Paul McCartney is dead.

[faulconandsnowjob]

Whoever said that about "Paul's" eyes being green - that was Faul. Paul's eyes were brown or hazel. That is not the same thing as green. :p

[mind1universe]

Humpty dumpty sat on a wall....:D







http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDyayfFnH90



Couldn't put him back together again.

Whats significant about the words? Why did great ol John pick the song.


Oh well I like it a lot don't you all?

[humito]

I have the answers

It doesn't look to pretty to the police men sitting pretty in a row.

i can see why they dont like you at above top secret................i have asked some very pertinant questions regarding this topic and this is your proof is it?

Hey faulcon....surgery scar pics please???

[mind1universe]

Cant shut ppl up forever.

The person that types under this profile can see the past present and future reality.


So I'm very confidenti in telling you all how it is.

The storyteller already knows the beginning and ending. I think the illuminists created a great plot here. I love to make the story turn around.

[mind1universe]

Let this thread open a window to the english garden John was talking about.:D

[mind1universe]

i can see why they dont like you at above top secret................i have asked some very pertinant questions regarding this topic and this is your proof is it?

Hey faulcon....surgery scar pics please???


You mean the owners of the site? I can tell you they don't hate me at all. They know me as I know them. They know my plans as I know theirs. They just have trouble keeping the system in place. While I take this a new direction. I know the ending already. I don't have to tell you what that exactly means.

They just don't want you to know what I know. Consider yourself privileged to see this thread playing out the way it is right now.:D




Time is a great song.

[mind1universe]

Mars the path that went to red,
The destruction was easily led
I'm the walrus, I'm the eggman

Walking you by, passing a cranberry tree,
What will it take for you and I to remember?
In death,
From fame and fortune
Power and destruction
Rome fell
Mars a bloody ending

7th time we have come,
Laying by on the survival
Feeling dead as a walrus
Following the migration of non empowerment


Walking you by, passing a cranberry tree,
What will it take for you and I to remember?
In death,
From fame and fortune
Power and destruction
Rome fell
Mars a bloody ending

Mars the path that went to red,
The destruction was easily led
I'm the walrus, I'm the eggman


Krishna thats within you now show the way
As you walk the earth mother gaia gave you
Make it this day.
Make it your day
You and I as you.

[mind1universe]

http://graphjam.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/funny-graphs-goo-goo-goo-joob.gif

[socrates]

It's so obvious what you are, Focrates :p I just think it's funny more than anything how you're desperately trying to keep people from seeing that Paul was imposter replaced.

Whose desperate? You're the one who lies:

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/1369/d753279294bf11de9c9e3fb.jpg

We just highlight your false claims. Sorry it upsets you, but TRUTH is important - not your silly fantasies.

[mind1universe]

:)

[socrates]

Notice on the card how it says "brown" eyes?

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

Do you believe everything you read in magazines? LOL!!!

So, you and some unknown pop journalist are correct and Paul McCartney is wrong about his own eye colour?

http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/5594/2paulbook1vu62.jpg

Yeah, riiiiiight..... :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[mind1universe]

Diggging


And Digging.


In red.

Ego




Red



Cranberry sauce

[mind1universe]

It takes 7 steps to all seeing.


I ask the agents to keep this going. Remember I can see the ending. I can see what your doing. I can what you will do next.


http://www.crystalinks.com/chakraside.jpg

[mind1universe]

Notice John called himself the eggman because he was a violet flame


Notice Paul was called the Walrus because he is dead.


Notice that cars going forward is white
Notice that cars from behind is red.


Note that light is made of 7 colours.

http://www.tradebit.com/usr/stock-photos/pub/9002/182035.jpg

[theenlightenedone]

Your posts are always amusing to read min1universe :) :rolleyes:

[socrates]

Your posts are always amusing to read min1universe :) :rolleyes:

You can understand Gibberish?

[formosan termite]

Whoever said that about "Paul's" eyes being green - that was Faul. Paul's eyes were brown or hazel. That is not the same thing as green. :p

Ok. Let's go through this again.

Hazel eyes can look green.

Hazel eyes can look green. We have posted many sources to say so.

So are we supposed to believe some stupid card, or Paul McCartney himself? Paul stated in 1965 that his eyes are hazel.

And, for the millionth time:

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

Hazel eyes are due to a combination of Rayleigh scattering and a moderate amount of melanin in the iris' anterior border layer.[7][25] Hazel eyes often appear to shift in color from a light brown to a dark golden-green. A number of studies using three-point scales have assigned hazel to be the medium-color between the lightest shade of blue and darkest shade of brown. Hazel mostly consists of Brown and Green. The dominant color in the eye can either be green or light brown/gold.[46][47][48][49][50][51][52] This can sometimes produce a multicolored iris, i.e., an eye that is light brown near the pupil and charcoal or amber/dark green on the outer part of the iris (and vice versa) when observed in sunlight.

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

And makeup companies even give advice as to how to change the color of hazel eyes:

If you are one of those lucky people that have hazel eyes, you can change the look of them as fast as you can apply new makeup. All of the colors that are contained in your peepers can be brought out, one by one, with a few makeup tips for changing your hazel eyes.

http://www.essortment.com/all/makeuphazeleye_tuyd.htm

No matter how many times you say hazel can't look green, it doesn't change the fact that hazel eyes can and many times do look green.

But any readers here, don't take my word for it, research it for yourselves. See how Harrison Ford's hazel eyes often appear different colors.

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

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

Look it up. There are hundreds of sources backing this up.

Paul has hazel eyes. Hazel eyes can many times look green. So the fact that you can find pictures of post '66 Paul with green eyes is no surprise. Yes, hazel eyes can and many times look green.

Therefore, the eye color did not change. Paul pre '67 had hazel eyes and Paul post '66 had hazel eyes. And hazel eyes many times look green. There was no eye color change

Oh. There was no eye color change.

[formosan termite]

Your posts are always amusing to read min1universe :) :rolleyes:

I find it easy when mind1 posts. When I see one, I just skip it until I find a real post.

[mind1universe]

I'm glad you said that now, despite disregarding my view.


What is real and whats not?

Lets talk about this. I want to tease this one.


Now go.;)

[socrates]

Your posts are always amusing to read min1universe :) :rolleyes:

You can understand Gibberish?

Never mind, I've found the book you use:

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/7812/screenhunter25.jpg

[mind1universe]

You can understand Gibberish?


They said the same about John,


But they killed him.

So whatever hes was doing frightened the bejesus out of you.

As in you.:D
So it's funny how your all on deaf ears now all of a sudden. I like to call this deja vous.

[mind1universe]

I think people are slowly and surely realising.


I tried to show you the way.

But you insist.:D

[magnolia_xx]

Notice John called himself the eggman because he was a violet flame


Notice Paul was called the Walrus because he is dead.


Notice that cars going forward is white
Notice that cars from behind is red.


Note that light is made of 7 colours.

http://www.tradebit.com/usr/stock-photos/pub/9002/182035.jpg
Thank you from all the PIAers for your valuable contribute to the destruction of the PID theory with your profound posts :D

[mind1universe]

OH I've created something.


Multi awareness is already well underway. Be sure to know this much. HOw you view me is not important, how the world views you is crucial for your survival right now.


Some of you who are supporting this deception will understand that. The ego will fight to the end.


But are you aware of the end? Have you met your higher power?

[dedesuperman]

In spite that those of PIA demonstrate by different way that Paul and Faul are one and this by pictures of comparisons I maintain to say that Faul doesn't correspond in anything concerning Paul's particular face (facial feature). While looking at the video of the song 'The Night before' I examined it repeatedly because not only I like this particular song but also because it is the true Paul that we sees in this video from the movie 'Help' and evidently the false Paul never sang this song (sadly) since Paul made it in this movie 1965. I know why, it is up to you to figure it out!! :rolleyes:

To demonstrate a proof of what I affirm I am going then to show you 2 screen caps of this video; one that shows the laughter of Paul and the others that by a expression of his face Paul shows as if he had rabbits teeth!

http://i905.photobucket.com/albums/ac251/andre1960/Paulslaughter-1.jpg

http://i905.photobucket.com/albums/ac251/andre1960/Paulrabbitsteeth-1.jpg

And in comparison I put a picture of Donald Sutherland because Paul has the same expression of the mouth that the actor or a certain likeness.

http://videodetective.com/photos/090/003797_15.jpg

Do you think (PIA) find this kind of expression on the face of Faul? Personally I don't think that Faul had this look of rabbit's teeth unless by chance you find one of it.

[theenlightenedone]

Oh I see....

What's that?

PLUM JUICE!

Dances around... twirling...

Just like john.... OR?!?!?!?!?!

I'm gettin dizzy, see ya later.

Have to drink my plum juice, it helps my brain!

[theenlightenedone]

I'm glad you said that now, despite disregarding my view.


What is real and whats not?

Lets talk about this. I want to tease this one.


Now go.;)

Yes, your posts are very amusing and.... uhm... interesting :D

[socrates]

In spite that those of PIA demonstrate by different way that Paul and Faul are one and this by pictures of comparisons I maintain to say that Faul doesn't correspond in anything concerning Paul's particular face (facial feature). While looking at the video of the song 'The Night before' I examined it repeatedly because not only I like this particular song but also because it is the true Paul that we sees in this video from the movie 'Help' and evidently the false Paul never sang this song (sadly) since Paul made it in this movie 1965. I know why, it is up to you to figure it out!! :rolleyes:

To demonstrate a proof of what I affirm I am going then to show you 2 screen caps of this video; one that shows the laughter of Paul and the others that by a expression of his face Paul shows as if he had rabbits teeth!

http://i905.photobucket.com/albums/ac251/andre1960/Paulslaughter-1.jpg

http://i905.photobucket.com/albums/ac251/andre1960/Paulrabbitsteeth-1.jpg

And in comparison I put a picture of Donald Sutherland because Paul has the same expression of the mouth that the actor or a certain likeness.

http://videodetective.com/photos/090/003797_15.jpg

Do you think (PIA) find this kind of expression on the face of Faul? Personally I don't think that Faul had this look of rabbit's teeth unless by chance you find one of it.

And what if we did?

You'd still maintain it wasn't Paul, so what would be the point?

[magnolia_xx]

OH I've created something.


Multi awareness is already well underway. Be sure to know this much. HOw you view me is not important, how the world views you is crucial for your survival right now.


Some of you who are supporting this deception will understand that. The ego will fight to the end.


But are you aware of the end? Have you met your higher power?
You are simply trolling.

[theenlightenedone]

never mind, i've found the book you use:

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/7812/screenhunter25.jpg

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!

That is perfect!!!! Lmao!!!!!!

[dedesuperman]

And what if we did?

You'd still maintain it wasn't Paul, so what would be the point?

Try it you never know! Maybe you are convince me that I'm wrong about that! ;)

[magnolia_xx]

Oh I see....

What's that?

PLUM JUICE!

Dances around... twirling...

Just like john.... OR?!?!?!?!?!

I'm gettin dizzy, see ya later.

Have to drink my plum juice, it helps my brain!

LOL
http://www.constipationopia.com/images/plum.jpg

[dedesuperman]

ee how they snied.................. 4.34.

I'm crying, I'm crying....


John was a very smart guy, to smart even. Get what I mean agents.

Right you know. John can spell can't he. Funny that he made a spelling error and still sang the word snied. John you did it the right way. What a man he was.



Let's put it togetther shall we. John isn't here to tell you, so I will spell it out.



See how they lied, I'm crying, I'm crying



Now. we know who really is enjoying this game. smiles.

Hi mind1universe I would like to known the meaning of the word snied? I'm French and I didn't found nothing in dictionnary about this word snied??

[mind1universe]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1diTosC8G-4


expert texpert choking smoker don't you think the joker laughs at you? ha ha ha! See how they smile like pigs in a sty see how they snied.


I'm crying

[mind1universe]

Hi mind1universe I would like to known the meaning of the word snied? I'm French and I didn't found nothing in dictionnary about this word snied??


John meant they" lied" or tricked.

He changed and deliberately miss spelt words.;)


But to snide someone also means, betray, decept someone. I believe John wanted a word to rhyme here. Instead of saying they lied, the Word snide is more appropriate. To cover it up. John express his emotions in that throughout the song. He was crying because he couldn't tell the people. So he expressed it in his songs this way.


It got him killed in the end.


But thats ok. I know john understands the higher principles of life. He was a complete soul before he came here anyway. He paved the path for others.

[dedesuperman]

John meant " lied"

He changed and deliberately miss spelt words.;)

ok thank you :) Certain words in english I'm not familiar with:p

[mind1universe]

ok thank you :) Certain words in english I'm not familiar with:p


Your welcome, and welcome aboard. Your just intime. Take it as no coincidence ;)

[dedesuperman]

John meant they" lied" or tricked.

He changed and deliberately miss spelt words.;)


But to snide someone also means, betray, decept someone. I believe John wanted a word to rhyme here. Instead of saying they lied, the Word snide is more appropriate. To cover it up. John express his emotions in that throughout the song. He was crying because he couldn't tell the people. So he expressed it in his songs this way.


It got him killed in the end.


But thats ok. I know john understands the higher principles of life. He was a complete soul before he came here anyway. He paved the path for others.

Yeah sadly! :( I don't understand why people cannot read between the lines!! Or to decipher the message :confused:

[socrates]

Try it you never know! Maybe you are convince me that I'm wrong about that! ;)

Why should the same facial expression convince you when this doesn't?

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

[mind1universe]

Yeah sadly! :( I don't understand why people cannot read between the lines!! Or to decipher the message :confused:

Don't worry they are now.


Just be aware. That's all you have to do. Watch the show in front of you. You couldn't be in a better place to see the deception.

There is a lot of money on this thread.;) A lot.

[dedesuperman]

Why should the same facial expression convince you when this doesn't?

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

First of all the change of the picture is too fast to compare, I would like to see the separated pictures for compared better! Do you believe is it possible?

[mind1universe]

First of all the change of the picture is too fast to compare, I would like to see the separated pictures for compared better! Do you believe is it possible?

That picture has been photoshopped.

Faul has a longer face. Here they merged it into one picture making it appear the same pic.

It's very easy.


Let them keep posting.:)

[formosan termite]

A lot of money on this thread.

Ah! Is someone insinuating we are paid agents again?

[mind1universe]

I think that covers it.

Woo hoo! Dance in cranberry juice. Tra la.

Calling someone a troll will get you a ban.

But if John said Cranberry sauce when asked about Pauls death.


These are johns words I use.

[formosan termite]

Please. If anyone thinks we have photoshopped pictures. PLEASE back that up with proof. Present the "undoctored" photos here and prove that we are wrong.

Please. We beg of you. Please present your proof. Since y'all are so much smarter than we are, it should be so simple to present those "undoctored" photos.

But of course you CAN'T.

[theenlightenedone]

Calling someone a troll will get you a ban.

But if John said Cranberry sauce when asked about Pauls death.


These are johns words I use.

He's not calling you a troll. He's just pointing out that your actions are similair to that of a troll.

[mind1universe]

Isn't funny how I turned the tables around in the last three pages.

Awareness is a wonderful tool.

Knowing that you have all the PIAs on the offensive and defensive displays a lot of hidden behaviour patterns.:)

It's called the trigger button.

[formosan termite]

What?:confused:

I just posted a definition of the word. I made no accusation.

[dedesuperman]

That picture has been photoshopped.

Faul has a longer face. Here they merged it into one picture making it appear the same pic.

It's very easy.


Let them keep posting.:)


It is what I suspect of this in the beginning, when I look at Paul's original videos before September 1966 I don't have any confusion that is only when I see the supposedly outside Paul of the EMI studio in December 1966 I see a radical change of his facial feature and mannerism.

[mind1universe]

He's not calling you a troll. He's just pointing out that your actions are similair to that of a troll.

And that's not his job.

Nor is he right to judge.

But you all insist. Keep going. I told you, you pave the way folks.

[theenlightenedone]

And that's not his job.

Nor is he right to judge.

But you all insist. Keep going. I told you, you pave the way folks.

Well.... Don't you agree that most of your posts have been a little troll-ish? :D

[mind1universe]

It is what I suspect of this in the beginning, when I look at Paul's original videos before September 1966 I don't have any confusion that is only when I see the supposedly outside Paul of the EMI studio in December 1966 I see a radical change of his facial feature and mannerism.

Now just enjoy this thread. The views are rising now.

[formosan termite]

Same shape. Same nose. Same guy.

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

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/paul02.gif

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/6723962_b4865592c5-1.gif

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/10fe5y0.gif

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/newfade2009.gif

[mind1universe]

Well.... Don't you agree that most of your posts have been a little troll-ish? :D

I believe to be managing and maintaining my respect

I do not wish to converse on this matter anymore with you. I find it insulting.

[formosan termite]

But Paul is alive.

Same walk. Same run. Same mannerisms. Same guy.

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNjpxr2_sGg&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fmaccafunhouse%2Eproboards%2Ecom% 2Findex%2Ecgi%3Fboard%3Dpid%26action%3Ddisplay%26t hread%3D3849&feature=player_embedded

[mind1universe]

But but but but..... but.

Do you even see yourself yet?:D

[socrates]

First of all the change of the picture is too fast to compare, I would like to see the separated pictures for compared better! Do you believe is it possible?

Well, they're Fireman's photos so hopefully he'll read this and post them for you.

[formosan termite]

You remind me of SunKing mind1universe. Are you and him the same whack job? I wonder if you really know what you're talking about. Paul is alive, and if you're trying to prove a point, it ain't working man!

Man, I know it is hard, but the purpose of those posts is to provoke emotional responses to get us banned or the thread shut down. It is best not to respond with name calling. Best to promote the PIA point of view with substance and calm and clear arguments.

[theenlightenedone]

I believe to be managing and maintaining my respect

I do not wish to converse on this matter anymore with you. I find it insulting.

You find THAT insulting? What about you calling us paid dis-info agents all the time?

[mind1universe]

Judge and accuse me all you like.


But this will all come to an end.

Your either with all that is your dropped behind.

[faulconandsnowjob]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/Billy_Life_13.jpg
http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/help_genuine.jpg

[ar20]

For every fade a PIA'er does, the more braincells die in their heads.

If I have to point this out one more time I'll combust...

Turning pictures of Faul round and lining up the faces (eyes to eye, nose to nose, mouth to mouth) isn't going to show any difference. You can fade them in all day like that and you'll get a match...

Try fading a picture of yourself intro a celebrity by lining up the eyes, nose, mouth and face.

IF IT'S THE SAME GUY AS YOU SAY, WHY DO YOU HAVE TO TILT THE PICTURES TO PROVE IT?

This concept seems to escape you all.

[faulconandsnowjob]

It's amazing how Paul looks like himself, then suddenly, he didn't anymore.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/james_paul_mccartney_vintage.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/uno2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/Billy_Shears_Says_Faul_Is_Here.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/Bill_Sheppard_Mal_Evans_1966_05.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/Dec66_09.jpg

Gee, I wonder what on earth could be going on. Hmmmm.... lol

[ar20]

http://www.seniorark.com/Humor/Double%20Takes/Move%20before%20using/devolution.gif

http://www.girl.com.au/img/photshop_4dummies.jpg

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/1260/disguise1.jpg

[faulconandsnowjob]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/James_Paul_McCartney2.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/Pen03.jpg

[faulconandsnowjob]

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/mccartney_large.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/28February1967-EMIStudios00.jpg

[ar20]

Hey Faulcon, didn't get a chance to say Hi again.

You catch the new IAMAPHONEY vid? Kenya makes sense now. I knew this whole thing was a spiritual transformation -- it's big, real big.

I'm actually convinced at this point of Reptilians after doing a ton of research over the last month.

Obviously this is crazy sounding to everyone else, I don't have insider knowledge or proof. I just have a feeling -something- is going to come out pretty soon.

[socrates]

For every fade a PIA'er does, the more braincells die in their heads.

At least we have braincells to "die". :rolleyes:

Turning pictures of Faul round and lining up the faces (eyes to eye, nose to nose, mouth to mouth) isn't going to show any difference.

Glad you agree! Welcome to the world of PIA. :D

Try fading a picture of yourself intro a celebrity by lining up the eyes, nose, mouth and face.

IF IT'S THE SAME GUY AS YOU SAY, WHY DO YOU HAVE TO TILT THE PICTURES TO PROVE IT?

This concept seems to escape you all.

No - what seems to have escaped you is that there is no bloody point doing a fade if the features don't match up in the first place!

http://gickr.com/results2/anim_a950fefc-0152-f584-99e3-1bea06ed3793.gif

See?

What's the point of that? We might as well just post 2 still photos. :rolleyes:

I guess you really don't understand what a fade is designed for.

[ar20]

You know, I was just hovering over your post-frenzy at ATS... very nice.

Did someone actually reply to you with this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWdI4lBXoW0&feature=related

[3:05 onwards]

And say he was biting his nails here? Okay, he was clearly puting his finger on his lip.

Folks, this is the mentality of those who cannot see it. They equate nail-biting with a finger to the face, when what I showed was clearly Paul having the habit of biting his fingernails.

A common character trait that FAUL suddenly lost remarkably after 66.

[ar20]

At least we have braincells to "die". :rolleyes:



Glad you agree! Welcome to the world of PIA. :D





No - what seems to have escaped you is that there is no bloody point doing a fade if the features don't match up in the first place!

http://gickr.com/results2/anim_a950fefc-0152-f584-99e3-1bea06ed3793.gif

See?

What's the point of that? We might as well just post 2 still photos. :rolleyes:

I guess you really don't understand what a fade is designed for.

OMG, YOU GET THE POINT NOW. THEY DON'T LOOK ALIKE IF YOU JUST LEAVE THEM, EH?

A fade escapes you. Nice try though.

Do what I said, do the flash thing online with the celebs pic and your pic... it even tells you in the guide to line the eyes nose and mouth up for an accurate pic!

http://www.myheritage.com/celebrity-face-recognition

*shrugs* Are you for real, honestly?

[socrates]

Folks, this is the mentality of those who cannot see it. They equate nail-biting with a finger to the face, when what I showed was clearly Paul having the habit of biting his fingernails.

A common character trait that FAUL suddenly lost remarkably after 66.

http://www.rudezone.net/images/notThisShitAgain.gif

I'm off....

[ar20]

http://www.rudezone.net/images/notThisShitAgain.gif

I'm off....

Aww, poor you... you just cannot deal with the fact that he had a distinguishable character trait that suddenly dissappeared.

Why don't you just leave anyway? You've said your say and run your course really.

I mean when you spam bananas in a topic, you're pretty much done. :rolleyes:

[socrates]

OMG, YOU GET THE POINT NOW. THEY DON'T LOOK ALIKE IF YOU JUST LEAVE THEM, EH?

LOL!!

Would you say anything different? :rolleyes:

They look exactly the same man.

Unbelievable.

That's it... carry on talking nonsense about nail biting, I'm off this time.

[ar20]

LOL!!

Would you say anything different? :rolleyes:

They look exactly the same man.

Unbelievable.

That's it... carry on talking nonsense about nail biting, I'm off this time.

Would you?

You'll be back in like an hour, I guarentee it.

This topic gets under your skin I'll bet. ;)

[ar20]

http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSTRE57P4WP20090826

Anyone catch this?

LONDON (Reuters Life!) - Former Beatle Paul McCartney has described rumors that he had died, which surfaced more than 40 years ago, as "ridiculous" and an "occupational hazard" for a member of one of the world's biggest bands.

The conspiracy theory began in October, 1969, when a Detroit-based DJ claimed that the three other Beatles -- Ringo Starr, John Lennon and George Harrison -- had recruited a lookalike replacement for McCartney after he died in 1966.

He argued that because the man "posing" as McCartney on the cover of the Beatles' 1969 album "Abbey Road" had bare feet meant it represented a corpse, and that the number plate on a car in the photograph was LMW 28IF -- denoting McCartney's age, if he had lived.

"It was funny, really," McCartney, 67, told MOJO music magazine in an interview. "But ridiculous. It's an occupational hazard: people make up a story and then you find yourself having to deal with this fictitious stuff.

"I think the worst thing that happened was that I could see people sort of looking at me more closely: 'Were his ears always like that?'"

He said that he had bare feet in the famous record sleeve image because he had kicked off his sandals, and that the car parked in the background was "random."

"It was madness," he recalled.



---


Some dead old hoax right? Within the last month he's been grilled on Letterman, had a Wired publication dedicated to him and he's talking about it here again....

His explanations of that cover are never consistant either.

"I took my sandals off because it was a hot day"

Anyone else here ever walked on pavement on a hot day barefoot? It's fucking impossible agony.

[ar20]

I realise this is not the most accurate face recognition software but I found this absolutely hilarious.

http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/4589/lolololols.jpg

I'm not using this as proof of anything, but you have to admit its funny in context. Genuine, try it yourself. :D

Interestingly, I've tried other pics of Faul and it gets a 60-75% matching an old McCartney, whereas Paul gets 80-100% matching as a young Paul McCartney.

I find that strange as any other celebrity doesn't show up with 2 different ages of face.


http://www.reuters.com/article/lifes...57P4WP20090826

Anyone catch this?

LONDON (Reuters Life!) - Former Beatle Paul McCartney has described rumors that he had died, which surfaced more than 40 years ago, as "ridiculous" and an "occupational hazard" for a member of one of the world's biggest bands.

The conspiracy theory began in October, 1969, when a Detroit-based DJ claimed that the three other Beatles -- Ringo Starr, John Lennon and George Harrison -- had recruited a lookalike replacement for McCartney after he died in 1966.

He argued that because the man "posing" as McCartney on the cover of the Beatles' 1969 album "Abbey Road" had bare feet meant it represented a corpse, and that the number plate on a car in the photograph was LMW 28IF -- denoting McCartney's age, if he had lived.

"It was funny, really," McCartney, 67, told MOJO music magazine in an interview. "But ridiculous. It's an occupational hazard: people make up a story and then you find yourself having to deal with this fictitious stuff.

"I think the worst thing that happened was that I could see people sort of looking at me more closely: 'Were his ears always like that?'"

He said that he had bare feet in the famous record sleeve image because he had kicked off his sandals, and that the car parked in the background was "random."

"It was madness," he recalled.

[ar20]

http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/7271/nooneknowswhothisfuckin.jpg

Fair enough, I just put a Paul pic in and it came up saying he was Tyra Banks!

Although that image of Faul is inconic and straight on pose, why didn't it pick him up?

[ar20]

http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/5967/faulpacino.jpg

I GET BY WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM MY LITTLE FRIEND

[faulconandsnowjob]

Hey Faulcon, didn't get a chance to say Hi again.
I know - I missed you! :-)

You catch the new IAMAPHONEY vid? Kenya makes sense now. I knew this whole thing was a spiritual transformation -- it's big, real big.

I'm actually convinced at this point of Reptilians after doing a ton of research over the last month.

Yeah, there's some crazy stuff out there :eek:

I just have a feeling -something- is going to come out pretty soon.
I really hope you're right!

Sexy Sadie - however big you think you are :D

[faulconandsnowjob]

You'll be back in like an hour, I guarentee it.

This topic gets under your skin I'll bet. ;)
Nah, it's just Focrates' job to "man" this thread. lol Make sure the lid doesn't come off of PID.

[faulconandsnowjob]

http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSTRE57P4WP20090826
Anyone else here ever walked on pavement on a hot day barefoot? It's fucking impossible agony.

I know. It's stupid. Who would one prefer to walk on scorching hot pavement w/ broken glass, cigarette butts & whatever else than to wear sandals. Gawd, give me a break :rolleyes:

[faulconandsnowjob]

This video was interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RkQMTJCNmI

From the video at 4:34: "One quick way to destroy a society is through its music." - Vladimir Lenin

Paul wrote some very classical-sounding songs ("Eleanor Rigby," "Love in the Open Air," "She's Leaving Home," etc), but then the sound changed to stuff like "Helter Skelter."

...McCartney then "wrote 'Helter Skelter' to be the most raucous vocal, the loudest drums, et cetera" and said he was "using the symbol of a helter skelter as a ride from the top to the bottom—the rise and fall of the Roman Empire—and this was the fall, the demise."[1] ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helter_Skelter_(song)


Let's not forget the Manson connection w/ this song.

[ar20]

This video was interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RkQMTJCNmI

From the video at 4:34: "One quick way to destroy a society is through its music." - Vladimir Lenin

Paul wrote some very classical-sounding songs ("Eleanor Rigby," "Love in the Open Air," "She's Leaving Home," etc), but then the sound changed to stuff like "Helter Skelter."



Let's not forget the Manson connection w/ this song.

The Manson thing interests me because the guy did NOTHING, yet he understands quite a bit -- really tuned in... but extremely eccentric.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uhmtAmwnDQ

[mind1universe]

Your right Ar20 This is part of a spiritual transformation.


The Paul replacment is now one of the first major exposures of the reptilan agenda.

The whole power system, economy, music business is crumbling. The Dollar and Pound are worthless. The Reptillans humanoids will start appearing more reptillan because their stress levels are matching their DNA.


But that is all I will say about that.

As for Faul. He can't hide it anymore, no matter what agents he hires.

[faulconandsnowjob]

As for Faul. He can't hide it anymore, no matter what agents he hires.
It's part of people's awakening - being able to recognize lies, deceit & fraudsters :D

[mind1universe]

In actual fact not only are we evolving so are the reptilian entities.


The Reptillian entities are drawn to my mysterious universal nature. Not because I'm good, Not because I'm negative. They instinctively understand I will not harm or take them down. The large percentage of Reptilian and Draco races are fully realising how important humanity is. It's through us that balance of polarity is happening on this universe. In other words. This universe is ascending like none other before it.


Many supreme beings of light and energy have crossed over from other universes, to give the reptillians more leeway to experience this polarity.



There are many reptilian entities that want this race to evolve. The truth is the Draco/Lucifer an power struggle on the planet will fight to keep the system in place otherwise the fear that use to plague and decept humanity is now facing them. Some reptilians will turn to the light and other's will not.


I did say earlier on this thread something of this without saying who, when ad what.

But I will say it again.

If you keep containing this system you will be eradicated out of this world. Now you have the choice what you want to do now.


This universe is not going to repeat like before. Why am I saying this, because I know Paul was replaced, I know why he was replaced. The agents will not know. A lot of the Mason's will not know the full extent. I know though and I will not discuss that here I'm afraid.

But here and now is the focus.

[mind1universe]

It's part of people's awakening - being able to recognize lies, deceit & fraudsters :D


That's why I kept my post's short and sweet ;)

It was like the jokers ran out of lines. It was a good re run over the last 4 pages. Now all the people have to do is read the lines, and suss out the behavioural and subliminal language witnessed on the thread.


This thread is perfect practice :D

For the lies and fraud on a global scale.


It's all in the plan. If you know the end, I think i'm spoiling it. so I'll shush now:D

[faulconandsnowjob]

Why am I saying this, because I know Paul was replaced, I know why he was replaced. The agents will not know. A lot of the Mason's will not know the full extent.

Hmmm... but I think the agents do know Paul was replaced. No one is that dumb to not figure out that a guy in his mid-20's doesn't change his eye color, transfigure his facial features, & grow 2+ inches in a couple of months. I bet they know. I think they're just desperately trying to keep other people from seeing it by making it seem "ridiculous."

[mind1universe]

I want the agents to keep doing it.

Sooner or later the swing is going to get rusty and can't swing anymore.:D

I've given them plenty of warnings. They are only hanging themselves up to dry.

The best part we get to watch it in plain view. It's been a very very interesting few pages.

[mind1universe]

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/24-cell.gif


Humanity is been pushed to the test. The more you push it the more the DNA gets to work.;)


Multi dimensional. The line of proof is not from one to another. It is not from one pont only. The view can be viewed every way. The point can be seen from any angle now. The mind is now becoming fully aware. So it will become inevitable that the reptilian mind control will come to an end.



We can view things multi dimensionally now. You and I on this thread experiencing something eh.

[faulconandsnowjob]

The agents keep attention focused on PID. It only helps to expose the truth


A very old-looking 25 year old Faul Mccartney :p

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

[mind1universe]

The other aspect to my message.


Is you will all feel that you were here before or you seen this thread before in your minds eye.


Or you will feel that there is something peculiar about this thread.


That's because this is only the beginning of real exposure on a thread based forum but still in real time. Once it gets out publicly things will start to ripple from one stone in a pond to afar.

http://www.universalvoices.org/files/kristin/violet_flame.jpg

You can fool the ego, but not the spirit.


http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b107/tommie1/Violet-Flame.jpg

[mind1universe]

It's now time for you to begin to see like I do.

[ivgg]

The agents keep attention focused on PID. It only helps to expose the truth


A very old-looking 25 year old Faul Mccartney :p

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

Bad comps.

[ivgg]

http://maccafunhouse.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=essentials&action=display&thread=2697

Check this out.

[magnolia_xx]

Thanks for the link, these are really reliable and properly done comparisons.

[magnolia_xx]

http://www.yoursdaily.com/var/yoursdaily/storage/images/media/images/culture_media/music/beatles/paul_mccartney/33950-1-eng-GB/paul_mccartney_large.jpg

Always the same silly and unfounded remarks.
Any McCartney fan who ever looked at his photos knows that he had lines around his eyes much earlier than 1966...:rolleyes:

[ar20]

http://img174.echo.cx/img174/6403/lsd25qy.gif

"Well I just had to laugh, I saw the photograph"

Excellent comps MaccaFunHouse... proves you can't discern between two different faces.

I mean, it's blatantly obvious... how you cannot see it is perplexing to me. I mean, I don't even know if you people are serious with these!

[ar20]

http://img174.echo.cx/img174/7182/lsd36rf.gif

I'm literally in shock here. No difference, REALLY?.

No one take LSD ever again... if you're round faced you're going to end up with a chiseled oblong one. *slaps head*

[ivgg]

http://img174.echo.cx/img174/6403/lsd25qy.gif

"Well I just had to laugh, I saw the photograph"

Excellent comps MaccaFunHouse... proves you can't discern between two different faces.

I mean, it's blatantly obvious... how you cannot see it is perplexing to me. I mean, I don't even know if you people are serious with these!


Not 100% the same face expression. But it's obvious it's the same man.

[ivgg]

http://img174.echo.cx/img174/7182/lsd36rf.gif

I'm literally in shock here. No difference, REALLY?.

No one take LSD ever again... if you're round faced you're going to end up with a chiseled oblong one. *slaps head*

Same nose, different face expression.

[mind1universe]

Same nose, different face expression.

Funny that the same mans ears, skull and jawline change shape during a different facial expression.


It would be cool to do that in the real world, But I don't think it would be normal to change the shape of ones skulll during a a slight facial expression.


:D:D I love this....

[ivgg]

Funny that the same mans ears, skull and jawline change shape during a different facial expression.


It would be cool to do that in the real world, But I don't think it would be normal to change the shape of ones skulll during a a slight facial expression.


:D:D I love this....


I think it's the hair what makes it look like that.

[mind1universe]

No

You wish you mean.

[ar20]

Same nose, different face expression.

You ever seen a nose ELONGATE within a year? The eyebrows didn't even match in that for gods sake.

[ivgg]

You ever seen a nose ELONGATE within a year? The eyebrows didn't even match in that for gods sake.


In other pictures, his nose is the same as before 1966.

[ar20]

http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/7070/faulpaul.jpg

[ar20]

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/4475/faulpaul2.jpg

[ivgg]

http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/3463/scan0fade.gif

Same nose, same teeth.

[ar20]

http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/3463/scan0fade.gif

Same nose, same teeth.

I picked this apart earlier in the topic.

I think it's been tampered with. Look under his eye in both pics and the mouth and chin, they have the exact same shadow.

Not saying you or anyone else did it, but it could have been done to the original. There's no way two different photos have the exact same shadows like that, he'd have to have been in the exact location with the same lighting and the photographer in the same position.

(I don't mean shadows in the background, I mean the line under his eye.)

[ivgg]

I picked this apart earlier in the topic.

I think it's been tampered with. Look under his eye in both pics and the mouth and chin, they have the exact same shadow.

Not saying you or anyone else did it, but it could have been done to the original. There's no way two different photos have the exact same shadows like that, he'd have to have been in the exact location with the same lighting and the photographer in the same position.

(I don't mean shadows in the background, I mean the line under his eye.)

If it's tampered, too many people should have known about it.

[mind1universe]

The thing we know.


.



.

.

The violin is out.

I'm playing humpty dumpty sat on a wall.
I just love this song. Listen to the words.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDyayfFnH90&feature=PlayList&p=13A04096DD0F0407&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=20

Huimpty dumpty sat on a wall,
Had a great fall,


All the kings horses,
All the kings mens,


Could not put humpty together again;)


The matrix is exposing itself.


This is now, a realisation on this thread. 125,000 views.When it comes to 144,000 views. Tables will turn. It's already turning.


The big question is, will you join us or fall like humpty dumpty. The system is breaking up :D

[ivgg]

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/4673/paulmccartney280379738a.jpg

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/4310/paulfaul.jpg

Notice the huge nose-difference.

And they are BOTH after 1966!!!

[ar20]

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/4673/paulmccartney280379738a.jpg

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/4310/paulfaul.jpg

Notice the huge nose-difference.

And they are BOTH after 1966!!!

Well what do ya know, his face shape and eye colour haven't changed!

Perhaps because in the second one he's looking a bit down and in the first, a bit... up?

[ar20]

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/4310/paulfaul.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc205/thebeatlesfour/paul/paulskis.jpg

[formosan termite]

No one is that dumb to not figure out that a guy in his mid-20's doesn't change his eye color, transfigure his facial features, & grow 2+ inches in a couple of months.

SOS

The eye color did not change. It was and is hazel. And as has been proven here over and over, hazel eyes can and many times do look green.

There is no height change. Many photos show Paul being taller pre 1967.

And no, the facial features did not change.

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/newfade1.gif

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

[formosan termite]

I think it's been tampered with. Look under his eye in both pics and the mouth and chin, they have the exact same shadow.



Then prove it. Show the original undoctored photo.

[ivgg]

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/4310/paulfaul.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc205/thebeatlesfour/paul/paulskis.jpg


LOL!!! This comp shows they have the same teeth!!

[mind1universe]

SOS

The eye color did not change. It was and is hazel. And as has been proven here over and over, hazel eyes can and many times do look green.

There is no height change. Many photos show Paul being taller pre 1967.

And no, the facial features did not change.

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/newfade1.gif

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



Lol Welcome back.


IMAGINE.... All the people.......





Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one


IMAGINE, that you can't hide the truth from the world NO MORE.


Imagine that the WORLD can see humanity becoming the WORLD.

[ar20]

LOL!!! This comp shows they have the same teeth!!

Do yourself a favour, I don't have Flash installed.

Why don't you fade them in from the eyes, you'll be in for a shock.

[ivgg]

Lol Welcome back.


IMAGINE.... All the people.......





Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one


IMAGINE, that you can't hide the truth from the world NO MORE.


Imagine that the WORLD can see humanity becoming the WORLD.

Are you trying to be funny or are you trying to be cool?

[ivgg]

Do yourself a favour, I don't have Flash installed.

Why don't you fade them in from the eyes, you'll be in for a shock.

I don't have Flash either.

[ar20]

I don't have Flash either.

Damnit.

I'll get Flash and get back to you with that and some others.

[mind1universe]

Are you trying to be funny or are you trying to be cool?

I am doing what I'm supposed to do.

[astrochicken]

http://img174.echo.cx/img174/6403/lsd25qy.gif
Not 100% the same face expression. But it's obvious it's the same man.


LOL.. Stop it. You're cracking me up.

[ar20]

LOL.. Stop it. You're cracking me up.

It'd be funny if it weren't so sad.

But yeah, it's hilarious when you put Faul into a face-recognition and have it come back as an 80% match for Al Pacino. :p

[mind1universe]

Ok.


Now you all need to learn something now.



Trusting your intuition and higher mind.


It comes with trusting the self and not relying on the system. This is one of the pathways left for you to figure you out. The matrix was created by you. The system was created by you, The system is run by you. NOW that you are AWARE.


What are you all going to do NOW?

What are you going to imagine yourself to be?

What does your future hold?

What are you doing on this planet?

What does the experience do to you now?

[socrates]

http://img174.echo.cx/img174/6403/lsd25qy.gif

Not 100% the same face expression. But it's obvious it's the same man.

LOL.. Stop it. You're cracking me up.

http://gickr.com/results2/anim_200008f1-3afb-54a4-3dc2-ea88a11890ad.gif

Same man.

[socrates]

http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/3463/scan0fade.gif

Same nose, same teeth.

I picked this apart earlier in the topic.

No you didn't. You merely made a load of baseless claims and assumptions without a shred of evidence to back it up. :rolleyes:

Nothing new, there then.

As you've been asked previously - post the "doctored" photos.

It's quite simple. :D

It's called 'backing up your claims with evidence'.

[socrates]

But yeah, it's hilarious when you put Faul into a face-recognition and have it come back as an 80% match for Al Pacino. :p

Even more "hilarious" when you put Paul into the very same face-recognition software and have it come back as an 75% match for Lucille Ball. :p

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

Go figure. :rolleyes:

[theenlightenedone]

LOL.. Stop it. You're cracking me up.

What? Is it the nose matching up? The eyebrows being spot on? The headlength being the same? Please explain ;)

[mind1universe]

Socrates you cannot stop it.


I wish you well on your path.


It is time now.

[mind1universe]

The whole universe is an eye.

It has been watching you all.


For a very very long time.

[ar20]

Even more "hilarious" when you put Paul into the very same face-recognition software and have it come back as an 75% match for Lucille Ball. :p

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

Go figure. :rolleyes:

Yeah go figure I already pointed out that Paul came up as Tyra Banks, but that didn't explain why Faul from front on had a 0% match or was an 80% match for Al Pacino.

I also posted one where Paul was an 80% match for himself.

Go figure.

Also, I didn't say you edited that pic, I'm saying as it stands it could have been tampered with. How do you explain those shadows I pointed out and why did you and still do constantly jump round that point when I make it?

http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/3463/scan0fade.gif

The EXACT to a tee same place on his face with those shadows in two different photos from two different periods? Really? Come on, somethings up with that here.

Shadow under the eye, and around the mouth and chin the exact same -- but you're right, there's probably no tampering. :rolleyes:

[socrates]

Yeah go figure I already pointed out that Paul came up as Tyra Banks,

Go figure that I already read that.

but that didn't explain why Faul from front on had a 0% match or was an 80% match for Al Pacino.

Because it's a two bit piece of software only designed for fun.

I also posted one where Paul was an 80% match for himself.

So, 20% of his face didn't match? What a great piece of software. :rolleyes:

Also, I didn't say you edited that pic,

You did originally - and was proven wrong.

I'm saying as it stands it could have been tampered with.

And I don't believe it was. So, unless you can provide the 'untampered' photo your claim is unfounded.

How do you explain those shadows I pointed out and why did you and still do constantly jump round that point when I make it?

Because I can't be bothered arguing about it since you can't produce any evidence to say it's been tampered with.

The onus is on you to support your claim.

Go and do some research.....

[ar20]

Yeah and I apologised a number of times for the accusation.

But that's what I'm saying, I've apologised and want your opinion on those identical shadows -- what's your thoughts on them being in the exact same plane under the eye and round the mouth?

Those two pics are -almost- identical is what I'm getting at.

[faulconandsnowjob]

http://img174.echo.cx/img174/6403/lsd25qy.gif

It'd be nice if they'd use un-doctored photos to support their "theory" that Paul wasn't replaced. Paul's face on the left has been stretched to look more like Bill's on the right:

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

See how round his face really was?

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

[faulconandsnowjob]

Someone did a comp of Faul w/ this pic. Yeah, doesn't look like Paul at all. Nice try, Bill. You almost had me going there :p

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

[faulconandsnowjob]

A tampered Bill photo. His face has been compressed from top to bottom to make it look rounder like Paul's. Edit: it may even be a pre Nov 1966 Paul-Paul comp...

http://gickr.com/results2/anim_200008f1-3afb-54a4-3dc2-ea88a11890ad.gif

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

If Paul's face can be stretched to look like Bill's, then Bill's can be compressed to look like Paul. See how easy it is?

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

[faulconandsnowjob]

This one cracks me up. :p

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/Paulteeth.jpg
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/1976_September25_Venice-1.jpg

[faulconandsnowjob]

So, this is Paul in the studio for Revolver:

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/335162d8.jpg

This is Bill:

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

I'm noticing different taste in clothing :-P

[socrates]

http://gickr.com/results2/anim_200008f1-3afb-54a4-3dc2-ea88a11890ad.gif
A tampered Bill photo. His face has been compressed from top to bottom to make it look rounder like Paul's....

LOL!

They're both Paul! :D:D:D:D

The 'Bill' pic is from Yesterday and Today:

http://img391.imageshack.us/img391/762/666711.gif

Edit: it may even be a pre Nov 1966 Paul-Paul comp...

Whoops!

'"May"?

Why can't you tell? :eek:

I thought 'Faul' had a different forehead? Different chin? Different eyes? Different nose? Different mouth? Different jawline?

The fact you can't tell if it's 'Faul' or Paul just proves that all these differences you claim to be able to see aren't really there at all.....

Otherwise you would have known it was Paul all along.

Cheque mate!

[faulconandsnowjob]

Bill says he had a couple of factory jobs before becoming a Beatle:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj3RwJ4-mak

Um, I don't think that's "official" Beatles history. IAAP is constantly nailing him - cracks me up :p

[faulconandsnowjob]

LOL!

They're both Paul! :D:D:D:D



Yeah, you people are really clever doing comps of pre-replacement Paul to "prove" Paul wasn't replaced. lol :p

[socrates]

Yeah, you people are really clever doing comps of pre-replacement Paul to "prove" Paul wasn't replaced. lol :p

Fooled you, though didn't it! :p

You thought Paul was 'Faul'. :):):)

But I thought the "differences were so obvious?

After all....

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

Interesting how people who have not been conditioned to see them as the same can tell the difference. :eek:

The PIA'ers on here must have the worst eye for detail if they can't tell the difference. Actually, they've proven time & again they can't discern at all - even when the differences are really obvious, like a much longer nose. It's kind of sad & pathetic at some point... :eek:

Apparently only people w/ a decent eye for detail see the difference btw those 2 people :eek:

Yet YOU have just shown everyone you couldn't tell the difference!

Miss Great Eye For Detail, who looks down on all the poor 'blind' sheeple for not being able to tell Paul from the Great Impostor.

And yet...

http://gickr.com/results2/anim_200008f1-3afb-54a4-3dc2-ea88a11890ad.gif

A tampered Bill photo. His face has been compressed from top to bottom to make it look rounder like Paul's.

Hilarious!

[faulconandsnowjob]

And btw, I did pick up on it being a Paul-Paul comp:

Edit: it may even be a pre Nov 1966 Paul-Paul comp...

You think this helps you to make Paul-Paul comps, but it really doesn't. All you're doing is showing that Paul looked like Paul, which we already knew. The thing is, he doesn't look like Bill so much. Sorry, nice try. :p

[socrates]

And btw, I did pick up on it being a Paul-Paul comp:

You said "may" be a Paul-Paul comp! Not that it was. :p

You were obviously not sure. After all - you first boldly claimed it was "Bill"!

Then you came back to edit it.

And as I said:


Edit: it may even be a pre Nov 1966 Paul-Paul comp...

Whoops!

'"May"?

Why can't you tell? :eek:

I thought 'Faul' had a different forehead? Different chin? Different eyes? Different nose? Different mouth? Different jawline?

The fact you can't tell if it's 'Faul' or Paul just proves that all these differences you claim to be able to see aren't really there at all.....

Otherwise you would have known it was Paul all along.

Cheque mate!

Keep wriggling! :p

[faulconandsnowjob]

You doctor pictures of Paul, so why wouldn't you doctor pics of Bill?

I wish there were an "ignore" button on this forum!

[faulconandsnowjob]

Anyway, we already know that Paul wasn't replaced until after Aug 19, 1966, so posting pics of Paul from 1964 & June 1966 doesn't prove anything. :p

[mind1universe]

Guys your really not getting it.

The deception here with Paul was created purposely, He was killed purposely.


Pauls soul is fine. Faul is struggling to keep it hidden. But that's not our worry. our worry is you. It's time for you to wake up now. This is it. NOW. Stop relying on the lying system. We know the system replaced him. We know the matrix murders famous people. We know why famous people are assassinated. We know the music industry is satanic.

The question is do you?

Seriously your all not getting it, even the agents I may suspect:D


I lay the fool card on the table.



http://naufragiobella.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/the-fool.jpg

[faulconandsnowjob]

The deception here with Paul was created purposely, He was killed purposely.
Yes, he was. I do get the larger purpose for it...

Pauls soul is fine.
That is true - but he might be annoyed that "Ever Present Past" is being blamed on him :p j/k

Faul is struggling to keep it hidden.
Yeah, good luck w/ that, Bill. :D

It's time for you to wake up now.
Already there.

We know the system replaced him. We know the matrix murders famous people. We know why famous people are assassinated. We know the music industry is satanic.
Yes, we do. They can't suppress the truth forever.

[magnolia_xx]

Fooled you, though didn't it! :p

You thought Paul was 'Faul'. :):):)

But I thought the "differences were so obvious?

After all....


:eek:

:eek:

:eek:

:eek:

Yet YOU have just shown everyone you couldn't tell the difference!

Miss Great Eye For Detail, who looks down on all the poor 'blind' sheeple for not being able to tell Paul from the Great Impostor.

And yet...



Hilarious!
No Socrates, it is not hilarious. It is really sad.

[magnolia_xx]

http://img174.echo.cx/img174/6403/lsd25qy.gif

It'd be nice if they'd use un-doctored photos to support their "theory" that Paul wasn't replaced. Paul's face on the left has been stretched to look more like Bill's on the right:

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

See how round his face really was?

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

LOL I have seen the last photo at least 100 times, it seems that the person who is posting it again and again is not realizing that the stretched smile is altering his face features making it uncomparable to the other photos.

[ivgg]

So, this is Paul in the studio for Revolver:

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/335162d8.jpg

This is Bill:

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

I'm noticing different taste in clothing :-P


Please, try to make sense.

Different clothes, but that doesn't proof he was replaced.:D

Elvis also had a different taste in clothing in the 70's.

[ivgg]

Anyway, we already know that Paul wasn't replaced until after Aug 19, 1966, so posting pics of Paul from 1964 & June 1966 doesn't prove anything. :p

It proves that comparing pictures can't be used as proof, because he also looks different in pictures that are both before 1966.

[faulconandsnowjob]

Please, try to make sense.

Different clothes, but that doesn't proof he was replaced.:D


The point is that Paul had a classic style. Bill, on the other hand, had no style :p

[faulconandsnowjob]

LOL I have seen the last photo at least 100 times, it seems that the person who is posting it again and again is not realizing that the stretched smile is altering his face features making it uncomparable to the other photos.
You should really try to see how in the one pic of Paul, his face has been stretched. The screen cap is a more accurate representation of how he really looked. That's the point.

[ivgg]

Someone did a comp of Faul w/ this pic. Yeah, doesn't look like Paul at all. Nice try, Bill. You almost had me going there :p

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


http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/3416/58225765.jpg

Here he looks like Paul.

[ivgg]

The point is that Paul had a classic style. Bill, on the other hand, had no style :p


http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/6474/paulmccartneystudiodad.jpg


Here he is having the classic style again.

[ivgg]

Oops, is the image I used a bit too big?

[brainfreeze]

Oops, is the image I used a bit too big?

Massive mate! :p :D

[boots]

Oops, is the image I used a bit too big?

HOLY FUCK :D

Thats the biggest pic I've seen on the forum:eek: There go's a big chunk of bandwidth:D

.

[faulconandsnowjob]

Paul was just a little taller than his dad

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/WlarusGirl/pjmAA.jpg

Bill towers over Paul's dad

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/WlarusGirl/BillandtheMcCartneyclanaa.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c250/ladygamer/mikewedding.jpg

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

[faulconandsnowjob]

http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/3416/58225765.jpg

Here he looks like Paul.

Yeah, except for the face :p

[ivgg]

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/4760/rexlookslikepaul.jpg

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/2469/335162d8.jpg

I'm noticing a different style of clothing!:D

[theenlightenedone]

LOOK AT THE DIFFERENCE IN HEIGHT IN THESE TWO FACES!

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/5706/failcon.jpg
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[boots]

LOOK AT THE DIFFERENCE IN HEIGHT IN THESE TWO FACES!

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/5706/failcon.jpg
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

The only difference is. A Moustache and B. Hair style. PID's would say "thats Faul in the left". They are wrong.


.

.

[dream9]

The chin on the left is narrower.



....

[magnolia_xx]

Oops, is the image I used a bit too big?
Yes, just a little :) Maybe you could resize it?

[ar20]

Paul was just a little taller than his dad

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/WlarusGirl/pjmAA.jpg

Bill towers over Paul's dad

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/WlarusGirl/BillandtheMcCartneyclanaa.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c250/ladygamer/mikewedding.jpg

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

Totally undeniable, you know what's funny -- they just skip over these and don't even reply.

Then when you bring it up they go :rolleyes: "It's not evidence I'm not debating that".

Oh okay. Let's ring FAUL up and get him to register, LETS SEE IF HE'LL TELL US.

[brainfreeze]

You can't tell if the ground is at a slope or not in those pics. I don't know/can't tell if the surface they are standing on is even. Are there any photos where this can't be disputed for us to look at? Because in the first pic it looks like Paul is standing downhill to me.

[ivgg]

Totally undeniable, you know what's funny -- they just skip over these and don't even reply.

Then when you bring it up they go :rolleyes: "It's not evidence I'm not debating that".

Oh okay. Let's ring FAUL up and get him to register, LETS SEE IF HE'LL TELL US.


We don't reply because it has been discussed before.

The claim that Paul is suddenly taller is very debunked and you know it. As long as PID'ers ignore that, they can't be taken seriously.

[formosan termite]

Paul was just a little taller than his dad

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/WlarusGirl/pjmAA.jpg

Bill towers over Paul's dad

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/WlarusGirl/BillandtheMcCartneyclanaa.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c250/ladygamer/mikewedding.jpg

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

Oh, no, I won't skip over this.

This is old. Sun King tried this years ago.

As explained before, any height comps that don't show the feet are worthless. You have no idea what kind of shoes anyone is wearing and what, if anything, people are standing on. In the seventies, high platform shoes were in style. God, they were ugly, but poplular. Is anyone wearing shoes like that? We don't know. Was Paul asked to stand on something so that no one blocked his face? We don't know. Were the participants standing on uneven ground? We can't tell.

Another thing to take into account in comparing height to Paul's father is his age. My mother-in-law lost about 4 inches between 2000 and 2004 due to compression fractures and osteoporosis. People do lose inches when they get old. It is happening now to my parents. The photos in the comp were taken 6 years apart. It is quite possible that Paul's father lost at least a couple of inches in that time period.

[formosan termite]

Anyway, we already know that Paul wasn't replaced until after Aug 19, 1966, so posting pics of Paul from 1964 & June 1966 doesn't prove anything. :p


It proves that you can't really be sure about a difference.

[ar20]

Oh, no, I won't skip over this.

This is old. Sun King tried this years ago.

As explained before, any height comps that don't show the feet are worthless. You have no idea what kind of shoes anyone is wearing and what, if anything, people are standing on. In the seventies, high platform shoes were in style. God, they were ugly, but poplular. Is anyone wearing shoes like that? We don't know. Was Paul asked to stand on something so that no one blocked his face? We don't know. Were the participants standing on uneven ground? We can't tell.

Another thing to take into account in comparing height to Paul's father is his age. My mother-in-law lost about 4 inches between 2000 and 2004 due to compression fractures and osteoporosis. People do lose inches when they get old. It is happening now to my parents. The photos in the comp were taken 6 years apart. It is quite possible that Paul's father lost at least a couple of inches in that time period.

That's your assumption, and I can say this because you've all used it against us many times.

Yes Platform shoes where the style.... you don't have proof either way.

You lot tried to say as well that these don't count because "you can't tell what ground they're on".

It's completely ridiculous and is no where near a debunking. Try again, maybe Faul was standing on a crate. :rolleyes:

And I agree old people do shrink. But Paul would stay the same height wouldn't he? He doesn't GROW in his mid-20's. His dads posture looks fine in the 1969 one.

[ar20]

Also why are you all still arguing this? Shouldn't you be working hard to debunk the scientists in WIRED Italy? :eek:

[formosan termite]

That's your assumption, and I can say this because you've all used it against us many times.

Yes Platform shoes where the style.... you don't have proof either way.

You lot tried to say as well that these don't count because "you can't tell what ground they're on".

It's completely ridiculous and is no where near a debunking. Try again, maybe Faul was standing on a crate. :rolleyes:

And I agree old people do shrink. But Paul would stay the same height wouldn't he? He doesn't GROW in his mid-20's. His dads posture looks fine in the 1969 one.

I made no assumption one way or another. Can you read at all? I stated plainly in my post that we can't tell if Paul is wearing platform shoes. That is the point. You can't tell either. True, I have no proof that he is wearing them. I never said I did. But you have no proof that he is not. I am not the one using these photos as some sort of proof of something. I am just saying that using photos where you can't see the feet is worthless because you can't determine all of the factors that may be involved with height difference.

What I am saying is that the comp provided proves nothing either way.

You were measuring Paul's height relative to his father. If his father did lose say 2 inches in that 6 year period, Paul's relative height to his father would increase by 2 inches. And the loss in height doesn't just happen due to posture. My mother has good posture as well, but she is a couple of inches shorter than she used to be. The spine can compress and there is bone loss.

Paul did not grow 2 inches in his mid 20's. He was 5'11", and remained so until recently. I read recently in an article that he is down to 5'9" now.

[formosan termite]

Also why are you all still arguing this? Shouldn't you be working hard to debunk the scientists in WIRED Italy? :eek:


We already debunked that. That was easy.:D

[ar20]

I pity the f00.

That isn't a debunking my friend. They didn't just use 3 comparisons from PID sites and make a judgement call that warranted printing in a respectable publication. :rolleyes:

How thick would you have to be? They clearly looked through hundreds of different pictures to come to a conclusion.

If you were one of those scientists would you really get 3 pictures to compare from? If they really are from biometric backgrounds then they know they can't do a proper analysis with a handful of pictures.

These are scientists, not PiAers. You think a big magazine would publish this work based on the findings of a few photographs? Please, pull my leg again.

A debunking would be step-by-step tearing apart of everything they have to say, I looked at your little topic -- and I thank you for giving more credence to our case. The more you make yourselfs look silly, the better.

And now on to something more fun...


I never get into the fade game because I think you can't find two good pictures to really do it with. However, I've taken the liberty of preparing a little treat that's been done ad-nauseum but never ceases to amuse me:

http://img174.echo.cx/img174/7182/lsd36rf.gif
http://img174.echo.cx/img174/6403/lsd25qy.gif

Let me teach you a little lesson in fading my visually impaired friends, fading in from the eyes...

If you fade PAUL into PAUL. Paul doesn't change... Young or old.

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/9900/paulintoyoungpaul.gif

Watch carefully, there isn't much difference even with the slight change in pose...

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/7348/paulintopaul2.gif

The same goes for FAUL... with or without a beard. Not MUCH of a difference in face.

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/3307/faulintofaul.gif

By showing you a young into old comparison, you can agree not much of a difference coming in from the eyes.

Then again, if I take Penny Lane FAUL and fade him into young Paul...

http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/7298/youngpaulintofaul.gif

[socrates]

You can't tell if the ground is at a slope or not in those pics. I don't know/can't tell if the surface they are standing on is even. Are there any photos where this can't be disputed for us to look at? Because in the first pic it looks like Paul is standing downhill to me.

Of course, you are correct:

Paul is standing on a lower level.

Why these PIDDERS produce such pathetic evidence for a height difference is beyond me. :rolleyes:

Are they so blind that they can't see they aren't standing level? :eek:

It has been debunked over and over and yet they keep regurgitating it again and again as if it's 'new'.

[socrates]

It proves that you can't really be sure about a difference.

It certainly does! :D

[socrates]

They clearly looked through hundreds of different pictures to come to a conclusion.

Quote please. Where does it say they looked through "hundreds of different pictures to come to a conclusion"?

Not making things up again, are we?

If not, you'll be kind enough to supply us the quote. I must have missed it.

Thanks in advance.

[mind1universe]

It seems your all going to be foolish now.


hmmm

ok:D

I feel for you all though. Time is running out.


Your going to remember what I said.;)

Keep going.:D

[formosan termite]

I pity the f00.

That isn't a debunking my friend. They didn't just use 3 comparisons from PID sites and make a judgement call that warranted printing in a respectable publication. :rolleyes:

How thick would you have to be? They clearly looked through hundreds of different pictures to come to a conclusion.

If you were one of those scientists would you really get 3 pictures to compare from? If they really are from biometric backgrounds then they know they can't do a proper analysis with a handful of pictures.

These are scientists, not PiAers. You think a big magazine would publish this work based on the findings of a few photographs? Please, pull my leg again.

A debunking would be step-by-step tearing apart of everything they have to say, I looked at your little topic -- and I thank you for giving more credence to our case. The more you make yourselfs look silly, the better.

And now on to something more fun...


I never get into the fade game because I think you can't find two good pictures to really do it with. However, I've taken the liberty of preparing a little treat that's been done ad-nauseum but never ceases to amuse me:


Let me teach you a little lesson in fading my visually impaired friends, fading in from the eyes...

If you fade PAUL into PAUL. Paul doesn't change... Young or old.


Watch carefully, there isn't much difference even with the slight change in pose...


The same goes for FAUL... with or without a beard. Not MUCH of a difference in face.

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/3307/faulintofaul.gif

By showing you a young into old comparison, you can agree not much of a difference coming in from the eyes.

Then again, if I take Penny Lane FAUL and fade him into young Paul...

http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/7298/youngpaulintofaul.gif

Could you please show where they used 100's of orginal authentic photographs? They did not show that.

The only photos presented were from Sun King's pro PID website. Sun King has been shown to manipulate and flip photos to support his crazy ideas. The fact is that they did measurements on photos that may have been manipulated. It is a question of independence. And you don't have to be a scientist to judge independence.

And again, these people did not declare they had proof the photos were from two different people. If they do not delcare it to be proof, then no one else should either.

Yes, they are scientists. But scientists are not gods. Scientists can make mistakes and they can be dishonest. I just do not believe everything the mainstream media comes out with.

As far as fades, yes when you pick photos of Paul and post '66 Paul that are taken from different angles, with different lens types and with different expressions they will not match.

See how they are done properly:

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n20/khanmfh/comps/Mr%20Potato%20Faul/mpf020709.jpg

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n20/khanmfh/fades/fade020709.gif

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

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

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/P45.gif

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

[ivgg]

http://maccafunhouse.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=pid&action=display&thread=3890

Just a suggestion.

Hope someone is rich enough to pay scientists.

[ivgg]

I don't care how many pictures they used. They are all from PID-sites.

[ivgg]

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

That is something else than:
"In 2009, two Italians, Francesco Gavazzeni (IT analyst) and Gabriella Carlesi (medico-legal), studied images of Paul McCartney taken before and after the alleged death, and claimed to have proven that it is not the same person, based on analysis of the shape of the skull and jaw, the curve of the jaw, the ear of palate and teeth."

[formosan termite]

Of course they still need help with fades. They still don't seem to get angle right. The one of young Paul is taken from above with Paul's head tilted back and looking up, while the other is taken from straight on.

Here is another comp. You can see it is the same individual.

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

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

[ar20]

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

That is something else than:
"In 2009, two Italians, Francesco Gavazzeni (IT analyst) and Gabriella Carlesi (medico-legal), studied images of Paul McCartney taken before and after the alleged death, and claimed to have proven that it is not the same person, based on analysis of the shape of the skull and jaw, the curve of the jaw, the ear of palate and teeth."


PiAers, where does it say "The images you see here are the ones we made the conclusions from".

Socrates, where does it say "we took images from a PID site and we only used 3 of them?".

Infact, moot point -- we're both/all assuming, aren't we? But to come to scientific conclusions, I would assume they used more than just the ones they had as an example in WIRED. It wouldn't do themselves justice not to, I'm pretty sure they'd have checked

I also used different angles in the fade to prove a point... there isn't MUCH DIFFERENCE when Paul goes into Paul, but there is when you Paul into FAUL... get it?

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/9900/paulintoyoungpaul.gif
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v477/devilsadv/PaulFadeAn.gif

Compare, his face changes when he's FAULSIFIED.

[brainfreeze]

Ok, so this PID story is so big yet not one tabloid has had the forethought to buy the man a drink and DNA the glass when he's finished?

I dimly recall something in this thread about an ex of his accusing him of sending an imposter in his place to sign for something or other but she was adamant it wasn't him. Were is this woman today? And why hasn't she requested DNA?

And that tabloid that did the recent "expose" again I ask, DNA?

[formosan termite]

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/9900/paulintoyoungpaul.gif



And this doesn't line up well, especially the nose. And note the big differnce in the ears. The other image lines up better. The face does not change. Of course, the later Paul is a lot older in the other image, so aging is a factor

[ar20]

I wouldn't trust a thing from you people, you're completely mislead:

http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/1384/faulsified.gif

Brainfreeze, within the last month:

http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSTRE57P4WP20090826
Former Beatle Paul McCartney has described rumors that he had died, which surfaced more than 40 years ago, as "ridiculous" and an "occupational hazard" for ...

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

http://www.newspostonline.com/entertainment/sir-paul-mccartney-mccartney-says-death-rumours-led-people-to-think-he-was-an-impostor-2009083067744
Sir Paul McCartney has disclosed that people often checked him over to make sure he wasn’t an impostor after the circulation of a conspiracy theory which claimed he had died in the 1960s.

About 40 years ago rumours about the former Beatle’s death in a 1966 accident had gained currency and conspiracy theorists proved the death with clues appearing on the cover of The Beatles’ last recorded album Abbey Road.

The Telegraph quoted McCartney as saying: ”I think the worst thing that happened was that I could see people sort of looking at me more closely – ‘were his ears always like that?”’

http://www.wired.it/magazine/archivio/2009/06/storie/chiedi-chi-era-quel-%c2%abbeatle%c2%bb-.aspx

And let's not forget:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCQtP4AjVg8

[ar20]

And this doesn't line up well, especially the nose. And note the big differnce in the ears. The other image lines up better. The face does not change. Of course, the later Paul is a lot older in the other image, so aging is a factor

EXACTLY

It doesn't line up well but there isn't any MAJOR difference in facial appearence.

The other images line up better and show great difference when PAUL/FAUL are faded.

I used a young Paul into an older Paul and there isn't much change, the hair covers his ears, that's it.

When you young Paul into Penny Lane Faul it's a total difference, look at the other examples I posted -- aging can't be a factor, ok?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v477/devilsadv/PaulFadeAn.gif
http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/9900/paulintoyoungpaul.gif

[ar20]

Sir Paul McCartney has said that many times he gets bored of being a ‘Beatle’.

The legendary rocker has confessed that many times he gets tired of the fame that comes from being a part of the ‘Fab Four’, reports the China Daily.

“You get fed up being him. You’re always that guy,” he said.

I love when he quotes himself in Third Person. I mean, Paul did that all the time before 66.

How many more times has he said stuff like, "Am I really that guy, Paul McCartney?".

[formosan termite]

I wouldn't trust a thing from you people, you're completely mislead:

http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/1384/faulsified.gif



Are you saying these don't line up, or that I was dishonest somehow?

And I would not trust anything from Rotten Apple

[formosan termite]

This is what happens when you choose pictures that are actually from similar angles and expressions.


http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n20/khanmfh/fades/pid_crusher857385-1.gif

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n20/khanmfh/comps/Mr%20Potato%20Faul/mpf567889.jpg





http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n20/khanmfh/fades/penny_lane_paul.gif

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n20/khanmfh/comps/Mr%20Potato%20Faul/penny_lane_mpf.jpg


Over 40 years apart here:

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n20/khanmfh/fades/fphamburgfade.gif

[ar20]

Are you saying these don't line up, or that I was dishonest somehow?

And I would not trust anything from Rotten Apple

http://www.imbcontracts.com/gallery/100_0124.jpg

I shouldn't be mean to you.

Just understand something... those pics aren't a matching face fade.

I just showed you ones I did that didn't matter what angle or whatever he was at, he'd still be PAUL when the fade happens.

I'll give you a clue. It's all in the eyes.... and the nose... the mouth.... the shape of the face. ;)

You'll see it eventually, I just think a lot of you are scared to shatter your ego-based beliefs on this.

[formosan termite]

http://www.imbcontracts.com/gallery/100_0124.jpg

I shouldn't be mean to you.

Just understand something... those pics aren't a matching face fade.

I just showed you ones I did that didn't matter what angle or whatever he was at, he'd still be PAUL when the fade happens.

I'll give you a clue. It's all in the eyes.... and the nose... the mouth.... the shape of the face. ;)

You'll see it eventually, I just think a lot of you are scared to shatter your ego-based beliefs on this.

I guess it is always insults with you.

The eyes, the nose and mouth line up perfectly in that fade. Yours between pre '67 Paul and pre '67 Paul did not match up as well with the nose or the ears.

[ar20]

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n20/khanmfh/fades/pid_crusher857385-1.gif

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n20/khanmfh/fades/penny_lane_paul.gif

VS.

http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/914/faulsified3.gif
http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/3919/faulsified2.gif


Who do you get do these fades? STEVIE WONDER?!

[ar20]

I guess it is always insults with you.

The eyes, the nose and mouth line up perfectly in that fade. Yours between pre '67 Paul and pre '67 Paul did not match up as well with the nose or the ears.

How many times have I said they weren't meant to match up but still prove the point that his face isn't meant to drastically change during a fade? Why does this concept escape you?

Jesus Mary and Joesph:

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n20/khanmfh/fades/fphamburgfade.gif

That's some aging process... muhey.

Here's my point -- don't let this go over your head here.

I can take Jimmy Page young and old... hell I'll even use a cover with a sepia tone and a photo from outside, diff. lighting and styles:

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/7350/jimpage.gif

That's probably between the 90's and recently at the 02 arena....

Now Jimmys done lots of drugs... and he ages into himself naturally.

Paul just dramatically changes within a few years.

How is that possible, explain.

Every time you fade Paul into Paul, no change, Faul into Faul, no change, Paul into Faul within a span of a year or two -- DRASTIC FACIAL CHANGE.

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e87/im_mikamavvers_new_account/Paul%20McCartney/paulpaul.jpg

[formosan termite]

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n20/khanmfh/fades/pid_crusher857385-1.gif

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n20/khanmfh/fades/penny_lane_paul.gif

VS.

http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/914/faulsified3.gif
http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/3919/faulsified2.gif


Who do you get do these fades? STEVIE WONDER?!

Always with the insults. Don't deal with the fact that they match up very well.

At least those are better than the ones you did.

[formosan termite]

How many times have I said they weren't meant to match up but still prove the point that his face isn't meant to drastically change during a fade? Why does this concept escape you?

Maybe because you don't explain it well.

If a person's nose, mouth, eyes, jaw line and shape of face is so obviously different, then the fades should never match up well. But our fades show that they do, when you use photos with similar angles and expressions. If you are saying that photo comps between two photos of pre '67 Paul will never match up, then you are blowing the whole basis of the Wired article and all of the comps put forth by faulcon. If those won't match, then how can you prove anything with comps at all?

As we have shown, though, lens types can make facial features look different even with the same person.

[fireman]

This a great one!

http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/914/faulsified3.gif


Thanks Ar20! :D

[formosan termite]

So this is the state of things.

If fades or comps show a match, they are wrong, because they should never match.

But if fades or comps show a difference, then it is proof that PID.

Is that how things work?

That comp I showed where I said the matched perfectly, you are saying that it is somehow phony because they match well? Are you saying they are manipulated photos?

[fireman]

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e87/im_mikamavvers_new_account/Paul%20McCartney/paulpaul.jpg

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

:rolleyes: another pefect match, 40 years later!

[fireman]

So this is the state of things.

If fades or comps show a match, they are wrong, because they should never match.

But if fades or comps show a difference, then it is proof that PID.

Is that how things work?

That comp I showed where I said the matched perfectly, you are saying that it is somehow phony because they match well? Are you saying they are manipulated photos?

:rolleyes:

[formosan termite]

This a great one!

http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/914/faulsified3.gif


Thanks Ar20! :D


You are so right, Fireman.

This one is excellent as well.

http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/1384/faulsified.gif

But, you see if they match, then that means the fade is wrong. But if they are different, then it proves PID.:rolleyes:

[socrates]

PiAers, where does it say "The images you see here are the ones we made the conclusions from".

Socrates, where does it say "we took images from a PID site and we only used 3 of them?".

Why are you avoiding answering my question regarding YOUR claim?

I'll remind you:

They clearly looked through hundreds of different pictures to come to a conclusion.

Quote please. Where does it say they looked through "hundreds of different pictures to come to a conclusion"?

Not making things up again, are we?

If not, you'll be kind enough to supply us the quote. I must have missed it.

Thanks in advance.

Infact, moot point -- we're both/all assuming, aren't we?

So you're admitting making your claim up?

We're assuming nothing. From the Wired article:

But yes, I said to myself, we get two minutes to conclude that it is the same person," he recalls. "A look at what was on the internet seemed sufficient to settle the matter:

Please - explain how the scientists could do an analysis of "hundreds" of photos in "two minutes"!

Please - tell us. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

But to come to scientific conclusions

It wasn't a credible scientific conclusion. Carlesi Gavazzeni admits that they obtained their photos from the internet, for God's sake! :rolleyes:

A credible scientific analysis would have used high quality, original photographs.

The Wired scientists didn't.

Why not?

Because it's not a credible scientific study, of course!

If it was - why hasn't it been reported all over the news?

Why hasn't it been all over the papers?

And don't come out with the usual bull about how the illuminati control the media - Wired is owned by one of the largest media companies in the world.

[ar20]

*sigh*

They don't match up well, that's your opinion -- the pics speak for themselves.

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/Paul_Faul_66_neg.jpg


http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/9900/paulintoyoungpaul.gif

http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/3919/faulsified2.gif

http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/4438/faulsifiedproperway.gif

The eyes never lie.

[ar20]

Why are you avoiding answering my question regarding YOUR claim?

I'll remind you:





So you're admitting making your claim up?

We're assuming nothing. From the Wired article:



Please - explain how the scientists could do an analysis of "hundreds" of photos in "two minutes"!

Please - tell us. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:



It wasn't a credible scientific conclusion. Carlesi Gavazzeni admits that they obtained their photos from the internet, for God's sake! :rolleyes:

A credible scientific analysis would have used high quality, original photographs.

The Wired scientists didn't.

Why not?

Because it's not a credible scientific study, of course!

If it was - why hasn't it been reported all over the news?

Why hasn't it been all over the papers?

And don't come out with the usual bull about how the illuminati control the media - Wired is owned by one of the largest media companies in the world.

I'll avoid your questions till you answer mine like 1000 pages back -- the one about the shadows on those pics... I don't expect it to be though, so let's just leave it.

You make a good point. Why isn't it over the media? Why isn't 9/11 conspiracies over the media, oh wait -- they are, in a bad light.

Icke is totally demonised and everything from Kennedy to the Mood Landings being a conspiracy is laughed at. This is still regarded as a hoax, there isn't going to be any fair journalism or investigation on it unless it becomes necessary to do so -- when enough people or prove regarding it comes out.

Yeah, okay -- they don't control the media.

Rome wasn't built in a day, give it time -- this thing is still snowballing.

Do you have HIGH QUALITY pictures / originals of the Beatles? The internets an invaluable source for low quality copy pics anyway, why wouldn't they source material off the web? You lot do it to counter us anyway.

I sincerely doubt 2 scientists had 2 minutes to gather evidence, compile it - then have it published in a magazine.... they didn't get it published in fucking MAD MAGAZINE.

I'm not making any claim up. Did it take scientists two minutes to conclude results on everything else? How could that possibly be done. It's idiotic to think they used the 3 pictures from Wired Magazine/PID sites as their only evidence for their claim.

That's so asinine.

You also seen how they ripped apart Heather Mills, and his reaction on Letterman to being questioned.

It gets through but I doubt they'll have that televised.

[formosan termite]

*sigh*

They don't match up well, that's your opinion -- the pics speak for themselves.

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/Paul_Faul_66_neg.jpg


http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/9900/paulintoyoungpaul.gif

http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/3919/faulsified2.gif

http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/4438/faulsifiedproperway.gif

The eyes never lie.

Now you are pulling up different photos.

This one matches very well. The eyes, the nose and the mouth.

http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/1384/faulsified.gif

Please point out specifically what is so different.

[socrates]

Every time you fade.... Paul into Faul within a span of a year or two -- DRASTIC FACIAL CHANGE.

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n20/khanmfh/fades/pid_crusher857385-1.gif

Ha, ha - good one! For a moment there I thought you were being serious. :D

[ivgg]

I'll avoid your questions till you answer mine like 1000 pages back -- the one about the shadows on those pics... I don't expect it to be though, so let's just leave it.

You make a good point. Why isn't it over the media? Why isn't 9/11 conspiracies over the media, oh wait -- they are, in a bad light.

Icke is totally demonised and everything from Kennedy to the Mood Landings being a conspiracy is laughed at. This is still regarded as a hoax, there isn't going to be any fair journalism or investigation on it unless it becomes necessary to do so -- when enough people or prove regarding it comes out.

Yeah, okay -- they don't control the media.

Rome wasn't built in a day, give it time -- this thing is still snowballing.

Do you have HIGH QUALITY pictures / originals of the Beatles? The internets an invaluable source for low quality copy pics anyway, why wouldn't they source material off the web? You lot do it to counter us anyway.

I sincerely doubt 2 scientists had 2 minutes to gather evidence, compile it - then have it published in a magazine.... they didn't get it published in fucking MAD MAGAZINE.

I'm not making any claim up. Did it take scientists two minutes to conclude results on everything else? How could that possibly be done. It's idiotic to think they used the 3 pictures from Wired Magazine/PID sites as their only evidence for their claim.

That's so asinine.

You also seen how they ripped apart Heather Mills, and his reaction on Letterman to being questioned.

It gets through but I doubt they'll have that televised.


Wired is a very commercial magazine that only thinks about money.

[ar20]

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n20/khanmfh/fades/pid_crusher857385-1.gif

Ha, ha - good one! For a moment there I thought you were being serious. :D

Err, I was:

http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/3919/faulsified2.gif

:p

[ar20]

Now you are pulling up different photos.

This one matches very well. The eyes, the nose and the mouth.

http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/1384/faulsified.gif

Please point out specifically what is so different.

The nose, the eyes, the eyebrows, the jaw?

http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/4438/faulsifiedproperway.gif

[socrates]

so this is the state of things.

If fades or comps show a match, they are wrong, because they should never match.

But if fades or comps show a difference, then it is proof that pid.

Is that how things work?

That comp i showed where i said the matched perfectly, you are saying that it is somehow phony because they match well? Are you saying they are manipulated photos?

:rolleyes:

:) :) :)

[ivgg]

http://maccafunhouse.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=essentials&action=display&thread=2689

[ar20]

/quote]



:) :) :)

No I'm saying they don't match well, and made my own fades to prove that -- like I said, Stevie Wonder must be fading for you lot.

http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/2107/4monthsapart.gif

4 months apart...

INSERT ->

"ITS DIFFERENT CAMERAS", "ITS DIFFERENT LIGHTING", "PAUL TOOK LSD AT THAT TIME".

:rolleyes:

[formosan termite]

The nose, the eyes, the eyebrows, the jaw?

Yes, the nose, the eyes, and the jaw. The eyebrows are hair. They can be thinned and cliped. I just thinned mine out this morning. Sometimes my barber does it when cutting my hair. The facial structures are the same.

Don't switch photos to some bad compl Let us stick with the one I posted.

Different lens types can make a face look wider or thinner, so finding photos that don't line up perfectly is not hard to do.

[ar20]

Yes, the nose, the eyes, and the jaw. The eyebrows are hair. They can be thinned and cliped. I just thinned mine out this morning. Sometimes my barber does it when cutting my hair. The facial structures are the same.

Don't switch photos to some bad compl Let us stick with the one I posted.

Different lens types can make a face look wider or thinner, so finding photos that don't line up perfectly is not hard to do.

I've discussed your comp and yours is the bad one, and you clearly are deluded if you think that's the same facial structure.

I switched photos to prove another point... 4 months apart, compared to years -- shows drastic facial difference.

Zoom, over your head again.

Well I went ahead and took that guys challenge on the MACCAFUNHOUSE:

Here's your version:

http://img92.exs.cx/img92/8801/vintagedocs2gg.gif

Here's ours:

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/3554/faulchallenge.gif

They're right to accuse you lot of doing something to the fades, I don't know whether the ratios are changed or somethings being erased, but there is something up with your ones.

[formosan termite]

http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/2107/4monthsapart.gif



Use of pretty bad photos, there, but the eyebrows and eyes match very well between the two.

And yes, it is a verifiable fact that different lens types can and do distort features of the face. That is not something we made up out of thin air. Photographers do have to take such things into account.

So again, it should not be hard to find photos that show some differences. But if two people are so different as so stated by the pidders, it should be virtually impossible to find any two photos of pre' 67 Paul and post '66 Paul that match up.

[socrates]

I'll avoid your questions till you answer mine like 1000 pages back....

You avoid my question because you can't provide any evidence that they looked at "hundreds" of photos.

I provided the quote where Carlesi Gavazzeni says they had "2 minutes" to look at photos. I'm just quoting directly what he said.

Your claim - like so much of what you claim is 'true', is baseless and without foundation.

You make a good point. Why isn't it over the media? Why isn't 9/11 conspiracies over the media, oh wait -- they are, in a bad light.
Whether they are in a bad light is irrelevant - they are still in the media.

And there is a big difference here - according to you. Because their is absoute "proof" using science that Paul has been replaced.

Yet this forensic "proof" still hasn't been reported anywhere in the mainstream media, apart from Wired.

Go figure.

Rome wasn't built in a day, give it time -- this thing is still snowballing.

PIDDERS have been saying that for over FORTY years. :D

Do you have HIGH QUALITY pictures / originals of the Beatles?

No - but if I was a forensic scientist doing a 'credible' scientific analysis of Paul McCartney and his alleged replacement then I would source them from news agency archives which hold the originals, in high quality. :rolleyes:

The internets an invaluable source for low quality copy pics anyway, why wouldn't they source material off the web?

See above.

You lot do it to counter us anyway.

LOL! We're not doing a scientific, forensic analysis on them!

I'm not making any claim up.

Where's your evidence, then? So far all you've proffered is assumptions.

[ar20]

I've discussed your comp and yours is the bad one, and you clearly are deluded if you think that's the same facial structure.

I switched photos to prove another point... 4 months apart, compared to years -- shows drastic facial difference.

Zoom, over your head again.

Well I went ahead and took that guys challenge on the MACCAFUNHOUSE:

Here's your version:

http://img92.exs.cx/img92/8801/vintagedocs2gg.gif

Here's ours:

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/3554/faulchallenge.gif

They're right to accuse you lot of doing something to the fades, I don't know whether the ratios are changed or somethings being erased, but there is something up with your ones.

Bringing this to the next page.

I'm not disputing lens change the face, I'm disputing you on your call that those eyes are similar, and for that matter -- the rest of the face, they aren't.

It's not a jigsaw, just because an oval fits an oval doesn't mean it's a 100% match, there are definate changes to his face.

[formosan termite]

I've discussed your comp and yours is the bad one, and you clearly are deluded if you think that's the same facial structure.

I switched photos to prove another point... 4 months apart, compared to years -- shows drastic facial difference.

Zoom, over your head again.

Well I went ahead and took that guys challenge on the MACCAFUNHOUSE:

Here's your version:

http://img92.exs.cx/img92/8801/vintagedocs2gg.gif

Here's ours:

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/3554/faulchallenge.gif

They're right to accuse you lot of doing something to the fades, I don't know whether the ratios are changed or somethings being erased, but there is something up with your ones.

Again, you switched fades from the one I was talking about. Use the same one. What specifically is different?

And, no, you have not proved anything about the photos we used, you just did a fade in a different way.

Show our photo and show specifically how it is different from the original. After all, you may be the one manipulating the photo.

[ar20]

You avoid my question because you can't provide any evidence that they looked at "hundreds" of photos.

I provided the quote where Carlesi Gavazzeni says they had "2 minutes" to look at photos. I'm just quoting directly what he said.

Your claim - like so much of what you claim is 'true', is baseless and without foundation.


Whether they are in a bad light is irrelevant - they are still in the media.

And there is a big difference here - according to you. Because their is absoute "proof" using science that Paul has been replaced.

Yet this forensic "proof" still hasn't been reported anywhere in the mainstream media, apart from Wired.

Go figure.



PIDDERS have been saying that for over FORTY years. :D


No - but if I was a forensic scientist doing a 'credible' scientific analysis of Paul McCartney and his alleged replacement then I would source them from news agency archives which hold the originals, in high quality. :rolleyes:


See above.



LOL! We're not doing a scientific, forensic analysis on them!



Where's your evidence, then? So far all you've proffered is assumptions.

I'm not going to run over the quote with you for one reason.

I don't take it in the context you're taking it in.

I doubt they came to a scientifc conclusion in 2 minutes, give yourself and me a little credit here, K?

It actually sounds more in the context of "Let's try and prove it right/wrong in 2 minutes" rather than "Let's go on Google for Two minutes, onto PID sites and compare the photos then claim we did a scientific examination".

9/11 is all over the media, yes, in a bad light, yes.

SO IS PID?

Wired, Letterman, 2 articles in the last month from Paul himself.

PID started in the media in 1969 and has been going for 40 years? Has it died yet? NO, it's still being discussed here and obviously is still a factor in Fauls life for it to be constantly brought up and make him nervous -- just look at him on Letterman with it.

To say it's a fringe conspiracy with a handful of delusionals still believing is incredibly insulting.

[ar20]

Again, you switched fades from the one I was talking about. Use the same one. What specifically is different?

And, no, you have not proved anything about the photos we used, you just did a fade in a different way.

Show our photo and show specifically how it is different from the original. After all, you may be the one manipulating the photo.

Haven't touched a thing, did exactly what was said on the tin at Macca FunHouse.

I just can't get through to you, I keep telling you the fade you keep harping on about isn't a perfect match as you say, infact -- most of the fades at MaccaFunHouse are HILARIOUS.

Example:

http://www.tlcgraphic.com/images/p_f_fp.gif

Here's what is meant to happen: 0 match.

http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/4438/faulsifiedproperway.gif


I'm not going to go round with you either, if you haven't seen it yet -- fine, there's nothing I can do to change your opinion on it.

[formosan termite]

Yet this forensic "proof" still hasn't been reported anywhere in the mainstream media, apart from Wired.

Go figure.




Yes, Socrates, you know there has never been anything in the media about a conspiracy being responsible for the JFK assassination. Just those thousands of books that have come out about it. Oh, and the upteen TV specials that have come out over the years that you can see by the score on the History Channel. Oh, and that major motion picture about it by Oliver Stone. It has been so well surpressed.:rolleyes:

[ar20]

Yes, Socrates, you know there has never been anything in the media about a conspiracy being responsible for the JFK assassination. Just those thousands of books that have come out about it. Oh, and the upteen TV specials that have come out over the years that you can see by the score on the History Channel. Oh, and that major motion picture about it by Oliver Stone. It has been so well surpressed.:rolleyes:

Took a while for all that to come out though, didn't it? And to be publically accepted, didn't it?

:rolleyes:

[faulconandsnowjob]

LOOK AT THE DIFFERENCE IN HEIGHT IN THESE TWO FACES!

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/5706/failcon.jpg
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Yeah, when you doctor the photos (like above), it's amazing how you can make Paul's face long like that. Of course, we know by now Paul had a *round* face.

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

[ar20]

Stupid lens Faulcon, made his face a bit bigger. :rolleyes:

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n20/khanmfh/fades/pid_crusher857385-1.gif
http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n20/khanmfh/fades/penny_lane_paul.gif
VS.
http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/914/faulsified3.gif
http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/3919/faulsified2.gif

How they tie there shoes in the morning I'll never know.

OH, BTW.

Nevermind that it's only SELECTED pics that PIA'ers say is a "lens/lighting" problem. Never one of their own, doesn't that tell you something? :rolleyes:

Go figure...

[formosan termite]

Haven't touched a thing, did exactly what was said on the tin at Macca FunHouse.

I just can't get through to you, I keep telling you the fade you keep harping on about isn't a perfect match as you say, infact -- most of the fades at MaccaFunHouse are HILARIOUS.

Example:

http://www.tlcgraphic.com/images/p_f_fp.gif

Of all the fades we have done, you come up with that? Where is that? People can visit freely there and see all of the quality fades we have.

Here's what is meant to happen: 0 match.

http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/4438/faulsifiedproperway.gif

Yes, different lens types can make faces look wider. That is a fact. That is not surprising. I see you still fail to deal with the fades I was talking about. You just provide poorly done fades and talk about those.


I'm not going to go round with you either, if you haven't seen it yet -- fine, there's nothing I can do to change your opinion on it.

No, you can't change it until you come up with well done comps and something substantive other than insuating that we are stupid, blind and using foul language. I will not change your mind, either. I will simply continue to present our point of view, and our documentation and let others decide.

[faulconandsnowjob]

Also why are you all still arguing this? Shouldn't you be working hard to debunk the scientists in WIRED Italy? :eek:

LOL! Yeah, that's much more of a threat to "them" than some height comps. Some people happen to consider experts in forensic science to be quite credible.

[ar20]

Of all the fades we have done, you come up with that? Where is that? People can visit freely there and see all of the quality fades we have.



Yes, different lens types can make faces look wider. That is a fact. That is not surprising. I see you still fail to deal with the fades I was talking about. You just provide poorly done fades and talk about those.




No, you can't change it until you come up with well done comps and something substantive other than insuating that we are stupid, blind and using foul language. I will not change your mind, either. I will simply continue to present our point of view, and our documentation and let others decide.

I've been called stupid, delusional and a whole host of other names in this topic -- so has Faulcon, and so have others. Insults are water of a ducks back my friends.

As far as calling my comps poor... they are the same/above standard as MaccaFunHouse. Let's be clear here, how do you JUDGE a good fade of TWO UNTAMPERED PICTURES GOING INTO EACH OTHER. Who made you the source for that judgement call? Personally, I've laughed at everyone you've posted and the ones on that board -- another moot point, let's not discuss quality but what we're actually seeing, that's the whole point of this.

I merely demonstrate, without editing the ratio and fading out from the eyes they are two different people.

There's no big difference between the fades I do and the ones you present. Except when I redo yours, they don't have that look of being matched -- and that isn't me doing that, that's the photos speaking for themselves.

What I am insinuating, is that the fades you present, the pictures haven't been brought down to size properly or some other thing, which is fine.

Why is it that the one I did from the FunHouse challenge turned out different from yours? This isn't a question of skill, it's a question of what your doing to it before it fades.

Oh, and insulting my fading skills is silly, isn't it? -- you seeing the same thing or something different? If it's different, it's obviously getting to you.

I'm a graphics designer -- I know what I'm doing here.

[formosan termite]

Took a while for all that to come out though, didn't it? And to be publically accepted, didn't it?

:rolleyes:

No. The TV spots about the conspiracy and the books started almost immediately after the commision report was released. Mark Lane's Rush To Judgement came out for example in 1966, with a documentary film about it that came out in 1967.

I remember seeing a TV special piece about a conspiract on CBS in the 1960's.

[ar20]

Since you can't drop this one, and won't discuss the others I've done -- or respond with "It's a lens issue":

Let's take a look at mine:

http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/1384/faulsified.gif
http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/3307/faulintofaul.gif
http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/7298/youngpaulintofaul.gif
http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/4438/faulsifiedproperway.gif
http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/3919/faulsified2.gif
http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/914/faulsified3.gif

Let's look at yours:

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n20/khanmfh/fades/penny_lane_paul.gif
http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n20/khanmfh/fades/fphamburgfade.gif
http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n20/khanmfh/fades/pid_crusher857385-1.gif
There's only one way to settle this:

Let's find the best two, FRONTAL pics of Paul and Faul... with no mustache, only different hair...

Let's do a fade each and see if there's a difference.

[socrates]

I'm not going to run over the quote with you for one reason.

I don't take it in the context you're taking it in.

I doubt they came to a scientifc conclusion in 2 minutes

It wasn't particularly "scientific". They used potentially flawed photos from the internet. A real scientific study would have used originals.

And that wasn't my question!

Here, for the THIRD time:

They clearly looked through hundreds of different pictures to come to a conclusion.

Quote please. Where does it say they looked through "hundreds of different pictures to come to a conclusion"?

Not making things up again, are we?

If not, you'll be kind enough to supply us the quote. I must have missed it.

Thanks in advance.

PID started in the media in 1969 and has been going for 40 years? Has it died yet? NO, it's still being discussed here

That's only because of obsessives like failcon who post here and all over the internet. Hardly a surprise. :rolleyes:

and obviously is still a factor in Fauls life for it to be constantly mentioned

LOL! "Constantly"! A few times over the years hardly constitutes that description. And of course it will be brought up now and again, it was a big story in the day.

To say it's a fringe conspiracy with a handful of delusionals still believing is incredibly insulting.

But sadly, true.

[formosan termite]

Why is it that the one I did from the FunHouse challenge turned out different from yours? This isn't a question of skill, it's a question of what your doing to it before it fades.

Probably because you did not do it right. Or maybe you tampered with it before you did your fade. If you can accuse us of that, we can do the same.

But the challenge was not for you to do a fade, it was to present the "undoctored" version of the photo we used and point out what specifically had been doctored. You have failed to do that.

Oh, and insulting my fading skills is silly, isn't it? -- you seeing the same thing or something different? If it's different, it's obviously getting to you.

I'm a graphics designer -- I know what I'm doing here.

Yes, graphics designers have done ours as well.

You insult our fading skills, why can't we question yours? Is it a one way street?

[ar20]

It wasn't particularly "scientific". They used potentially flawed photos from the internet. A real scientific study would have used originals.

And that wasn't my question!

Here, for the THIRD time:





That's only because of obsessives like failcon who post here and all over the internet. Hardly a surprise. :rolleyes:



LOL! "Constantly"! A few times over the years hardly constitutes that description. And of course it will be brought up now and again, it was a big story in the day.



But sadly, true.

SDJHsdondjsknjkdNLNSjdnjSNdjknJKSdnjknsdjknsjkdnks kNK!!!!!1

*slaps head*

Dude, I think what I'm saying is clear from what I'm saying.

"They clearly looked through hundreds of different pictures to come to a conclusion."

This is only my opinion. I don't believe that a 9-page spread was based on 3 photos, okay? It's either common sense or nothing. I don't have anything to back that up, that's my own assumption.

[formosan termite]

Since you can't drop this one, and won't discuss the others I've done -- or respond with "It's a lens issue":

Let's take a look at mine:

http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/1384/faulsified.gif


Good.

How does this not match up?

[ar20]

Probably because you did not do it right. Or maybe you tampered with it before you did your fade. If you can accuse us of that, we can do the same.

But the challenge was not for you to do a fade, it was to present the "undoctored" version of the photo we used and point out what specifically had been doctored. You have failed to do that.



Yes, graphics designers have done ours as well.

You insult our fading skills, why can't we question yours? Is it a one way street?

I didn't do it right? Maybe I tampered with it? Well this is just verbal tennis now and isn't addressing the points brought up, is it?

My question again: How does my fades, which are done the same as yours, come out different? Somebody is tampering something.

I unfortuantely, again -- can't prove it. It's my opinion, I don't know where those source images are and frankly I'm not going searching for them just now. I don't have a bank of Paul images just waiting.

There was no challenge for me to present the undoctored photo -- even then, did I not answer it with my own fade which is done in the same manner but has a different outcome?

I'm not insulting your fading skills, I'm insulting on your ability to discern between shapes. Of course it's not a one way street, you're entitled to your opinion.

But you overlook the fact that my fades come out different from your fades at the end even though we use the same source images.

And I know I don't have to tamper anything because I know it's a different guy.

See what I'm saying?

[formosan termite]

I didn't do it right? Maybe I tampered with it? Well this is just verbal tennis now and isn't addressing the points brought up, is it?

My question again: How does my fades, which are done the same as yours, come out different? Somebody is tampering something.

I unfortuantely, again -- can't prove it. It's my opinion, I don't know where those source images are and frankly I'm not going searching for them just now. I don't have a bank of Paul images just waiting.

There was no challenge for me to present the undoctored photo -- even then, did I not answer it with my own fade which is done in the same manner but has a different outcome?

I'm not insulting your fading skills, I'm insulting on your ability to discern between shapes. Of course it's not a one way street, you're entitled to your opinion.

But you overlook the fact that my fades come out different from your fades at the end even though we use the same source images.

And I know I don't have to tamper anything because I know it's a different guy.

See what I'm saying?


Ok. Fair enough. We have not tampered with photos, and we do fades properly as well.

And no, I did not specifically challenge you, but the challenge has been put out there many times by me and others, that if you say we have tampered with or doctored photos, provide the "undoctored" photo and show specifically where we have doctored it. That has not been done.

[ar20]

There's a reason Faul had the tash and beard... it's a common way to disguise the face.

This is what we're saying, it's hard to see with the beard because they end up appearing similar.

Now this isn't best for accuracy, but the point gets accross:

http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/4771/faulbeard.jpg

Ignore the Faul, but if Paul had a beard wouldn't he look like that on the left ?

There is actually a pic in this topic or the last one where Paul is whereing a fake beard from the HELP dvd or something, and he looks nothing like bearded Faul -- how would you explain that?

[ar20]

Ok. Fair enough. We have not tampered with photos, and we do fades properly as well.

And no, I did not specifically challenge you, but the challenge has been put out there many times by me and others, that if you say we have tampered with or doctored photos, provide the "undoctored" photo and show specifically where we have doctored it. That has not been done.

Could we be saying it's been doctored long before you or us got the image?

As in, purposefully before hand? Like years and years ago?

[seaofgreen]

Apologies if you've seen this one before. Given all the potential angle/lens issues, this one seems to match amazingly well:

http://i604.photobucket.com/albums/tt130/skyofblue/Paul.gif

[formosan termite]

Could we be saying it's been doctored long before you or us got the image?

As in, purposefully before hand? Like years and years ago?


But if that is the case, the fades should match no matter who does them.

[ar20]

Apologies if you've seen this one before. Given all the potential angle/lens issues, this one seems to match amazingly well:

http://i604.photobucket.com/albums/tt130/skyofblue/Paul.gif

Could you give me the links to those images for that, thanks.

[ar20]

But if that is the case, the fades should match no matter who does them.

Is this a case of eye of the beholder here then?

Like I said us backtracking to that specifically isn't going to change either of our stances on it.

[ar20]

Here was the point I was getting across:

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/2024/faulbeard2.jpg

Tash and beard does a good job of disguising the difference so it's not as obvious to see.

[seaofgreen]

Could you give me the links to those images for that, thanks.
Unfortunately not -- I nabbed it from another board and just zoomed it up a bit. Wouldn't surprise me if someone else round here has the original links tho'.

[socrates]

They clearly looked through hundreds of different pictures to come to a conclusion."

This is only my opinion. I don't have anything to back that up, that's my own assumption.
FINALLY!

http://castironbalcony.media2.org/wp-content/applause.gif