Is Paul really dead? - Page 174

faulconandsnowjob · 10-04-2009, 11:50 PM

Quote:

I'd say you are probably more media brainwashed than I am.

LOL! That's funny, since I'm the one who can see past this media lie. You're the one who is falling for it.

Sorry, Dude, it's not the same guy. I realize that may rock your little world, but it's the truth. Go ahead & stick your head in the sand. Who cares?

socrates · 10-04-2009, 11:54 PM

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

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

Of course.

Something Plastic Surgery Cannot Change

There are certain things which plastic surgery can NEVER change in order to create a match...and that would be the iris of a man's eyes. Below are some comparisons of Paul's iris which span the pre-1967 era through the post-1967 era right through to the 1990's.

The above illustration utilizes Paul's right eye for comparison as the iris appears to have a very undenyable and unique feature which is consistant throughout these three photographs.

From the lower portion of the pupil and out to the iris, there is a distinctive shape created by the coloration in his iris. The images below are enlargements of the inset images with added notation in the form of a red outline. This outline was NOT drawn on EACH image, however it was drawn on ONE of the images and then overlaid on the other two. There is no denying this shape remains constant, and so does the contour of his lower eyelid.

The PIDers refuse to acknowledge evidence such as this, which demonstrates that Paul is alive - as totty said recently.

They don't like objective evidence - because there isn't any for PID.

Ever wonder why?

hey_dude · 10-04-2009, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by faulconandsnowjob

LOL! That's funny, since I'm the one who can see past this media lie. You're the one who is falling for it.

Sorry, Dude, it's not the same guy. I realize that may rock your little world, but it's the truth. Go ahead & stick your head in the sand. Who cares?

No.

You're buying into a lie perpetuated by fools. You're no different to those who accept what the media say without batting an eyelid.

Provide me with some convincing proof that Paul is dead.

socrates · 10-04-2009, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by faulconandsnowjob

but it's the truth.

You think it is.

Unfortunately, you have no objective evidence to back it up - just mere speculation.

Sorry, but your pertinacious opinion doesn't prove a "truth". You're allegedly a lawyer - you should know that.

Do you?

Your argument needs something more credible than just your layman's opinion in order to illustrate that it has any basis in reality.

At least for those clear-headed people who require more evidence for a 'truth' than the frailties of 'intuition', armchair theorising and wishful thinking.

toty1994 · 11-04-2009, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Re identical iris patterns.

Quote:
What is the explanation from the pid camp? Is it that old favourite 'secret advanced technology' or were Paul's eyeballs transplanted into Faul's eye sockets?

Any takers?

Quote:

"Who cares about iris patterns?"

It appears unimportant to the pid team, but this little problem of 'identical iris patterns' is crucial. No attempt has been made to explain it, no theory put forward. Can't they see that pid crumbles from just this one question alone if it remains unanswered?

I'm guessing that the 'secret advanced technology' card would be the one played if the issue were addressed - I suppose it's all they could say, but that would be nothing more than a meaningless stab in the dark without any evidence to back it up. Saying 'I don't know' would be more honest imo, nothing wrong with that. Just ignoring it, though, makes it look like they only see and hear what they want - exactly what they accuse their critics of.

socrates · 11-04-2009, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toty1994

It appears unimportant to the pid team, but this little problem of 'identical iris patterns' is crucial. No attempt has been made to explain it, no theory put forward. Can't they see that pid crumbles from just this one question alone if it remains unanswered?

No, they can't.

Quote:

I'm guessing that the 'secret advanced technology' card would be the one played if the issue were addressed

Either that, or their standard "doctored" pics mantra.

I think the single most important thing to remember is PID logic runs backwards from real logic.

Real logic starts with a question. In this case the question is:

"Is Paul Dead or replaced"?

You then work from there using all tools at your disposal to answer the question.

PID logic starts with the answer and then discounts any information that goes against the pre determined answer.

No matter what you do to prove that Paul is alive and was not replaced, they will not believe it. Even if you had DNA evidence, they would claim it was doctored by the powers that be.

They have made their decision. It is based on emotion and feelings rather than hard evidence. They are emotionally tied to the idea of PID/PWR.

The way to work to dispel the theories is to continue to present the truth. Whether Paul is dead or not is a fact. He is or is not. It doesn't matter what people feel or believe. It is so, it can not be otherwise.

Paul is still alive. He talks, appears live in concert, appears on TV etc. John, George and Ringo all said he did not die. People who know Paul personally, say he did not die. There is a mountain-size pile of evidence that Paul is still here.

There has not been one piece of evidence presented that Paul died or was replaced. None. All they have are subjective clues that can be interpreted many different ways. Of course, since they have already come to their PID/PWR conclusion, they interpret everything as meaning Paul is dead.

socrates · 11-04-2009, 02:25 PM

Same face. Same teeth:

socrates · 11-04-2009, 02:28 PM

PIDers continually say that Faul's voice is different to Paul's.

Here's a voice comparison which proves otherwise:

Paul is NOT dead - Believe it or not # 39 - YouTube

Same voice!

socrates · 11-04-2009, 02:33 PM

1964.............................................. .....1967

socrates · 11-04-2009, 02:45 PM

Take a photo of Faul...

Change the hairstyle and remove the moustache...

And you have Paul!

More:

It works the other way round, too.

What is Faul doing back in 1964 singing "Yesterday"?

Here he is again:

Now, without the mustache, but with sideburns instead. Still the same frame of Paul singing "yesterday".

He really looks like a 70s "Faul".

brainfreeze · 11-04-2009, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by socrates

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

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

Of course.

Something Plastic Surgery Cannot Change

There are certain things which plastic surgery can NEVER change in order to create a match...and that would be the iris of a man's eyes. Below are some comparisons of Paul's iris which span the pre-1967 era through the post-1967 era right through to the 1990's.

The above illustration utilizes Paul's right eye for comparison as the iris appears to have a very undenyable and unique feature which is consistant throughout these three photographs.

From the lower portion of the pupil and out to the iris, there is a distinctive shape created by the coloration in his iris. The images below are enlargements of the inset images with added notation in the form of a red outline. This outline was NOT drawn on EACH image, however it was drawn on ONE of the images and then overlaid on the other two. There is no denying this shape remains constant, and so does the contour of his lower eyelid.

The PIDers refuse to acknowledge evidence such as this, which demonstrates that Paul is alive - as totty said recently.

They don't like objective evidence - because there isn't any for PID.

Ever wonder why?

I've loved this thread. The whole is he isn't he has had me swaying back and forth. I'm one of those, don't really believe it, but maybe. But the eye pics throw it for me.

It's a damn good story all the same. Another plot for a good book

socrates · 11-04-2009, 03:29 PM

John's answer to the question about how PID got started:

"It had NOTHING to do with me...there IS a rumor about him being dead but the first I heard about it was in the press...and I don't know how it happened, it was a mystery to Paul and it was a mystery to me...none of us knew what it was about, or whatever. But of course the credit it to me, or Paul, saying that it was publicity-seeking and that we did it...it was too far-out for us to have thought of it, you know. And it wasn't very...it was a peculiar thing and I don't know what it was about."

This section starts at 4.33

John Lennon and Yoko Ono Dick Cavett Show Excerpt 6 of 6 - YouTube

I 100% believe John in his answer. There is no hesitation or obfuscation in that answer, just honest bewilderment over the whole thing.

socrates · 11-04-2009, 04:07 PM

Do the PIDers know that Dusty Springfield asked Paul about LSD back in 1963?

Have a look:

He was pretty pissed.

Just like when they asked Faul in 1967:

socrates · 11-04-2009, 04:18 PM

pipsicle · 11-04-2009, 06:11 PM

Those dancing eyebrows are so *cute*!

faulconandsnowjob · 12-04-2009, 03:49 AM

^ Yeah, not exactly a match, is it?

hey_dude · 12-04-2009, 04:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by faulconandsnowjob

^ Yeah, not exactly a match, is it?

Different facial expressions. The actual bone structure is identical.

What's your explanation for the iris patterns btw? You still haven't adressed that small fact.

faulconandsnowjob · 12-04-2009, 04:27 AM

^ I already said they don't have the same faces, so how could they possibly have the same eyes? Eye transplant? Who knows? It's not the same guy, tho, that is obvious.

It's some serious wishful thinking to see these 2 guys as being the same

Sorry, but nothing matches. Not the eyes, nose, eyebrows, mouth. Nothing.

hey_dude · 12-04-2009, 04:34 AM

Sorry Faulcon, not good enough. Anybody can look different from photograph to photograph, especially when the photographs are seperated by years. Furthermore, hairstyle, weight and other factors can drastically change one's appearance.

However, nothing can change a man's iris patterns. Again, how do you explain Paul's iris patterns remaining identical after his supposed death? Forget everything else, just focus on the irises - don't give me a load of guff about eye transplants or secret illuminati technology.

faulconandsnowjob · 12-04-2009, 06:01 AM

Sorry, Dude, but you have really bad Menschenkenntnis.

Close, but no cigar:

Actually, I take that back. Not even close at all.

I totally don't get how people can see creepy Faul as being hot Paul. :-P

^ This guy is NOT hot. He is NOT Paul, even tho he is being portrayed as such. I understand this is very difficult for some people to grasp, but the mainstream media really does LIE to you on occasion. This may be an unpleasant fact you'd rather not have to deal w/, but it is the truth. Go ahead & be an ostrich-person, if you prefer, but this guy is NOT Paul McCartney:

At some point, it just looks desperate & pathetic to keep insisting that this monstrosity is Paul:

For reference, this is Paul:

Really? People really believe this is the same guy?

Does it even matter to them that Paul & Faul have difft color eyes?

No, I guess they can rationalize that away, too, just like the difft faces.

I actually kind of feel sorry for people who can't break free of their mental programming & see what's what. But then again, maybe reality is over-rated. lol

10-04-2009, 11:54 PM	#3462
socrates Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 1,398	The images immediately below are a side by side comparison of Paul's right eye from the Fool On The Hill video (Left) and a 1964 printed magazine (right). Although the Fool on the Hill image seems clear, keep in mind that there does appear to be a slight gaussian blur. You can tell by looking at how soft the shadows surrounding his eye appears. This blur has diminished the contrast in some of the details we might have otherwise seen in his iris. By increasing the mid tones and highlights in the green and red channels, we see a dark area near the bottom of his iris. Is this the smoking gun that kills PID? Of course. Something Plastic Surgery Cannot Change There are certain things which plastic surgery can NEVER change in order to create a match...and that would be the iris of a man's eyes. Below are some comparisons of Paul's iris which span the pre-1967 era through the post-1967 era right through to the 1990's. The above illustration utilizes Paul's right eye for comparison as the iris appears to have a very undenyable and unique feature which is consistant throughout these three photographs. From the lower portion of the pupil and out to the iris, there is a distinctive shape created by the coloration in his iris. The images below are enlargements of the inset images with added notation in the form of a red outline. This outline was NOT drawn on EACH image, however it was drawn on ONE of the images and then overlaid on the other two. There is no denying this shape remains constant, and so does the contour of his lower eyelid. The PIDers refuse to acknowledge evidence such as this, which demonstrates that Paul is alive - as totty said recently. They don't like *objective* evidence - because there isn't any for PID. Ever wonder why? Last edited by socrates; 11-04-2009 at 12:06 AM.

11-04-2009, 02:45 PM	#3470
socrates Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 1,398	Take a photo of Faul... Change the hairstyle and remove the moustache... And you have Paul! More: It works the other way round, too. What is Faul doing back in 1964 singing "Yesterday"? Here he is again: Now, without the mustache, but with sideburns instead. Still the same frame of Paul singing "yesterday". He really looks like a 70s "Faul". Last edited by socrates; 11-04-2009 at 03:45 PM.

12-04-2009, 04:27 AM	#3478
faulconandsnowjob Inactive Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Through the looking glass Posts: 3,088	^ I already said they don't have the same faces, so how could they possibly have the same eyes? Eye transplant? Who knows? It's not the same guy, tho, that is obvious. It's some serious wishful thinking to see these 2 guys as being the same Sorry, but nothing matches. Not the eyes, nose, eyebrows, mouth. Nothing. Last edited by faulconandsnowjob; 12-04-2009 at 04:30 AM.

12-04-2009, 06:01 AM	#3480
faulconandsnowjob Inactive Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Through the looking glass Posts: 3,088	Sorry, Dude, but you have really bad Menschenkenntnis. Close, but no cigar: Actually, I take that back. Not even close at all. I totally don't get how people can see creepy Faul as being hot Paul. :-P ^ This guy is NOT hot. He is NOT Paul, even tho he is being portrayed as such. I understand this is very difficult for some people to grasp, but the mainstream media really does LIE to you on occasion. This may be an unpleasant fact you'd rather not have to deal w/, but it is the truth. Go ahead & be an ostrich-person, if you prefer, but this guy is NOT Paul McCartney: At some point, it just looks desperate & pathetic to keep insisting that this monstrosity is Paul: For reference, this is Paul: Really? People really believe this is the same guy? Does it even matter to them that Paul & Faul have difft color eyes? No, I guess they can rationalize that away, too, just like the difft faces. I actually kind of feel sorry for people who can't break free of their mental programming & see what's what. But then again, maybe reality is over-rated. lol Last edited by faulconandsnowjob; 12-04-2009 at 06:27 AM.

11-04-2009, 02:25 PM	#3467
socrates Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 1,398	Same face. Same teeth:

11-04-2009, 02:33 PM	#3469
socrates Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 1,398	1964.............................................. .....1967

11-04-2009, 04:07 PM	#3473
socrates Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 1,398	Do the PIDers know that Dusty Springfield asked Paul about LSD back in 1963? Have a look: He was pretty pissed. Just like when they asked Faul in 1967:

11-04-2009, 04:18 PM	#3474
socrates Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 1,398

11-04-2009, 06:11 PM	#3475
pipsicle Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 828	Those dancing eyebrows are so cute!

12-04-2009, 03:49 AM	#3476
faulconandsnowjob Inactive Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Through the looking glass Posts: 3,088	^ Yeah, not exactly a match, is it?

12-04-2009, 04:34 AM	#3479
hey_dude Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 75	Sorry Faulcon, not good enough. Anybody can look different from photograph to photograph, especially when the photographs are seperated by years. Furthermore, hairstyle, weight and other factors can drastically change one's appearance. However, nothing can change a man's iris patterns. Again, how do you explain Paul's iris patterns remaining identical after his supposed death? Forget everything else, just focus on the irises - don't give me a load of guff about eye transplants or secret illuminati technology.