Paul McCartney is dead.

[howie]

Attached earlobes

1964
http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/346/mag1za3.jpg

http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/3838/tgae1pr6wy0.jpg

http://img382.imageshack.us/img382/9832/jamespaulmccartneybluejay9.jpg

1967 - 1965
http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/4978/paulprofiles02en7wi2wa7.jpg

1974
http://img58.imageshack.us/img58/7475/billcheckoutteethdp3.jpg

1984
http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/1329/ear3mc4.jpg

http://img392.imageshack.us/img392/4724/pip9en6.jpg

[paulski]

Check out Paul isn't dead on You Tube and then make up your mind's

[2013]

and we have a winner ! The ears have it . Well done howie the best evidence yet presented , why would someone go tot he trouble of having their lobes detached and stretched? answer is they wouldn't Saw a recent episode of QI the host said that if both parents had their lobes attached then the children will have and vice versa, not sure if they have one of each as parents , but its a definite physical trait .Let's see people argue that one out . :D
Attached earlobes

1964
http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/346/mag1za3.jpg

http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/3838/tgae1pr6wy0.jpg

http://img382.imageshack.us/img382/9832/jamespaulmccartneybluejay9.jpg

1967 - 1965
http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/4978/paulprofiles02en7wi2wa7.jpg

1974
http://img58.imageshack.us/img58/7475/billcheckoutteethdp3.jpg

1984
http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/1329/ear3mc4.jpg

http://img392.imageshack.us/img392/4724/pip9en6.jpg

[eternal_spirit]

What about Eric Clapton? Another replacement?

[2013]

What about Eric Clapton? Another replacement?

Whats his ears looklike? I think we may be onto something here:D

[2013]

Of course the simple solution to the whole Paul is dead thing would be given that they had lookalikes , who probably stood in for them during hectic scheduling times , some of the pictures show them and others the real Paul .Once the rumors started up accidental or deliberately the would play along and deny them of course it would be hilarious .Over the years it would just add to the mystique of the band and the singer , who after all has an ego as well as a sense of humor .Or maybe he died and they replaced him only he knows for sure ,and how would we know if we died and where replaced by a different version of us programmed with our memories etc .Of course the whole family friends surrounding him would need to be in on it as well ?

[lightgiver]

Can i have is 15,000 pound a minute royalties then:D
Might be a bit less now Miss con mills as took a slice:D
No really i do not think he is dead,you just change over the years;)
its called GETTING OLD;):D

[2013]

Can i have is 15,000 pound a minute royalties then:D
Might be a bit less now Miss con mills as took a slice:D
No really i do not think he is dead,you just change over the years;)
its called GETTING OLD;):D

So explain the ear lobes then? we look older as we get older face saggs or not if you can afford surgery , hair falls out or goes grey but earlobes dont detach and grow , apparently ears and nose do continue to grow as we age but i dont think things start detaching :eek:

[belfast atheist]

If not the same person ... then who ?

reg dwight??? probably a shape shifter

[freethinker]

they may be able to fake ther mans face

but i doubt they can fake the mans talent

this guy can still perform and write songs like he did in his youth

an imposter ? I doubt it

[howie]

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

Newcastle 1979

Interviewer: have you ever played in Newcastle before?

Faul: What? In my long & chequered career? yeah

(Paul wrote She Loves You at The Royal Turks Head Hotel in Newcastle (http://oldies.about.com/od/britishinvasion/a/shelovesyou.htm) in 1963)

Aspel & Co 1984
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTkn1SRx6ic

Noel Edmonds 1984
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VlqizOjoU4

Faul talks about 'Give my regards to broad street' & says this is the first film soundtrack he's written. What about Hard Days Night, Help, The Family Way, Magical Mystery Tour, Yellow Submarine, The Magic Christian, Let it be & Live & let die?

He tells Aspel he's not Paul McCartney, 'Paul' is the person on tv.

From 1979 onwards Faul uses 7 different accents during interviews from scottish, yorkshire, geordie, brummie, southern, australian & american, he never changes accents during any Beatle interviews pre-66.

Plastic surgery scars around the mouth, nose & chin Harty 1984

http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/2049/harty4fz2.jpg

Earlobes are detached

http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/7328/harty2fj6.jpg

1964
http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/3118/1964tt4.jpg

Norman Gunston asks if he's dead

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMm7REorUls

August 1966

http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/1779/1966bot8.jpg

1967

http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/6883/1967chineq0.jpg

1966 august 31?

http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/3566/1966dinoha3.jpg

1965 Shea Stadium

http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/2382/shea8nc5.jpg

1967 Penny Lane

http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/3620/pennylaneuz9.jpg

[lightgiver]

So explain the ear lobes then? we look older as we get older face saggs or not if you can afford surgery , hair falls out or goes grey but earlobes dont detach and grow , apparently ears and nose do continue to grow as we age but i dont think things start detaching

i have no idea they do not look much bigger to me ,
i bet your grandads ears are bigger than they where then when he was younger,i know my grandads where
and had more hair in them;)
but i suppose all the grandmas and granddads are getting younger with all the teenage pregnancies and the like:(
after all i should know i am only 41 and i am a grandad
gone are the days of fuzzy old grey haired grandparents thanks to our shitty system;):D
hope that clears it up for you:)
you will have big ears one day:Dwhen you are ooolddd:rolleyes:
if we live that long:eek::eek:;)

[2013]

Norman gunston is he the same norman gunston who had a comedy show in the 80's ? i was thinking about him yesterday if its him amazing syncro thanks .As for the talent of paul macartney as a songwriter singer .Songs can be written by anyone , if as some say the beatles songs where written by the tavistock institute then they wouldnt change , besides which some people have certain talents like songwriting singing etc but that doesnt mean that more than one person couldnt of written them .The quality of the beatles songs are not so amazing as to eclipse everything else ever written thus proof of his genius .Still the earlobes makes it an intriguing case for me .Friends ,romans, beatles fans , lend me your ears :D

[2013]

i have no idea they do not look much bigger to me ,
i bet your grandads ears are bigger than they where then when he was younger,i know my grandads where
and had more hair in them;)
but i suppose all the grandmas and granddads are getting younger with all the teenage pregnancies and the like:(
after all i should know i am only 41 and i am a grandad
gone are the days of fuzzy old grey haired grandparents thanks to our shitty system;):D
hope that clears it up for you:)
you will have big ears one day:Dwhen you are ooolddd:rolleyes:
if we live that long:eek::eek:;)

Im 44 havent noticed mine growing any yet although i did state they do as we get older for what odd reason i wonder , not to keep us cool like elephants do you suppose . Anyway you can deffinately se the lobes are detached in later pics .This could be down to plastic surgery again not sure if when you have a facelift the lobes get detached ? anyone any info on this .I know that people say you can tell whos had it done by the scars behind the ears so maybe .The plastic surgery also does not mean he is a lookylikey. It could just be vanity from a man who had the money to have it done , who is a very private person as we know . Therefore he had the means to improve his appearance and at a time when it wasnt accepted especially for a man unlike todays climate . The story will run and run .Perhaps we should state if we are beatles fans before posting opinions as it would be interesting to see the percentage of fans who dismiss the rumors compared to those who arent believing it .

[2013]

i have no idea they do not look much bigger to me ,


Ah maybe thats why our ears get bigger . to hold the weight of the glasses we need to see the evidence presented to us on forums like this :)Only joking of course 41 is too younng for the eyes to start failing but be warned you will notice a difference at 44 . Even my girlfriend admitted brad pitt has gone down hill this last year hes 44 , but i reckon its lizard woman jolie draining him :rolleyes::eek::D

[lightgiver]

Wait till we are sixty four,:(:(:Dif we get that far:eek::D
the barber will be plucking them lobes with a machete:D
she would drain anyone,imagine her boobs when she's 50,
she ll be falling over em:D:D;)
thats if shes got any left after suckling all them foster kids:DHA HA

[2013]

Wait till we are sixty,:(:(:Dif we get that far:eek::D
the barber will be plucking them lobes with a machete:D
she would drain anyone,imagine her boobs when she's 50,
she ll be falling over em:D:D;)
thats if shes got any left after suckling all them foster kids:DHA HA

True but how many nipples do lizards have ! dont know about ear hair but my nasal hair has gone wild do you think it grows from our feet upwards inside but just gets tired as we get older as we do seem to lose it from the top down and gain it where once we had shoulders smooth as ravens claws!

[lightgiver]

True but how many nipples do lizards have ! dont know about ear hair but my nasal hair has gone wild do you think it grows from our feet upwards inside but just gets tired as we get older as we do seem to lose it from the top down and gain it where once we had shoulders smooth as ravens claws!

Sounds a bit doorish to me;)
AWAKE shake dreams from your hair my my pretty child my sweet one,
ADAGIO FOR STRINGS Superb;)
AN AMERICAN PRAYER;):D
as JIM would say
youre all a bunch of F#$#$#$ slaves,how long you gonna let them push you you around;)and stick your face in the shit,how long
im gonna get my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames
ALRIGHT:D
jolie might put helium in her boobs,that way she will be able to levitate as well:D
No need for yogic flying then:D
and scoop all them kids up:DHA HA

[lightgiver]

her eyes are probably in her nipples any way ;):D:D
and her and brads sheets are most likely smug with SEMEN,
i dont know how many though???

[2013]

Sounds a bit doorish to me;)
AWAKE shake dreams from your hair my my pretty child my sweet one,
ADAGIO FOR STRINGS Superb;)
AN AMERICAN PRAYER;):D
as JIM would say
youre all a bunch of F#$#$#$ slaves,how long you gonna let them push you you around;)and stick your face in the shit,how long
im gonna get my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames
ALRIGHT:D
jolie might put helium in her boobs,that way she will be able to levitate as well:D
No need for yogic flying then:D
and scoop all them kids up:DHA HA

AWAKE shake dreams from your hair Dont t know about awake im just off to fill my head and hair full of dreams , hopefully not charlton heston and peter cushing battleiing vampires in liverpool like last night! Maybe paul mcartney sent them !! :rolleyes:The only doors im fit for now is the bedroom so catch ya all later .

[lightgiver]

Night Night dont let the vampyres bite:):)
i love a good laugh nothing better for the soul.
Strawberry fields were nothing is real,
Only p mcartney that is????

[jric]

Everyone Here Subscribe To Iamaphoney.

;)

[faulconandsnowjob]

I think the evidence conclusively proves that Paul was replaced by a double. I personally believe that the Beatles were somehow being influenced by the Tavistock Institute, which was pushing a drug agenda. The most likely scenario, in my opinion, is that Paul somehow wouldn't "get w/ the program," wouldn't quit, & was eliminated. There is speculation that the replacement is a William Campbell of Ontario.

My PID youtube channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/faulconandsnowjob

[howie]

On the other threads about this, there's the voice comparison videos, debunkers will argue that McCartney's voice changed with age, so we use interviews from 1964 v 1967 to prove it changed completely during the mystery period of 1966.
It's not necessary to do that, his voice should sound the same today as it did in the 60s.

Wearside Jack - The Yorkshire Ripper Hoaxer 1979 v 2006

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

In 2006, the police made John Humble read out the transcript from his 1979 tape, the voice comparison was used as evidence in court to convict him.


9/11

McCartney was in New York City at the time of the attacks, and actually witnessed the destruction while sitting in a plane, which was parked on the tarmac at New York's John F. Kennedy Airport.

Faul was inspired to write a song called Freedom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_(Paul_McCartney_song)) which he performed at The Concert for New York (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Concert_for_New_York_City) on 20 Oct 2001.

He played it again at the New Orleans Superdome for the Superbowl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXXVI) when George H W Bush became the first President (past or present) to participate in the events.
The teams playing were the Patriots & the RAMS.

[faulconandsnowjob]

Dr. Henry M. Truby of the University of Miami used samples from three Beatles songs sung by Paul McCartney ("Yesterday," "Penny Lane," and "Hey Jude") and produced three very different sonagrams. Does that mean that there were three McCartneys? "I'm not prepared to say that this is the final word," Truby told Rolling Stone Magazine, "but it's a beginning." (Reeve, Andru J., Turn Me On, Dead Man: The Complete Story of the Paul McCartney Death Hoax, Ann Arbor: Popular Culture, Ink, 1994: 69)

[krakhead]

I think the evidence conclusively proves that Paul was replaced by a double. I personally believe that the Beatles were somehow being influenced by the Tavistock Institute, which was pushing a drug agenda. The most likely scenario, in my opinion, is that Paul somehow wouldn't "get w/ the program," wouldn't quit, & was eliminated. There is speculation that the replacement is a William Campbell of Ontario.

My PID youtube channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/faulconandsnowjob

But George turned his back quite publicly on the drug scene and he wasn't kil.....oh shit I fell into another trap! ;)

[redman]

and we have a winner ! The ears have it . Well done howie the best evidence yet presented , why would someone go tot he trouble of having their lobes detached and stretched? answer is they wouldn't Saw a recent episode of QI the host said that if both parents had their lobes attached then the children will have and vice versa, not sure if they have one of each as parents , but its a definite physical trait .Let's see people argue that one out . :D



So the ear lobe theory is the best evidence of Paul being dead. Even though we all know or should know that ears never stop growing and changing on a human body.


Hmmmm, good luck with this one. LMAO

[faulconandsnowjob]

The ears, the eyes, the chin, the forehead, the voice, the talent, the personality, the body, the height, the body hair - yes, that is all great evidence. Obviously, Paul & this other guy who pretends to be Paul are not the same person.

Some people on here are not able to see the Truth. Some people on here are purposely trying to lead people away from the Truth. I hope to reach the people who can see the Truth. Open your eyes & LOOK.

[krakhead]

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=480612&postcount=136

[faulconandsnowjob]

Thank you so much for that link! :-)

[krakhead]

Thank you so much for that link! :-)

I was pointing out the video at the bottom of that link showing quite clearly that Paul remains Paul, NOT the one purporting to show the 'new' 1967 model of Paul btw - you did realise that did you!? ;)

[faulconandsnowjob]

You do realize that the guy pretending to be Paul is not the real James Paul McCartney pre 1967 version, right?

[accuracy]

I was pointing out the video at the bottom of that link showing quite clearly that Paul remains Paul, NOT the one purporting to show the 'new' 1967 model of Paul btw - you did realise that did you!? ;)

Have not visited this thread for a while, and we now have the [/B]NEW world order regime continues to [B]HISS thru their serpent tongues
aka

FULL OF SHIT

hIsssssssssssssssssssssssssssss:)

[accuracy]

NEW world order regime
MEDIA SLUT:D

[accuracy]

hISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

i'M :cool: fuck you!:D

[accuracy]

:pThank you so much for that link! :-)

:D

We are on the same par:), tell them to FUCK off.

[accuracy]

So, back to the original thread, yes, Paul McCartney is DEAD.:rolleyes:

[accuracy]

But George turned his back quite publicly on the drug scene and he wasn't kil.....oh shit I fell into another trap! ;)


Oh dear me, tsk, tsk, tsk.:eek:

[truthseeker49]

Accuracy, I can't thank you enough for posting this thread when you did. The fact that you have stood by it all of this time, through much adversity, really warms my heart.
Bravo !!!!
It seems that the calvary has finally arrived.
Good work, faulconsnowjob ! :D

Madame Tussauds waxworks:
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/waxbeatles25ll.jpg 1963/64
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/sale3.jpg
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/champ03.jpg 1964
http://www.nemsworld.com/beatles/sale/sale.htm


http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/waxbeatles1968.jpg 1968
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/lms01.jpghttp://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/lm03-1.jpg 1968
http://www.nemsworld.com/beatles/lm/lm.htm

[redman]

Accuracy, I can't thank you enough for posting this thread when you did. The fact that you have stood by it all of this time, through much adversity, really warms my heart.
Bravo !!!!
It seems that the calvary has finally arrived.
Good work, faulconsnowjob ! :D

Madame Tussauds waxworks:
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/waxbeatles25ll.jpg 1963/64
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/sale3.jpg
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/champ03.jpg 1964
http://www.nemsworld.com/beatles/sale/sale.htm


http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/waxbeatles1968.jpg 1968
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/lms01.jpghttp://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/lm03-1.jpg 1968
http://www.nemsworld.com/beatles/lm/lm.htm



You know when believers of this shit post pics, is this supposed to be proof ?? Cos if it is can you please explain where the fucking proof is please.

[faulconandsnowjob]

Truthseeker: You have found the Truth! Thank you for your tireless efforts to show the difference. While it is pointless to try to make the blind see, at least you have reached those of us who can. Those of us who "see" Paul are grateful to you :-)

[scandal girl]

maybe he is a clone :)

[scandal girl]

this is a very weird video of his

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

[faulconandsnowjob]

Yeah, that video should definitely raise a red flag for anyone. I hate it that people think the real Paul was such a callous bastard when his friend was killed.

This one of when George died is also quite suspicious, imo. It seems like he's just saying words - there's no emotion. Definitely NOT the world's greatest actor.

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

[krakhead]

Yeah, that video should definitely raise a red flag for anyone. I hate it that people think the real Paul was such a callous bastard when his friend was killed.

This one of when George died is also quite suspicious, imo. It seems like he's just saying words - there's no emotion. Definitely NOT the world's greatest actor.

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

'That' video (about John) shows how someone would react on hearing about the murder of a close friend and then being asked moronic questions about it.

It looked to me like he was trying to remain polite but really wasn't in the mood to discuss it -and I don't blame him.

As for the George one - a public performance for the media. Someone hiding his emotions, going through the motions. What do you want him to do? Have a break down for the cameras?

Definitely still the real Paul though!

[faulconandsnowjob]

Definitely not the real Paul. The real Paul would have cared when his friends died. I'm sure they cared when he passed.

RIP, JPM <3

[miss_splitfoot]

this whole thread is a joke, i swear it. these people are having a joke. <3

[faulconandsnowjob]

Paul McCartney isn't Dead.

Correct that "Paul McCartney" isn't dead, but sadly JPM is. I wish that were not the case, but it's the Truth.

[krakhead]

Definitely not the real Paul. The real Paul would have cared when his friends died. I'm sure they cared when he passed.

RIP, JPM <3

What makes you think he doesn't care?

I don't think you're very good at reading people. Particularly in the John video - that, to me looks like a very distraught individual trying to hold it together in the face of immense idiocy.

Bit like me on this thread............

[truthseeker49]

Watch the Blue Jay Way video from MMT. George's eyes are red. He looks HORRIBLE. I think that he felt terrible about what happened to Paul.
There are those of us who feel that alot of Lennon that is seen in 1967 is a stand-in. There is debate as to whether the John Lennon in MMT is the REAL John Lennon. :(
have to agree with the way that Sir Paul reacted to John's death. I remember the 1st time I saw that video clip.I was SHOCKED. He reacted like someone had told him that his favorite team had lost. A little disappointed, upset. No real emotion showing in his eyes.
I have to wonder if he knew about it ahead of time.
I'm NOT going to go there, however. :(

[faulconandsnowjob]

It makes me wonder why people like Krakhead are so intent on posting on this thread if they don't care about Paul & don't think this argument has any merit. I'm just sayin'...

Those videos of Faul pretending to be upset don't fool some of us. He needs to hone his acting skills a bit better.

[krakhead]

There are those of us who feel that alot of Lennon that is seen in 1967 is a stand-in. There is debate as to whether the John Lennon in MMT is the REAL John Lennon. :(

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHH!!!!!!

No, no, no, no, no!!

We're still working on Paul! PLEASE don't, FFS, introduce a 'fake' John as well!!

[truthseeker49]

Splitfoot, if you come over to my forum, you will see that I most definitely am NOT having a joke -
http://only1rad.proboards62.com/

Krakhead, if this thread is such a collosal waste of time, why are you still posting here ?
I have stake in all of this. I have put my heart & soul into this for the past 5 years ! :mad:

[miss_splitfoot]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHH!!!!!!

No, no, no, no, no!!

We're still working on Paul! PLEASE don't, FFS, introduce a 'fake' John as well!!

that's not all Krakhead,

Celebrities who have been replaced by impersonators:

Claudio Baglioni

Eric Clapton

David Crosby (still researching)

Tom Cruise

Doris Day

Cameron Diaz

Brian Epstein (twice replaced)

Marianne Faithfull

Mia Farrow

Johnny Hallyday

Brian Jones

Jewel Kilcher

Loretta Lynn

Paul McCartney

Marisa Sannia

Sylvester Stallone

Ringo Starr (still researching)

John Travolta (still researching)

Sylvie Vartan (twice replaced)

from aforementioned PID forum (http://only1rad.proboards62.com/index.cgi?board=gonebutnotforgotten&action=display&thread=181)


truthseeker:
have stake in all of this. I have put my heart & soul into this for the past 5 years !

i think you have issues

[krakhead]

It makes me wonder why people like Krakhead are so intent on posting on this thread if they don't care about Paul & don't think this argument has any merit. I'm just sayin'...

Those videos of Faul pretending to be upset don't fool some of us. He needs to hone his acting skills a bit better.

Don't be rude and talk about me like I'm not in the room.

Who said I don't care about Paul - point that out to me.

I'm a Beatles fan, brought up on them, love 'em. Revolver doesn't go more than a couple of weeks without being played. On vinyl too cos I'm old school, keeping it real!

I'm posting on here because 1) I'm allowed to, it's a public forum, and 2) I find your theory pure bullshit - and I don't say that without due consideration.

I want to provide a counter for those new to the theory reading this, make sure they don't get all carried away with your 'facts' as well. I've seen too many 'newbies' (terrible term) get carried away when they first realise the world just ain't what it seems and get taken in by all sorts of retarded theories.

As for his 'acting' skills (or lack of same) - I am a psychiatric nurse, 14 years experience. I do consider myself to be fairly astute in reading people, cos it's my job like innit!

You, I feel, are reading into the videos what you want to see.

[krakhead]

I have put my heart & soul into this for the past 5 years ! :mad:

Which is making it difficult for you to admit you were wrong. I know. It's a difficult step to make, but once you stand up and say out loudly "I was taken in by a ridiculous theory" you'll begin to feel better.

[truthseeker49]

Splitfoot, you can think what you like. I do think it's very rude of you to say that, though. When did I make this personal against you ? :confused:

[faulconandsnowjob]

I understand that some people are unable to follow the white rabbit down the rabbit hole

[miss_splitfoot]

Splitfoot, you can think what you like. I do think it's very rude of you to say that, though. When did I make this personal against you ? :confused:

why is it rude to say i think you may have a problem? there's nothing wrong with having mental problems.

[truthseeker49]

Very cute, Krakhead.
BTW, what ever possessed you to use that username ?

[miss_splitfoot]

I understand that some people are unable to follow the white rabbit down the rabbit hole

ok, faulcon...let's say i follow the rabbit down his hole on this whole theory. NOW WHAT? what good does it do to have people believe Faul...Paul...was replaced by a lookalike/soundalike & that other celebs have been replaced? Macca was replaced...so what?

[krakhead]

I understand that some people are unable to follow the white rabbit down the rabbit hole

Are you saying my arse is fat? :(

[faulconandsnowjob]

The rabbit hole is not just about Paul. Paul is the entrance into it. Once you see that, you will see how much power & control have been exerted over us. It's a big mindf*ck

[antinwo]

Wish he was, can't stand the fecker:D

[truthseeker49]

It seems that alot of people feel that way about Sir Paul. Why do you feel that way ?

[antinwo]

It seems that alot of people feel that way about Sir Paul. Why do you feel that way ?


Sorry to all those fans of Sir Paul Mcartney. But I find him extremely immature, tight and arrogant and he reminds me of my ex landlord:D

[faulconandsnowjob]

It seems that alot of people feel that way about Sir Paul

That is part of the injustice. Paul was cool, brilliant, hot. McFaul, not so much. I think subconsciously, a lot of people know he' a fraud. He grates my nerves for sure.

[krakhead]

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=484016&postcount=130

[faulconandsnowjob]

Take the red pill! Come on, you know you want to! ;-)

[krakhead]

Take the red pill! Come on, you know you want to! ;-)

Lol! Red food dye makes me hyperactive! ;)

[sithnemesis]

Paul is dead ... the Beatles are dead

:rolleyes: Who really knows??

Let it Be - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oZYqAeIdYk&feature=related

Excerpt from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_is_dead

"Paul McCartney Dead: The Great Hoax", a magazine reporting[when?] on the rumours concerning McCartney."Paul is dead" is an urban legend alleging that Paul McCartney of the British rock band The Beatles died in 1966 and was replaced by a look-alike and sound-alike.

The legend hinges on supposed hints, found among the Beatles' many recordings and presumed to be deliberately placed by The Beatles or others. Hundreds of these have been cited at various times; they include statements heard when a song is played backwards, symbolic interpretations of obscure lyrics, and ambiguous imagery on album covers. Some of these have become well known, such as the fact that on the cover of Abbey Road, McCartney is the only barefooted Beatle, and is out of step with the others.

It is often unclear how many proponents of this story spread it as a joke, as opposed to a real conspiracy theory. The rumour has been the subject of much sociological examination, since its development, growth, and rebuttal took place very publicly. A claim that a hoax was perpetrated by The Beatles themselves, either as a joke or to stimulate record sales, has been repeatedly denied by all four band members.

The story of the alleged death

The most common tale is that on Wednesday, 9 November 1966 at 5 am, McCartney, while working on the Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band album, stormed out of a recording session after an argument with the other Beatles and rode off in his Aston-Martin which he subsequently crashed.

The story was pieced together from the lyrics of multiple Beatles songs. The most common narrative includes the following pieces of evidence:

"He didn't notice that the lights had changed" ("A Day in the Life").
He then crashed into a lamp-post (a car crash sound is heard in "Revolution 9" and "A Day in the Life").
He was pronounced dead on a "Wednesday morning at 5 o'clock as the day begins" ("She's Leaving Home")
Nobody found this out because the news was withheld: "Wednesday morning papers didn't come" ("Lady Madonna").
A funeral procession was held days later, as was supposedly implied on the Abbey Road album cover by the Beatles' clothing. (John Lennon dressed all in white, like a clergyman. Ringo Starr wore a black suit as an undertaker would. Paul McCartney wore a suit without shoes, a common custom for corpses being buried, and walked out of step with the other Beatles. George Harrison's denim outfit resembled that of a gravedigger.)
Adding fuel to the legend is the ending of "Strawberry Fields Forever". Some believed John said "I buried Paul" in a slow deep voice over the final refrain. He later refuted that, stating that he said "cranberry sauce".

McCartney during the filming of the "Rain" video.According to believers, McCartney was replaced with the winner of a McCartney look-alike contest. The name of this look-alike has been recorded as William Shears Campbell, Billy Shears (the name of the fictitious leader of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band), William Sheppard (based on the inspiration for the song "The Continuing Story of Bungalow Bill"), or some combination of the names.

There is no evidence of any crash in which McCartney was involved, although during the first week of January 1967, McCartney's custom-made Mini Cooper was wrecked by a friend on the M1 Motorway outside London. McCartney was involved in a moped crash on December 26, 1965, which resulted in a chipped tooth and the scar on his lip that can be seen on promotional videos for the "Paperback Writer"/"Rain" single, made shortly after the crash, in May 1966 (see below). According to McCartney, his desire to hide the scar on his lip was the impetus to grow a moustache.

DEAD OR NOT in 1966... They made some of you cry, rebel, dance and sing... You identified yourselves with their personalities, style, music and lyrics... Some of you worshipped them and still do, wishing them to live forever... they have done their bidding well... they have left their mark in history and the knighted 'Paul' is the only survivor today.

[faulconandsnowjob]

Yeah, I just read "Turn Me On, Dead Man" by Andru J. Reeve. He concludes that Paul is alive & it was just a hoax. He's wrong, but I got some good info from it, such as a small bit about Dr. Truby's voice analysis showing that there were 3 "Paul" voices.

Ah, the irony that people were so close to the Truth back in '69. I guess that was before everyone got addicted to TV & stopped paying attention.

[erisdoe]

Son of the Magickian will reveal himself 09/02/08

OK, what is that about? :confused:

[the seeker]

Watch the Blue Jay Way video from MMT. George's eyes are red. He looks HORRIBLE. I think that he felt terrible about what happened to Paul.
There are those of us who feel that alot of Lennon that is seen in 1967 is a stand-in. There is debate as to whether the John Lennon in MMT is the REAL John Lennon. :(

Oh man, this is rich. John is clearly John in MMT. Watch the I Am The Walrus video and tell me he is not (with a straight face).

George in the Blue Jay Way video looks stoned out of his head, as they all probably were during most of those scenes. That movie is trippy as hell, and it was the height of the acid era. People looked and acted weird, but that does not mean they were replaced.

[accuracy]

Accuracy, I can't thank you enough for posting this thread when you did. The fact that you have stood by it all of this time, through much adversity, really warms my heart.
Bravo !!!!
It seems that the calvary has finally arrived.
Good work, faulconsnowjob ! :D

Madame Tussauds waxworks:
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/waxbeatles25ll.jpg 1963/64
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/sale3.jpg
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/champ03.jpg 1964
http://www.nemsworld.com/beatles/sale/sale.htm


http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/waxbeatles1968.jpg 1968
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/lms01.jpghttp://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/lm03-1.jpg 1968
http://www.nemsworld.com/beatles/lm/lm.htm

You are doing a FANTASTIC work there,
truthseeker49!

Thanks for you're contribution:D;)

Accuracy

[miss_splitfoot]

Paul's height (http://www.tlcgraphic.com/paul.html)

[accuracy]

sithnemesis,

:DPaul is dead

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

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

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/13/GreatHoax.jpg/150px-GreatHoax.jpg
"Paul McCartney Dead: The Great Hoax", a magazine reporting on the rumours concerning McCartney.

This i posted in page 1 in this thread, Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
is a "mainstream" version :)

[sithnemesis]

The dead 'Paul' and perhaps the dead beatles overlooking their tomb with the 'new' beatles featuring a taller 'Paul' in the middle :eek: :rolleyes:
HELP - http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=9ibX3TejlZE :cool:
Hello Goodbye - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QShSmpI0r9k&NR=1 :)

[graflok]

this is a very weird video of his

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

Paul touches his face as he answers questions about when he heard
about Lennon's death:

http://i33.tinypic.com/4gji34.jpg

In body language speak that is an indication he is lying. (source (http://www.blifaloo.com/info/lies.php))

[truthseeker49]

I would like to address the website that Miss Splitfoot has seen fit to post on all of these threads. Just because whomever created that site accuses us of falsifying information in order to get our point across does not make it true. I cannot speak for anyone else. However, I know that all of the photos that I have used I have gotten off of the internet. Most often from Paul McCartney fans sites, professional photo sites, Beatle sites, etc.
I do not have the wherewithal to change these photos. I don't even have corel draw or any other photo changing program on my computer. I just take photos that I find, and compare them. Now, if someone else has been changing photos of Paul, they must be very busy. My question is WHY ? WHY would someone go through all the trouble of changing hundreds, maybe thousands of photos of Paul. It makes no sense to me. :(
In most photos of Paul from before 1967, Paul looks different than he did from 1967 onwards. I have spent the past five yers trying to understand this & point out what differences I have been able to ascertain. A person is either going to see what I see or not. Obviously from the response that I have gotten over the last five years, there are many people who can see the differences. There are also quite a few who cannot.
The most interesting thing I have found to date is the reaction that I have gotten from young people. It seems that most young people find it easier to spot the differences. My father, who was an artist, could also see the differences immediately.
I have a funny little anecdote that I would like to share. There was a young woman visiting my daughter. She was hispanic & hadn't given the Beatles a second thought. I showed her some of my photo comparisons & asked her if she thought that it was the same man. She looked at them carefully. Then she stated quite matter of factly that she thought that it was not the same man. I smiled & told her that I couldn't understand how people could think that they were all photos of Paul McCartney. Her response ? Whose Paul McCartney ?
Now THAT was an unbiased opinion. :)

[faulconandsnowjob]

In most photos of Paul from before 1967, Paul looks different than he did from 1967 onwards.

Yes, b/c it's not the same guy :-P

The story you told about the lady who didn't know who Paul was just goes to show the level of deception in our culture that obscures Truth. Peer behind the veil, if you dare :-)

[phildee3]

Paul touches his face as he answers questions about when he heard
about Lennon's death:

http://i33.tinypic.com/4gji34.jpg

In body language speak that is an indication he is lying. (source (http://www.blifaloo.com/info/lies.php))

This even looks like he was actually involved in John's murder!

[hedgepiglet]

My biggest problem with this Fabricated Four theory - and it is just that; a theory - is the idea of the Tavistock Institute composing the Beatles' songs.

When, precisely did the Institute start and stop writing their tunes? Did this end with the demise of the Beatles as a functioning recording group or did it carry on into their respective solo careers? George Harrison once replied to the question of what music would the Beatles have made if they hadn't have split by suggesting that the material that appeared on their (early) solo albums would have made-up the content of further Beatles releases. So were Tavistock responsible for the solo material too?

How about specific tracks such as Harrison’s ‘This Song’ which was written as a response to the lawsuit concerned with the tune ‘My Sweet Lord’. Does that mean that the Tavistock Institute wrote not only ‘This Song’ but also ‘My Sweet Lord’ and “sub-consciously” plagiarised the Chiffons ‘He’s So Fine’? A poor show certainly from the Tavistock maestros. How about other songs which reflect on the Beatles generally or specific members such as Lennon’s ‘How Do You Sleep’, the post-break-up rant about McCartney? This makes no sense at all if both members were Tavistock sock-puppets!

How about the poor quality solo work? McCartney’s later career has been punctuated with pop travesties; are they the work of the Tavistock Institute too? If the tune smiths of the Tavistock Institute are such amazing song-writing genii - which they’d have to be to fit the various variations of the Tavistock conspiracy - why on earth pen such utter rubbish as the twee-addled nonsense of songs like ‘Frog Chorus’ and et al? It seems very odd, to me at least, that if the Tavistock Institute was meant to be ushering cultural revolution through a social back-door that they’d be ultimately responsible for some of the most ‘safe’ music that’s been created in the last 50 years.

What about the material that Beatles wrote for other artists? Whilst some of the more well known songs were written pre-1966 - the year McCartney is meant to have ben replaced - there were still some big hits post-1966. Did the Tavistock Institute also wrote those? Did they also write Cilla Black’s hit ‘Step Inside Love’? If so, why? What purpose or agenda could that possibly be serving? How about Badfinger’s ‘Come and Get It’? This is very, very, very similar to the McCartney’s demo of the song. What would the point be of the Tavistock institute writing a song to give to the Beatles for them in turn to give it away to another band? Even at this point in the 1960s, song-writing teams (often producers) were still a major part of the industry; it would have been very easy for Tavistock to have just set-up a song-writing team who just sold message-riddled songs to as many popular performers as possible rather than get involved with a specific act.

There's an incredible irony in having other writers compose the Beatles tunes when they are said to have been the inspiration for many bands, such as the Rolling Stones, to break away from covers or 'in-house' writers and concentrate on origin material.

What about incredibly pro-drug but unreleased material like ‘What’s the New Mary Jane?’ Hardly a brilliant song, but the Beatles, or rather Tavistock, could have easily got away with having this released at the time. If the Beatles were merely tools of a counter-culture agenda, it doesn’t make sense that this didn’t get released at the time.

Something that will resonate with any musicians here, particularly those with experience of being in bands, is the way original material is handled within the band and the way there tends, inevitably, to be struggles for control of the creative helm. It’s well-known to Beatles fans that Harrison felt under-valued throughout the Beatles’ period as a song-writer and that much of the ‘Greedy Beatle’s’ antagonism was aimed specifically at McCartney. In an artificial controlled environment – such as one suggested by the Tavistock Institute song-writing scenario – this couldn’t have manifested in the way it did. Why would George have felt his own Tavistock-borne compositions were being over-looked by the Paul-based Tavistock compositions? Why would rivalry between Lennon and McCartney arise at all? Why disputes about issues such as the order of appearance in song-writing credits. Were they told to act out this animosity as I can't imagine the reasoning for being so defensive unless they were actually creating their own material.

Is it the suggested case that only Paul’s songs were being written by the Tavistock Institute? If that is so, then why? Lennon – who created more than his fair share of drug-related songs - was more than capable of writing decent tune and Harrison himself was, as Frank Sinatra claimed, talented enough to compose "the greatest love song of the last fifty years". So why the need for the Tavistock Institute to write songs for the Beatles at all?

If the Tavistock Institute wrote all the Beatles material, I’m genuinely curious to know how they decided who sang and played what as well as who pretended to write what.

If there is an agenda to somehow push a ‘counter-culter’ on the general masses then replacing Paul in the latter end of 1966 is akin to shutting the gate after the horse is bolted. ‘Revolver’ was written and recorded in the first half of 1966 and is widely regarding as being the album that, whilst in some ways picks-up where ‘Rubber Soul’ leaves off, also introduces a ‘new’ Beatles. This is a period of writing for the Beatles that has a lot of drug references: why would they need to ‘taken over’ at this juncture by an external agency pushing a pro-drug message? A band capable of writing ‘Rain’, ‘She Said’, ‘Tomorrow Never Knows’, ‘Doctor Robert’ et al didn’t need outside help to push a pro-drug message post-mid-1966. Also, the vast bulk of the obvious drug-related material from early 1966 onwards is actually attributed to Lennon, not McCartney, so this weakens any specific argument about the Tavistock Institute writing McCartney’s material to fulfil a pro-counter-culture agenda.

There also seems to be some confusion about which Tavistock facility is behind this. A phrase that appears fairly regularly in connection to the theory is ‘Tavistock brought the Beatles to America’ suggesting that it’s an American facility that is behind this. If this is the case, then why go to the trouble of controlling an English band? Wouldn’t it make more sense to control an American band? If an American Tavistock agency got involved late 1966, when Paul was allegedly swapped, a much more likely set of candidates would have been the Byrds. Whilst they weren’t as big as the Beatles, they were certainly very popular and certainly very influential; to the extent of even influencing the Beatles. Most Beatles fans are aware of the reciprocated trans-Atlantic swapping of ideas and influence. A lot of the influence of ‘Revolver’ – the first genuine nod towards ‘counter-culture’ – owes a lot to the Beatles meeting the Byrds. Again, most Beatle fans know the history behind ‘She Said She Said’, they know of the Byrds turning the band on to Indian classical music and so on. It seems uttlerly stupid and completely inefficient for such an allegedly powerful organisation for the Tavistock Institute to have missed controlling the Byrds in the same way as they’re meant to have controlled the Beatles. The Byrds were far more ripe as fruit for picking than the Beatles. Unless, of course, the Byrds were in on this already and were actually granny glasses-wearing Tavistock field operatives. Evidence to support such claims would be appreciated; answers on a postcard...

There are some serious fundamental flaws with Coleman’s suggestions regarding linguistic ‘programming’, namely that his time line regarding popular usage of certain words in relation to the Beatles is bizarrely askew. ‘Rock’ had been used is popular culture since a long time before the Beatles. It speaks volumes about some of the research behind the Tavistock conspiracy that it’s apparently overlooked that the Beatles cover the Chuck Berry song ‘Rock and Roll Music’ on their 4th album; having been a staple of their set for several years and the song having been recorded by Berry in 1957 when Lennon was still in grammar school playing in the Quarrymen. It’s mind-boggling to think that the phrase ‘rock’ somehow came in with the Beatles. Similarly terms like ‘pop music’, ‘teenager’ and so on were all in popular use long before the Beatles.

Another serious - and for me personally a worrying issue - is the idea of 12 tone rows in music. Apart from a few exceptions, one thing that is universally accepted about the Beatles’ songs is that they are ‘musical’; the tunes are gifted with fantastic melodies. Whomever was actually writing these tunes, whether the Tavistock Institute(!) or the Beatles themselves, they knew how to write a nice, catcy tune. For a tune to be catchy, it has to either have melodic value – which usually rests on having fixed key centres and an element of predictability – or ‘novelty’ value where its unexpected unusualness makes it stand-out. The former relies on the use of tonality - not atonality - and the latter only bears repetition so often: even the unusual or odd can become mundane and commonplace really quickly and, if there’s no genuine melodic content, any potential ‘ohrwurm-iness’ is lost immediately.

Occasionally, some Beatles music does have seemingly unusual qualities such as extended measures or time changes which are used to fit with particular melodic phrases, but these aren’t unique to the Beatles by any means. As ‘weird’ as Indian music must have been to the West at the time, it was possibly no more weird - or even unmusical -as the Beatles might have sounded to the Indian sub-continent during the mid-1960s. To suggest that this might be evidence of atonality is very Western-centric. For whatever twists and turns there may be in their music, there is very, very little, if any atonality in the Beatles songs.

Even if you can’t hear the difference between a ‘12 tone row’ (and whether you wish to pronounce the last word as ‘roe’ or ‘row’ as in ‘din’ is up to you!), the difference can be seen simply by picking up a piece of Beatles sheet music and comparing it to an atonal score. There is simply no comparison in choice of notes whatsoever. The note patterns - particularly in context of key/harmony, or not as the case may be – are completely different.

As an aside, what I don’t understand is, if the Beatles were so adamant about leaving breadcrumb trail of clues to the truth, then why, amongst the likes of Crowley et al, is there no image of Adorno amongst the Sgt. Pepper cut-outs? Surely, if ‘clues’ regarding McCartney being dead were being leaked as much as people claim, then there would be ‘clues’ about an alleged Tavistock connection too? Why is one theory riddled with supposed evidence but the other has very, very little in the way of ‘evidence’?

Oh yes, hello. First post and all that. Sorry it was such a long one. :)

[faulconandsnowjob]

My biggest problem with this Fabricated Four theory - and it is just that; a theory - is the idea of the Tavistock Institute composing the Beatles' songs.

Yes, I agree. I think Paul was a brilliant musical genius. I think John & George were also quite brilliant & creative musicians. Definitely Ohrwuerme :-) This song is divine...

George Harrison - Gopala Krishna
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7eFQMakhDE

I do think the Tavistock Institute was involved, but I'm not sure exactly how...

How about the poor quality solo work? McCartney’s later career has been punctuated with pop travesties;

That is such great evidence that the guy who wrote Yesterday & For No One (genius) is not the same as the guy who sang those "pop travesties."

Thank you for such an in-depth, well-thought out post. I want to spend more time on it when I get a chance. Welcome to the discussion!

[howie]

I watched Paul McCartney - Going Home last night

http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title.jsp?stid=473871&category=Overview

Add Cor Blimey Cockney to Fauls impressive list of accent impersonations

'Things we said today' sounded nothing like the original


He also said "When we joined the Beatles".

Paul didn't join the Beatles, he joined the Quarrymen.

[faulconandsnowjob]

I find it fascinating that this discussion has gone from whether Paul was replaced to whether the Tavistock Institute was involved :-) We have made real progress!

[phildee3]

He also said "When we joined the Beatles".



That is interesting.

Paul didn't join the Beatles, he founded them!

Wouldn't he say, "when we started the Beatles..."?

[hedgepiglet]

I find it fascinating that this discussion has gone from whether Paul was replaced to whether the Tavistock Institute was involved :-) We have made real progress!

Please don't see my own post as contributing to some linear development with 'disbelief' at one end and 'belief' at the other. My post about Tavistock was merely to try and highlight problems with one particular aspect of the McCartney conspiracy (McConspiracy?) and clear the waters a little. In no way do I hope to suggest that it's a given that he was replaced and it's just a case of scrutinising peripheral theories.

That is such great evidence that the guy who wrote Yesterday & For No One (genius) is not the same as the guy who sang those "pop travesties."

I personally don't see it as evidence supporting McCartney replaced. If anything, I think it more likely supports the case that, after writing material for the best part of his life, he'd come to the natural limits of his creativity. Very, very few people - if any - have limitless creativity and an endless font of new or good ideas.

Someone else from a similar time frame, David Bowie, has, in my opinion, suffered from similar problems. At one time both Bowie and McCartney were both considered innovators and on the cutting edge of popular culture (despite both having been known to 'borrow' styles and mannerisms) but have now got careers that can be split between 'fantastic', 'not very good' and even just plain 'embarrassing'. Does the fact that David Bowie's star no longer shine as brightly as it once did also mean this supports the idea that he too was replaced (Fake-id Bowie?) or the more likely that he's just no longer as good as he was?

How about other 60s icons, like Pete Townshend? I don't know of anyone that believes his work after the mid-1970s matched that of before the mid-1970s. Does this suggest that he was replaced too? If truth be told, it's hard to find someone that this isn't applicable to, particularly with a career that spans a few decades and the longer the career, then the more likely it becomes.

[orbandsceptre27]

That is interesting.

Paul didn't join the Beatles, he founded them!

Wouldn't he say, "when we started the Beatles..."?

Faul slips up yet again!

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=t816msm5nBc

[miss_splitfoot]

Faul slips up yet again!

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=t816msm5nBc

he means when they joined together as a group.

[faulconandsnowjob]

Paul didn't join the Beatles, he founded them!

Wouldn't he say, "when we started the Beatles..."?

Yeah, I started a band once w/ some other people, & never once said I "joined" it. That's ridiculous.

As far as limits on creativity go, I absolutely disagree. I would draw your attention to Mozart. His work became more & more genius. At the end of his life, & after 600 compositions, he busted out w/ the Requiem & the Clarinet Concerto, etc. All brilliant. There was no indication that he had "run out" of ideas. (K. & KV mean the number of the composition - Kirchel cataloged his work after his death.)

From Mozart Requiem Mass in D minor (K. 626)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Gx-N-kdIXk

Mozart Clarinet Concerto kv.622 - First Movement
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzc4wZ8vjaQ&feature=related

[howie]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=t816msm5nBc he means when they joined together as a group.

That's a different clip to the one I watched. 2-0

[orbandsceptre27]

Another great backmasking piece!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvRi7fhGRgU

[orbandsceptre27]

he means when they joined together as a group.

It is very important to note miss_splitfoot (as howie, faulcon and others have pointed out) Paul McCartney joined a group called The Quarrymen. This group was made up of different members and the name was changed many times until they agreed on the name "The Beatles."

In the clip you just watched, "Faul" (who replaced Paul McCartney) made reference to The Beatles as having been already set up when he joined. The Beatles were not formed when McCartney joined The Quarrymen. But they were set up when "Faul" here joined - thus the slip up and he knows it!

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

[faulconandsnowjob]

Maybe the "slip" was a "nudge nudge, wink wink" type of thing... :-)

[orbandsceptre27]

Maybe the "slip" was a "nudge nudge, wink wink" type of thing... :-)

Very good point - was thinking something similar but you beat me too it :p

[truthseeker49]

It seems that Faul has been leaving clues, both in his work with the Beatles and his solo work. This leads me to believe that he is just as much a prisoner of the system as the others were ( namely John Lennon & George Harrison ).
I know that if you listen carefully to his song Driving Rain ( I believe it's on the album of the same name ), he whispers "Paul is dead". I think there is a short video of that somewhere on YouTube.
Gawd bless YouTube, eh ???
I think he says something about Paul being dead in the Sgt. Pepper Reprise on the album of that name. There are numerous hidden clues, clever innuendos and backmasked clues throughout his work post 1967. :cool:
The thing is, I don't have a problem with Faul. I used to until I realized that he is an old man who just wants to retire & enjoy the rest of his life. Unfortunately for him, TPTB ( The Powers That Be ) seem to have other plans for him. He is scheduled for a great many shows over the next two years. It's supposed to be his "farewell tour".
One can only hope so for his sake. In quite a few photos of him over the past few years he appears wrung out, and I remember reading not too long ago that there was a scare concerning his heart.
Also, I read an article today about his show(s) in Tel Aviv. It seems that there are those who don't want him in Israel. For some reason, the article made me nervous. I don't remember getting that kind of reaction before concerning this kind of thing. There was something about the wording of that article. Let me see if I can find it. I found this one 1st. I think the comments are interesting:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1014489.html

Here it is:
September 1, 2008 -- Jerusalem Post

Palestinians to McCartney: Stay home

Not everyone is ready to let it be over Paul McCartney's upcoming show in Tel Aviv.

The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) has called on the former Beatle to cancel the show, saying that "Palestinian dispossession and Israeli apartheid are no cause for celebration."

In a press release, the PACBI added that "since the creation of this state 60 years ago, [Israel] dispossessed and uprooted hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homes and lands, condemning them to a life of exile and destitution."

"Performing in Israel at this time is morally equivalent to performing in South Africa at the height of the apartheid era... We strongly urge you to uphold the values of freedom, equality and just peace for all by joining this growing boycott against Israeli apartheid. Nothing less would do justice to the legendary legacy of the Beatles."

Another Palestinian lobby group - the Palestine Solidarity Campaign - has formulated a letter which it asks supporters to send to McCartney's management, asking him to reconsider performing in Tel Aviv.

"As I'm sure you are aware, the State of Israel continues to breach international and human rights law by its illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and treatment of the Palestinian people. As well as the constant attacks by the Israeli army and armed settlers, Palestinian land is systematically stolen, houses demolished and crops destroyed," said the letter. "Your music has always been associated with hopeful and free aspirations; this reputation will undoubtedly be tarnished should this concert go ahead."

In a response to the two boycott attempts, the UK branch of Israel advocacy organization StandWithUs sent a letter to McCartney and his manager Stuart Bell, saying that the "blatant lies in the PACBI press release are simply beyond belief."

According to StandWithUs representative Joy Wolfe, "The more they call for boycotts, the more people want to come out to prove how fruitless they are and to demonstrate that it is by contact and dialogue, and indeed by staging concerts such as yours, that things may hopefully improve. At least when you appear in Tel Aviv you can expect to have a mixed audience of Jews, Muslims and Christians, something that would be impossible in any Arab country."

Regardless of the calls for McCartney to stay home, ticket sales for the show passed the 25,000 mark at the beginning of the week, according to the producers of the concert. And later this week, the first members of McCartney's technical staff will arrive in Israel to begin preparations for the show's infrastructure.

I don't know. Maybe I've been immersed in conspiracies for too long. I have a REAL bad feeling about him going over there. :(

[hedgepiglet]

He also said "When we joined the Beatles".

Paul didn't join the Beatles, he joined the Quarrymen.

I read the use of the words "we" and "Beatles" in a very different way than others in this thread. Does mean that I'm 'wrong'? It doesn't actually matter, but does illustrate the problem with all this McConspiracy: it's easy to pick up on the smallest detail and read something into it.

I see a lot of McCartney's general reminiscing about the Beatles as veneered with a 'chummy sentimentality' that perhaps treats his relationship with the other Beatles as more 'sugary' than he should given the animosity that Lennon and Harrison had shown at times. He was the sentimental Beatle - pre-1966 and post-1966 - and whilst Lennon might have wrote 'In My Life' (possibly the most sentimental Beatles song), McCartney's whole work is (Sgt.) peppered with sentimentality.

If he expressed himself this way through his work then it's more than likely that he'd also see his real life relationships in the same way. Also, the majority of people tend to don rose-coloured glasses about postive periods of their life, particularly as they start to get older.

A similar thing happens with Paul reminiscing over songs. Lennon claims to have nothing to do with the writing of 'I Saw Her Standing There' - and it's certainly not a distancing measure as it's hardly a song to be ashamed of! - but McCartney has spoken about writing it with Lennon at Forthlin Road. I think McCartney likes to think of the early Beatles days as being a bit more communal, gang-like and chummy than they probably were, particularly after John's murder.

There might have been a phase in his life where he felt the need to assert himself and come out of Lennnon's shadow, particularly after he was raised onto such a lofty pedastal in the 1980s and point out that it wasn't all about Lennon. Which, as any genuine Beatles fan will tell you: it wasn't.

I think that communal "we" has become much more important to him over the years, more so since George's death.

I have personal experience of something similar. I've a friend that was no more than a 'working acquaintance' 20 years ago, but the relationship developed and we became friends proper later on. Now, when this person reflects on the early years of our relationship, you'd think we were Siamese Twins or something the way he portrays a closeness that just wasn't there; even going as far as getting nostalgic about things we didn't actually do together and he must be thinking of someone else. For the sake of our friendship now, I don't rock the boat. Does this mean that my friend was replaced at some time? Weirdly enough, he's called Paul too. What could it mean!?!

As for saying the Beatles rather than the Quarrymen, I honestly think that's meaningless. Perhaps a genuine mistake or a slip of the tongue (God forbid that anyone here makes a mistake without the use of a 'go back and edit' edit button!), but nothing that important. Unless, of course, people want to make it important.

[faulconandsnowjob]

Oh, I disagree that Paul was in John's shadow. If anything, it was the other way around, especially with songs like "Yesterday."

[hedgepiglet]

Oh, I disagree that Paul was in John's shadow. If anything, it was the other way around, especially with songs like "Yesterday."

I personally don't think McCartney was in Lennon's shadow either, or at least think had McCartney had any reason to think he was.

However, during the 1980s, after Lennon's death, there was a marked rise in popular feeling that somehow he was the Beatles, that he was the clever one, the one who wrote the 'best' tunes, the one who lead the Beatles during their most creative periods, the one who really knew what was going on in the world, the one who really wanted peace and love &c. As far as a lot of people are concerned Lennon was behind anything 'good' about the Beatles. He's Saint John as far as a lot of people are concerned.

McCartney has made moves over the years to point out that things normally attributed to Lennon were in fact more him than Lennon, whether it's an interest in musique concrète, general themes, song-writing credits and so on. I personally don't blame him. Think back on the criticism he got for wanting the credit order changed on the songs he wrote the overwhelming majority of. That's how precious people treat Lennon. A quick walk around any of the Liverpool Beatles shops and museums confirms this.

[faulconandsnowjob]

I think people prefer the genuine John to the imposter "Paul." Somehow people recognize the Truth, even if it's at a subconscious level.

[hedgepiglet]

I think people prefer the genuine John to the imposter "Paul." Somehow people recognize the Truth, even if it's at a subconscious level.

Can you elaborate on this, please? I'm genuinely intrigued.

Most people with more than a passing interest in the Beatles - as well as the average person in the street - would think you 'unravelled' for seriously believing McCartney was replaced. That's a given as the theory has been around for a long time now and has never really been taken seriously or gained much ground.

At the same time, certainly after his murder, Lennon's popularity easily eclipsed McCartney's for a whole variety of reasons and shows no real signs of waning yet. As time goes on, and McCartney releases even more lacklustre material, it's unlikely that this will change either. However, you appear to be attributing this to the fact that "somehow recognise the truth" and yet, in an early post you said: (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=483476&postcount=114)


Some people cannot see the difference b/c they don't have the power.

Before, you were suggesting you needed this "power" to tell the difference and not everyone had it (or else everyone could tell Paul from "Faul"), and now you're suggesting that it's because people do have the "power" that 'real' Lennon is more popular than 'fake' Paul. They must have the "power" then because, as you said, you need it to tell the difference. So, do the masses have the power or don't they?

[redman]

Paul Is not dead, the people who believe this theory have clearly no logic and are very very very easily misled.


Like I keep saying, if this theory was remotely true then someone would of tested both voices against each other in the last 40 years.


It would be soooo easy to do, why has not one person come up with evidence that they are two different voices ??

I will tell you why, cos it's the same voice.


End of thread.

[faulconandsnowjob]

...the people who believe this theory have clearly no logic

It's a wonder I got thru 2 grad degrees (& almost a 3rd) without the benefit of having logic... *sarcasm*. I would really like to know what redman's education is...

As far as voice analysis goes, I have already quoted Dr. Truby when he found that there were 3 "Paul" voices. Do you not read what's been posted before you respond?

End of thread.
Not as long as people keep posting. You don't get to dictate when it ends. Other people want to discuss it. You may be excused if you don't want to participate anymore.

[hedgepiglet]

...the people who believe this theory have clearly no logic

It's a wonder I got thru 2 grad degrees (& almost a 3rd) without the benefit of having logic... *sarcasm*

As far as voice analysis goes, I have already quoted Dr. Truby when he found that there were 3 "Paul" voices. Do you not read what's been posted before you respond?

You've mentioned this several times now. Is there any chance you can post more information about this? It would be greatly appreciated. :) I've read the 'Technical FAQ' on the 'King Is Dead' but it seems very scant to me; although perhaps this is my fault for not accepting this at face value.

I'd like to know when was the testing actually done though because I'd be very interested to see what kind of spectrograph they were using at the time as I'm assuming that the spectrographs used in the 1960s were fairly primitive even compared to those used in things like WinAmp (other media players are also available) now. How was the resulting data read exactly, as I'd have thought that there would have been no GUI as such. Was it print-out based? Based solely on aural judgement?

I'd also like to know - purely for the sake of curiosity - what songs were used as comparison samples, both for 'true' and 'false' readings. Obviously I'm not as 'in the know' as Dr Truby was but it would make for interesting listening, no?

Do the actual results of these tests exist anywhere? I'd have thought that, amongst all the Beatles trivia, memorabilia and general ephemera that there'd be more reference to this. Particularly if McCartney is said to have responded to it. Yet I can't find anything directly relating to Truby's findings; plenty of contemporary 'Paul Is Dead' material but nothing specific. I trust you can point me in the right direction?

[faulconandsnowjob]

Most people with more than a passing interest in the Beatles - as well as the average person in the street - would think you 'unravelled' for seriously believing McCartney was replaced.

Most people are not as highly educated or informed as I. Too many people are brainwashed by TV, & actually believe everything they hear or see in the mainstream media. I, by distancing myself from the brainwashing, am able to look at things more objectively. I think it's disturbing that people don't see it & are so resistant to seeing it. I guess it's the power of a paradigm/belief system...

As far as having the power to see... I think many people may actually notice at a subconscious level, they have just not realized it consciously yet. But people are waking up...

The info I found on Dr. Truby is

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

Reeve, Andru J., Turn Me On, Dead Man: The Complete Story of the Paul McCartney Death Hoax, Ann Arbor: Popular Culture, Ink, 1994: 69.

(can you tell I'm an academic? :))

I would like to find more info on it, but I have been unsuccessful thus far.

[howie]

You say goodbye & I say hello

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFaY3YcMg1I

[faulconandsnowjob]

Darren Brown knows. Notice the reference to a "very famous popstar" at 0:58. Helloooo!

[orbandsceptre27]

You say goodbye & I say hello

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFaY3YcMg1I


Definately not your typical zen students! :D - Have a look at this next link also,


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7512387.stm

[faulconandsnowjob]

orbandsceptre, that's just crazy. You know there are no such things as lookalikes :-P

[orbandsceptre27]

orbandsceptre, that's just crazy. You know there are no such things as lookalikes :-P

And he looks soooo much like Sven faulcon............! :D ;)

[miss_splitfoot]

Most people are not as highly educated or informed as I.


...that was *sarcasm*, i hope. if not, you're a total arsehole :)

[mrguitarbear]

Darren Brown knows. Notice the reference to a "very famous popstar" at 0:58. Helloooo!

And the reference to ' St Pauls ' !!! Hmmm !

[faulconandsnowjob]

Nope, not sarcasm at all. I am highly educated.

[hedgepiglet]

Most people with more than a passing interest in the Beatles - as well as the average person in the street - would think you 'unravelled' for seriously believing McCartney was replaced.

Most people are not as highly educated or informed as I. Too many people are brainwashed by TV, & actually believe everything they hear or see in the mainstream media. I, by distancing myself from the brainwashing, am able to look at things more objectively. I think it's disturbing that people don't see it & are so resistant to seeing it. I guess it's the power of a paradigm/belief system...

I guess it is all about having the "power". :( Although, to be fair, I'm sure there are some that find it equally "disturbing" that you can see it.

What was the point where you did see it? Was it a single piece of 'evidence' or was it a slow accumulation of proof? Or have you always known?

As far as having the power to see... I think many people may actually notice at a subconscious level, they have just not realized it consciously yet. But people are waking up...

But surely you either have the ability or you don't? Surely, if it was indeed a subconscious ability, it would be more a case of them instinctively believing that something wasn't right about McCartney (other than his career has been on the slide for a long time, which isn't evidence in itself) but not being able to articulate it. That would be far more plausible than not acknowledging it at all and simply preferring another Beatle.

The info I found on Dr. Truby is:

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


Reeve, Andru J., Turn Me On, Dead Man: The Complete Story of the Paul McCartney Death Hoax, Ann Arbor: Popular Culture, Ink, 1994: 69.

Thanks for that. Is there any more or is that it?

(can you tell I'm an academic? :))

Yes, you do look pale. Have you tried eating more iron-rich foods like tehini or apricots?


I would like to find more info on it, but I have been unsuccessful thus far.

Do you not find this strange? Apparently, Dr Truby spoke to Rolling Stone (one of the biggest music magazines in the world) about the Beatles (one of the biggest bands in the world) about the idea about Paul McCartney being replaced (surely one of the biggest music scandals in the world?) and you can't find any more information on it? Are you adding Rolling Stone Magazine to the list of people and agencies involved?

[faulconandsnowjob]

I think I was always troubled by why Paul suddenly lost his looks in '67 & why his solo career was mediocre. It didn't jibe that the genius responsible for "Eleanor Rigby" & "Yesterday" didn't produce anything close to that caliber in his entire solo career. Plus, I know something about how it really works behind the scenes (as most on a David Icke forum would). I guess that's why I was open to looking at PID & looking at pics & other evidence objectively. Mind you, I had years of brain-washing to overcome & the desire to not want it to be true, but it finally struck me - that is NOT the same guy! Wow! Well, I went into a funk for a few days, then I got mad, & decided people needed to know. Poor Paul! I like Bill, I think he's a good guy caught up in a big mess, but people need to know the Truth.

I guess you are not an academic b/c you didn't recognize the MLA citation I gave for the book...

[miss_splitfoot]

I guess you are not an academic b/c you didn't recognize the MLA citation I gave for the book...

what subjects do you have a degree in?

[miss_splitfoot]

Plus, I know something about how it really works behind the scenes (as most on a David Icke forum would).


which degrees does DI have?

[orbandsceptre27]

which degrees does DI have?

I "smell" another redman here..............

Could we stick someway to the topic, thanks.

[faulconandsnowjob]

I "smell" another redman here.

Miss_Splitfoot, redman & krakhead do appear to be of the same ilk.

[miss_splitfoot]

I "smell" another redman here.

Miss_Splitfoot, redman & krakhead do appear to be of the same ilk.


if you're using your intelligence as a reason why you see thar paul was replaced, i think it's a valid question if i ask about the degrees.

david icke doesn't have any university education, so how come he sees it?

i suppose you think that i should be reading this book (http://www.dummies.com/WileyCDA/DummiesTitle/Conspiracy-Theories-Secret-Societies-For-Dummies.productCd-0470184086.html).

redman & krakhead "of the same ilk" - please explain.

[orbandsceptre27]

I "smell" another redman here.

Miss_Splitfoot, redman & krakhead do appear to be of the same ilk.

Krakheads grand, it`s the ones who just show up with nothing - no research, no proper reasoning and act as if they have a firm grasp of what they`re talking about when they don`t, but that`s the way of the world mate!

[faulconandsnowjob]

I'm not using my education as a basis for why I noticed Paul wasn't Bill, but merely my powers of observation. You don't need a degree for that.

I definitely encourage people to read books. It's amazing what you can learn from them.

[faulconandsnowjob]

Krakheads grand, it`s the ones who just show up with nothing - no research, no proper reasoning and act as if they have a firm grasp of what they`re talking about when they don`t

Isn't that all of them? :) Their main "evidence" is that the mainstream media has held Bill out to be Paul for 40 yrs, so it must be true...

[howie]

redman & krakhead "of the same ilk" - please explain.

Taking this thread off topic

[hedgepiglet]

I guess you are not an academic b/c you didn't recognize the MLA citation I gave for the book...

I'm genuinely unsure of what you want me to say to this. Am I meant to be impressed because you used a particular citation style? What can I say: 'well done'?

Seriously, that's baffled me.

[miss_splitfoot]

Taking this thread off topic


last time i looked, the Cobain thread had nothing to do with the title of the thread. excuse my enquiring mind when i ask for info regarding why i've been pigeonholed into a particular "ilk". thing is, i like to question everything, & so if it's not too much trouble for one who is so busy being intelligent & spending hours on a PID forum at a website, i'd like to hear WHY i'm of a particular ilk. take it to private if you must :)

[faulconandsnowjob]

hedgepiglet, I think you attempted to insult me with the "pale" comment. I simply turned the tables on you. I apologize if you didn't get that. However, this is getting off topic.

[miss_splitfoot]

hedgepiglet, I think you attempted to insult me with the "pale" comment. I simply turned the tables on you. I apologize if you didn't get that. However, this is getting off topic.


oh dear oh dear oh dear. i think hedgepiglet's a little too intelligent for you to patronise :(

i'm out of this silly little thread, anyhow. good luck finding your truth faulcon. when you've finished convincing people that Paul McCartney was replaced, maybe with all your wisdom you could perhaps do something a little more productive to change the world than obsess about a mainstream, middle-of-the-road pop star.

cheers :)

[hedgepiglet]

hedgepiglet, I think you attempted to insult me with the "pale" comment. I simply turned the tables on you. I apologize if you didn't get that. However, this is getting off topic.

It wasn't an insult, it was a jokey play on words: academic/anaemic. There was no real malice behind it. I wasn't sure what to say as a response to your academic comment as it seemed a little odd to me and I thought it better to make light of it than to ignore it completely.

Also, for what it's worth - and as strange as it may seem to you as you seem to be quite fond of it - we didn't use MLA at my university.

Anyway, care to address any of the questions I raised previously?

[faulconandsnowjob]

hedgepiglet, I sincerely apologize for the misunderstanding. We used MLA in one of my grad programs.

Please, which questions do you have that have not already been addressed earlier in the thread?

[graflok]

This may have been posted before but according to this site (http://60if.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=Essential&action=print&thread=2664) Paul's doctor said:


Paul suffered from an acute form of Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) which required medication to keep under control. The following is a report from his doctor.

Name: David Wilmont, M.D.
Date1/13/01 7:18:21 AM
Email: painmanagement@doctor.com
Subject: McCARTNEY'S DISEASE ...AND DEATH

The LIVING Paul McCartney suffered from severe symptoms of Irritable Bowell Syndrome.
This causes cramping so intense as to require narcotic analgesics (codeine, oxycodone, morphine) to relieve intractable pain in the patient.
McCartney's malady was so bad that occasionally, he could not eat. Another result of IBS is Explosive Diarrhea.
Young McCartney changed underware constantly he would soil them so often. Not so with [his impersonator].
Severe IBS sufferers are uniformly habituated to opioids to help control their condition.
McCartney WAS.
Today's "McCartney" is not.
James Paul McCartney has truly passed on.
There is no cure for IBS.
He IS dead.

[hedgepiglet]

Please, which questions do you have that have not already been addressed earlier in the thread?

Well, the very last batch of questions I asked was:

Do you not find this strange? Apparently, Dr Truby spoke to Rolling Stone (one of the biggest music magazines in the world) about the Beatles (one of the biggest bands in the world) about the idea about Paul McCartney being replaced (surely one of the biggest music scandals in the world?) and you can't find any more information on it? Are you adding Rolling Stone Magazine to the list of people and agencies involved?

[faulconandsnowjob]

Yes, I think it's very odd I can't find any more about Dr. Truby. I have access to Lexis Nexis, & I couldn't find anything on him. Maybe Lexis doesn't go back to the '60's & '70's, though...

I asked a friend of mine who is a sound engineer to do a vocal analysis using ProTools. At first, he agreed, but then he refused. I would love for someone to do some vocal analyses of both Paul & Faul singing & speaking. Volunteers? :)

[hedgepiglet]

This may have been posted before but according to this site (http://60if.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=Essential&action=print&thread=2664) Paul's doctor said:

I find this interesting as I was under the impression that a doctor couldn't discuss a patient's medical history. Perhaps it's just me, but that quote just doesn't read like a doctor's report at all or even from a doctor writing casually in an email. If I received any kind of missive written like that from my own doctor, I'd be changing surgeries as soon as possible.

The "M.D." qualification doesn't seem right either. I know it's a recognised qualification on both sides of the Atlantic (although I think it relates to different degrees) but isn't a regular doctor more likely to refer to themselves as Dr (insert name) or (insert name) G.P.? I'm presuming it's a British doctor with reference to G.P. I know quite often specialist consultants refer to themselves simply as Mr/Mrs (insert name) rather than use something that sounds more 'medical'.

I find the use of @doctor.com email pretty strange too.

Also, as someone who suffers from IBS myself - although not severe enough to warrant having to wear nappies like some have claimed that McCartney had to - I find it odd that anyone should think that, because he doesn't suffer as badly as he once did, that this is somehow evidence that he's not the same person. I'm more inclined to believe that, if he has suffered from IBS, that he's altered his diet to work around it like I did as now suffers much less as a result.

Perhaps having a wife like Linda, who was synonymous in the UK with her attitude to food, helped him out tremendously. Isn't that far more plausible than it being evidence for him being replaced?

[faulconandsnowjob]

I don't think Paul had "explosive diarrhea," either. I think it's a way to discredit the poor man :(

[hedgepiglet]

Yes, I think it's very odd I can't find any more about Dr. Truby. I have access to Lexis Nexis, & I couldn't find anything on him. Maybe Lexis doesn't go back to the '60's & '70's, though...

I asked a friend of mine who is a sound engineer to do a vocal analysis using ProTools. At first, he agreed, but then he refused. I would love for someone to do some vocal analyses of both Paul & Faul singing & speaking. Volunteers? :)

I've genuine reservations about a comparison test using general release records. If you're really wanting to do this kind of test you'd need fairly 'dry' studio recordings using comparable recording techniques. Abbey Road changed a lot over a short space of time, as did the recording techniques. Any sound engineer, musician and so on will tell you that even small variations in equipment makes all the difference, whether it's mics, pre-amps, even consoles. If this wasn't the case, there'd only be one set of guitar strings available to buy, one guitar, one amp, one microphone, one pre-amp and so on.

Your friend with ProTools will confirm this. I don't use ProTools myself but similar (albeit cheaper) software with a Line6 external soundcard. Line6 exist as a firm because there is so much variation in recording equipment and produce software to emulate these differences; whether it's amp, the mic, the placement of mic, the pre-amp, the size of the cab, the acoustic environment and so on.

For an honest and accurate comparison test, you'd really have to take all this into account and have access to material that hasn't been on general release such as completely untouched, perfect masters which had been recorded on more or less the same equipment. Simply playing a couple of recordings back to back really won't prove much despite what the Truby claims are.

One thing that has intrigued me from the outset of this, is that I don't really understand what the spectrograph findings would prove if they are from different songs. You'd really need to compare a song sung in one year with the same song sung in another year (on similar equipment) for genuine analysis. Otherwise you are genuinely comparing two completely different things.

Perhaps I'm missing something with the spectrograph comparisons and just not understanding how Truby is meant to have conducted the tests. If anyone can enlighten me, I'd be genuinely appreciative. If your sound engineer friend won't actually do the tests, perhaps they'd at least explain how they'd go about it?

[hedgepiglet]

I don't think Paul had "explosive diarrhea," either. I think it's a way to discredit the poor man :(

He might have had if he did have IBS. Someone having (explosive) diarrhoea is hardly a secret shame. I'd not think any less of someone if they suffered from digestion problems. In fact, I'd certainly be more worried about people who did think less of someone because of it than the person that actually had it.

[faulconandsnowjob]

hedgepiglet, I don't know that much about sound engineering. I do know that people have been convicted on the basis of vocal comparisons from samples taken 20+ years apart.

However, as great as vocal analysis would be, it's still just reinforcement. IMO, the photographs are enough to show there are 2 Pauls. Everything else is just icing :)

[graflok]

I find this interesting as I was under the impression that a doctor couldn't discuss a patient's medical history.

A deceased person is not anyone's patient. The alleged email from Dr. Milmont states that Paul is dead.

[faulconandsnowjob]

Death may indeed destroy doctor-patient confidentiality...

[accuracy]

oh dear oh dear oh dear. i think hedgepiglet's a little too intelligent for you to patronise :(

i'm out of this silly little thread, anyhow. good luck finding your truth faulcon. when you've finished convincing people that Paul McCartney was replaced, maybe with all your wisdom you could perhaps do something a little more productive to change the world than obsess about a mainstream, middle-of-the-road pop star.

cheers :)

Good bye and good riddance to the trash can miss_splitfoot :D:D:D

You are a very cool collective and informed faulconandsnowjob :cool::cool:

"Off topic", other trolls should take note of you're signature!

Keep up the the good work.;);)

accuracy

[hedgepiglet]

hedgepiglet, I don't know that much about sound engineering. I do know that people have been convicted on the basis of vocal comparisons from samples taken 20+ years apart.

I'm interested to know more as I'd genuinely like to know how they actually do this from a technical standpoint. Can you elaborate? When were these cases? When was the judgement made; were these recent convictions?

[size_of_light]

Paul McCartney is dead.

But this thread will never die. :p

[hedgepiglet]

A deceased person is not anyone's patient. The alleged email from Dr. Milmont states that Paul is dead.

Death may indeed destroy doctor-patient confidentiality...

Not in the UK it doesn't. There are very slight exceptions to this due to Access to Health Records Act 1990 but none of them are applicable in the case of this particular 'Doctor's report'. The more I look at that alleged report, the more laughable it seems.

Faulcon, you seem to set great store in critical thinking and academia - and I'm certainly not saying that like it's a bad thing - doesn't the writing style of the 'Doctor's report' raise any alarms with you whatsoever? Doesn't the fact it contains a @doctor.com email address prompt concern?

I was wondering whether David J. Wilmont, M.D using the painmanagement@doctor.com email would prove to be as elusive as Dr Truby. However, I found another piece of writing (http://members.tripod.com/jbabs714/methh.htm) alleged to be by the same person and I'm not wholly surprised that the 'doctor's report' and this other piece of writing are like chalk and cheese. I'm wondering what a linguistics expert - perhaps the esteemed Dr Truby himself? - would think in a comparison test of these two samples?

[truthseeker49]

I just found three comparisons made by someone on the PID/PWR forums. I wish I could remember who did them, as I feel that the first two comparisons are the best ones that I have ever seen. This is coming from someone who has spent the past 5 years putting together these kinds of comparisons ! ;)

Paul,1963/64 - Faul,1967
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/JPSP3.jpg
Paul,1963/64 - Faul,1967
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/JPSP1.jpg
Faul,1967 - Paul,1965
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/JPSP2.jpg

* NOTE * Please notice the difference between Paul's ears & Faul's ears in all three comparisons.

[faulconandsnowjob]

Good bye and good riddance to the trash can miss_splitfoot

There will be another of her ilk to take her place :-P

hedgepiglet, that email for the doctor does not appear to be valid:

From: postmaster@mail.hotmail.com
Sent: Sat 9/06/08 10:47 AM
To: ...
Security scan upon download
details00...txt (0.2 KB), No Subjec...mht (0.6 KB)
This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification.

Delivery to the following recipients failed.

painmanagement@doctor.com

I don't know what the true story is on the IBS. I would not be surprised if Paul had been wheat gluten intolerant. I am, myself, & I know it can cause symptoms similar to IBS.

Let me see if I can dig up the case(s) using voice analysis to convict. They will be US cases...

[hedgepiglet]

There will be another of her ilk to take her place :-P

hedgepiglet, that email for the doctor does not appear to be valid:

To be honest, I doubt anything in that 'Doctor's report' is valid. As with a lot of this alleged evidence, I'd really like to know where it originated.

I don't know what the true story is on the IBS. I would not be surprised if Paul had been wheat gluten intolerant. I am, myself, & I know it can cause symptoms similar to IBS.

If he has suffered from it, it's not really that much of an issue. It's one of those things that more people suffer from than you'd think but, because of the nature of it, aren't really than open about it, particularly in the past. Also, it's been suggested in a few places that, whilst often seen as a 'woman's problem' - a lot of IBS type treatments over here like pro-biotic drinks are pitched at women - a lot more men suffer from it than is imagined purely because men aren't as open to admitting to problems below the waist.

As I said earlier, if there's evidence to prove it was a severe problem at one time, then not at all later all, a change in diet is the most probably answer. Certainly more plausible than evidence of him being replaced.

One thing that has struck me is, if McCartney was meant to have suffered from this very early on his career (very early 1960s), I'm wondering whether his condition (if he did have it and this report isn't fabricated) was actually acknowledged as IBS at the time and not something else. I'm wondering, as I've got a feeling, that it wasn't always called or treated as Irritable Bowel Syndrome.

Let me see if I can dig up the case(s) using voice analysis to convict. They will be US cases...

Thanks. :)

[faulconandsnowjob]

Re: voiceprints as means of identification

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

5 USCS § 552a(4)..

[T]he term "means of identification" means any name or number that may be used, alone or in conjunction with any other information, to identify a specific individual, including any--

...

(B) unique biometric data, such as fingerprint, voice print, retina or iris image, or other unique physical representation; ...

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

And contrasting duty titles, which are mutable, to a voice print, which is immutable:


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

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

Ok, so it seems that the courts consider a voice to be a constant.

[hedgepiglet]

Re: voiceprints as means of identification

And contrasting duty titles, which are mutable, to a voice print, which is immutable:

Ok, so it seems that the courts consider a voice to be a constant.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I do think voice recognition/identification has merit; I'm certainly not arguing against that at all.

What I'm concerned about is the fact there appears to be no evidence at all about these tests other than the same quote that's been bandied about a few times. Considering Beatlophiles are possibly the most 'anorak-ish' pedants and collectors in the world, probably surpassing Grateful Dead fans regarding collecting data and information, I find it genuinely strange that there's not whole reams of other references to this test elsewhere, as opposed to this single reference which seems to stem back to the book you mentioned.

I'm surprised that someone like Geoff Emerick, Ken Scott or George Martin hasn't commented on these tests as, after all, they're responsible for actually recording 1960s McCartney in the first place; pre-1966 and post-1966. Or is that part of it? They, along with Rolling Stone and every other music magazine in the world, the rest of the media, the families, the friends, everyone at EMI, other bands of the period, they're all too frightened to speak out about what happened?

Doesn't the fact that there's no other reference strike you as odd? It raises some serious red flags for me.

Also, I honestly do think it's one thing to define and match unique vocal characteristics now, using contemporary technology, but 40 plus years ago? Given the state of technology then? I presume you know enough about Abbey Road to see how, just in the space of a few years, audio technology progressed almost beyond belief. even lab spec. audio instruments would seem crude now. As I said in my earlier post on the subject, I'd like to know a lot more as to how tests back then were conducted.

[faulconandsnowjob]

What I'm concerned about is the fact there appears to be no evidence at all about these tests other than the same quote that's been bandied about a few times.

Yes, I agree that it is strange. I think the tests were suppressed. I would love lo have someone with the capability do new tests. It would be great to be able to test the original master tapes.

[redman]

Yes, I agree that it is strange. I think the tests were suppressed. I would love lo have someone with the capability do new tests. It would be great to be able to test the original master tapes.



Well spend about £100 on software and do the tests yourself.

[redman]

Yes, I agree that it is strange. I think the tests were suppressed. I would love lo have someone with the capability do new tests. It would be great to be able to test the original master tapes.



I have a sneaky suspicion even if you find out that the voices were the same you would not have it and would carry on believing this crap.


Am I right ??

[faulconandsnowjob]

I suspect that even if we had all the evidence in the world, you would only accept that the 2 Pauls are different if he either made an admission, or if the mainstream media announced it.

Keep the thread alive!

[howie]

1966 Timeline

http://www.geocities.com/~beatleboy1/db.menu.html

1966

August 30
-The Beatles left Los Angeles for London.

August 31
-The Beatles arrived back in London from Los Angeles.

September 5
-John flew back to Hanover, Germany, to begin filming his part in How I Won The War with dreictor Richard Lester on a NATO tank range in Celle, outside Hanover.

September 6
-John had his hair cut short for his role as Private Gripweed. The momentous event occured in the breakfast room of the bar The Inn On The Heath in Celle. In addition to an army haircut, he wore small round "granny" glasses, which his use made fasionable.

September 10
-The album Revolver reached number one on the Billboard Hot 100 charts, where it remained for six weeks.

September 14
-George and Patti flew to Bombay, India, for George to take sitar lessons with Ravi Shankar and study yoga. They checked into the Taj Mahal, Bombay, under the names Mr. and Mrs. Sam Wells.

September 15
-Paul attended a performane of free-form music given by AMM with Cornelius Cardew at the Royal College of Afrt. The audience of a dozen or so people were invited to join in and Paul made occasional sounds on the radiator and a beer mug.
-John and Neil Aspinall took the train to Paris.

September 16
-Paul and Brian Epstein joined John and Neil Aspinall for a weekend break in Paris.
(Note: This is the final entry chronocling Paul's activities for a month and a half)

September 18
-John and Neil Aspinall went to Spain where the filming for How I Won the War was due to continue the next day in Carboneras, Spain. John and Cynthia shared a villa in Almera - owned by Sam Spiegal - with the actor Michael Crawford and his family.

September 19
-Location filming began again. John had to get up at 6 each morning for his driver to take him to the film set in his black Rolls.
-The press discovered that George and Patti were staying in India and George had to give a press conference at the Taj Mahal in which he explained he had come to India to study and get some peace and quiet.
(Note: After this, none of the Beatles activities are chronocled for around two weeks, the largest gap of time in the entire book at this point)

October 4
-Ringo and Maureen flew to Almeria to spend a few days visisting John on the film set of How I Won The War.
(Note: Another large gap of time after this... two and a half weeks, the largest piece of missing time in the entire book)

October 21
-George did an interview with the BBC correspondent in Bombay, Donald Milner, about his reasons for spending five weeks in India.

October 22
-George and Patti returned to London from Bombay.

October 26
-When Ravi Shankar arrived at London Airport from India, George was there to meet him, dressed in Indian clothes. Ravi Shankar, European educated, was wearing a Western suit.

October 27
-Penguin Books published The Penguin John Lennon, a double volume of John's two books.

October 31
-Donovan arrived to spend a week at George's house in Esher.

November 4
-NEMS finally vacaed 13 Monmouth Street, Brian Epstein's first London office. Most of the operation had been in Argyll Street since 1964.

November 6
-Paul put his Aston Martin on the plane-ferry at Lydd, Kent, and flew to France. Wearing a disguise, he spent a week driving slowly through the chateux of the Loire, before he met up with Beatles roadie Mal Evans under the grand clock in Bordeaux.
(Paul reappears after his last entry in Paris with Brian. Note that it mentions he's wearing a disguise)

November 9
-John met Yoko Ono for the first time at the Indica Gallery, Mason's Yard, London.

November 11
-John and Cynthia saw Ben E. King play the Scotch St. Jame's.

November 12
-Paul and Mal drove from Bordeaux to Spain, making home movies enroute. Paul originally intended to meet John in Almeria but John finished shooting his part early and was already home. Paul decided on asafari instead and arranged to meet Jane in Africa. Paul and Mal drove to Seville and organised someone to drive the Aston back to London. They flew to Madrid and from there to Nirobi. They had a ten-hour stopover in Rome where they spent sightseeing at St. Peter's and the usual sights.

November 13
-The Four Tops played the Saville Theatre with a backdrop supposedly designed by Paul.

November 18
-The single 'From Head To Toe'/'Night Time' by The Escorts, produced by Paul McCartney, was released in the UK as COLUMBIA DB 8061.

November 19
-Paul, Jane and Mal flew back to London from Kenya.

November 20
-Brian Epstein gave a party for The Four Tops in his home in Chapel Street. John and George attended.

November 24
-Abbey Road. The Beatles reconvened to start work on a new album, beginning with John's "Strawberry Fields Forever'.

November 25
-The Beatles' fourth Christmas record Pantomime: Everywhere It's Christmas was recorded in the demo studio in the basement of the New Oxford Street offices of Dick James, their music publisher.

November 27
-John made a filmed appearance in Peter Cook and Dudley Moore's BBC Television show Not Only... But Also in which he played a uniformed nightclub doorman. The filmed location for the club was the underground gentlemen's lavatory on Broadwick Street, near Berwick Street market, Soho. John was shown wearing his new "granny" glasses.

November 28
-Abbey Road. The group recorded three more takes of 'Strawberry Fields Forever'.

November 29
-Abbey Road. More work on 'Strawberry Fileds Forever'.

December 1
-Paul saw The Young Rascals make their UK debut at the Scotch St. James.

December 2
-Paul was so impressed by The Young Rascals that he saw them a second time, this time at Blaises.

December 6
-Abbey Road. Work began on 'When I'm Sixty Four'. The Beatles also taped Christmas greeetings for the pirate stations Radio London and Radio Caroline.

Dcember 8
-Abbey Road. Paul added his vocal to 'When I'm Sixty Four' in the afternoon and all four Beatles arrived for an evening session working on 'Strawberry Fields Forever' again.

December 9
-Abbey Road. The Beatles continued to work on 'Strawberry Fields Forever'.

December 10
-The album A COLLECTION OF BEATLES OLDIES was released in the UK as PARLOPHONE PMC 7016 (mono) and PCS 7016 (stereo).

December 11
-The BBC Home Service programme The Lively Arts broadcast an interview done with George in India in which he discussed philosophy and Indian music.

December 15
-Abbey Road. The Beatles continued work on 'Strawberry Fields Forever'.

December 16
-Members of The Beatles fan club were sent copies of The Beatles' fourth Christmas flexi-disc called Pantomine: Everywhere It's Christmas.
Ringo: "We worked it out between us. Paul did most of the work on it. He thought up the 'Pantomime' title and two song song things."
Paul: "I drew the cover myself. There'sa sort of funny pantomime horse in the design if you loo closely. well I can see one there if you can't."

December 18
-Paul and Jane attended the premiere of the film The Family Way at the Warner Theatre which had an incidental sountrack written by Paul and arranged by George Martin.

December 19
-Binder, Edwards and Vaughan announced that Paul had made an experimental electronic tape to be played at the Carnival of Light to be held at the Roundhouse, Chalk Farm, in January.

December 20
-Abbey Road. More vocals were added to 'When I'm Sixty Four.'
-The Beatles recorded interviews with John Edwards for the ITN (Independent Television News) programme Reporting '66 and were filmed arriving at Abbey Road and working on a song together.

December 21
-Abbey Road. Woodwind was added to 'When I'm Sixty Four' and John added more vocals to 'Strawberry Fields Forever.'
-The single 'Love In The Open Air'/'Theme From The Family Way' by The George Martin Ocrhestra and written by Paul McCartney was released in the UK as UNITED ARTISTS UP 1165.

December 25
-All four Beatles remained in London and the Home Countries for Christmas.

December 26
-John's appearance on Peter Cook and Dudely Moore's BBC Television Show, Not Only... But Also, was screened.

December 29
-Abbey Road. Paul working alone in the studio recorded the backing track to his 'Penny Lane', finishing up at 2:15 am.

December 30
-Abbey Road. Further work done on 'When I'm Sixty Four' and 'Penny Lane'.

December 31
-George and Patti, Brian Epstein, Eric Clapton and others were refused admittance to Annabel's Night Club because George was not wearing a tie. he refuses the one offered to him by the doorman. They saw in the New Year at the Lyon's Corner House Restaurant on Coventry Street.


Los Angeles 24 Aug 1966

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/7141/la66b2432014ym0.jpg

Seattle 25 Aug 1966

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/1731/1966seattlebeatles26853gg5.jpg

Melody Maker Awards - early Sept 1966

http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/9297/mm8lj5069165td5.jpg

No pictures of Paul exist for the rest of September, October & early November 1966

Years later Mal Evans home movies sold at auction showing Faul in Kenya, Nov 1966

http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/5138/malevans024829017og0.jpg

http://img373.imageshack.us/img373/7397/malevans084856804cp2.jpg



London 20 Dec 1966

http://img352.imageshack.us/img352/779/f342711994tq8.jpg


Ringo on 20 Dec 1966

Q: (laughs) "Are you fed-up with being Beatles and Beatlemania?"

RINGO: "The thing is-- We can't do a tour like we've been doing all these years, because our music's progressed and we've used more instruments. It'd be soft-- us going on stage, the four of us-- trying to do the records we've made with orchestras and, you know, bands and things. So, if we went on-stage, we'd have to have a whole line-up of men behind us."

Ringo on 30 Aug 1966

http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/8571/ringocontinuetoperform8yx0.jpg

Jan 1967

http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/8265/pennylane2kf3.jpg

[faulconandsnowjob]

howie, agreed those men look absolutely nothing alike. It's mind-boggling that other people can't see it. It must be the Sandman or something sprinkling some magic dust in their eyes if they think Paul & Faul look the same.

[orbandsceptre27]

The two "Pauls" - Nine times, "turn me on dead man!"

Note - Where Faul sings for the first time, "The time that has gone so fast, the time that I thought would last, my ever present past" - a second Paul appears (an obvious reference to the man he replaced).


http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=fVGk5qm6Mac

[orbandsceptre27]

The two "Pauls" - Nine times, "turn me on dead man!"

Note - Where Faul sings for the first time, "The time that has gone so fast, the time that I thought would last, my ever present past" - a second Paul appears (an obvious reference to the man he replaced).


http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=fVGk5qm6Mac

Enter second verse - "I`ve got too much on my mind, I THINK OF EVERYTHING TO BE DISCOVERED...........!"

Leading into the chorus for the first time - as he sings............... "my ever present past," the second "Paul" walks straight by the camera clicking his fingers.

Jesus he`s doing everything but saying........... Hi wake up, I`m Faul!

[armoured_amazon]

I chatted with Paul/Faul last month in a traffic jam side by side and immediately thought of this thread. :D

[tracker]

Paul Mccartney

is not dead .

ive just seen him with elvis serving kibbabs in portsmouth .:rolleyes:


:D

[faulconandsnowjob]

Jesus he`s doing everything but saying........... Hi wake up, I`m Faul!

Orb, it must be frustrating for Faul that people are too dense to get. Heelllooooo! What does he have to do to make people see he isn't Paul? Where a freakin' sign?

[accuracy]

I chatted with Paul/Faul last month in a traffic jam side by side and immediately thought of this thread. :D

What a blatant shill!


Tsk tsk tsk.

[armoured_amazon]

What a blatant shill!


Tsk tsk tsk.

Ha! How so? I didn't offer my opinion of which one he is. Paranoia can just be an illness, you know.

[phildee3]

I chatted with Paul/Faul last month in a traffic jam side by side and immediately thought of this thread.



So?

[redman]

He is not dead... now grow up and go and fuking fill ya day with something a bit more constructive.


Have a wank... do something.

[anna]

The two "Pauls" - Nine times, "turn me on dead man!"

Note - Where Faul sings for the first time, "The time that has gone so fast, the time that I thought would last, my ever present past" - a second Paul appears (an obvious reference to the man he replaced).


http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=fVGk5qm6Mac

Orb! It's quite evident in that video. I saw the meaning right away - but, for me it's easy. I have an advantage over most. Only meaning, for some reason, my eyes were opened to this Truth a year ago.

[anna]

Enter second verse - "I`ve got too much on my mind, I THINK OF EVERYTHING TO BE DISCOVERED...........!"

Leading into the chorus for the first time - as he sings............... "my ever present past," the second "Paul" walks straight by the camera clicking his fingers.

Jesus he`s doing everything but saying........... Hi wake up, I`m Faul!

I know.....right! I agree with you, Orb. All he needs is a flashing neon sign to FINALLY get the point across ;) Of course, that is what he's saying,
"I'M FAUL. I'M NOT THE REAL PAUL".

And, Orb, he has wanted the Truth known for a long time, don't you think? What kind of a heavy "load" was this on a human?...... and, I have to believe that he is a very caring human. Song lyrics, too are the key. There have been many songs, for me personally, that I just felt the Second Paul was pouring his heart out over the loss of Paul and what was going on inside of him personally.

[armoured_amazon]

So?

What do you mean 'so?'?

If one is reminded about something from one place or person when in another/talking with another, is it a conspiracy? Jeez, you guys are a sure fire way to make people think there's no truth in truth, only nutters.

[orbandsceptre27]

Orb! It's quite evident in that video. I saw the meaning right away - but, for me it's easy. I have an advantage over most. Only meaning, for some reason, my eyes were opened to this Truth a year ago.

Hi Anna - me too, I think alot of people can identify with many of the clues and messages left over the years, but these are shrugged off as coincidence or explained away as the band trying to "expand their markets" (like they needed to lol ;))

For someone who is only coming across this "theory," there is much they will have to look into and examine. I was`nt fully convinced Paul was replaced for quite some time - however besides all the clues left through album covers and songwriting, the physical evidence is impossible to ignore!

[orbandsceptre27]

Spot the massive Illuminati "Pyramid" stage (complete with all-seeing eye at the top, sun symbolic St Georges flags flying over the crowd close to the stage itself, the black and white masonic "checker board" behind Faul on stage (also found on the floor of Freemasonic lodges and inside the front door of 10 Downing St).

Glastonbury is one of the biggest energy vortex`s in western Europe and they just happen to hold a massive concert there every year, hmmmm................ symbolism, symbolism and more symbolism!

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

http://matthew-delooze.blogspot.com/2007/04/answer.html

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=31087

http://www.crystalinks.com/grid.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/somerset/content/articles/2005/09/14/earth_energies_in_glastonbury_feature.shtml

[orbandsceptre27]

Orb, it must be frustrating for Faul that people are too dense to get. Heelllooooo! What does he have to do to make people see he isn't Paul? Where a freakin' sign?

I agree Faulcon - here`s an interesting vid, you may have seen it already,

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=aUX9qmnlx6U

[ronisron]

This is the best Paul is Dead website I've read

http://homepages.tesco.net/harbfamily/opd/index.html

However, I don't buy any of it, I've looked at it all, and it seems Paul may have had some surgery to alter his face a little, but I chalk it up to vanity. It is interesting, although some of the timelines don't seem to fit what the plot ascertains. It's like someone thought up the crime, and then went looking for clues. I think all of the "evidence" is just a macabre in - joke that was between the Beatles. I do however believe that Mr "Sir" Mc Cartney has become or always has been part of the elite.

Folks can belive what they want, it's all in fun. I do believe that the deaths of Brian Jones and Jimi Hendrix are much more sinister than what is generally thought.

[phildee3]

Glastonbury is one of the biggest energy vortex`s in western Europe and they just happen to hold a massive concert there every year,



The "vortex" is created by Glastonbury's unique geology, - an island rising out of the Somerset Levels cut off form the "mainland" both geologically and energetically.
The so-called "Glastonbury" festival happens each year in Pilton, on the southwestern slope of the "mainland," which has a great view of Glastonbury - and of its "vortex."

That's the one time of the year when we get the greed-mongers out of town!

[phildee3]

What do you mean 'so?'?



So was he dead or alive?

[anna]

phildee:

I just wanted to say I really like your signature:

There's no such thing as a mistake, an accident or a coincidence.

I couldn't agree more !!!

[anna]

Spot the massive Illuminati "Pyramid" stage (complete with all-seeing eye at the top, sun symbolic St Georges flags flying over the crowd close to the stage itself, the black and white masonic "checker board" behind Faul on stage (also found on the floor of Freemasonic lodges and inside the front door of 10 Downing St).

Glastonbury is one of the biggest energy vortex`s in western Europe and they just happen to hold a massive concert there every year, hmmmm................ symbolism, symbolism and more symbolism!

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

http://matthew-delooze.blogspot.com/2007/04/answer.html

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=31087

http://www.crystalinks.com/grid.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/somerset/content/articles/2005/09/14/earth_energies_in_glastonbury_feature.shtml

Wow! Very Interesting! Symbolism is everything to them. Thanks for this on Glastonbury and what all you spotted in this video with Faul on stage.

[armoured_amazon]

So was he dead or alive?

Oh! Hmmm, I dunno...I still think he may be a replacement (Faul). Either way, he has a sleazy face.

[graflok]

In that Russian video clip above he does a thing with the microphone that
looks like a throat slitting gesture.

Also, when he is asked about rumors about him he says he can't think of any. :confused:

I find that hard to believe.

[orbandsceptre27]

In that Russian video clip above he does a thing with the microphone that
looks like a throat slitting gesture.

Also, when he is asked about rumors about him he says he can't think of any. :confused:

I find that hard to believe.


I agree, he also "gives her the finger" more than once - a "f..k you" responce for asking the question.

Also note at the end, his "Baaaa...." rebuke to the man who asked, "are you natural or double?" He lets his guard down here reminding us that we`re regarded as little more than sheep by the powers that be - sly old Bill!

[relaxicab]

I've just read through this thread with great interest.

I've always thought there was a sudden significant change in Paul - not your average natural ageing process. His face shape, nose and mouth all appear different when you compare pictures. He either had extensive plastic surgery, or there is definitely something fishy going on. ;) I always had the same feeling in regards to Cliff Richard...maybe it's something to do with those who are or are eventually knighted? (Just a thought :rolleyes:)

One thing i wanted to comment on was Faulcon's posts about the voice analysis.

My partner is a senior acoustician with a knowledge of voice recognition. I have asked her about the possibilites of analysing various sound bytes of Paul/Faul and she is prepared to give it a try with the software she has. Can someone point us in the right direction though? Does anyone have a preference to what she should compare?

[orbandsceptre27]

I've just read through this thread with great interest.

I've always thought there was a sudden significant change in Paul - not your average natural ageing process. His face shape, nose and mouth all appear different when you compare pictures. He either had extensive plastic surgery, or there is definitely something fishy going on. ;) I always had the same feeling in regards to Cliff Richard...maybe it's something to do with those who are or are eventually knighted? (Just a thought :rolleyes:)

One thing i wanted to comment on was Faulcon's posts about the voice analysis.

My partner is a senior acoustician with a knowledge of voice recognition. I have asked her about the possibilites of analysing various sound bytes of Paul/Faul and she is prepared to give it a try with the software she has. Can someone point us in the right direction though? Does anyone have a preference to what she should compare?

Hi relaxicab and welcome to the forum - Yes many people are starting to say they`ve noticed major changes in Paul from 66 onwards, and not just physically. I read a comment from one guy on you tube who remarked he loved playing his fathers` Beatles records when he was a kid. He said he was always looking at the album covers when he played Beatles tunes, and that it really stuck in his mind how different Paul looked from St Pepper on. It was only years later he became aware of the replacement story!

That would be excellent if you could carry out a voice recognition comparison on some of Paul/Fauls songs. You could start off with Fauls more recent material and work backwards. Your partner would know more than most where to begin and how to carry out a thorough examination. We`d be very interested to hear your results!

[phildee3]

Oh! Hmmm, I dunno...



Thanks for your enlightening and revealing contributions to this thread, aa. :rolleyes:

[graflok]

I agree, he also "gives her the finger" more than once - a "f..k you" responce for asking the question.

Also note at the end, his "Baaaa...." rebuke to the man who asked, "are you natural or double?" He lets his guard down here reminding us that we`re regarded as little more than sheep by the powers that be - sly old Bill!

You're right! I didn't notice that before you mentioned it.

http://i34.tinypic.com/fcoe47.jpg

The more I look at that clip the creepier he looks. :mad:

[phildee3]

...when he is asked about rumors about him he says he can't think of any. :confused:

I find that hard to believe.



Have another look at that clip, graflock.
I think you'll find he's being immensely sarcastic - rolling his eyes and all!

[armoured_amazon]

Thanks for your enlightening and revealing contributions to this thread, aa. :rolleyes:

Ah, I see. This is an elite forum, yes? You are the very people you claim to abhor? Some of you certainly behave in that way. Don't think you're not transparent.

[graflok]

Have another look at that clip, graflock.
I think you'll find he's being immensely sarcastic - rolling his eyes and all!

Of course, he is. That is the point. Feigning a slitting throat gesture, flipping off
the questioner, saying "baaaaa", telling the crowd that he discussed "the value
of people and families" with Putin. He's dripping with sarcasm. That is what
makes him seem so creepy to me.

[toty1994]

'He either had extensive plastic surgery, or there is definately something fishy going on.'

Well, he looks a bit different, granted. He has clearly had plastic surgery but 'extensive' could only apply to the likes of Michael Jackson. Is it ridiculous to suggest any change in his appearance might just be down, mostly, to natural ageing?

I appreciate the change in his looks during a short period in the 60's fits in with the pid timeline, but the same thing happened to Lennon and, to a lesser extent, George and Ringo too. Is it really that fishy, unless there is a suggestion that they were all replaced?........Hang on, there is that suggestion, I've seen it on those pid forums!

[orbandsceptre27]

Have another look at that clip, graflock.
I think you'll find he's being immensely sarcastic - rolling his eyes and all!

Do you think? :D

[faulconandsnowjob]

Orb, that clip of Faul in Moscow is totally weird. I think if there had been a rumor that I had died, I'd probably remember that! Faul, bless his heart, is trying so hard to tell people what the deal is w/out actually telling them what the deal is! It must be so frustrating for him that more people don't catch on :P Heeelllloooo! Geeze.

Does anybody seriously think this looks like Paul?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/cheezeymoustache3.jpg

This is Paul (try to follow the ball :-P)

http://www.jamespaulmccartney.org/album64/album/Album_A/paperbackwritera1.jpg http://www.jamespaulmccartney.org/album64/album/Album_A/cantdothat3.jpg

[orbandsceptre27]

Orb, that clip of Faul in Moscow is totally weird. I think if there had been a rumor that I had died, I'd probably remember that! Faul, bless his heart, is trying so hard to tell people what the deal is w/out actually telling them what the deal is! It must be so frustrating for him that more people don't catch on :P Heeelllloooo! Geeze.

Does anybody seriously think this looks like Paul?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/cheezeymoustache3.jpg

This is Paul (try to follow the ball :-P)

http://www.jamespaulmccartney.org/album64/album/Album_A/paperbackwritera1.jpg http://www.jamespaulmccartney.org/album64/album/Album_A/cantdothat3.jpg


Very good comparisons faulcon - it is most evident from early Faul footage and photographs of the switch which (witch) occured lol!

[phildee3]

Feigning a slitting throat gesture, flipping off the questioner, saying "baaaaa", telling the crowd that he discussed "the value of people and families" with Putin. He's dripping with sarcasm.



These are examples of synicism, not sarcasm.

Sarcasm involves saying the opposite of what you mean.

I think you have the two words mixed up, hence your confusion.

[truthseeker49]

Faul from 1967. His ears look fake:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/WlarusGirl/eyeslookweird.jpg
Paul,1965http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/salsplainswall.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/WlarusGirl/BB3aa.jpgVintage photo of Paul

A post made by a young man on my forum:http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/WlarusGirl/sbscomparison28zr.gif

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

[faulconandsnowjob]

That pic of Paul from "The Night Before" is so dreamy...

Anyway, Strawberry Fields Faul doesn't even look like Wings Faul. It would be interesting to start a thread comparing the different Faul McCartneys
:-P

[faulconandsnowjob]

Jerusalem Post
Sep 24, 2008 10:05 | Updated Sep 24, 2008 10:25
Is it McCartney or is it an imposter?
By DAVID BRINN

Some 40,000 fans are expected to pack Yarkon Park Thursday night to see Paul McCartney perform his classic songs. But will it really be the former Beatle taking the stage, or will it be Billy Shears? Or maybe William Campbell?

Some 40 years after first surfacing, the legend that the former Beatle died in a fiery 1966 car accident and was subsequently replaced by a look-alike, sound-alike imposter still attracts considerable attention and scrutiny. Books, research articles, Web sites, university lectures and presentations have all focused on the plethora of clues that weave together one of the more outlandish but mystifying conspiracy theories that evolved from the 1960s.

"At the time, people took it very seriously," recalled the "dean" of "Paul-is-dead" theorists, retired Delaware high school teacher Joel Glazier.

"It was the end of the '60s. You have to remember this was against the backdrop of the assassinations of Martin Luther King [Jr.] and Bobby Kennedy, as well as the Vietnam War and the Pentagon Papers. So this sounded like the perfect conspiracy cover-up. People stayed up all night talking about it, and some were actually quite scared."

Glazier spoke to The Jerusalem Post from Toronto, where he was a featured speaker at a Beatles convention, along with former John Lennon girlfriend May Pang and ex-Ringo Starr paramour Nancy Andrews.

Glazier initially rose to prominence in the Beatles scholarly world in 1979 by publishing a 30-page comprehensive research article on the issue for the premier Beatles fan magazine, Strawberry Fields Forever, which attracted the attention of Beatles convention organizers.

Since then, Glazier has been a mainstay on the convention and college campus circuit, both in the US and Europe. But he's not just a conspiracy theorist - he's also a bona fide Beatles expert, and has been hired by the Delaware school system to present lectures to students on the importance of The Fab Four in popular culture.

For those too young - or too old - to remember the "Paul is dead" theory, it goes something like this: McCartney perished in a 1966 London car crash, but The Beatles, not wanting to make it public, used their clout to keep the tragedy secret. They hired the winner of a McCartney look-alike contest to take his place in the band, a lucky guy with the name of either William Shears Campbell, Billy Shears (the name of the fictitious leader of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band) or William Sheppard.

What gave fuel to the fire were a slew of supposed hints to the switcheroo that fans gleaned from Beatles' lyrics, photos and album covers, first exposed in a college newspaper article and then picked up by a Detroit radio station, before breaking worldwide with extensive coverage on all major TV and print media.

"I think you have to pay tribute to the cover of Abbey Road for starting it all," said Glazier. "The four Beatles are walking across the street, in what looks like could be a funeral procession. John's in white, the religious leader, Ringo's in a tux - the funeral director, George is in work jeans, the grave digger. And Paul, he's barefoot and out of the step with the others. People interpreted that as alluding to the practice of burying people barefoot.

"In addition, he's holding a cigarette in his right hand, and he was famous for being a left-handed bass player, a sign that this Paul is an imposter. And finally, there's the license plate on the Volkswagen in the background - which reads LMW 28-IF, which was interpreted to mean 'Linda McCartney widow, and Paul would have been 28 'if' he hadn't died in 1966."

From there, fans went backwards to albums like 1967's Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, which they claim houses a dozen more clues within the photo imagery on the front and back covers - including the back cover photo of the group with three of the Beatles facing forward and McCartney turned backward, with the words "Without you" printed next to his head from the song title "Within You Without You."

The cover of 1968's The Magical Tour shows three Beatles sporting red roses on their lapels, while McCartney's is black; and of course, Lennon supposedly sings "I buried Paul" at the end of "Strawberry Fields Forever."

And the list goes on - seemingly random details that, when combined together, might result in something more meaningful, according to Glazier.

"It certainly wasn't serendipity. Even if somebody could explain away one or two of the clues, how can you explain 70 of them? There were no coincidences when it came to The Beatles - everything was a precise, conscious decision, from the music to the album art," said Glazier, who discusses the phenomenon with a coyness of someone who loves keeping the legend alive.

He pointed to other chronological occurrences which he says provide additional ammunition of an upheaval in the Beatles world, as caused by McCartney's death.

"During 1967, when Sgt. Pepper's came out, The Beatles stopped performing live because the new Paul wasn't up to playing in public. And by 1970, the band had conveniently broken up and no longer had to deal with the questions. And some would say that since The Beatles years, the quality of Paul's songwriting is not what it once was. But that's a judgment call," said Glazier.

But according to Israeli Beatles historian Yarden Uriel, Hebrew author of two books on the group, the "Paul is dead" theorists are simply forgetting the main argument against acceptance of an imposter McCartney - human nature.

"Just because they were The Beatles, it doesn't mean that they don't behave in the same way that real people do, and that they interact with people in the same way as we do," said Uriel.

"Let's assume for a minute that Paul really did die and was replaced by a look-alike. The Beatles were very strong people individually - John, George and even Ringo.

"Do you think they would let this new guy come in and dominate the band, as Paul did on Sgt. Pepper's and all the way to Abbey Road and Let it Be? It's human nature that he would be relegated to the back and Lennon would take over the band. It's just not plausible. But people want to believe it because they like conspiracies. It's a great sociological study."

For Glazier, though, it's been something more - a 40-year obsession. He won't profess whether he thinks McCartney is really dead. "I don't really know if Paul is dead or not. I'm too busy looking for clues."

But in addition to the popular conclusions that the clues were a hoax instigated by The Beatles either as a elaborate joke or to boost album sales, both of which have been denied by all four Beatles in the past, Glazier does offer some additional reasons as to why The Beatles may have initiated an intricate trail of "Paul is dead" clues.

"One of the theories is that the clues were introduced by The Beatles as a kind of tribute to their original bass player Stu Sutcliffe, who left them before they became popular," he said.

Another theory says that Lennon's love of wordplay and studio editing led to some clues in later albums, but that after cult leader Charles Manson attributed his killing spree in part to "hidden messages" in the song "Helter Skelter," the band members chose not to reveal the joke.

And then, going to the extreme, there are conspiracies that tie in everything from a Faustian deal with Satan to a Rosemary's Baby-Mia Farrow-Roman Polansky-Sharon Tate-Manson connection.

However, Glazier prefers to focus on the clues more than the reasons they might have been devised. And even more than the clues, he prefers to focus on The Beatles as a cultural phenomenon and revels in his Beatle fanhood.

Having visited Israel eight times, and being instrumental in the establishment of the John Lennon Peace Forest in the Galilee, Glazier is overjoyed that a Beatle is finally appearing in Israel. "Finally, the people of Israel will get to see the person who is allegedly Paul. And make sure you write 'he said that with a smile,'" said Glazier.

I think this is a wonderful thing for Israel, and for Paul. I've always found a sophisticated musical audience there and Paul, being the most successful musician in the world, should be playing there."

Glazier was one of the 250,000 fans who enjoyed McCartney's performance in July for Quebec's 400th anniversary and he said the Tel Aviv crowd would not be disappointed.

"It was an absolutely dynamic concert. I couldn't believe that somebody who's supposed to be 66 has such energy. And I also couldn't believe the quality of the sound, no matter where you stood, and the crystal clear big screens. I never saw so much detail given to those elements," said Glazier.

However, he can't help concluding by introducing another shadow of a doubt.

"Whoever this person is, he can certainly play well. But I still think there's something missing. Is that voice singing 'Yesterday' the same voice that sang it in 1965? You decide."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1222017374278&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[graflok]

These are examples of synicism, not sarcasm.

Sarcasm involves saying the opposite of what you mean.

I think you have the two words mixed up, hence your confusion.

Uh, "synicism" isn't a word -- not in my country, at least. Perhaps you meant cynicism.

As for your take on "sarcasm," here is the definition from dictionary.com:

sar·casm
–noun
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
2. a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a review full of sarcasms.

Quite applicable to the video in my opinion. :)

[graflok]

And, now back to the topic ... :)

What I wonder is: Does Faul know that he isn't Paul? (he may or may not, you know)

[armoured_amazon]

And, now back to the topic ... :)

What I wonder is: Does Faul know that he isn't Paul? (he may or may not, you know)

I would imagine that if there is truth to the Paul is Faul is Paul belief, that programming is not infallible and over a long-term period, a person would know. Maybe the person was in on the 'joke' from the very start.

[phildee3]

What I wonder is: Does Faul know that he isn't Paul? (he may or may not, you know)



You mean, "does Paul know that he's dead?"

Probably not.

[graflok]

You mean, "does Paul know that he's dead?"

Probably not.

Ah, more sarcasm. Cute. But, you forgot the:":rolleyes:" smiley.

[faulconandsnowjob]

What I wonder is: Does Faul know that he isn't Paul? (he may or may not, you know)

Maybe Bill has been playing Paul for so long, he's forgotten who he actually is. He seems quite pleased w/ himself. It's almost as though he thinks he actually wrote brilliant songs like "Yesterday." Of course, we know he was just "Another Day" (to loosely paraphrase John Lennon in "How Do You Sleep?")

[orbandsceptre27]

Good article from the Jerusalem Post Faulcon! No prizes for guessing which side of the fence Mr Glazier is on when it comes to the PID story. He wouldn`t risk mass ridicule by coming out and stating Billy is a fraud, but his 40 years of research must have given him some right gems regarding the Beatles - there is only so much one can say to the mainstream press and with Faul in Israel for the first time I`m sure there would be uproar if Glazier voiced his true opinions lol!

[graflok]

Maybe Bill has been playing Paul for so long, he's forgotten who he actually is. He seems quite pleased w/ himself. It's almost as though he thinks he actually wrote brilliant songs like "Yesterday." Of course, we know he was just "Another Day" (to loosely paraphrase John Lennon in "How Do You Sleep?")

There is one "post Paul" song I've always admired: Maybe I'm Amazed

Do you suppose Bill wrote that one?

[toty1994]

Good article from the Jerusalem Post Faulcon! No prizes for guessing which side of the fence Mr Glazier is on when it comes to the PID story. He wouldn`t risk mass ridicule by coming out and stating Billy is a fraud, but his 40 years of research must have given him some right gems regarding the Beatles - there is only so much one can say to the mainstream press and with Faul in Israel for the first time I`m sure there would be uproar if Glazier voiced his true opinions lol!

If Glazier does believe Paul is an imposter then he should indeed voice his true opinions. Yes, it would cause uproar but after '40 years of research' being all coy about it seems a bit pointless.

It would be fascinating if 'pid' entered the public consciousness in a big way, but to my mind, if the topic did reach a much wider audience it's wafer thin credibility would be mercilessly exposed very quickly. Letting it break free from the cosy confines of conspiracy forums would finally lay it to rest imo. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why it never does.

[phildee3]

Ah, more sarcasm. Cute. But, you forgot the:":rolleyes:" smiley.



That's because I wasn't being sarcastic.

Lennon started the whole "Paul is dead" thing when Paul sold out, his spirit left his body and "Faul" walked in.

All the early "clues" were designed by John, and Paul didn't even friggin notice (that's how "dead" he was!).

[orbandsceptre27]

There is one "post Paul" song I've always admired: Maybe I'm Amazed

Do you suppose Bill wrote that one?

Great tune Graflok, and for anyone with an ear for music this song is a fine example of Paul having been replaced by an imposter. Faul`s voice, as many have previously stated, is a higher pitch than Pauls!

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=cm2YyVZBL8U

[faulconandsnowjob]

There is one "post Paul" song I've always admired: Maybe I'm Amazed

Do you suppose Bill wrote that one?

That is a good tune. No, I don't personally think Paul wrote it (it's not his style). This song just goes to show that Bill is not without talent - he just isn't as talented as Paul, imo. He may have also had help from other musicians in writing songs.

[howie]

"It is me"

http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/3980/mccartney250908du4.jpg

[faulconandsnowjob]

So weird to say "it is me," especially considering he couldn't remember the PID rumor when he was in Moscow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUX9qmnlx6U

[rockit]

You know what guys, it's pointless threads like this that give anti-conspiracy goons all the ammo they need. It's paranoia and it's addictive. It's like some people here enjoy living in a fantasy world where they can make their own rules and bend reality to fit.

All this nonsense goes a long way to help discredit all the sterling work done to alert people of the real truths.

If you've got the time to debate whether an ex-Beatle is an impostor, then you need to get a hobby. And if he is, who gives a toss?

[faulconandsnowjob]

You know what guys, it's pointless threads like this that give anti-conspiracy goons all the ammo they need. It's paranoia and it's addictive. It's like some people here enjoy living in a fantasy world where they can make their own rules and bend reality to fit.

All this nonsense goes a long way to help discredit all the sterling work done to alert people of the real truths.

Oh, you mean like Reptilians? Yeah, that's the "truth." Whatever.

If you've got the time to debate whether an ex-Beatle is an impostor, then you need to get a hobby. And if he is, who gives a toss?

We are trying to shed some light on how TPTB operate. Yes, they will replace a rockstar, if need be. If it is not interesting to you some of the things that go on behind the scenes, then might I suggest you spend your time on other forums? Thank you for your cooperation.

[graflok]

If you've got the time to debate whether an ex-Beatle is an impostor, then you need to get a hobby.

Well, you've now officially joined the debate. Any luck finding a hobby yet?

[Ian2day]

I would not be surprised if the real anyone was dead after what I have learnt of the whole fake ass industry.

[phildee3]

Well, you've now officially joined the debate. Any luck finding a hobby yet?



apparantly not, if (s)he's got time to post on pointless threads like this. :rolleyes:

[phildee3]

So weird to say "it is me," especially considering he couldn't remember the PID rumor when he was in Moscow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUX9qmnlx6U



Of course he remembered it!
Do you not recognise the obvious sarcasm when he said that he didn't?

[faulconandsnowjob]

Of course he remembered it!
Do you not recognise the obvious sarcasm when he said that he didn't?

No, I know. I was being sarcastic :-) Faul isn't even trying anymore, & still people can't see he's not Paul. Good grief :-P

[truthseeker49]

Remember this, Faulcon ? ;)

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

Paul's face & head are noticeably smaller than Sir Paul's. I have never heard of this happening to the average person after the age of 24. Paul is built like his dad, so that rules out him having some kind of growth disorder.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/WlarusGirl/pjmAA.jpg Paul, Jim & Mike McCartney

http://only1rad.proboards62.com/index.cgi?board=faker&action=display&thread=154

[faulconandsnowjob]

Yes, when I 1st saw that photo of Paul w/ gross old Faul, it took me a minute to figure out who the guy on the right was. Paul must have been in some sort of nuclear accident to come out looking like that. Yikes! :-P Both his head shape & body build changed. I have never heard of that happening as a result of age before. Maybe the medical establishment would be interested in this seemingly new phenomenon? :-P LMAO!

[armoured_amazon]

Maybe there are two. The Paul I 'know' looks more like an older version of the original Paul than any of those Faul pictures.

[faulconandsnowjob]

Maybe there are two.

I personally think there were probably multiple Fauls. I think a thread just comparing the different Fauls would be interesting :D

[armoured_amazon]

I personally think there were probably multiple Fauls. I think a thread just comparing the different Fauls would be interesting :D

Oh gosh, that would scramble my head further. LOL!

[howie]

Can't Buy Me Love

1965

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYEP3i-mwrY


1990

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7CmPRIZOos


http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/9159/fauldevilhornscl4.jpg

note the sneaky devil horn hand gesture at the start

[astrochicken]

Saw sting doing the same gesture on their reunion tour in hamburg.

Hardly suprising considering the drummers dad was the CIA chief of the middle east, the lyrics are big-brother like, "every step you take, i'll be watching you"
and even the fucking name "The police"

oh yeah.. then there's the album covers
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ruFipSqgPwLY5M:http://www.audionut.co.za/lp_images/lp605_Police-zenyata%2520mondatta.jpg

As regards FAUL/PAUL.. it allways nagged me how the jovial, talented paul ended up a dour-faced old git singing the frog song or hope of deliverance..

I'm sold!!

[faulconandsnowjob]

What is that hand-gesture, exactly? Is it to Lucifer? Is it satanic? Is it just some wacky Elite signal? I've seen politicians make it, too (George W. Bush, for ex)...

What you say about the Police is interesting. Called to mind that Joe Strummer's father was a diplomat...

Paul was cool & funny as opposed to his kind of dorky Doppelgaenger :-P I should post that dreadful video of Faul cooking, if I can find it on YT...

Here is a thread dedicated to goofy Faul:
http://invanddis.proboards29.com/index.cgi?board=TAR&action=display&thread=5077

[shansuke]

so hows you all getting on with this paul/faul thing,ive not been online for a few days.
btw im going to be talking to a guy tomorow who may be able to do the voice test thingy for us.
ill let you know if hes gonna do it.

[supertzar]

How do you expect to compare the voices? I don't know any commonly available software that can confirm or deny that two different audio recordings are of the same person. :confused: Maybe if you had some high-tech government forensics software or something...The closest I think you can get is to compare spectral analyses, but even then you are going to see differences caused by the recording equipment, studio environment, tape machines, production, the effect of time on the human voice, etc.

[shansuke]

How do you expect to compare the voices? I don't know any commonly available software that can confirm or deny that two different audio recordings are of the same person. :confused: Maybe if you had some high-tech government forensics software or something...The closest I think you can get is to compare spectral analyses, but even then you are going to see differences caused by the recording equipment, studio environment, tape machines, production, the effect of time on the human voice, etc.

is that a fact,i read someone on here about a week ago saying it could be done easily,thats why i was gonna ask one of my friends,one owns a pretty well established recording studio,the other is just a regular joe who has just about as much sound recording equipment as you would need to start your own studio.
so your saying it cant be done with this sort of equipment,well thanks for telling me as i would of already made a fool of myself by asking,lol.

[supertzar]

If you do ask your friends I would be interested to know how they approach the problem.

[faulconandsnowjob]

btw im going to be talking to a guy tomorow who may be able to do the voice test thingy for us. ill let you know if hes gonna do it.

Excellent! Please do. My ex-boyfriend (sound engineer) said he could do it in ProTools. Sonagrams were done back in 1969, so it must be possible nowadays...

According to this, Paul had more vibrato:
http://digilander.libero.it/p_truth/audio.html

It compares voice spectrums of
"Your Mother Should Know" (James Paul McCartney) &
"Hello, Goodbye" (Faul)

http://digilander.libero.it/p_truth/the_truth/paul_faul_vocal_comparison.gif
On the left - James Paul McCartney Voice spectrum - On the right - Faul voice spectrum

Anyway, I don't claim to be a musician, but I have a decent ear (played bass in a coverband). I can hear a difference in the voice on the Anthology "I Will," which has lots of vibrato, and the White Album "I Will," which sounds thinner to me.

Anyway, I feel kind of bad for saying:

Paul was cool & funny as opposed to his kind of dorky Doppelgaenger

Faul has many fine qualities. I think he is a good guy who is caught in a weird situation. It must be tough for him (but it won't stop me from exposing the Truth :-P)

[humito]

hi everyone........first post
Was wondering if anyone had considered the possibility that pauls large l.s.d. intake around the time of his 'death/replacement' might have something to do with the change in his appearance e.t.c ? I know my appearance changed considerably when I used to take acid regularly.Also look at the extreme case of syd barret,surly there is a better arguement for his 'replacement' around the same time and his complete change of appearance in the years before his death?.....Also I think the whole paul is dead thing was created by the beatles themselves and the myth cleverly subliminally perpetuated in some lyrics and album covers to further album sales and to take the mickey out of all the acid freaks who tried to find profound meaning in obscure lyrics e.t.c
L.s.d also seems to make some individuals wildly creative for a short time and perhaps this would also explain why pauls work has not been so exciting since the 60's.
Also it seems paul put the record straight i think,(with tounge in cheek)when he released his 'PAUL IS LIVE!' live album which pictured him suited and booted and being dragged over the abbey road crossroads in mid air by a sheepdog (Martha from the white album fame I presume)
As for his appearance these days,the guy is in his 60,s! and has probably had minor cosmetic surgery for the same reasons that Elton wears a wig.

[faulconandsnowjob]

Welcome, humito, & thanks for joining the discussion.

That's an interesting point you raise about LSD. What kind of changes occurred in your appearance as a result of LSD?

It has never been established that Paul took LSD. In fact, my personal theory is that he refused any part of the LSD agenda, & that's what got him into trouble. Anyway, even if we were to grant that Paul dropped a lot of acid, it would not account for changes in his eye color, distance between his eyes, facial structure, shape of his feet, hair on his hands, amount of vibrato in his voice, body build or height, etc. I suppose it could be argued LSD could affect his song-writing ability & the quality of his skin, though...

[humito]

hi Faulconandsnowjob...thanks for the welcome!
My own experience with l.s.d ........I used quite heavily for about a year and noticed quite a change in my facial appearance.Also I used other drugs also combined with a lot of socialising/parties/singing in a band.I noticed a change in iris colour (darker) probably due to enlarged pupils and also changes in the muscles in my face probably due to constant talking/laughing/gurning and grinding of teeth.Also my eyes appeared to become sunken probably due to lack of sleep and my face became a lot thinner changing the shape of my mouth.Also during some trips my voice seemed to deepen or get higher and sometimes sound like someone else,I remember friends remarking on this at the time.Also once after taking a massive amount of liberty caps whilst out wild camping I seemingly shapeshifted into some kind of elven creature ( or was temporaraly possesed by elven intelligence),I could feel my face changing with considerable force and my bottom jaw was cracking as it was forced backwards and my chin lengthened........I remember seeking out my reflection and being stunned at the elfin resemblance.....I even had pointy ears.Granted this was only a short lived change that subsided as the mushrooms effects wore off.
The point i am making is that these substances are capable of causing physical as well as perceptual change in the human body.
Also I think Paul did admit his drug experimentation to the press.
I think the so called evidence as to permanent changes in his face,height e.t.c cannot really be taken seriously as all the images I have seen show photos from different times/angles and distance or have been doctored to perpetuate the myth,also add to the equation the fact that he was probably out of his face in some images (and possibly in on the conspiracy of his death e.t.c and used lookalikes to help the cause,much like the many Bin Ladens that were about at one time making videos for the press)
I compare the photos of me in my early twenties/me during my druggy years/me fat and with receeding hairline now! and am amazed at how different I look ( even on pictures from the same year). You could do the same with anybody and become convinced that imposters were involved.
Like I mentioned in my previous post Paul himself took the pee out of the whole thing with the 'PAUL IS LIVE!!' album cover.......even changing the V.W Beetle number plate.
It is one of the more fun conspiracy theroies though as there are so many 'clues' that appear to add up........the fact that they do just makes the beatles music more of a magical mystery tour!
(please ecscuse any terrible smelling pistakes!)

[faulconandsnowjob]

My own experience with l.s.d ........I used quite heavily for about a year and noticed quite a change in my facial appearance.Also I used other drugs also combined with a lot of socialising/parties/singing in a band.I noticed a change in iris colour (darker) probably due to enlarged pupils and also changes in the muscles in my face probably due to constant talking/laughing/gurning and grinding of teeth.Also my eyes appeared to become sunken probably due to lack of sleep and my face became a lot thinner changing the shape of my mouth.Also during some trips my voice seemed to deepen or get higher and sometimes sound like someone else,I remember friends remarking on this at the time.Also once after taking a massive amount of liberty caps whilst out wild camping I seemingly shapeshifted into some kind of elven creature ( or was temporaraly possesed by elven intelligence),I could feel my face changing with considerable force and my bottom jaw was cracking as it was forced backwards and my chin lengthened........I remember seeking out my reflection and being stunned at the elfin resemblance.....I even had pointy ears.Granted this was only a short lived change that subsided as the mushrooms effects wore off.

Well, whatever you experienced was not caused solely by LSD according to the facts you've given. If your face actually changed shape (assuming this is even possible), it was caused, by your own admission, by shrooms, & not by LSD.

Also I think Paul did admit his drug experimentation to the press.
No. The famous "LSD interview" was Faul, not Paul. If you can find evidence of Paul admitting he took acid prior to Sept 1966, then please present it.

I think the so called evidence as to permanent changes in his face,height e.t.c cannot really be taken seriously
Well, some of us might have issues w/ your claim that your face changed shape. I'm just saying...

as all the images I have seen show photos from different times/angles and distance
Well, it is funny that Paul seems to be the only one who looks so different from different angles... Actually, Paul looks like Paul & Faul looks like Faul from different angles. It is Paul & Faul who don't really look that much alike. Not really such a good double at all, is he...?

or have been doctored to perpetuate the myth,
Yes, this is true. Photos have indeed been doctored to perpetuate the myth that Paul & Faul are the same person.

also add to the equation the fact that he was probably out of his face in some images
What does that mean?

I compare the photos of me in my early twenties/me during my druggy years/me fat and with receeding hairline now! and am amazed at how different
Paul looks completely different from one year to the next - & not just on photographs. The 1966 Paul (Paperback Writer/Rain videos) really looks nothing like the 1967 "Paul" (Strawberry Fields video).

Like I mentioned in my previous post Paul himself took the pee out of the whole thing with the 'PAUL IS LIVE!!' album cover.......even changing the V.W Beetle number plate.
Yeah, that absolutely proves nothing. Faul is having a big laugh that people are so dumb to not notice he is an imposter.

It is one of the more fun conspiracy theroies
I don't think it's "fun" when someone is (most likely) killed & replaced by TPTB, & no one notices. I think it's horrible. That's one reason I'm on here trying to spread the Truth.

[the seeker]

Faulcon, if the supposition is that drugs altered Paul, then to say "Faul" admitted to drugs but Paul did not is not a reasonable reply. If the drugs turned Paul into Faul, then Faul is post-drug Paul.

BTW, drug use clearly altered John's appearance. Different phases of his time as a Beatle brought about dramatic differences in his looks. He talked about being an acid head, and how it nearly destroyed his ego, and how it took him some time to put himself back together.

[faulconandsnowjob]

Yes, I understand, but the problem is that the person admitting to taking LSD in the below interview was not Paul, but someone pretending to be him. To support the theory that LSD so radically altered Paul's appearance from 1966-67, one would have to, at the very least, establish that:

1) Paul took LSD prior to 1967, and
2) LSD has the power to change bone structure, eye color, height, etc.

I think the theory that Paul was replaced is easier to support, but have at it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC4lumYPQD8

For reference, here is a video of Paul:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNYVxqJ83W8

[humito]

Hi again,
Well these two videos proove nothing either,the l.s.d interview was filmed ,what,3 years after his solo david frost interview? .All I see is the same person who has put on a bit of weight,has changed his hair style and has become slightly cockier.Also the only difference I see in paul when comparing the rain and strawberry fields footage is the fact that he looks slightly gaunt and stoned on something (L.s.d or cannabis or mushrooms...(off his face!) )and is sporting the silly s.g.t pepper moustache which accentuates his druggy gauntness.
I can see how you might have a problem with my statement that my face altered with high dose pscilocybin but I would point you towards Terrence Mckenna who experienced his face altering with high doses ,only he claimed it distorted his features and caused his tounge to grow and loll down in the style of the Hindu wrathfull deities.But fair point.
I didnt mean to imply that l.s.d ,speed e.t.c can alter bone structure but it can alter the shape of you face with muscle contraction and with repeated use cause a permanant change in appearance.
I can entertain the possibility that stooges/lookalikes were sometimes used for whatever reason,and the fact that paul has had cosmetic surgery probably at different times in his career.
I dont believe that the beatles would have replaced him if he died.
Or the theory that he became tired of fame ,wanted out and was switched but continued to contribute to the band and to 'Fauls' solo career.
Or why the illuminati would think that killing and replacing him particularly would further their agenda when it was John who was political and George who was spiritual.I dont think they would have been too worried about Ringo either!! Although it could be argued that John was later killed by them and that an attempt was made on Georges life.
What has Paul/Faul done since his alleged replacement to further the illuminati's agenda........??
I believe from experience that drugs can alter your appearance over time, and that perhaps pauls drug use and appearance stood out more within the beatles because he was so goodlooking compared to john.
Anway whatever the truth we will never know untill someone can test DNA from pauls brother and the so called Faul......untill then we can all talk around in circles.

[faulconandsnowjob]

What you believe has no affect on the Truth. I will post videos that are only one year (1966-67) apart for your reference.

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC4lumYPQD8

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ywg-PdeGVL0

[humito]

Sorry mate not having it,What you believe has no effect on the truth either! I watched the footage and gave you my opinion in my last post.....In fact all the beatles look totally different in the two clips!
Like I said there is not going to be any proof untill someone can get DNA from pauls brother and compare it with the so called Faul.
My post was about drugs changing appearance and personality.....what is your opinion on that ? I am not saying that his (or the other beatles) appearance does not change at all im just saying that there are probably other reasons for it other than the fact that paul died and was replaced.
Like I said before i am sure the Beatles all used doubles at one time or annother and it is quite possible that they stuck them in interviews and videos for a laugh,but it is not proof that Mc cartney died at all.
Also people seem to want to avoid giving any answers as to why he was replaced and what his supposed imposter has achieved for the illuminati agenda?

[faulconandsnowjob]

What you believe has no effect on the truth either!
There has been a false reality created that Paul now is the same as he ever was. This has been shown to not be the Truth. I also believed in this fake construct. It was not until I really *looked* that I saw the falsity of my belief that Paul now was Paul then. My belief that they were the same did not make it so. I am trying to show people that this belief that Paul & Faul are the same is not accurate. I understand it is difficult to overcome a belief system, & some people are unwilling to do that, no matter what evidence is presented. However, some will see the Truth, & that is enough for me.

Like I said there is not going to be any proof untill someone can get DNA from pauls brother and compare it with the so called Faul.
As I have indicated before, DNA is not necessary. Photos & voiceprints are sufficient to establish identity b/c they capture "immutable characteristics." If necessary, I will re-post the law on this (US law).

My post was about drugs changing appearance and personality.....what is your opinion on that ? I am not saying that his (or the other beatles) appearance does not change at all im just saying that there are probably other reasons for it other than the fact that paul died and was replaced.
I have no doubt that drugs can influence the skin condition, weight, etc. However, I rather doubt drugs can change the distance between one's eyes, the shape of the chin or nose, the angle of the ears, or the height, or the myriad of other differences that can be seen between Paul & Faul.

Like I said before i am sure the Beatles all used doubles at one time or annother and it is quite possible that they stuck them in interviews and videos for a laugh,but it is not proof that Mc cartney died at all.
Yes, I'm certain they had doubles, as we have established in the case of Paul McCartney. I have not attempted to prove he died. I have only offered my personal opinion based on the facts & evidence I have seen, & drawn my own conclusions.

Also people seem to want to avoid giving any answers as to why he was replaced and what his supposed imposter has achieved for the illuminati agenda?
This is absolutely not true. I have stated multiple times that I believe Paul was replaced b/c he would not go along w/ TPTB drug agenda, or some other social or political agenda. The imposter has been knighted for "service." You can draw your own conclusions as to what that means.

This is supposed to be Paul at 2:03. Yeah... not buying it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11bAPZL_bys

[faulconandsnowjob]

* This was in response to a post by humito, who apparently decided to delete it. However, I will leave my reply.

This footage offers no proof of anything

I beg to differ. It offers proof that they are not the same person.

! whatever you believe has no effect on truth either.
Did you not read my post above? I've already addressed that issue. Belief does not affect Truth - of course not. That is why I am posting photos & videos, etc, to help people see the Truth. If they could remove the wool, or magic dust, or whatever is in their eyes, they will be able to see the Truth.

Just because someone looks a bit different (they all look really different in fact!) does not mean they were killed and replaced.
It doesn't mean they were killed, a point I have already addressed as well, but it does mean that they were replaced when the differences are changes in "immutable characteristics," which I have already extensively covered.

I am willing to accept that they all used doubles/disguises for the same reasons the famous do today and i am even willing to accept that they might have been used in some interviews and footage for a laugh .
So, you can accept that they used doubles (whatever their reason). Great, b/c obviously, there was a double for Paul. A permanent double.

I am not saying his appearance does not change
Good, b/c it is clear to see.

the appearance of them all changes around this time,
Superficial changes such as hair & mustaches, of course. However, Paul seems to be the only one to have undergone structural changes to his face & body. No amount of drugs could possibly do that.

my arguement is that it was probably their drug use
If that is your argument, then please provide something in support. I have never heard of drugs having that ability before.

do you have an opinion on that or can you offer an explanation as to why the illuminati or whatever would want to murder and replace just paul and what has the so called imposter has done since the beatles to further their agenda?
I have already discussed the Tavistock Institute (TI) & the drug agenda. Here is some background information on TI. You can draw your own conclusions about what happened to Paul. That is beyond the scope of the present discussion. I am focused more on showing that Paul was replaced.

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

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_tavistock03.htm

Please dont just post up footage everyone has seen a million times and proves nothing.
I shall post anything I think is relevant to the discussion. I am sorry that you cannot see the difference. However, there are others who can. You have the choice to watch the footage or not, but you will not dictate to me what I post.

This thread is about drug use,I can see the differences in appearance I am not daft!! lol
This thread is not about drug use. You have tried to make it about drug use, but you have failed.

[humito]

Ok mate ,
good luck in your quest !!

[faulconandsnowjob]

good luck in your quest !!
Thank you. Things seem to be going rather well, actually. The administrator of the PID Miss Him forum (http://only1rad.proboards62.com/index.cgi) said there are lots of new people on the site, perhaps as a result of the D. Icke PID threads.

[humito]

whats with the lilly lil conection to the paul conspiracy thing? anyone

[2013]

still the ears and lobes that make me abit suss .attached unattached ,proves 2 different people at least. this you tube vide of hey jude shows the scarred lip. supposedly recieved in 1966?after a crash .Dont know what year this vid is .Also check out the young time travelling noel gallagher from oasis at 5.57 minutes in !:D
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=YXG83p2nkHw

[faulconandsnowjob]

whats with the lilly lil conection to the paul conspiracy thing? anyone
Here's a LILY thread at NIR.
http://invanddis.proboards29.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=4743

The "Hey Jude" video (1968) is also great for showing the cheek injections, difft profile, & the eye color change.

http://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/images/faul_true_profile.jpg

http://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/images/james_paul_mccartney_right_profile.jpghttp://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/uk_images/paulfauleyepage.jpg

http://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/uk_images/fauljudeeyes.jpg

Paul's brown eyes:
http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j178/lilis678/DB1005_BEATLES_6.jpg

"So you've known a man who calls himself Paul McCartney both before and after November 1966?"
Peter Asher: "Yes I've known both of them".

RA 71, 2:55

[onourwayto2012]

I showed my wife one of the websites with lots of comparisons and she was somewhat shocked! She said it was pretty clear they were different people....so I guess for the time being it's just a matter of what someone can or cannot see.... at least when just viewing pictures.

[faulconandsnowjob]

That's awesome! My mother spotted it in 2 seconds that they were different. She's an artist, & used to looking critically at things. I've heard that people from other countries who aren't that familiar w/ the Beatles can spot that the difference very quickly, too. So, I think there is an element of belief clouding people's vision, somehow preventing them from seeing it. It's quite fascinating, really.

[truthseeker49]

"So you've known a man who calls himself Paul McCartney both before and after November 1966?"
Peter Asher: "Yes I've known both of them".

Faulcon, where did you get that quote ! :eek:

[faulconandsnowjob]

CommenterGV posted the Peter Asher quote on Iamaphoney's channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/iamaphoney

[thegoodnessisgood]

Hagbard,yeah I think Elvis is dead,if anything his ego and vanity wouldn't have let him be 'dead' if he was alive.

To elaborate a little on one of the reasons I think that the Og.Paul is still alive,I think that there was such hatred by Yoko vs. Paul that Yoko would have spilled the beans,Esp after John was killed :mad::mad::mad::mad: (grrrrr this still pisses me off to no extent)

Also a little off topic on that note I am also convinced that Chapman was an MKUltra project to kill Lennon.

No doubt!

[thegoodnessisgood]

I've always been an advocate that LSD was introduced and propagated to splinter, thwart and otherwise pervert the purity of the flower power movement and turn it into sex drugs and rock and roll. Perhaps this was also to "hijack" the mushrooms use as they appear to have a far more positive and less negative effect generally and on the surface, anything natural is preferably to something synthetically created. Wasn't LSD created out of MKULTRA? Can't be good then! Although many naturally occurring things are dangerous.