[dream9]

Here's a link that shows in detail the physical differences between Paul McCartney and his double:


http://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/fc1.html

[faulconandsnowjob]

Yay! Dream9 is here :) That link ^ is really good. It helped me see the differences btw the 2 men :)

[orbandsceptre27]

Here's a link that shows in detail the physical differences between Paul McCartney and his double:


http://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/fc1.html

Thanks Dream9 and welcome to the D.I forum. :)

[truthseeker49]

Thank you, Dream9. :cool:

[orbandsceptre27]

That also brings to a mind something i'd read and registered years ago stated by an abbey road technichian and by Steve Hoffman ,the remastering genius. (http://www.stevehoffman.tv/discography/)

He said the old beatles (pre-faul) albums will NEVER be remastered as
1. it is chiseled in stone which vocals and which instruments appear on which channel (left/right) and how present they are in the mix.
(It makes sense considering what they have to lose, if the obvious audible difference between paul & faul is remastered with more clarity)
2. the VAULTS (abbey road beatles tapes) are guarded like fort knox.

Basically, you need approval from yoko & paul for anything. Which brings me to the "Love" album of last year,
it's funny how SIR George Martin's farewell gift to the world should also introduce his son Giles, as the heir to the vault. (reminds me of ghostbusters.. ie George Martin (& Giles) are the "Gatekeepers" and paul/yoko are the "Keymasters")

Astrochicken you come up with some great info! :cool:

We`d only love if they remastered the early material. And it`s quite odd that they won`t, as it`s some of the earliest and greatest rock n`roll music of all time!

As you said, they have all to loose - It would be much easier to tell the differences between Paul and Bill!

[truthseeker49]

Very true. Sir George & Giles the "Gatekeepers" and Sir Paul & Yoko are the "Keymasters".
They stand to lose everything if the truth comes out !

[faulconandsnowjob]

^ Not only that, but I think the Illuminati stand to lose control if the truth comes out. People will start to realize how much they control everything. The first step to becoming free is to realize you're trapped, right?

[truthseeker49]

That is exactly right ! :mad:

[humito]

^ It`s getting much harder for him Foxcroft. More and more people are starting to see through the whole charade. The internet (esp you tube) has been great - Anyone can view the old footage of Paul and then compare to the later Bill. It`s also fairly obvious that some insiders are working to get the truth out - iamaphoney being a prime example. Interest in this area has mushroomed over the last year and a half in particular!

http://www.youtube.com/user/iamaphoney


lol............iamaphoney is just that ..........he has been prooved time and again that he is a clever editor that deliberately misleads and lies....he taking you all for a ride and is the one laughing at how easily you can be manipulated by the very media that you claim to be control free from !!!
it really is laughable..............he has no truth to bring to the world or we would have it by now.what he seems to be now implying is that pmc is a satanist...........as if anyone still believes in that crap.

there is no credible evidence whatsoever that paul is dead etc..........
there is evidence that he has had a hair transplant,uses botox and has had minor cosmetic surgery and his ears pinned.................but this is a wrinkly rockers vanity not a replacement job............before people start believing all these pic comparisons ,know that without a doubt most of the ones used as evidence such as the sgt pepper pic have been altered.........the sgt pepper pic in particular that is always used to show "Fauls" elongated head is the pic used from the compact disc artwork....this is different to the LP release as it has been stretched to fit the new format............the other one that is used a lot is a still taken from an interview outside abby road where he is wearing his fake sgt peppers moustache.........this pic is very strange untill you realise that mostly it is used flipped round and is out of context as it is a frame where his head is in movement causing his features to look weird.........if anyone can be bothered to look at other frames in the footage they will see that the man in question is clearly paul mc cartney.
All the eye anomilies can be easily explained away especially the ones that have been shot in the 60 s in sepia tone etc........

when it comes as to reasons why they might have replaced him .there arnt any are there?
oooh he didnt want to go along with the lsd agenda?? what lsd agenda?
lsd had been around a long time in the underground scene before the beatles experimented ............why if the governments were so keen to have everybody tripping were they so hysterical about it and drugs in general? locking people away for a few spliffs even?
Pauls change in personality and musical interest can also easily be explained by drug use as can the fact he lost his chubby schoolboy looks within a year.
Surly " they" would be all over "fauls" solo material also if they had gone to so much trouble to replace him it would be full of subliminal messages etc to keep us all trapped in 3d reality and they would be manipulating us with him!!!...........it must have cost them millions to produce this controllable doppelganger .....but what do we get ?? a carreer thats been mostly full of self indulgent middle of the road crap that a vast majority of the population would never listen to let alone be influenced by and a public persona that most people just want to smack let alone be influenced by!!!! ...........why put all the effort into it only for paul to split the beatles a short while after and ruining the so called money making brainwashing machine?? and embark on an unremarkable solo career?

IMO paul mccartney is alive but just vain and overated these days......a musician who peaked very young. but he must have credit for being one of the first to use the studio as an instrument in itself ..............

[faulconandsnowjob]

there is no credible evidence whatsoever that paul is dead
Maybe not that he's dead, but there's tons that he was replaced.

what lsd agenda?
Just as a start:

http://www.serendipity.li/cia/cia_lsd.html

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/beatles_mind_control.htm

http://www.maebrussell.com/Mae%20Brussell%20Articles/Operation%20Chaos.html

It is rather anomalous for a musician/composer to peak at 24. It is more usual for them to grow & improve.

[bribean]

OMG he looks nothing like Paul !

THE RUTLES - Get Up And Go (1969) - YouTube

[orbandsceptre27]

Humito you make me laugh :D - same shite, different day!

[truthseeker49]

About his ears being pinned...
Who gets their ears alternately pinned & unpinned day after day ? In other words, one day his ears will be close to his head, the next they won't be, the next they will be, etc. These observations are from looking over photos of him from 1967. The same thing with the alternation between him having a long thin face & a long full face. Paul did have periods in which his face was fuller, but his face was never long.
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y60/Trueclues/paul_bravo_magazine_nr_37_1966.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/WlarusGirl/BB3aa.jpgPaul
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/shades2.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/serious.jpgPaul,1966
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/pid_on_magazine_p2.jpghttp://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/DR1020_Paul_McCARTNEY_6.jpgFaul,1967
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/paul68.jpghttp://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b375/Cavern61/paulmc1.jpg Faul/1968

From my forum:
Look at how SWOLLEN Faul's cheeks are in the second photo! That is because they were injected with underskin filler so that he would better resemble Paul !

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

[faulconandsnowjob]

OMG he looks nothing like Paul !

THE RUTLES - Get Up And Go (1969)

That was obviously Firk McQuigly :-P

[bribean]

That was obviously Firk McQuigly :-P

Ha Ha...
You can tell by the beard.

[truthseeker49]

For comparison:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/shades2.jpghttp://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/DR1020_Paul_McCARTNEY_6.jpg
^Paul, 1966 vs. Faul, 1967
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/serious.jpghttp://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b375/Cavern61/paulmc1.jpg
^Paul, 1966 vs. Faul 1968
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y60/Trueclues/paul_bravo_magazine_nr_37_1966.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/paul68.jpg
^Paul, 1966 vs. Faul, 1968

[humito]

Humito you make me laugh :D - same shite, different day!

ditto :D

[humito]

pick any icon from the sixties who is alive and in the public eye today and perform the same scrutiny of pics ,vids voices etc and you will find the same "proof" that that they have been "replaced" that you find with mc cartney........especially the women stars.........you could see the vain sod at the grammys performing saw her standing there .........well botoxed up with his replaced hair all mop toppy...is sad really that he (like all celebrities)is so vain.......( was that song by carly simon about him?)............................................i reckon a better question would be is george harrison cloned??.........lol;) http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg225/nineteensixties/dhani.png

[humito]

For comparison:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/shades2.jpghttp://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/DR1020_Paul_McCARTNEY_6.jpg
^Paul, 1966 vs. Faul, 1967
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/serious.jpghttp://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b375/Cavern61/paulmc1.jpg
^Paul, 1966 vs. Faul 1968
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y60/Trueclues/paul_bravo_magazine_nr_37_1966.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/paul68.jpg
^Paul, 1966 vs. Faul, 1968

on the last 2 pics of these comparisons the sepia toned one on the left really reminds me of paul post 66 on the butcher cover;)

[faulconandsnowjob]

Why is this such a difficult concept? We're not talking about comparing Paul from 1966 to 2009. We're talking about a big difference in appearance in the span of a few months - from Aug 1966 to Dec 1966. Maybe he had plastic surgery b/c he didn't want to be "the cute one" anymore. Yeah, that's the ticket :rolleyes: :D

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/1966_comp.jpg
Paul Aug 19, 1966 v. Faul Dec. 1966

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/memphis_66_comp.jpg
Paul Aug 19, 1966 v. Faul 1967

[humito]

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.makemeheal.com/news/images/paul-mccartney-plastic-surgery.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.makemeheal.com/news/paul-mccartney-plastic-surgery/321&usg=__6_AG18FdvKJn3OVNJrtfWJOY970=&h=385&w=468&sz=56&hl=en&start=5&tbnid=XHhiB5SSADar2M:&tbnh=105&tbnw=128&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmccartney%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%26sa%3D X


and this comparison shows how quickly he can change these days with even better cosmetic procedure..........;)

[faulconandsnowjob]

^ Yeah, Faul has prob been under the knife quite a lot over the last 40 yrs :eek:

[orbandsceptre27]

pick any icon from the sixties who is alive and in the public eye today and perform the same scrutiny of pics ,vids voices etc and you will find the same "proof" that that they have been "replaced" that you find with mc cartney........especially the women stars.........you could see the vain sod at the grammys performing saw her standing there .........well botoxed up with his replaced hair all mop toppy...is sad really that he (like all celebrities)is so vain.......( was that song by carly simon about him?)............................................i reckon a better question would be is george harrison cloned??.........lol;)


So what you`re implying...... is that Paul McCartney, a good looking chap with the Beatles - at 23/24 years of age received botox injections, a hair transplant, elongated his skull, physically grew three inches, completely changed his eye colour, totally altered his mannerisms and personality, dumped his fiance, lost his talent (......... and a partridge in a pair tree)..........

......and this all happened in six months -

You`d want to watch what conspiracy theories you`re believing in Humito.

[faulconandsnowjob]

was that song by carly simon about him [Paul]?
I always heard it was about Warren Beatty.

So what you`re implying...... is that Paul McCartney, a good looking chap with the Beatles - at 23/24 years of age received botox injections, a hair transplant, elongated his skull, physically grew three inches, completely changed his eye colour, totally altered his mannerisms and personality, dumped his fiance, lost his talent
That is much more plausible than thinking Paul got replaced - lol :D ( Never mind Occam's Razor :D)

[humito]

So what you`re implying...... is that Paul McCartney, a good looking chap with the Beatles - at 23/24 years of age received botox injections, a hair transplant, elongated his skull, physically grew three inches, completely changed his eye colour, totally altered his mannerisms and personality, dumped his fiance, lost his talent (......... and a partridge in a pair tree)..........

......and this all happened in six months -

You`d want to watch what conspiracy theories you`re believing in Humito.

dont start getting personal because i have a difference of opinion,thats a bit childish.
all those things you list are just your opinions not proven facts.
i was implying that if you do the same sort of comparisons on other celebs that you will find similar photographic anomilies because of the countless reasons already stated in this thread.........as for mc cartney ....i think that during this period he changed his hair style,wore ( a probably fake ) moustache and induldged in copious amounts of chemicals........( you can always tell when he is on drugs)........there is no real proof of a height difference and the eye colour anomilies in my mind are easily explained.
As for the elongation of his skull !!! lol that is a funny one..........in his notorious lsd interview and in the interview outside abby road where both the above pics are from ,it is obvious to me that he had been in the studio for hours on all sorts of drugs for a long time ........to me this would account for the loss of facial fat and gaunt look......coupled with a new barnet and tash ,the effect is that his face looks longer ,especially when compared to a closer view of his chubby gurning face taken the year before.The only other evidence i have seen pput forward of skull elongation is the sgt pepper pics .however these are stretched versions to fit cds.........I think its debatable he lost his talent during this period,it was probably his peak of creativity........and who can blame him for getting turned on and dumping stuffy old prim jane asher??? I would agree his personality changed from the cartoon mop top manufactured beatle to being more himself and more arrogant.again drug use does this as does causing peaks and troughs in creativity in his later career....he still has many of his mannerisms pre 66 as well as nuance in his playing and singing.

[humito]

http://www.makemeheal.com/news/images/paul-mccartney-plastic-surgery.jpg again look at how quickly he appears to change these days.........

[faulconandsnowjob]

all those things you list are just your opinions not proven facts.
Photos/videos show those things he mentioned.

i was implying that if you do the same sort of comparisons on other celebs that you will find similar photographic anomilies because of the countless reasons already stated in this thread.........
Check out the Stepford Wives thread.

as for mc cartney ....i think that during this period he changed his hair style,wore ( a probably fake ) moustache and induldged in copious amounts of chemicals........
It was definitely a fake mustache!

paul is dead - the rotten apple 12 - YouTube

there is no real proof of a height difference

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/WlarusGirl/All_About_The_Beatles_11.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/dreamer2.jpg

and the eye colour anomilies in my mind are easily explained.
Yes, Faul has different color eyes, but sometimes he wore brown contacts.

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

to me this would account for the loss of facial fat and gaunt look......coupled with a new barnet and tash ,the effect is that his face looks longer ,especially when compared to a closer view of his chubby gurning face taken the year before.
His whole face changed in 3-4 months.

The only other evidence i have seen pput forward of skull elongation is the sgt pepper pics .however these are stretched versions to fit cds.........
Now it's Faul's head that is getting "stretched." Usually, it's Paul's head that gets stretched to look more like Faul.

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

You can compare Paul's round face from an untampered interview to Faul's not-so-round face in an untampered interview & see the differences.

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/memphis_66_comp.jpg

I think its debatable he lost his talent during this period,it was probably his peak of creativity........
"Spies Like Us" can compare to "Eleanor Rigby"? Really? :eek: And anyway, composers/writers generally do not "peak" at such a young age. They continue to grow & improve. Unfortunately, Paul "peaked" at 24 b/c he was replaced w/ someone who didn't have 1/2 his talent.

I would agree his personality changed from the cartoon mop top manufactured beatle to being more himself and more arrogant.
Paul wasn't arrogant. Faul is the arrogant one.

he still has many of his mannerisms pre 66 as well as nuance in his playing and singing.
Sure, b/c Faul practiced them.

[socrates]

dont start getting personal because i have a difference of opinion,thats a bit childish.
all those things you list are just your opinions not proven facts.
i was implying that if you do the same sort of comparisons on other celebs that you will find similar photographic anomilies because of the countless reasons already stated in this thread.........as for mc cartney ....i think that during this period he changed his hair style,wore ( a probably fake ) moustache and induldged in copious amounts of chemicals........( you can always tell when he is on drugs)........there is no real proof of a height difference and the eye colour anomilies in my mind are easily explained.
As for the elongation of his skull !!! lol that is a funny one..........in his notorious lsd interview and in the interview outside abby road where both the above pics are from ,it is obvious to me that he had been in the studio for hours on all sorts of drugs for a long time ........to me this would account for the loss of facial fat and gaunt look......coupled with a new barnet and tash ,the effect is that his face looks longer ,especially when compared to a closer view of his chubby gurning face taken the year before.The only other evidence i have seen pput forward of skull elongation is the sgt pepper pics .however these are stretched versions to fit cds.........I think its debatable he lost his talent during this period,it was probably his peak of creativity........and who can blame him for getting turned on and dumping stuffy old prim jane asher??? I would agree his personality changed from the cartoon mop top manufactured beatle to being more himself and more arrogant.again drug use does this as does causing peaks and troughs in creativity in his later career....he still has many of his mannerisms pre 66 as well as nuance in his playing and singing.

I think I'd have to agree with this.

I have now looked at many pics of Faul and Paul and I can see that there is a slight change in how he looks after 1966. However, I think this is due to him losing a bit of weight in his face, different hairstyle, moustache etc. as has been mentioned before.

face from a 1967 photo of Paul (middle) has been pasted onto the head of an early 60's McCartney (left). As you can see in the composite image on the right there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that this the same Paul. An animation showing the same face but with the different heads is shown here too.

http://homepages.tesco.net/harbfamily/opd/images/pia/003.jpg

http://homepages.tesco.net/harbfamily/opd/images/pia/compare1.gif

It is quite definately the same man.

Paul was one of the most famous people on the planet. You just couldn't cover up his death without anybody talking in over 40 years.

[truthseeker49]

Socrates, you cannot tell me that you don't see the fact that his forehead GROWS in that fade... :eek:
Faul has a much larger forehead, heck he has a much larger BODY than JPM had. :rolleyes:
Yeah, he greatly resembles him in some photos. I can see that. ANYONE can see that. That is because many of the photos had been tampered with before anyone began to take a re-interest in PID. Before the advent of the internet.
Get your hands on some vintage teen mags of Paul from before September 1966 & compare them to vintage teen mags of "Paul" from 1967. It is most definitely NOT the same man. We even have proof that they tampered with teen mags from as early as October 1966 ! They were painting mustaches on photos of Paul ! WHY ??? WHY would they feel the need to do that ???
The Beatles Book was obviously in on it. It's a sad state of affairs that most people don't care about what happened to Paul. He has been replaced in every way. It's as if he never existed. Everyone deserves to be recognized as having existed on this earth. :mad:
Concerning the mustache:
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/moustaches.gif
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/paul_mccartney_faux_paul_comparison.jpg
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/JPSP3.jpg
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/JPSP1.jpg
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/CUM005_BEATLES_6.jpghttp://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/49472772_87963fa444.jpg

[socrates]

Socrates, you cannot tell me that you don't see the fact that his forehead GROWS in that fade... :eek:

No, it doesn't grow at all. You can simply see more of his forehead in the second fade because his hair doesn't come down his forehead as far.

Faul has a much larger forehead

Please provide comparison photos showing the forehead - from the eyes to the hairline. I can then judge.

They were painting mustaches on photos of Paul ! WHY ??? WHY would they feel the need to do that ???

Well, it wouldn't be to disguise the fact that it was a replacement because Paul didn't have a moustache before 1966.

[socrates]

I've found another fade which clearly shows how the hairstyle and moustache alters his appearance. But the facial features are still the same.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v197/Member27/PID/67pfanimation.gif

The following photos also demonstrates to me that the two photos are of the same man. Just a little older and with a different hairstyle:

http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/6841/comp642ap.jpg

And these two photos show the exact same facial features:

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/5513/69920975yy1.gif

I cannot see any of the differences the Paul is dead people say are so obvious. Sorry.

[truthseeker49]

The photo comparisons that I provided above do show that Paul had a smaller forehead. The fact that his bangs go all the way to his eyebrows, while Faul's do not. This is with the fact that Faul's bangs appear just as long as Paul's bangs were. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to find photos of Paul without bangs. That's the way that he wore his hair. :rolleyes:
The comparisons that you are using are bogus. Fade's like you did in the above post prove nothing. That is why I usually do not use fades. Unless they show a big difference, they're useless.You're second photo comparison also shows that Faul had a much larger forehead, even with the fact that his hair is off his forehead.You find a photo of Paul pre 1966 with his hair totally off his forehead, and I can GUARANTEE you that his forehead will be much smaller. I am always on the lookout for that "Rosetta Stone" of photographs. Oh, and it would have to be taken from a vintage magazine, not off the internet. Too many photos on the internet are being tampered with to blur the line between Paul & Faul. In your third comparison, the eyebrows don't even match up ( across ). This is because Faul's face is longer than Paul's.
You have obviously made up your mind that Paul is Paul. I do not have the time right now to refute any more of your bogus claims.

[socrates]

The photo comparisons that I provided above do show that Paul had a smaller forehead.

How can they show he had a smaller forehead when his hair is completely covering his forehead in your pics? :confused:

If you cannot actually see his forehead, upon what evidence are you basing this claim on? :confused:

[faulconandsnowjob]

The fact that their faces were difft shapes is really obvious here

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

Paul was one of the most famous people on the planet. You just couldn't cover up his death without anybody talking in over 40 years.
Sure you could. Mal Evans was about to publish a tell-all book when he got gunned down by the police (prob set up). Then his remains disappeared. The book, of course, also disappeared. Only parts of it have ever been published. Yeah, that whole thing w/ Mal Evans isn't suspicious at all.

From The Illuminati FAQ by Abner Whateley

8. Their first means of dealing with opposition is to buy it off. To any group as rich as the Illuminati, a few million dollars are nothing.

9. Next they try threats. Danger to possessions, status or loved ones has dissuaded many a would-be foe of Illuminati schemes.

10. And, of course, murder is an ancient political weapon. The Illuminati have been responsible for some of the most shocking assassinations of modern times.

http://www.chaosmatrix.org/library/humor/illum50.html

[truthseeker49]

Of course it is. I find it HIGHLY suspicious ! :mad:

[faulconandsnowjob]

People will see what they expect to see. Still, we try to open eyes. :)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/FinalInterview.gifhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/LSD.gif

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

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

Faul's weird pop-off ears.

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

Look at Faul's huge forehead :eek:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/LennonMcCartney1965LennonSheppard19.jpg

Drastic height difference:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/WlarusGirl/All_About_The_Beatles_11.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/dreamer2.jpg

[truthseeker49]

Excellent examples as always, Faulcon. I think that the video footage between Paul in 1966 & Faul in 1967 is especially compelling. Faul looks so much older than Paul in that footage, and he looks like he's wearing a BAD hairpiece. :)

[orbandsceptre27]

I've found another fade which clearly shows how the hairstyle and moustache alters his appearance. But the facial features are still the same.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v197/Member27/PID/67pfanimation.gif

Are they now.....?

I`m just after taking one glance at these photos and I`ve spotted big differences straight off.

The centre picture of Faul - can you explain the cleft on his chin which is obviously missing from Pauls chin. And where is this chin cleft in the third photo....... it`s not there!

Go back again to the centre picture - this man has a much fuller bottom lip than McCartney had.

Wasn`t Socrates supposed to be a wise man...? :confused:


I cannot see any of the differences the Paul is dead people say are so obvious. Sorry.

You know your posts are starting to look very familiar to me Socrates. For someone who has only posted 21 times on this forum, you sure are taking quite an interest in PID...... and good for you! :)

[orbandsceptre27]

[QUOTE=faulconandsnowjob;805800]People will see what they expect to see. Still, we try to open eyes. :)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/FinalInterview.gifhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/LSD.gif

Faulcon you`re a wiz on that computer - clearly two different men! :cool:

[faulconandsnowjob]

Some more tampering?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v197/Member27/PID/67pfanimation.gif

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

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/EvolutionofLife67.jpg

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/memphis_66_comp.jpg

[faulconandsnowjob]

Faulcon you`re a wiz on that computer - clearly two different men!

I can't take credit for those - I shamelessly stole them off of PID Miss Him (trj won't mind - even "signed" them :))

[orbandsceptre27]

^ Shhhhhhh......... say nothing! ;) :)

[socrates]

Are they now.....?

I`m just after taking one glance at these photos and I`ve spotted big differences straight off.

The centre picture of Faul - can you explain the cleft on his chin which is obviously missing from Pauls chin. And where is this chin cleft in the third photo....... it`s not there!

That's because of the lighting. Where is the cleft on Paul's chin here then:

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

Go back again to the centre picture - this man has a much fuller bottom lip than McCartney had.

Not in the following photo he doesn't:

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

Wasn`t Socrates supposed to be a wise man...? :confused:

Resorting to rudeness does your arguments no favours. I am only stating what I think. I have looked at the evidence you have provided and have merely given my opinion of what I can ascertain from the photos. Just because I do not agree with your opinion does not give you licence to disrespect me in such a manner. I thought we were all adults here and could discuss this in a polite, non aggressive manner?

[socrates]

Excellent examples as always, Faulcon. I think that the video footage between Paul in 1966 & Faul in 1967 is especially compelling. Faul looks so much older than Paul in that footage, and he looks like he's wearing a BAD hairpiece. :)

Are you not going to answer my query about his forehead?

[orbandsceptre27]

^ Faul got rid of the cleft as Paul didn`t have one - Unfortunately (for you) you put up an early Faul pic where he clearly still had the chin cleft, with the fuller bottom lip........ as well as the many other anomalies listed, which Humito recently failed to address!

[faulconandsnowjob]

Also please address the different color eyes, different heights, different shaped faces, & fake ear pieces, just for starters :D

[socrates]

^ Faul got rid of the cleft as Paul didn`t have one

Well he seems to have one in this photo:

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

How do you account for that?

Can you please provide more photos of Faul with a cleft in his chin? Since you say that he had the cleft removed after he started personating Paul there should be a lot.

[faulconandsnowjob]

What about the fact that their faces don't look the same?

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

What about the fact that so many pics have been doctored? Isn't that just a little suspicious?

[socrates]

Also please address the different color eyes, different heights, different shaped faces, & fake ear pieces, just for starters :D

Why should I address them? I'm not here to debunk your theories. I'm just commenting on the photos you have provided since I started reading this thread. Yes, so far I have disagreed with your photo evidence but if you show me something impressive I will gladly say so.

Unfortunately, I have not seen anything in the photos that says to me that they are different people.

Please faulconandsnowjob, tell me what the obvious differences are in these photos. Please don't mention the forehead because you can't see it in the first pic so you cannot judge.

http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/6841/comp642ap.jpg

What are the obvious differences in the above photos?

[faulconandsnowjob]

^ noticeable differences:

the eyebrows
the eyes
the eyelashes
the left ear

Can you tell the difference here?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/WlarusGirl/All_About_The_Beatles_11.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/dreamer2.jpg

Or what about here?

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

[dream9]

Why is this so hard to believe? Paul died and was replaced by a double. Big deal. And the replacement is supposed to look like Paul. That's why in some pics he looks just like him. :rolleyes:

[lostworld]

Arrogant Faul strikes again...

Now also accused of being a racist.
I don't think so though, I just think he's being his normal, arrogant self. :rolleyes:

http://www.tmz.com/2009/02/10/paul-mccartney-mocking-dudes-bad-english/

http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/8348/84703458qh4.jpg

[faulconandsnowjob]

Why is this so hard to believe?
Honestly, I have no idea. :rolleyes:

And re: that video where Faul says, "No speak English" - yeah, what an ass. I wonder if this is the same Faul who said it was "a drag" when John Lennon was murdered?

[lostworld]

And re: that video where Faul says, "No speak English" - yeah, what an ass. I wonder if this is the same Faul who said it was "a drag" when John Lennon was murdered?

Yeah, I thought about that too...
And that LSD-interview...

I'm really turned off by such behaviour (not that Faul was ever my type :rolleyes: )

[faulconandsnowjob]

not that Faul was ever my type
He may look like Paul (sort of), but he doesn't have "it," does he? :rolleyes:

[orbandsceptre27]

I've found another fade which clearly shows how the hairstyle and moustache alters his appearance. But the facial features are still the same.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v197/Member27/PID/67pfanimation.gif



I find it strange when someone puts up three photos with obvious facial differences (as has been pointed out) and then states there are none.

It`s shows that this person has some sort of agenda to keep the truth hidden.

[lostworld]

He may look like Paul (sort of), but he doesn't have "it," does he? :rolleyes:

NO - He does NOT! ;)

Charisma, "it", either you have it or you don't.
I wonder if "they" think about that factor at all regarding the replacement or if they just don't care.
I mean they CAN'T get someone who both look "the same" AND has charisma I think...

I just wonder if they are aware that "it" is missing and just don't think people notice charisma at all (strange enough :confused: )

[truthseeker49]

There was an interview in Italy from 1967. Faul started speaking fluent Italian. John jabbed him, and hissed in his ear "what're you doing ?!".
Paul never spoke Italian, let alone fluently. Faul shut up.
There have been mistakes made throughout the years. They are slowly being discovered by open-minded, astute people.

[socrates]

There was an interview in Italy from 1967. Faul started speaking fluent Italian. John jabbed him, and hissed in his ear "what're you doing ?!".
Paul never spoke Italian, let alone fluently. Faul shut up.
There have been mistakes made throughout the years. They are slowly being discovered by open-minded, astute people.

Why are you ignoring my quite legitimate question about his forehead? I have asked you twice and you have totally ignored them? Why? You have made a claim and I have asked you to explain it more yet you don't. I will politely ask again.

The photo comparisons that I provided above do show that Paul had a smaller forehead.

How can they show he had a smaller forehead when his hair is completely covering his forehead in your pics? :confused:

If you cannot actually see his forehead, upon what evidence are you basing this claim on? :confused:

I'm trying to understand but you are making it very hard if you say things and then don't provide any answers to my queries.

There was an interview in Italy from 1967. Faul started speaking fluent Italian. John jabbed him, and hissed in his ear "what're you doing ?!".
Paul never spoke Italian, let alone fluently.

Now that is very interesting and would provide very good evidence I'm sure. Can you please refer me to the interview? Was it filmed while they were in Italy?

[socrates]

I find it strange when someone puts up three photos with obvious facial differences (as has been pointed out) and then states there are none.

You find it strange that someone has a different opinion to your own? In my opinion there are no significant facial differences in those photos. The only differences are the expression of the face and the substitution of the hair and moustache from the 2nd photo onto the first photo.

That is my opinion. Just as it is your opinion that the photos are of two different people.

It`s shows that this person has some sort of agenda to keep the truth hidden.

This is the second time you have been rude and unpleasant to me. Why the negativity and hostility? Why do you prefer to insult me instead of responding to my earlier observation and question?

^ Faul got rid of the cleft as Paul didn`t have one

Well he seems to have one in this photo:

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

How do you account for that?

Can you please provide more photos of Faul with a cleft in his chin? Since you say that he had the cleft removed after he started personating Paul there should be a lot.

If you cannot discuss this in a civil and friendly manner without resorting to insults just because my view of some of your photographic evidence doesn't match your own then I think that says more about your agenda than any imagined one of mine.

[brainfreeze]

but no one disputes the height difference, right?

I have to admit, I first thought this was a load of bunk, but I've been watching this thread for some time now, and I'm kinda convinced, Faul is Paul.

Just my view.

[orbandsceptre27]

You find it strange that someone has a different opinion to your own?

Not in the least.

In my opinion there are no significant facial differences in those photos.

Fair enough - but you`ve been shown to be incorrect.

The only differences are the expression of the face and the substitution of the hair and moustache from the 2nd photo onto the first photo.

Not so, see my earlier analysis!


This is the second time you have been rude and unpleasant to me. Why the negativity and hostility?

I haven`t been rude or hostile to you at all.

If you cannot discuss this in a civil and friendly manner without resorting to insults

I haven`t insulted you, and your over-reaction appears to be a way of drawing attention from the obvious discrepancies in your photos.

[orbandsceptre27]

but no one disputes the height difference, right?

I have to admit, I first thought this was a load of bunk, but I've been watching this thread for some time now, and I'm kinda convinced, Faul is Paul.

Just my view.


You`ve always said the same brainfreeze (nice name :)) - just an observation. ;)

[orbandsceptre27]

There was an interview in Italy from 1967. Faul started speaking fluent Italian. John jabbed him, and hissed in his ear "what're you doing ?!".
Paul never spoke Italian, let alone fluently. Faul shut up.
There have been mistakes made throughout the years. They are slowly being discovered by open-minded, astute people.

These threads are rife with disinfo posters Truthseeker - I just thought I better highlight your point again as it is an important one regarding Faul! :cool:

[truthseeker49]

How can they show he had a smaller forehead when his hair is completely covering his forehead in your pics?

If you cannot actually see his forehead, upon what evidence are you basing this claim on?

I'm trying to understand but you are making it very hard if you say things and then don't provide any answers to my queries.

Just from eyeballing the photos. There is less space from above Paul's eyebrows to the beginning of his hairline, compared to the space between above Faul's eyebrows to the beginning of his hairline. This denutes that Paul had a smaller forehead. It's a legitimate observation.
This has nothing to do with how teased up their hair might be. I'm going by where their hairline begins.

I don't have a photo manipulating program installed on my computer, or I would illustrate this with lines & such. :(

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/250038082-4.jpghttp://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/761591154_l.jpg
Paul vs. Faul
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v462/OnlyBeatles/niceheightcomparison.jpghttp://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/78vs9.jpg
Paul vs. Faul
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v462/OnlyBeatles/BPA07.jpghttp://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/Faul1967.jpg
1st photo vintage Paul, 1964. Second photo is Faul, 1967.
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/scan0040.jpghttp://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/PaulMcCartney7521.jpg
Paul vs. Faul
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/jpmfinalrecord.jpg

[faulconandsnowjob]

I just wonder if they are aware that "it" is missing and just don't think people notice charisma at all
People don't even notice different faces, so no, they probably wouldn't notice a difference in charisma.

There was an interview in Italy from 1967. Faul started speaking fluent Italian. John jabbed him, and hissed in his ear "what're you doing ?!".
Ooops! That's hilarious. :p Do you have a clip of it?

Why are you ignoring my quite legitimate question about his forehead?
Why don't you just compare the foreheads for yourself? If you don't think there's a difference, post some pictures to show they had the same sized foreheads. To me, it is obvious that Paul had a rounder head w/ a smaller forehead, while Faul had a more oval head w/ a larger forehead.

[howie]

I don't know about Faul speaking other languages but he is superb at regional accents, which is one of the skills actors/impersonators are taught at drama college. Paul never spoke in any other accent except Liverpudlian.

Listen to this impressive range of accents from Liverpool, London, Birmingham, south coast & Scotland on Aspel from 1984, he's better at it than Mike Yarwood who was Britains top impersonator at the time.

Paul McCartney On Aspel & Co (part 1) - YouTube

This one is from Newcastle in 1979, he starts off speaking with a geordie (Newcastle, Northern) accent then switches to brummie (Birmingham, Midlands) & back to scouse (Liverpool, Northern). He is asked if he's ever been there before & just answers "yes many times", any Beatles fan who knows the history behind the songs will know that She Loves You was written by Paul at The Royal Turks Head Hotel in Newcastle.

http://icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100local/page.cfm?objectid=12886471&method=full&siteid=50081&headline=Latest%20News

Paul McCartney's Saturday Shake Up interview [1979] part1 - YouTube

Wherever he goes in the world whether it is the US, Canada, Australia or anywhere in Europe, he is a master at all of the accents. Debunkers will say his American accent was picked up from Linda but that does not explain how he is able to do regional US accents as well as he does the English/Scottish/Irish/Welsh dialect. Paul never did this in any pre-66 interview I've seen.

Paul McCartney-Freedom+Let It Be@Concert For New York City - YouTube

[truthseeker49]

Howie, I am speechless. I have never seen anyone make those points before, and I have been involved in this since 2003.
Do you belong to my forum ? If not, would you mind joining, so that you can re-post that there.
I believe that what you posted is an important part of this puzzle. :)
Thank you...:D

I posted:
There was an interview in Italy from 1967. Faul started speaking fluent Italian. John jabbed him, and hissed in his ear "what're you doing ?!".

Faulcon replied: That is hilarious. Do you have a clip of it?

Faulcon, I wish that I knew where I read it. It was either at the TKIN forum or the Nothing is Real Forum. I do know that it did have a url with it, so it was a legitimate story. I have to see if I can dig it up.

[socrates]

You find it strange that someone has a different opinion to your own?

Not in the least.

Excuse me, but you are contradicting yourself. You said you found it strange that I put up 3 photos and stated that there are no differences.

Here's your quote again:

I find it strange when someone puts up three photos with obvious facial differences and then states there are none.

Obviously you are stating that you find my opinion strange. So, again, the issue of why you find it strange that someone has a different opinion to your own remains.

In my opinion there are no significant facial differences in those photos.

Fair enough - but you`ve been shown to be incorrect.

Where?

The only differences are the expression of the face and the substitution of the hair and moustache from the 2nd photo onto the first photo.

Not so, see my earlier analysis!

Your 'analysis' consisted of a mere two observations. Both of which I addressed in a follow up post. Your 'analysis:



The centre picture of Faul - can you explain the cleft on his chin which is obviously missing from Pauls chin. And where is this chin cleft in the third photo....... it`s not there!

I answered this point here:

That's because of the lighting. Where is the cleft on Faul's chin here then:

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

Go back again to the centre picture - this man has a much fuller bottom lip than McCartney had.

I addressed this point too by pointing out:

Not in the following photo he doesn't:

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

You then responded by claiming

^ Faul got rid of the cleft as Paul didn`t have one

To which I pointed out:

Well he seems to have one in this photo:

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

How do you account for that?

Can you please provide more photos of Faul with a cleft in his chin? Since you say that he had the cleft removed after he started personating Paul there should be a lot.

I'm still waiting for you answer as to how you account for Paul having a cleft in his chin in that photo and for you to post photos with Faul with a cleft in his chin.So, your 'analysis' consisted of 2 claims which have been demonstrated to be spurious. You have also failed to answer the question of Paul's cleft chin.

Your 'analysis' is therefore not acceptable to me.

I haven`t been rude or hostile to you at all.

Excuse me, but you are clearly not telling the truth!

Firstly, you inferred that I was unwise:


Wasn`t Socrates supposed to be a wise man...? :confused:

You then proceeded to state that my disagreeing views regarding the photos showed that I had an agenda to keep the truth hidden:


It shows that this person has some sort of agenda to keep the truth hidden.

Just what is YOUR agenda here orbandsceptre? You seem to be very keen to spread untruths and be rude to me just because I have disagreed so far with your photo evidence. You are not as keen, however, in answering my sincere and legitimate questions and points which seem to demonstrate that your arguments are not as factual as you would have people believe.

[socrates]

How can they show he had a smaller forehead when his hair is completely covering his forehead in your pics?

If you cannot actually see his forehead, upon what evidence are you basing this claim on?

I'm trying to understand but you are making it very hard if you say things and then don't provide any answers to my queries.

Just from eyeballing the photos. There is less space from above Paul's eyebrows to the beginning of his hairline, compared to the space between above Faul's eyebrows to the beginning of his hairline. This denutes that Paul had a smaller forehead. It's a legitimate observation.
This has nothing to do with how teased up their hair might be. I'm going by where their hairline begins.

But you cannot see the beginning of Paul's hairline.

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/250038082-4.jpghttp://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/761591154_l.jpg

This is a photo of a hairline.

http://www.newhair.com/images/photos/hairline/ra_a01.jpg

If you cannot see the beginning of Paul's or Faul's hairline - which you clearly cannot in your photos - then you simply cannot make a judgement as to any size differences in the foreheads. You cannot see the forehead or the beginning of the hairline.

I'm starting to get rather disappointed in the legitamacy of some of these claims that Paul is dead. I'm willing to believe, but stuff like this will not do at all.

[socrates]

Why don't you just compare the foreheads for yourself? If you don't think there's a difference, post some pictures to show they had the same sized foreheads. To me, it is obvious that Paul had a rounder head w/ a smaller forehead, while Faul had a more oval head w/ a larger forehead.

I did a search and found these. Sorry, but I cannot share your opinions faulconandsnowjob. Here, the forehead seems to be about the same - from the eyebrows to the hairline. I cannot see any significant difference.

http://www.morethings.com/music/beatles/images/temp/paul14early.jpghttp://www.maccafan.net/Vaultquiz/SecretVault/Portrai2.jpg

[faulconandsnowjob]

^ Faul's forehead looks larger to me in those pics you posted.

Just what is YOUR agenda here orbandsceptre?
I don't want to speak for him, but I suspect it's the same as mine - to spread the Truth, open eyes, free minds, expose TPTB tactics, maybe get some justice for Paul, if that's even possible.

Faul ... is superb at regional accents
Maybe one reason he was picked.

[lostworld]

People don't even notice different faces, so no, they probably wouldn't notice a difference in charisma.


:D
Yeah, you're right...

[howie]

Howie, I am speechless. I have never seen anyone make those points before, and I have been involved in this since 2003.
Do you belong to my forum ? If not, would you mind joining, so that you can re-post that there.
I believe that what you posted is an important part of this puzzle. :)
Thank you...:D



I'm not a member, I'll join later & post some video clips. ;) I go there sometimes, you have some great picture comparisons on there:cool:

I'd like to make a video compilation of all the accents he does & play it with the original Beatles interviews to show the differences.

Fauls fake scouse accent is another smoking gun, people from Liverpool say "you know" a lot but it is so natural to them they don't notice they are saying it. Some say it more than others, the thickness of the accent depends on which part of Liverpool the person comes from, the more often they say "y'know" ("you know") the more working class their accent is, Pauls family weren't as working class so the accent is more toned down with less "you knows".

This is a real Liverpool accent with lots of "you knows" from Jennifer Ellison

Jennifer Ellison interview - YouTube

Paul McCartneys real scouse accent, notice the natural way he says "you know" & the way he pronounces "know", it's unique to Liverpools native speakers.

Paul McCartney Interviewed By David Frost - YouTube

& again listen carefully for "you know", he says it so fast in this one it's hard to hear it

The Beatles interview with Dusty Springfield - YouTube

Another example of the real accent

Beatles - Paul Mcartney interview in Toronto Sept 1964 - YouTube

This is not a natural scouse accent, the "you know" sounds different & he's using it far too much.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

The over exaggerated scouse accent in that LSD interview sounds as OTT as "Accrington Stanley, who are they?".

Ian Rush, Accrington Stanley Milk Advert, CLEAN AND IN FULL! - YouTube

Liverpool accents are very difficult to copy if you're not from round there, Fauls Irish & brummie accents are much better than his scouse.

[lostworld]

Great work Howie!
Very interesting... :)

And there is that terrible LSD interview again...
I can't stand how arrogant Faul is there :(

[faulconandsnowjob]

trj just posted this on PID Miss Him- Wow! :eek:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/BBC1968Tampering.jpg

Untampered Footage:
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

Tampered Footage:
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

[humito]

http://www.aref-adib.com/archives/arafatstar.jpg
http://www.takegreatpictures.com/content/images/george_harrison_kermit.jpg

some pics prooving ringo starr was replaced by Arafat and a pic of george shapeshifting into a reptillian.

[jesalyn]

I've always been a big Beatles fan. I met Faul/Paul in 1991 in Ohio before a show. I always wondered about his voice, early Paul is one voice later its a different voice. Is there any voice comparison out there that I can have a listen to?

[humito]

trj just posted this on PID Miss Him- Wow! :eek:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/BBC1968Tampering.jpg

Untampered Footage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTTtWybbUX4

Tampered Footage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Tyxp8U_zCk

lol.the "proof" gets funnier.............untampered here means a dodgy vhs recording that has not been tracked properly causing the image to bend and elongate......... the stills shown have been deliberatly squashed to make it look like pauls head has been shrunk on purpose.......it doesnt appear that way in the vid.

[humito]

I've always been a big Beatles fan. I met Faul/Paul in 1991 in Ohio before a show. I always wondered about his voice, early Paul is one voice later its a different voice. Is there any voice comparison out there that I can have a listen to?

everyones voice alters over time....most aged singers have to sing their songs in lower keys ,no longer being able to hit high notes.
PIDERs will say that there is proof of different voices on record ,these can be explained scientifically though as nicotine and other drugs alter the vocal cords etc........as will over use ,a lot of singers on long tours sound very different at the beginning of a tour then they do at the end.
Peoples voices change all the time especially womens whos voices become more high pitched when they are at their most fertile.

[humito]

I don't know about Faul speaking other languages but he is superb at regional accents, which is one of the skills actors/impersonators are taught at drama college. Paul never spoke in any other accent except Liverpudlian.

Listen to this impressive range of accents from Liverpool, London, Birmingham, south coast & Scotland on Aspel from 1984, he's better at it than Mike Yarwood who was Britains top impersonator at the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTkn1SRx6ic

This one is from Newcastle in 1979, he starts off speaking with a geordie (Newcastle, Northern) accent then switches to brummie (Birmingham, Midlands) & back to scouse (Liverpool, Northern). He is asked if he's ever been there before & just answers "yes many times", any Beatles fan who knows the history behind the songs will know that She Loves You was written by Paul at The Royal Turks Head Hotel in Newcastle.

http://icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100local/page.cfm?objectid=12886471&method=full&siteid=50081&headline=Latest%20News

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUH_v69Gt0w

Wherever he goes in the world whether it is the US, Canada, Australia or anywhere in Europe, he is a master at all of the accents. Debunkers will say his American accent was picked up from Linda but that does not explain how he is able to do regional US accents as well as he does the English/Scottish/Irish/Welsh dialect. Paul never did this in any pre-66 interview I've seen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M17qFKXSMiw
does this stand as some sort of proof or something?

[lostworld]

http://www.aref-adib.com/archives/arafatstar.jpg


Even if I don't agree with you normally Humito, I have to admit that this was a great comparison. :D

[lostworld]

does this stand as some sort of proof or something?

Different face, different personality, different voice.
I think it's great proof that we're providing here actually! :)

[faulconandsnowjob]

stills shown have been deliberatly squashed to make it look like pauls head has been shrunk on purpose
The stills are from the remastered footage. And yes, his face has been deliberately squashed to make it look rounder like Paul's.

So, anyway, it seems that there are some people who just can't see the difference for whatever reason. I seriously doubt, though, that someone who didn't already believe that these 2 people were the same would ever think they were the same:

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/memphis_66_comp.jpg

They are obviously 2 difft people w/ different shaped heads & faces. It's really beyond me why some people can't see that. Maybe it's the power of belief or suggestion. Who knows?

[humito]

I've always been a big Beatles fan. I met Faul/Paul in 1991 in Ohio before a show. I always wondered about his voice, early Paul is one voice later its a different voice. Is there any voice comparison out there that I can have a listen to?

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

sound like the same voice but older to me .

[humito]

The stills are from the remastered footage. And yes, his face has been deliberately squashed to make it look rounder like Paul's.

So, anyway, it seems that there are some people who just can't see the difference for whatever reason. I seriously doubt, though, that someone who didn't already believe that these 2 people were the same would ever think they were the same:

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/memphis_66_comp.jpg

They are obviously 2 difft people w/ different shaped heads & faces. It's really beyond me why some people can't see that. Maybe it's the power of belief or suggestion. Who knows?
lol..people can obviously see that the two images look different......the reasons for that difference are whats debateable.

[faulconandsnowjob]

^ If people hadn't been "trained" to see Paul & Faul as the same, then there would be no question that they were difft people in those pictures.

[orbandsceptre27]

humito ............untampered here means a dodgy vhs recording that has not been tracked properly causing the image to bend and elongate.........

Amazing how the debunkers become video analysis "experts" when a fine comparison is put up.

If you were fair in your analysis Humito, you would at least have commented on the freakishly dodgy eyebrows and hair which look to be glued on.

Well I suppose when you`re constantly in debunker mode it`s hard to switch to common sense analysis. But then you`re the one who claimed Lennons "Imagine" is an anthem for the NWO. :o :D

the stills shown have been deliberatly squashed to make it look like pauls head has been shrunk on purpose.......it doesnt appear that way in the vid.

You are a desperate man aren`t you. :cool:

[faulconandsnowjob]

freakishly dodgy eyebrows and hair which look to be glued on.
Oh, you mean like this? LOL! :eek: :D

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

Does anyone seriously think that ^ would qualify as "the cute one"?

[orbandsceptre27]

^ Careful Faulcon, you might upset some people with your " Humito - dodgy vhs recording that has not been tracked properly causing the image to elongate"....... FFS :D

Should we ignore the eyebrow thats about to come off, the wig, the fake goatee....... oh hang on, didn`t the good looking one..... get plastic surgery at 24 to make himself better looking.........

You should face it Humito....... it may not be Paul McCartney after all!

[humito]

stop being personal because i disagree with you........i am not a debunker nor do i give a toss wether paul mc cartney was killed or replaced ,I am however interested in this conspiracy as it amazes me how people become obsessed by celebrity and their public persona and cannot except the notion that people change with time........as i have said before I find plenty of evidence that paul has had a shed load of cosmetic surgery over the years and I agree with you that his appearence changes 66/67.....I however have different opinions as to why this should be ........i do find it amusing though that you dont judge yourself with the same critera you judge me. If it wasnt for sane people disagreeing with a lot of the rubbish on this thread then it would just be a handfull of deluded people patting each other on the back .
there is more to this than your opinions...... The evidence for his replacement is flimsy at best especially the footage in question.......



you do not have to be an expert to see that its a vhs tape that has not been tracked properly causing the elongated appearance and distorted imagery (ask anyone who has or had and old vhs player and they will tell you that they constantly have to twiddle the little wheel to stop the same things happening). I do not mention the hair or the eyebrows as it is not worth it because they proove nothing. the still has been squashed down to the extreme by someone to try and proove some point.

[truthseeker49]

If he doesn't see it from the TONS of photo comparisons, and the recent "QUITE GOOD" video comparisons, he's not going to. He's just going to make up every excuse that he can for something that is so very simple. He looks different because "he's " not the same man. I could go into my many photobuckets & post comparison after comparison of Paul vs Faul, but I don't have the time or the inclination. I have already posted many comparisons on the PID thread here. If they haven't convinced him, nothing will. :rolleyes:

[humito]

why is the fact that he and the other beatles might have used fake moustaches/make up etc. so mindblowing?.........they were trying to look different and sound different ...to be a different band were they not ? ,for the sgt pepper concept........Ive got a fake moustache they gave away with the lp release .........it certainly cannot be used as evidence for his replacement so why post it ?

[truthseeker49]

It was all done to hide the fact that Paul had been replaced. The fact that it made that impression on you shows that it WORKED. :(

[humito]

http://blogs.theage.com.au/schembri/ringo1.jpg
http://www.bopped.com/copyright/bopped_Beatles_Ringo_Starr_1964_bigger_picture.jpg


by your reasoning and belief in the " truth" that picture comparisons show then you would agree that this is not the same man ?

look at the difference in the eyebrows.!!! the difference in his neck!!! the weird stuck on hair!!! The shape of his ears is different!!!:eek: His face is long and thin and short and stumpy !!

His chin changes shape to the extreme!!!:eek: not to mention how different his nose looks!!!!!!!!

Face it ringo was replaced too..............LOL................nutters:D

[humito]

It was all done to hide the fact that Paul had been replaced. The fact that it made that impression on you shows that it WORKED. :(

what impression are you talking about?

[faulconandsnowjob]

oh hang on, didn`t the good looking one..... get plastic surgery at 24 to make himself better looking.........
LOL! I know, b/c he didn't have quite enough women thronging to get at him :rolleyes: The plastic surgery didn't work - it made him look very creepy :D

what impression are you talking about?
She's talking about how the fake mustache was able to confuse the issue enough to where you can't see that Paul & Faul are difft people. Adding a mustache is the oldest trick in the book :rolleyes:

[orbandsceptre27]

stop being personal because i disagree with you........i am not a debunker

None of this is personal - and Yes from everything you written so far you are a debunker.

nor do i give a toss wether paul mc cartney was killed or replaced

Some of us do care, that`s why we`re here.

I am however interested in this conspiracy as it amazes me how people become obsessed by celebrity

I have no interest in celebrity living whatsoever - you`ll find that the majority of people who see Paul McCartney was replaced can see through the facade of the celebrity lifestyle. That type of living doesn`t appeal to me one bit.

and cannot except the notion that people change with time........

Life is all about change - we`re talking about monumental changes here in a very space of time.

as i have said before I find plenty of evidence that paul has had a shed load of cosmetic surgery over the years and I agree with you that his appearence changes 66/67.....

But......

I however have different opinions as to why this should be

So you keep saying - dodgy cameras and lsd.


i do find it amusing though that you dont judge yourself with the same critera you judge me.

I don`t judge anyone, just whats written and you write an awful load of shite (that`s only my opinion though...... it isn`t personal).

If it wasnt for sane people disagreeing with a lot of the rubbish on this thread

Would you include Redman, Lightman, Toty1994 and Fireman in this bunch of sane people?

then it would just be a handfull of deluded people patting each other on the back .

You`ll be sorry to hear then that there are more and more "deluded people" like ourselves seeing that Paul McCartney was replaced years ago. Thank God there`s still some "sane" people around like yourself though. :D

The evidence for his replacement is flimsy at best especially the footage in question.......

All in your opinion.

I do not mention the hair or the eyebrows as it is not worth it because they proove nothing.

I`ll take note of that.

the still has been squashed down to the extreme by someone to try and proove some point.

You mean the still which was remastered - that has altered the fake eyebrows and hair to make them look more realistic!

I`ll ask you this Humito - what does remastered mean? It means that the original footage has been legally tampered with.

So I would put to you - if the hair and eyebrows have been "cleaned up" then wouldn`t it be more likely that the remastered version is compressed. The original is what was recorded at the time. The remastered version has been tampered with - otherwise they wouldn`t call it remastered!

[faulconandsnowjob]

and cannot except the notion that people change with time........
No, I guess I can't accept the notion that a person's head & face would change in the space of 3-4 months. That is just a little fishy.

I find plenty of evidence that paul has had a shed load of cosmetic surgery over the years and I agree with you that his appearence changes 66/67
Yeah, I wonder why :rolleyes:

If it wasnt for sane people disagreeing with a lot of the rubbish on this thread
Ok, who are the "sane" ones? The ones who think that Paul went thru some bizarre metamorphosis in the span of 3-4 months or that it's a difft guy pretending to be him? What is more realistic? Be honest.

The evidence for his replacement is flimsy at best especially the footage in question
So, photos & video that show difft people are "flimsy." I think it's more that they don't support your argument.

I do not mention the hair or the eyebrows as it is not worth it because they proove nothing.
Neither do you mention the fake ears, the difft eye color, difft height, etc. :rolleyes:

The remastered version has been tampered with
Yeah, to make Faul look more like Paul. Honestly, I don't know why they bother. Most people can't tell, anyway :rolleyes:

[orbandsceptre27]

stop being personal because i disagree with you


and

humito- Face it ringo was replaced too..............LOL................nutters:D

The man who asks not to get personal, now playing with double standards........ and all that within one page. This guy is a fraud.

[humito]

yes and all the other crap is YOUR opinion............it doesnt make you right though.
There is a difference in debunking and in having a difference of opinion.
If you care so much about the issue then why not take your mountain of evidence to court instead of argueing the toss on a conspiracy forum? why not ,because it wouldnt stick.

How many people have you converted on this thread then?
I see your posts only as advertising for your own forum.
At least faulcon has a sense of humor about the whole theory.
Anyway i am not going to descend into a slanging match.
I am entitled to have my own views on the subject and any evidence put forward ,debate should be balanced IMO .
what about the ringo pics ?????? by your criteria you must think that they show 2 different men?;)

[humito]

and



The man who asks not to get personal, now playing with double standards........ and all that within one page. This guy is a fraud.

everyones a fraud according to you :D and the double staandards dont apply to you?? you just told me you were not being personal.now im a fraud?? lol

[faulconandsnowjob]

If you care so much about the issue then why not take your mountain of evidence to court instead of argueing the toss on a conspiracy forum? why not ,because it wouldnt stick.
No, not b/c it wouldn't stick, but b/c we don't have a cause of action. What would we sue him for? Fraud? Maybe. It's not really worth it for me to go to the UK to sue him for nominal damages b/c I bought a few CD's thinking he was the real deal. I'd rather just expose him as a fraud this way - lol :D

How many people have you converted on this thread then?
It seems like a lot. A lot more than if we didn't have this thread. lol :D

[orbandsceptre27]

yes and all the other crap is YOUR opinion............it doesnt make you right though.

I know I`m right though - opinion, or no opinion :D

There is a difference in debunking and in having a difference of opinion.

What would that be my fraudulent troll friend?

If you care so much about the issue then why not take your mountain of evidence to court instead of argueing the toss on a conspiracy forum?

Maybe I will.

How many people have you converted on this thread then?

I lost count a long time ago.

I see your posts only as advertising for your own forum.

PID Miss Him is Truthseekers forum - and I`d advise anyone with an interest (and a brain) to visit it.

http://only1rad.proboards62.com/index.cgi

At least faulcon has a sense of humor about the whole theory.

I know, she`s great isn`t she. :)

Anyway i am not going to descend into a slanging match.

That`s very considerate of you Humito, thanks.

I am entitled to have my own views on the subject and any evidence put forward ,debate should be balanced IMO .

There there......Humito! :D

what about the ringo pics ?????? by your criteria you must think that they show 2 different men?;)

By my criteria you`re an idiot...... don`t take it personally - I still like you, you know. :)

[faulconandsnowjob]

At least faulcon has a sense of humor about the whole theory.
I know, she`s great isn`t she.
Aw, shucks ;) lol

[orbandsceptre27]

everyones a fraud according to you

No not everyone!

and the double staandards dont apply to you?? you just told me you were not being personal.now im a fraud?? lol

You asked people not to get personal...... and then called them "nutters."

[faulconandsnowjob]

PIA'ers always resort to insults. :rolleyes:

You know who the real fraud is? Faul. :D

[truthseeker49]

Yes she is. We love you Faulcon ! :D {{{ HUGS }}}

Humito, you do alot of talking, but I don't see you providing any kind of evidence to support your POV. You don't provide us with any kind of pictorial or video "evidence" because you know that we will pick it apart . :D

Faulcon wrote: You know who the real fraud is? Faul.

You know what, she's right. < grin >

[humito]

well nutters is what you are and very condesending and childish (not faulcon)..........it was a kind of general catchall for PIDERS.........not directed at any one person,which is what personal means.
the point is ANYONE who disagrees and pulls apart your evidence is branded disinfo ,a sheep ,an idiot and so on..........none of your evidence would stand in a court of law and you know it. With all the people you have convinced of this theory and you have lost count so it must be more than 10 ;) ,surly you could all club together and file a case against him??? Then I and many others would sit and take notice because then real experts would be involved and DNA could be taken etc.....I am open minded to the fact something like that could have happened ,I just feel that there is no credible evidence it did, It can all be easily explained away with other reasons....what sort of evidence would you like me to post? as you say anything would just be jumped on by you guys anyway. you post all the evidence that shows him to be the same man yourselves IMO ,I dont need too.Also the man is walking around singing and making records having plastic surgery and generally being annoying.
I have posted 2 pics of ringo starr..........these were the first 2 pics i think that google came up with. Now to me using the criteria that you use these pics show 2 different men..........the ears ,nose eyebrows hair, neck,chin and eyes all look really different and thats just on 2 random pics...........not carefully chosen or altered pics .What do you feel about those??
Paul is not dead! Picture Comparison - YouTube
Paul is not dead! Picture Comparison 2 - YouTube

now i know some of the fades are post 66..but most are not ,I have spent time pausing the flashes and fades and recognise a lot of the pics used and can see no foul play and find them convincing enough (UNLIKE I AMAPHONEY AND THE ROTTEN APPLE ETC).............you will say that the pics were already doctored to make faul look like paul and paul look like faul............apart from when it suits you in your own comparisons etc.

the only pic that i find strange in this whole conspiracy is the ear one,with him and linda being interviewed after a wings gig.........however I have a copy of the original release of wings over america and it does not appear,leading me to think that it is a tampered pic as are the other ear anomilies.
you accuse me of being a troll?.....is this because someone who actually has the ability to piss on your fireworks is annoying for you and is ruining your thread?WHAT SORT OF DISCUSSION BOARD WOULD IT BE WITH PEOPLE JUST AGREEING WITH EACH OTHER?
what real evidence do you have ?? not photographic, as anyone can manipulate an image these days.
My best evidence is walking around !
where is your evidence of a corpse or a burial ? or even if he wasnt killed and just replaced where is the original ? would someone who loved the limelight and fame and was that talented be happy to dissapear into obscurity?
http://dmbeatles.com/picture.php?picture=237 if they were so worried that people would see the new paul with sgt pepper that they forced a moustache on him,then how come he is the only one without one at the album launch?.

[astrochicken]

Humito, you really can't see it can you?

I look at your "paul is alive" transition videos where you've used images where paul and faul look most "alike" and it still jumps out at me screaming "paul is dead"...

You really can't see it can you?

[socrates]

^ If people hadn't been "trained" to see Paul & Faul as the same, then there would be no question that they were difft people in those pictures.

How are people "trained" to see Faul is Paul? In what precise form and character does this training comprise? I know for a fact that nobody has "trained" me so please explain faulconandsnowjob. Thanks.

[socrates]

Amazing how the debunkers become video analysis "experts" when a fine comparison is put up.

I think it's "amazing" that you refuse to answer my points that prove your claims about Faul's cleft chin are completely wrong. You are giving out false information as far as I can see. You are not here to inform people of the truth at all.

[socrates]

If he doesn't see it from the TONS of photo comparisons, and the recent "QUITE GOOD" video comparisons, he's not going to. He's just going to make up every excuse that he can for something that is so very simple. He looks different because "he's " not the same man. I could go into my many photobuckets & post comparison after comparison of Paul vs Faul, but I don't have the time or the inclination. I have already posted many comparisons on the PID thread here. If they haven't convinced him, nothing will. :rolleyes:

Excuse me, but your forehead comparrisons were totally flawed! As I stated in a previous reply - and which you have been unable to answer - you were making judgements on the size of Paul's forehead by using photos in which his forehead was completely covered by hair!

So before you go criticising other people's opinions I would look at the flaws in your own evidence first.

[socrates]

PIA'ers always resort to insults. :rolleyes:

So does orbandsceptre. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[truthseeker49]

No he can't, and I find that sad. He does seem to have heart.
I'm going to address the two photos above. I'm just looking at them as photos, as I myself find PIA fades very suspicious. To me, they still show two men. 1st off, he chose the photo of Paul in which he was suffering from Bell's Palsy,taken in 1966. I find it interesting that he chose a photo of Faul, 1970, with full facial hair to compare it to. I'm going to use a photo of Faul with NO facial hair from 1968/69, as that is closer in date.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/beautifulPaul2.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/Faul-smileaway.jpg
Paul, 1966 vs. Faul, 1968/69
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/paulringoear.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/paul68.jpg
Paul, 1964 vs. Faul, 1968/69
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/WlarusGirl/BB3aa.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/WlarusGirl/apples_coreaa.jpg
Paul, 1963/64 vs. Faul at the creation of Apple Corp, 1968
http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j178/lilis678/DB1005_BEATLES_6.jpghttp://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j178/lilis678/Faulagain-1.jpg
Paul, 1963/64 vs. Faul, 1970's
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y60/Trueclues/paul_bravo_magazine_nr_37_1966.jpghttp://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y60/Trueclues/Bill1975AA.jpg
Paul, 1966 vs. Faul, 1970's

I used these photos for comparison, as I always endeavor to have both men from a similar angle.

[truthseeker49]

Socrates, as I have stated previously, I am always on the lookout for a photo of Paul with no hair on his forehead. Unfortunately, they are very hard to find. I have yet to find one large enough to do a convincing comparison. Therefore, I am using my own judgement, in making this claim. I do not find my explanation to you concerning this to be flawed at all.

[socrates]

Also please address the different shaped faces

Like these?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/paulringoear.jpghttp://img12.imageshack.us/img12/4906/27527180ct4.jpg

Do you agree that Paul's face is rounder in the first pic, faulconandsnowjob? Yet they are both of Paul before he supposedly died. Yet in the second pic Paul's face is thinner and is not as round.

So I don't see how photos showing Faul with a thinner face than Paul proves anything whatsoever - as the above photos demonstrate.

[socrates]

I have just noticed something about Paul's hairline. If you look at the first pic, below, you can see that his hairline comes forward towards the middle of his forehead. His hairline here is shaped like a 'V'.

Well, in the second photo you can also see this 'V' shaped hairline towards the middle of his forehead.

What are the chances that a personater would have the same peculiarity in the shape of his hairline in this area? Not much I reckon. So, I believe this clue is very good evidence to suggest that these two photos are of the same person.

So how do you explain this?

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/4906/27527180ct4.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/malevans08.jpg

[socrates]

I have yet to find one large enough to do a convincing comparison. Therefore, I am using my own judgement, in making this claim. I do not find my explanation to you concerning this to be flawed at all.

Of course your explanation is flawed. You admit that you "have yet to find one large enough to do a convincing comparison". You therefore use photos where his forehead is completely covered by hair and the beginning of his hairline cannot be seen!

How does that work? :confused:

Therefore, any "judgement" of yours concerning any differentation in the size of the foreheads must be flawed since you do not have the correct information to arrive at an informed opinion.

If you cannot see the forehead, how can you form a view on it's size? You can't. And that is why your explanation is flawed.

[socrates]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/Faul-smileaway.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/paul68.jpg

How do you explain the fact that in the second photo Faul's eyebrow is clearly thicker?

http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/33/eyepo3.jpghttp://img156.imageshack.us/img156/7560/eye2km6.jpg

Both these photos are supposed to be of Faul. Yet his eyebrows are clearly not the same thickness. So you see, just because there are differences in photos it doesn't neccessarily mean that the differences indicate that it is not the same person.

[zyphus]

Oh man! will this thread go on forever?
Paul is not dead,although he is brain dead for sure:D

[faulconandsnowjob]

How are people "trained" to see Faul is Paul? In what precise form and character does this training comprise? I know for a fact that nobody has "trained" me so please explain faulconandsnowjob. Thanks.
Sure. At least 2 different people have been presented to the public as being "Paul McCartney." The real Paul:

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

The fake Paul:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/Faul-smileaway.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/malevans08.jpg

Because the 2nd person has been labelled "Paul McCartney," people are basically taught or trained to see him as Paul McCartney. I guess they can't differentiate between the 2 b/c they are both "Paul McCartney" in their minds.

[dream9]

I can't believe there are people on this site who believe that the world is run by reptilian beings(no offense David;)), but can't seem to grasp this. It just shows the level of programming that celebrity icons have on people's minds. This particular type of programming, which is so strong in our society today, is stronger than religion and much stronger than politics.

[faulconandsnowjob]

^ I don't really know where the hang-up is. I should think most people on this forum would not put a lot of faith in the mainstream media.

Is it really so hard to believe that TPTB/Illuminati would 1) kill someone, 2) replace him, 3) present the replacement as the genuine article, & 4) use the replacement to further their own agenda?

[humito]

ok truthseeker here is my take for what it is worth!
the first two pics for me definatly show the same man.......that weird wonky left eye could not be produced by any plastic surgeon in the sixties in the time that the alledged swap happened...... the colour pic shows him older ,slightly plumper and with plucked eyebrows.He has a suntanned nose and because of the way light is reflecting on the b/w pic makes his nose look slightly different,however the nostrils,philtrum,bone structure and shape of chin look the same........the older paul has some crows feet forming........also his lobes look a little different............I believe this is because he is paranoid about his sticky out jug ears and has begun cosmetic surgery on them........probably having them pinned back slightly.

ok next set is interesting........the one on the right from the 70s looks exactly like the one on the right from the top........although he is chubbier still.......probably smoked to much of the good stuff and muched out...........or possibly his wisdom teeth are fully grown.There is 4 or 5 years difference between the pic on the left and the b/w one on the right ,despite this and the fact that there is a lot of rflash reflection and different hair .....facial structure......cheekbones etc are the same..........however if you compare this pic with paul from 66 above there seems to be an "apparent " difference,I say this because it is the same man,this shows how unreliable some pics can be as even PID would agree its the same man,if the 66 pic top right from the first comparison were taken post 66 it would be used as evidence for PID in my opinion.

next set..............the very early pic on the left shows paul at what ,barely 21 years old,the pic is old and the flash has obliterated much of the facial features..........he is also flareing his nostrils.........(also if this pic were taken post 66 PID would use it as evidence of his plastic stuck on ears...they look false but they cant be he is 21)........as much of the features have been flared out by the flash a great comparison of the smaller pic cannot be made,however the nostrils(even though the pic on the left shows them flared,whichh at first glance makes the nose look different),shape and length of skull and chin still look the same, it also looks like someone has pocked paul on the right cheek on the later pic........(probably that stuck up tart Jane Asher!).........same man IMO.

the next set of colour pics is also interesting.......These pics may be TEN years or so apart, so at first glance there appears to be a noticable change in appearance....however the first pic is 63/64 and he still has his boyish features and puppy fat,jug ears (pre cosmetic surgery) and unplucked caterpiller eyebrows. it matches with the comic reading pic above ,even the slightly flared nostril. on the pic of him with a tartan scarf sitting in an english pub he has his hair parted differently ,probably some grecian 2000 in there too as he is starting to go grey/bald ,it might even be hairspray that makes his hair gleam unnaturally in the flash.As this pic also looks like an unprofessional snap it would account for his skin looking yellowy(is that a word?) which is the biggest striking difference in the images.........his fringe is above his eyebrows on the pic on the right and he also is looking slightly down whereas the one on the left is looking slightly up,the left also shows that he has lost his chubby boy fat and is a little gaunter here .........this createas the impression that his face is longer,in my mind.............lips nose and eyes all look just the same........only his chin looks a bit different .this is because of the angle and slight weight loss in the face plus plucked eyebrows .His ear looks weird too.........its not evidence of a stuck on one ,just the flash flaring out features and it contrasting with his long dark hair.............same geezer.


last pics...........ok on the left we have a sepia toned pic of paul that is on the front of a mag from 1966.........that does not mean that it was taken then so the time between shots could be ten years again........This time neither pic is good as sepia tone does not show true colour and features and were normally heavily brushed/painted ( as cover shoots are these days) and the one on the left is heavily flash flared...........Again the "apparent" difference appears striking at first........but we see the leaft pic with paul squashing his chin with his hand and his face is turned more directly to face the camera and his fringe is on his unplucked caterpiller eyebrows........it is also a smaller image to the one on the right......The b/w pic on the right shows paul maybee 10 years older again with his hair short and up of his now plucked brows and spikey on top in dodgy mullet style with grecian 2000 or gel to make it gleam and stick up and look altogeher different from his flowing moppy on the left.He has his hand on his ear (not face)....is turned away from the camera and has his mouth open with only his eyes looking into the lens.........this makes it look like his face is much longer the effect compounded by the size difference of the images.However:D..............the eyes are perfectly the same......even though his brows are plucked on the right you can tell the socket structure is the same on both men and the cheek bone on the right of his face (his side) looks like a perfect match also.........his nose looks different because of the different angles of his face to the camera ,however it looks ok,same proportional leghth...philtrum etc also matches..............same geezer IMO............:)..........That bravo pic also is reminiscant of paul and the buthcher cover photo sessions also the angle is similar on the last 2 pics but not similar enough for a proper evaluation........................................ .................................................. ...........................anyway be all over it like flies..but keep it freindly:) lol

also waiting for someone to mention the apparent 2 different random ringos I posted...........as using PID logic he must be 2 men;)

[faulconandsnowjob]

^ What is "PID logic"? Figuring out that people who don't look or act the same probably aren't the same person? Haven't you ever heard of the duck rule? :D

[humito]

I can't believe there are people on this site who believe that the world is run by reptilian beings(no offense David;)), but can't seem to grasp this. It just shows the level of programming that celebrity icons have on people's minds. This particular type of programming, which is so strong in our society today, is stronger than religion and much stronger than politics.

In my case thats wrong.........reptillians may or may not rule the world.....there is some evidence of it but its not convincing............there is lots of evidence to show that we are ruled by satanic brotherhoods etc and that brainwashing of the masses has been going on for years.......i do not find it outlandish tat paul could have been replaced......but i am not going to believe it as i think the evidence is not overwhelming at all............however as stated before I think the beatles and especally paul mccartney were not all they were cracked up to be..........without a doubt occultists...then and now as in the case of mccartny .............i dont think he is satanic but i think he is a mason ,practices sex magick,continues to explore lsd,mushrooms,cannabis,viagra etc....and is fairly untouchable...........i think what turns people off about him these days is his seeming love of capitalism..........and love of making muzak ( altough thefireman is a bit more like old mccartny)............I think that is what the PID thing was all about in one way or annother.........he got more controlling of the band..and took it in a direction the others didnt like on the whole and seemed more than any of the others to love fame and money etc.i think thats what lennon sang about in how do you sleep.................

[humito]

Like these?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/paulringoear.jpghttp://img12.imageshack.us/img12/4906/27527180ct4.jpg

Do you agree that Paul's face is rounder in the first pic, faulconandsnowjob? Yet they are both of Paul before he supposedly died. Yet in the second pic Paul's face is thinner and is not as round.

So I don't see how photos showing Faul with a thinner face than Paul proves anything whatsoever - as the above photos demonstrate.

good points socrates

[bribean]

Like these?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/paulringoear.jpghttp://img12.imageshack.us/img12/4906/27527180ct4.jpg

Do you agree that Paul's face is rounder in the first pic, faulconandsnowjob? Yet they are both of Paul before he supposedly died. Yet in the second pic Paul's face is thinner and is not as round.

So I don't see how photos showing Faul with a thinner face than Paul proves anything whatsoever - as the above photos demonstrate.

Good point. And also note the high forehead!

[faulconandsnowjob]

Do you agree that Paul's face is rounder in the first pic, faulconandsnowjob? Yet they are both of Paul before he supposedly died. Yet in the second pic Paul's face is thinner and is not as round.

So I don't see how photos showing Faul with a thinner face than Paul proves anything whatsoever - as the above photos demonstrate.

Can you see that these are not the same person? I know you've been taught to associate both faces w/ the name "Paul McCartney," but only one is the real deal (I know this may be *shocking* that TPTB would ever lie to the public :rolleyes:):

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/Penny_comp.jpg
http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/memphis_66_comp.jpg
http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/butcher_comp.jpg
http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/comp_MMT.jpg
http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/fool_hill_comp.jpg
http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/paul_mccartney_faux_paul_comparison.jpg
http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/blueeyes3.jpg

[karol2020]

I have been looking at all these evidences, watching videos of beatles, and reading your discussings here, I was thinking that maybe Faul is a clone of Paul. I have read this in a site- that he is a clone, done with alien technology- and this could be true, I´m not joking, I´m talking serious.
We have to agree with something: is VERY difficult to find someone with a phisical resemblance to other so high or with many, many plastic surgerys to look so equal to other and at the same time- despite of any arguments that the voices are not exact the same- with a voice tone equal or that resemblance (the person that they are wanting to substitute). And, make everyone that is envolved with that person accept that person without notice that is another person (i find this very difficult the family not notice this) and be able to act normally as if nothing happened. So i want to say that maybe some people could know of this clone- like the others beatles- but other people like the family didnt know...
I know that is strange but is a possibilite- that i´m finding more easy to believe at the moment than the lookalike theory- and if the aliens are really here at earth working with the government (maybe MAAANY years more that we are able to think like Icke theory) this could be possible....

So let´s open to this possibilite.... I hope you have understood my point, i wanted to be able to put my views more clear but english is not my first language...

[dream9]

So how do you explain this?

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/4906/27527180ct4.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/malevans08.jpg


Good point Socrates. How do you explain this?

Well I've been involved in researching this for over 6 years and what we've found is that many of the pics of Paul from 1966 and before have been altered. They've been stretched to make Paul's face appear longer mainly and also, the hairline has been manipulated, the nose, the eye distance, etc. to make him look more like his replacement.

[faulconandsnowjob]

I was thinking that maybe Faul is a clone of Paul.
It's possible that there are clones, but I don't think Faul looks enough like Paul to be a clone. You should check out the Stepford Wives thread - they talk about clones there.

Of course, Paul's family knew he'd been replaced. What can you do when you're dealing w/ the Illuminati, tho? Mal Evans was shot to death by the police one week before he was going to publish a tell-all memoir about the Beatles.

Thanks, Dream9. I was thinking that pic of young Paul looked altered.

[humito]

^ What is "PID logic"? Figuring out that people who don't look or act the same probably aren't the same person? Haven't you ever heard of the duck rule? :D

lol to me PID logic is seeing images of the same people that show apparent differences and instead of seeing it for what it is likely to be ,sees it for what they want to believe it is...........I am aware that this logic works the other way round from your reality tunnel............i am all for exposing the dreamworld we live in ,but truth is of the essence and hearsay and opinion confound the issue.......that is why i think PID is dangerous as it probably is not true,if that is the case then many people have been damaged by it in one way or annother and feel they can no longer enjoy the beatles music or pauls solo stuff (if your into that kind of thing).........of course if PID is true then obviously the consequences are even more compelling.That is why difference of opinion and discussion of all angles is important.....for everyones sakes.........also that is why if you guys believe in the truth of PID with the passion you imply........slagging people off on forums and endlessly posting the same pics etc. is not the way forward............that is why I urge you to get together with your evidence and take it to EXPERTS and to court........DNA etc.........its the only way.
You say you would rather expose him on here etc.........but you will always be lunatic fringe that way and not taken seriously it will never be mainstream.
I dont believe the evidence would stand at all.............as for me its not true in this case but I believe that you believe and should follow it to its logical conclusion like i said truth is important, so it should be known either way ...........What if you can proove it in a court??????????????????:)......................... .................................................. ...........what is the duck rule?:)

[humito]

I have been looking at all these evidences, watching videos of beatles, and reading your discussings here, I was thinking that maybe Faul is a clone of Paul. I have read this in a site- that he is a clone, done with alien technology- and this could be true, I´m not joking, I´m talking serious.
We have to agree with something: is VERY difficult to find someone with a phisical resemblance to other so high or with many, many plastic surgerys to look so equal to other and at the same time- despite of any arguments that the voices are not exact the same- with a voice tone equal or that resemblance (the person that they are wanting to substitute). And, make everyone that is envolved with that person accept that person without notice that is another person (i find this very difficult the family not notice this) and be able to act normally as if nothing happened. So i want to say that maybe some people could know of this clone- like the others beatles- but other people like the family didnt know...
I know that is strange but is a possibilite- that i´m finding more easy to believe at the moment than the lookalike theory- and if the aliens are really here at earth working with the government (maybe MAAANY years more that we are able to think like Icke theory) this could be possible....

So let´s open to this possibilite.... I hope you have understood my point, i wanted to be able to put my views more clear but english is not my first language...
cool theory:) but a clone is just that.an exact copy!!!!! so there would be no differences in features...........

[karol2020]

And so these small physical differences that we see between paul and faul (we have to agree that these differences are NOT evident, are details, the principal characteristcs like bone estrusture is the same)- and the changes in behaviour could be possible...

[karol2020]

cool theory:) but a clone is just that.an exact copy!!!!! so there would be no differences in features...........

BUT, this could be "errors" in the clone...:rolleyes: a clone can have some small differences couldn it?

[humito]

i guess yeah.........dna is weird shit! lol;)

[faulconandsnowjob]

"PID logic" is realizing that 2 people who don't look or act the same aren't he same person. Maybe you're not familiar w/ the Duck Rule. Let me explain. The Duck Rule states that if it walks looks like a duck, walks/talks like a duck, it's a duck. Conversely, if it doesn't look, walk, talk like a duck, it's not a duck. Applying this very simple logic to Paul & Faul, we see that since Faul does not look or act like Paul, he is not Paul.

BTW, for some of you, the differences btw Paul & Faul may be virtually undetectable, but for some of us, the differences are blatantly obvious.

[humito]

http://assets.mog.com/pictures/wikipedia/25832/Beatles_Ringo_Starr_1964.jpg
http://blogs.theage.com.au/schembri/ringo1.jpg

http://jandklongphotography.com/onlinestore/catalog/images/press-ringo.jpg

http://timesonline.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/01/11/ringo.jpg

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/ilove/years/1971/gallery/images/340/ringo.jpg


http://www.wcfr1480.com/content-images/SOP/Ringo4th.jpg

so back to ringo and duck logic........................i apply the logic and see ringo has been replaced............HOW CAN THIS BE THE SAME MAN? the pics show thin faces fat faces nose lip and mouth differences...........beard differences ............hair and eybrow differences etc................:eek:

[socrates]

Can you see that these are not the same person? I know you've been taught to associate both faces w/ the name "Paul McCartney," but only one is the real deal (I know this may be *shocking* that TPTB would ever lie to the public :rolleyes:):

No faulconandsnowjob, you are evading my question by ignoring it and posting other unrelated questions. This seems to be a common trend amongst the Paul is dead belivers on this forum. You don't seem to want or be able to answer the points and questions I have asked.

Please answer my question faulconandsnowjob:

Also please address the different shaped faces

Like these?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/paulringoear.jpghttp://img12.imageshack.us/img12/4906/27527180ct4.jpg

Do you agree that Paul's face is rounder in the first pic, faulconandsnowjob? Yet they are both of Paul before he supposedly died. Yet in the second pic Paul's face is thinner and is not as round.

So I don't see how photos showing Faul with a thinner face than Paul proves anything whatsoever - as the above photos demonstrate.

You say that Faul has a different shaped face to Paul and that this provides proof that it is not the same person. But the above photo proves that Paul had a different shaped face in different periods of his life.

How do you explain that, then?

[faulconandsnowjob]

Humito, do you really think Ringo was replaced? And if you can see it w/ Ringo, why can't you see it w/ Paul? :confused:

Excuse me, Socrates? I think you should read a few posts back. That pic of young Paul has been altered. I'm sorry that you can't break out of your programming & see that you've been taught to associate the name "Paul McCartney" w/ difft people.

[socrates]

Good point Socrates. How do you explain this?

Well I've been involved in researching this for over 6 years and what we've found is that many of the pics of Paul from 1966 and before have been altered. They've been stretched to make Paul's face appear longer mainly and also, the hairline has been manipulated, the nose, the eye distance, etc. to make him look more like his replacement.

If you are stating that this photo (clearly showing a 'V' shape in his hairline) has been altered:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/malevans08.jpg

Then you must have the original photo in order to tell that the hairline has been manipulated - otherwise how would you know? So, please provide the original photo so we can see that the hairline has been manipulated to look like Paul's.

But isn't that photo a still from a home movie? Please provide a link to the video so we can see that his hairline doesn't look like the hairline in the photo. That would be proof enough that you are correct to say that the photo has been manipulated.

But I have found a home movie - not a still photo that can be altered - of Paul on youtube and it clearly shows the 'V' shape in his hairline.

http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/1188/screenhunter354oa2.jpg

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

I think this proves that your theory about his hairline being manipulated is completely wrong.

How do you explain away his 'V' shaped hairline in a moving film? And don't say he's wearing a wig.

[socrates]

Excuse me, Socrates? I think you should read a few posts back. That pic of young Paul has been altered.

Prove it then, please. Post the original pic so I can see. Where is it? What do you have to hide?

I'm sorry that you can't break out of your programming & see that you've been taught to associate the name "Paul McCartney" w/ difft people.

I am not programmed thank you very much. I'm very open to the possibility that Paul has been replaced if I'm shown convincing evidence and the Paul is dead believers can satisfactarily answer my questions and observations. I'm sorry, but up to now some of them have been ignored or the answers given have been either wrong - the forehead 'explanation' - or not backed up with any evidence such as your claim that the young Paul pic has been "altered". Anybody can say a pic has been altered. Prove it.

[faulconandsnowjob]

No, I'm talking about this picture having been altered:

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/4906/27527180ct4.jpg

Go back to post 2217. Dream9 said this about that photo comparison:

Good point Socrates. How do you explain this?

Well I've been involved in researching this for over 6 years and what we've found is that many of the pics of Paul from 1966 and before have been altered. They've been stretched to make Paul's face appear longer mainly and also, the hairline has been manipulated, the nose, the eye distance, etc. to make him look more like his replacement.

Paul had a *round* face, as has been shown by many *undoctored* images of him.

This picture is from the home movie Mal Evans (the one who was shot right before his memoir was to be published) took of his trip to Kenya w/ Faul in the Fall of 1966.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/malevans08.jpg

Anyway, I wasn't talking about the hairline having been manipulated. BTW, the "v" you refer to is called a "widow's peak." Many people have them, even I. In addition, it seems like you're comparing Faul to Faul :confused:

I am not programmed thank you very much.
Well, you think 2 difft people are Paul McCartney. It seems like you've been programmed to me!

Ok, here's "PIA logic." Even though "Paul" doesn't look like himself or act like himself, he's still clearly the same person. Well, you can't argue w/ that logic. Really. I wouldn't know where to begin. :D

[socrates]

No, I'm talking about this picture having been altered:

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/4906/27527180ct4.jpg

Why don't you post the original, undoctored photo then so we can see? What have you got to hide? Anybody can say the pic is doctored. Please prove it.

Paul had a *round* face, as has been shown by many *undoctored* images of him.

Well post the undoctored photo of that pic then and prove it. Why don't you? You seem not to want to. That makes me suspicious of your claims. What are you hiding?

Anyway, I wasn't talking about the hairline having been manipulated. BTW, the "v" you refer to is called a "widow's peak." Many people have them.

And many people don't.

Well, you think 2 difft people are Paul McCartney. It seems like you've been programmed to me!

I decide for myself thank you very much. And you saying pics have been doctored without actually providing any proof only suggests you have been programmed to believe that there are two different people.

Ok, here's "PIA logic." Even though "Paul" doesn't look like himself or act like himself, he's still clearly the same person. Well, you can't argue w/ that logic. Really. I wouldn't know where to begin. :D

"Paul doesn't look like himself or act like himself, he's still clearly the same person."

It is you who is saying that he doesn't look or act like himself, not me. So your example is clearly nonsensical. So come on, please post the undoctored photo.

[socrates]

I have found a better quality photo. And it still shows Paul with exactly the same shaped head. Come on faulconandsnowjob, your claim is looking very suspicious to me. Where is this undoctored photo?

http://www.maccafan.net/Bands/XoomBand_61/Cavern6162.jpg

[fireman]

I have found a better quality photo. And it still shows Paul with exactly the same shaped head. Come on faulconandsnowjob, your claim is looking very suspicious to me. Where is this undoctored photo?

http://www.maccafan.net/Bands/XoomBand_61/Cavern6162.jpg



thanks socrates. at least someone who is not totally fallen into the conspiracy pit.

photo doctoring is the excuse for every proof against the PID hoax.

I have lots of comparisons of pre and post 1966 Paul, where he looks the same. In every age and period of his life.



I have found every facials expression in pre and post 1966 Paul.



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

beware: next is doctored! To show you that the only difference is the haircut!

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/newpotato2009.gif


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


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

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/uppermost_blink2.gif


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


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


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

[fireman]

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/new2.jpg



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



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


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

[socrates]

Paul always had a round face? Well not in these photos.

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc205/thebeatlesfour/paul/youngpaul2.jpg

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc205/thebeatlesfour/paul/moptop3.jpg

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc205/thebeatlesfour/paul/camera1.jpg
I think the above pic has been flipped, but that could be down to anything.

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc205/thebeatlesfour/paul/camera8.jpg

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc205/thebeatlesfour/paul/mouse.jpg

Here's a great pic of Faul's forehead. Funny that I can find one yet the Paul is dead belivers say that can't.

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc205/thebeatlesfour/paul/mccartneyfamily12.jpg

Here's a pic of his forehead when he was a baby:

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/7057/64808726wu0.jpg

Same widows peak (thanks faulconandsnowjob) and the foreheads look the same, given the age difference.

So I think this demonstrates that there is some bogus information coming from the Paul is dead belivers. They say the pics are manipulated yet they cannot provide the original pics to prove their claims. How strange and suspicious.

[fireman]

very good!


now how about this one


http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/PID%20stuff/Comparison-1.gif

:)

;)

[fireman]

regarding the forehead:


they will scream "doctored" every second!

:rolleyes:

[truthseeker49]

I'm sure that you're all enjoying yourselves. However, just because Faul uses the same expressions doesn't make it the same man. He had to study Paul to become Paul. It's as simple as that. There is still the FACT that Faul has a larger forehead than Paul. In that tooth comparison, their teeth are slightly different from each other. Different enough that it doesn't totally overlap in the fade. Of course the replacement is going to look alot like the original. What good would he be as a replacement if he didn't ?
In most of your comparisons, it's obvious to me that it's NOT the same man.
It's just sad that you can't see it. :(
BTW, that photo that you posted of Paul as a child with the large forehead has been doctored. On my forum, I have posted other photos of Paul as a child to prove this.
I don't have the time or the patience to banter back & forth with you about this.
I reiterate to anyone else with an OPEN MIND who might be reading this thread...
Go to your local collectible shop. See if they can get you some Beatle mags from the early to mid sixties. Compare Paul in the ones before September 1966 to Paul from 1967 until the end of the Beatles.
It is NOT the same man. Many photos on the internet are now being tampered with to blur the line. Come check out my forum. I gathered alot of the photos that I've use for comparisons when PID was still new on the internet.

[socrates]

thanks socrates. at least someone who is not totally fallen into the conspiracy pit.

Thanks Fireman. I am open minded about it, and I consider the evidence provided to me by the Paul is dead belivers. If I find evidence to dispute it, or arguments which dispute it, I will say so - as I have done. If they provided evidence which I can find no alternative explanation for, then I would accept it and say so. That, however, has so far not been the case.

photo doctoring is the excuse for every proof against the PID hoax.

Yes, you seem to be correct in that point. But anyone can say a pic is doctored to suit their argument. That is not being honest in my view. That is being deliberately deceptive and I find that highly suspicious. If they cannot provided proof that a pic has been doctored then they have no basis or evidence to say it has been doctored. That is what is dishonest.

This photo is very impressive Fireman in the way that it shows how the hairstyle can affect the appearance of the face:

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/newpotato2009.gif

Notice that the jawlines are identical -that would be impossible to duplicate with surgery and highly improbable that a lookalike would have a jawline so similar.

You can also see that there appears to be a cleft on both chins. The bone structure of the nose is also identical. Same with the nostrils. And the lips are exactly the same.

I'm coming to the conclusion that the Paul is dead conspiracy is one big bogus sham.

[mr_sirius_a]

I find this far too crazy. Paul isnt Paul. Sorry but im not convinced.

[fireman]

I'm coming to the conclusion that the Paul is dead conspiracy is one big bogus sham.

i seriously think thats what it is!

it all (well, the modern internet version) came from this forum:


http://60if.proboards21.com/


they now claim that Paul is actually a female 90 year old Worldwar 2 spy, who was the "real" Pauls mother before... :cool:


Oh yeah and Paul suffered of IBS (diharrea) before he was killed of by the illuminati.

Oh yeah he had to wear diapers because of that!

i am not kidding, thats what they claim!!

[socrates]

There is still the FACT that Faul has a larger forehead than Paul.

No it is not a fact since you have provided no evidence whatsoever to prove it. You have not provided any photos for comparison. I have - and they show that there is no suspicious difference in the size of the foreheads.

Post some proof of your forehead claim. Where is it? What are you hiding?

BTW, that photo that you posted of Paul as a child with the large forehead has been doctored.

Your just like faulconandsnowjob - you say it's been doctored yet you don't provide any evidence. That's dishonest! What have you got to hide? If you say it's been doctored then you must have the original in order to come to this conclusion. So where is it? Post the undoctored photo please. If you don't post it then you are showing everybody that your claim is bogus and you are spreading untruths. Why? Just what is your agenda here?

On my forum, I have posted other photos of Paul as a child to prove this.

Please post them here. And how do I know you haven't doctored them to suit your argument?

[socrates]

I'm coming to the conclusion that the Paul is dead conspiracy is one big bogus sham.

i seriously think thats what it is!

it all (well, the modern internet version) came from this forum:


http://60if.proboards21.com/


they now claim that Paul is actually a female 90 year old Worldwar 2 spy, who was the "real" Pauls mother before... :cool:


Oh yeah and Paul suffered of IBS (diharrea) before he was killed of by the illuminati.

Oh yeah he had to wear diapers because of that!

i am not kidding, thats what they claim!!

Really? Just what is going on here? Is this Paul is dead a conspiracy to sidetrack Truthers from the important attrocities the illuminati are commiting against us?

[fireman]

actually i think it was just a bunch of guys who allowed themselves a very cruel joke. sadly some people got hooked and promoted the idea with more and more crazy ideas.

thats where we are now. It seems Faulcon and others devoted there life to the idea of some crazy kids who probably laught their asses off! :mad::rolleyes:

[faulconandsnowjob]

Well, I would love to keep debating this, but I'm heading out of town.

Here are some pics clearly showing Paul & Faul are not the same person. I know some of you PIA'ers won't be able to see the difference. C'est la vie. Have fun in your fantasyland :D Other people who are able to break free of their programming will see the difference & begin to wake up. These are for you :)

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/sff_comp2.jpg
http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/comp_mt_man_faul.jpg
http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/PaulFaul6667.jpg
http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/comp_lsd.jpg
http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/comp_1967.jpg
http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/comp_1968.jpg
http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/compare66.jpg
http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/paperback_comp.jpg

[fireman]

Have fun in your fantasyland

you got to be kidding me, now thats humour!! :D


that is not the same guy you say?

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/uppermost_blink2.gif


well get me the number of his plastic surgeon, cause i wanna look like Johnny Depp next week!


20 years later, still Paul:

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/sidebyside5.gif


Its not Stan Laurel, its Paul Mccartney!

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

:cool:

[socrates]

Well, I would love to keep debating this, but I'm heading out of town.

Here are some pics clearly showing Paul & Faul are not the same person. I know some of you PIA'ers won't be able to see the difference. C'est la vie. Have fun in your fantasyland :D Other people who are able to break free of their programming will see the difference & begin to wake up. These are for you :)

So faulconandsnowjob can post all those photos but completely ignores my legitimate request and doesn't post the undoctored photo I asked for.

Anybody with an "open mind" can come to their own conclusion as to why she fails to provide proof of her claim.

It looks like faulconandsnowjob has just been programmed to believe Paul is dead because she hasn't any actual proof of her claims that the photo is doctored. Without proof, all she has is her programming kicking in telling her to keep saying Paul is dead. That's how it seems to me. Are people that gullible and easily manipulated? Seems so.

[fireman]

So faulconandsnowjob can post all those photos but completely ignores my legitimate request and doesn't post the undoctored photo I asked for.

Anybody with an "open mind" can come to their own conclusion as to why she fails to provide proof of her claim.

It looks like faulconandsnowjob has just been programmed to believe Paul is dead because she hasn't any actual proof of her claims that the photo is doctored. Without proof, all she has is her programming kicking in telling her to keep saying Paul is dead. That's how it seems to me. Are people that gullible and easily manipulated? Seems so.




so it seems.

here is anotherone showing what a haircut can do:

left is Paul in 1968, middle is Paul in 1965, and right is older Paul with younger Pauls hair

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

[socrates]

so it seems.

here is anotherone showing what a haircut can do:

left is Paul in 1968, middle is Paul in 1965, and right is older Paul with younger Pauls hair

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

Yes, I agree. Notice the strong crease under both eyes of Paul. They are there under Faul's eyes too. You couldn't duplicate those creases with plastic surgery in the 1960's. And to have a personator with the same two strong creases is too much of a coincidence to be believable.

And the lips are clearly, exactly the same.

[humito]

good to have ya back fireman ! and good to have you here socrates.........................at last some senseable debate on this subject!:)