Paul McCartney is dead.

[truthseeker49]

Thank you Accuracy, you're a very sweet man. Thank you also, onourwayto2012. Yep, that's a knock off of a hofner. :D

[accuracy]

Happy 66th to George Harrison who did nothing but preach for love and peace in this insane world.


http://www.bartcop.com/george-harrison-66.jpg

[faulconandsnowjob]

Happy birthday, George! :)

http://www.beatlefans.com/Butcher/011c.jpg

[truthseeker49]

I am so sorry that I missed your birthday...
Happy birthday, George. We all love you !

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y60/Trueclues/ghcoat.jpg[IMG]

[accuracy]

I am so sorry that I missed your birthday...
Happy birthday, George. We all love you !

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y60/Trueclues/ghcoat.jpg[IMG]


It's never too late to celebrate. :)

[socrates]

109 of his posts (every one of them up to the present) are on this thread. He is a troll just like you.

Like I said:

Troll: Anybody who disagrees with the Paul is dead believers and argues that Paul is alive. :rolleyes:

If that is not the reason you called him a troll - for posting messages disagreeing with your views - then kindly explain why you called him a troll.

He spreads disinformation

Merely your opinion. As such, it clearly doesn't qualify him as a "troll".

and excludes all evidence which may suggest Paul McCartney was replaced.

It is his right to discount any evidence he sees fit if that is his opinion. You label him a troll merely because he has the 'nerve', the 'audacity' to dismiss your evidence and have a different point of view, a different opinion? Excuse me! He has as much right to dismiss your evidence as you have of presenting it.

What evidence have you accepted which may suggest Paul McCartney was NOT replaced? Non that I have read. So, by your own warped sense of what a 'troll' is, you must be one too.

Like yourself his views are completely unbalanced.

Merely your misguided opinion.

Regarding the quotes you have taken from me, you omitted to mention my apology to Supertzar.

Why should I include it? You claimed that...

People with different opinions are very welcome here - all views and opinions respected.

I quoted your abusive and insulting remarks to prove that you were lying. The fact that you had to apologise to Supertzar only highlights the fact that you are a rude and insulting person who cannot debate in a respectful manner but has to resort to abuse and name-calling because you are not mature enough to control yourself. Your frustrations get to you and their only outlet comes in your vitriolic character attacks on people who disagree with you and who put forward contary evidence to support their view. Hence your imature and ridiculous jibe that Fireman is a "troll".

He had written some very poor comments on this thread (to say the least) imo.

He would probably say the same about your comments. And I would agree with him. And Fireman doesn't abuse people like you do. He sticks to the relevant points under discussion and doesn't sink to your depths of abusive tantrums just because someone disagrees with him. You could learn quite a bit from Fireman in how to behave on a forum. He demonstrates far more respect for other people's opinions than you ever do.

Regarding calling you "a lying and deceitful person" - I stand by every word, you are one of the darkest people I have come across on this forum. You use a variety of id`s and have written some of the most vile, vindictive and abusive comments on this thead.

Telling lies and hypocrisy obviously comforts you. Lets remind ourselves of some of your "vile, vindictive and abusive comments", shall we?

You`re dealing with a ridiculous person Truthseeker.

I am wondering what a nutter like you gets from all of this? You`ve been here quite a while now and you`re still bawling.

He`s been posting utter crap on this thread from the very first page lol.

You on the other hand are a lying, deceitful individual

you are one of the darkest people I have come across on this forum.

You cannot just debate about the relevant topics. Sooner or later you always bring it round to a personal attack.

I`m not in the least frustrated

Of course you are. It's so obvious. You're abusive, insulting behaviour betrays it. You cannot stick to just debating the relevant points because you feel threatened by those who put forward intelligent and well constructed views that oppose your own. So, because you feel you are not winning the argument by the force of your evidence, you lash out with insults and imature outbursts. And this quote illustrates my point perfectly...

I am wondering what a nutter like you gets from all of this? You`ve been here quite a while now and you`re still bawling.

Abusive Ad Hominem occurs when an attack on the character or other irrelevant personal qualities of the opposition is offered as evidence against their position. Such attacks are often effective distractions ("red herrings"), because the opponent feels it necessary to defend themselves, thus being distracted from the topic of the debate.

Why stick to debating the evidence when you can release your frustrations by indulging in totally irrelevant insults and character attacks in the misguided belief that such abuse strengthens your argument?

Well said from a poster who goes under at least four different id`s

What can be asserted without evidence - can also be dismissed without evidence.

I welcome any and everyone who`s interested in this topic.

Let's correct that to - I welcome any and everyone who`s interested in this topic as long as they agree with me that Paul is dead and don't post any evidence supporting the view that Paul is alive. Otherwise they are a troll and I am entitled to insult them and engage in immature name-calling.

That's better. :)

[socrates]

See? You can't tell this photo has been doctored, which is blatantly obvious.

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

If you can't tell that photo has been doctored, then I totally get why you can't tell the difference btw Paul & Faul - no eye for detail.

What evidence have you that it has been deliberately "doctored"? Do you know what "doctored" means? - To falsify or change in such a way as to make favorable to oneself.

So, what evidence have you that someone has deliberately falsified the photo - rather than it being just a very poor photo? Like I said, you haven't supplied any evidence to support your "doctored" claim. Yes, the photo doesn't look very good and his eyebrows look too thick. But there could be various reasons for this, such as someone has tried to make the photo look a bit better for the web and made a bad job of it.

Your "doctored" claim has no validation. What can be asserted without evidence - can also be dismissed without evidence.

Ok, if you're so smart about the law, why don't you tell me the following:

1) What's the cause or causes of action?
2) What are the damages?
3) Where would jurisdiction lie?
4) Where is the proper venue?
5) Who are the indispensable parties?
6) Would joinder be required?

After you get back to me on that, then maybe I'll look into it. :D

Since you claim to have a law degree then surely you would know that false impersonation in order to deceive others and gain some advantage is a crime? :confused: You would also surely know that false impersonation is defined by federal statutes and by state statutes. For example, under New York law, criminal impersonation is committed when an individual "impersonates another and does an act in such assumed character with intent to obtain a benefit or to injure or defraud another".

But since Paul is a UK citizen, let's stick to UK law. Have you 2 degrees in UK law? :)

Under the Fraud Act 2006, a person is guilty of fraud if he is in breach of any of the sections listed in subsection 2 (which provide for different ways of committing the offence).

Subsection 2:

(a) section 2 (fraud by false representation),

(b) section 3 (fraud by failing to disclose information), and

(c) section 4 (fraud by abuse of position).

We can clearly see that Faul would be guilty of fraud by false representation - dishonestly impersonating Paul McCartney for financial gain.

Fraud by false representation:

(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and

(b) intends, by making the representation—

(i) to make a gain for himself or another.

A representation is false if—

(a) it is untrue or misleading, and

(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

Faul could also be sued for false advertising or deceptive advertising. Faul would also be guilty of identity theft, which is a crime used to refer to fraud that involves someone pretending to be someone else in order to steal money or get other benefits. Actually, the term is a misnomer, since it is not possible to steal an identity, only to use it. In many countries specific laws make it a crime to use another person's identity for personal gain.

Fraud, in addition to being a criminal act, is also a type of civil law violation known as a tort. A tort is a civil wrong for which the law provides a remedy. A civil fraud typically involves the act of intentionally making a false representation of a material fact, with the intent to deceive, which is reasonably relied upon by another person to that person's detriment.

So, any person who has bought a record by Paul McCartney and subsequently believes that they have been a victim of fraud ie. the record wasn't of Paul McCartney, can bring a private prosecution under the Prosecution of Offences Act. All you have to do is submit your evidence to The Crown Prosecution Service. They would take over the case and prosecute if the case passes the two tests in the Code for Crown Prosecutors, ie. there is sufficient evidence and a prosecution is in the public interest.

So, you have no excuses faulconandsnowjob. If you Paul is dead belivers really had the courage of your convictions and wanted to prove to everybody that Paul McCartney has been replaced and an imposter has taken his place, then you'd take your evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service with the intention of applying for a private prosecution. But you won't do this because you know your evidence is so weak and insubstantial that it would be laughed at and dismissed as insufficient.

That's why you are all content to just waste your lives posting endless photos in various forums on the net and obsessing constantly about Faul. It's just a game to you all, nothing more. Something to fill up your time.

[fireman]

thanks for that socrates!

I am not a native english speaker, so i am very happy about your solid reply!

:)

[socrates]

thanks for that socrates!

I am not a native english speaker, so i am very happy about your solid reply!

:)

No problem, Fireman. :)

[accuracy]

thanks for that socrates!

I am not a native english speaker, so i am very happy about your solid reply!

:)


lol

[dark66horse]

[QUOTE=socrates;833598]
That's why you are all content to just waste your lives posting endless photos in various forums on the net and obsessing constantly about Faul. It's just a game to you all, nothing more.

Hello, Socrates, have a look at the recently discovered philosopher's stone.
http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/7981/img0007zq9.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTUf0EkUhZM&feature=channel_page
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBAWPEBpnNg

[fireman]

i have discussed that picture, and i think that the guy on the left isn't Paul.

You can barely see his face...

I dont understand how you can take that as evidence that Paul was replaced.

This is what i call evidence that Paul never died:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNjpxr2_sGg

[orbandsceptre27]

thanks for that socrates!

.... i am very happy about your solid reply!


It`s quite clearly a desperate response - the poster replied on a completely different thread.


Here`s my original post from the "Is Paul really dead" thread, which Socrates replied to here -

Socrates - Yes so. You called Fireman a troll. Fact.

109 of his posts (every one of them up to the present) are on this thread. He is a troll just like you.

He disagrees with your view that Paul is dead. Fact.

How perceptive of you.

If that is not the reason you called him a troll - for posting messages disagreeing with your views - then kindly explain why you called him a troll.

He spreads disinformation and excludes all evidence which may suggest Paul McCartney was replaced. Like yourself his views are completely unbalanced.

Regarding the quotes you have taken from me, you omitted to mention my apology to Supertzar. He had written some very poor comments on this thread (to say the least) imo.

Regarding calling you "a lying and deceitful person" - I stand by every word, you are one of the darkest people I have come across on this forum. You use a variety of id`s and have written some of the most vile, vindictive and abusive comments on this thead.

Who are you trying to kid faulconsnowjob - erm, I mean orbandsceptre?

Sarcasm - well at least you`re showing some sense of humour again!

You are a rude, disrespectful fantasist, who resorts to abusing people who disagree with your point of view because you cannot adequately engage them in debate of the relevant points. This is partly because your evidence is so poor. Your frustration causes you to lash out with abuse.

I`m not in the least frustrated - I am wondering what a nutter like you gets from all of this? You`ve been here quite a while now and you`re still bawling.

Calling people names just because they have a different opinion to yours is just pathetic. You`re just showing how insecure you are.

Well said from a poster who goes under at least four different id`s and has yet to add any relevant weight to the discussion of McCartneys replacement. You`re just a tad insecure yourself imo.

If you don`t like people coming on this board to put over a view contrary to yours then bugger off to your Paul is dead forums and leave the adults here to debate and discuss our views.

Getting a little hostile I see.

I welcome any and everyone who`s interested in this topic. It`s a very interesting area, I`m sure you`ll agree Socrates, since you`ve taken such an immediate and keen interest in it.

[socrates]

It`s quite clearly a desperate response

In your biased opinion.

the poster replied on a completely different thread.

Different thread, exactly the same subject. :)

Here`s my original post from the "Is Paul really dead" thread, which Socrates replied to here -

109 of his posts (every one of them up to the present) are on this thread. He is a troll just like you.



How perceptive of you.



He spreads disinformation and excludes all evidence which may suggest Paul McCartney was replaced. Like yourself his views are completely unbalanced.

Regarding the quotes you have taken from me, you omitted to mention my apology to Supertzar. He had written some very poor comments on this thread (to say the least) imo.

Regarding calling you "a lying and deceitful person" - I stand by every word, you are one of the darkest people I have come across on this forum. You use a variety of id`s and have written some of the most vile, vindictive and abusive comments on this thead.



Sarcasm - well at least you`re showing some sense of humour again!



I`m not in the least frustrated - I am wondering what a nutter like you gets from all of this? You`ve been here quite a while now and you`re still bawling.



Well said from a poster who goes under at least four different id`s and has yet to add any relevant weight to the discussion of McCartneys replacement. You`re just a tad insecure yourself imo.



Getting a little hostile I see.

I welcome any and everyone who`s interested in this topic. It`s a very interesting area, I`m sure you`ll agree Socrates, since you`ve taken such an immediate and keen interest in it.

And here's my reply again:

109 of his posts (every one of them up to the present) are on this thread. He is a troll just like you.

Like I said:

Troll: Anybody who disagrees with the Paul is dead believers and argues that Paul is alive. :rolleyes:

If that is not the reason you called him a troll - for posting messages disagreeing with your views - then kindly explain why you called him a troll.

He spreads disinformation

Merely your opinion. As such, it clearly doesn't qualify him as a "troll".

and excludes all evidence which may suggest Paul McCartney was replaced.

It is his right to discount any evidence he sees fit if that is his opinion. You label him a troll merely because he has the 'nerve', the 'audacity' to dismiss your evidence and have a different point of view, a different opinion? Excuse me! He has as much right to dismiss your evidence as you have of presenting it.

What evidence have you accepted which may suggest Paul McCartney was NOT replaced? Non that I have read. So, by your own warped sense of what a 'troll' is, you must be one too.

Like yourself his views are completely unbalanced.

Merely your misguided opinion.

Regarding the quotes you have taken from me, you omitted to mention my apology to Supertzar.

Why should I include it? You claimed that...

People with different opinions are very welcome here - all views and opinions respected.

I quoted your abusive and insulting remarks to prove that you were lying. The fact that you had to apologise to Supertzar only highlights the fact that you are a rude and insulting person who cannot debate in a respectful manner but has to resort to abuse and name-calling because you are not mature enough to control yourself. Your frustrations get to you and their only outlet comes in your vitriolic character attacks on people who disagree with you and who put forward contary evidence to support their view. Hence your imature and ridiculous jibe that Fireman is a "troll".

He had written some very poor comments on this thread (to say the least) imo.

He would probably say the same about your comments. And I would agree with him. And Fireman doesn't abuse people like you do. He sticks to the relevant points under discussion and doesn't sink to your depths of abusive tantrums just because someone disagrees with him. You could learn quite a bit from Fireman in how to behave on a forum. He demonstrates far more respect for other people's opinions than you ever do.

Regarding calling you "a lying and deceitful person" - I stand by every word, you are one of the darkest people I have come across on this forum. You use a variety of id`s and have written some of the most vile, vindictive and abusive comments on this thead.

Telling lies and hypocrisy obviously comforts you. Lets remind ourselves of some of your "vile, vindictive and abusive comments", shall we?

You`re dealing with a ridiculous person Truthseeker.

I am wondering what a nutter like you gets from all of this? You`ve been here quite a while now and you`re still bawling.

He`s been posting utter crap on this thread from the very first page lol.

You on the other hand are a lying, deceitful individual

you are one of the darkest people I have come across on this forum.

You cannot just debate about the relevant topics. Sooner or later you always bring it round to a personal attack.

I`m not in the least frustrated

Of course you are. It's so obvious. You're abusive, insulting behaviour betrays it. You cannot stick to just debating the relevant points because you feel threatened by those who put forward intelligent and well constructed views that oppose your own. So, because you feel you are not winning the argument by the force of your evidence, you lash out with insults and imature outbursts. And this quote illustrates my point perfectly...

I am wondering what a nutter like you gets from all of this? You`ve been here quite a while now and you`re still bawling.

Abusive Ad Hominem occurs when an attack on the character or other irrelevant personal qualities of the opposition is offered as evidence against their position. Such attacks are often effective distractions ("red herrings"), because the opponent feels it necessary to defend themselves, thus being distracted from the topic of the debate.

Why stick to debating the evidence when you can release your frustrations by indulging in totally irrelevant insults and character attacks in the misguided belief that such abuse strengthens your argument?

Well said from a poster who goes under at least four different id`s

What can be asserted without evidence - can also be dismissed without evidence.

I welcome any and everyone who`s interested in this topic.

Let's correct that to - I welcome any and everyone who`s interested in this topic as long as they agree with me that Paul is dead and don't post any evidence supporting the view that Paul is alive. Otherwise they are a troll and I am entitled to insult them and engage in immature name-calling.

That's better. :)

[socrates]

Hello, Socrates, have a look at the recently discovered philosopher's stone.

http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/7981/img0007zq9.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTUf0EkUhZM&feature=channel_page
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBAWPEBpnNg

Hello dark66horse.

The photo is interesting. But even the Paul is dead believers don't think it's genuine.

[fireman]

@orbandsceptre

the only one with trolling behaviour is you. We where already back on topic.
I think the mods could easily find out that all those guys you think are me, are actually different individuals and that our IPs are not the same. (that i can say with 100 % of myself: i am not posting under any other username)

Oh yeah, it was you PIDers who started 4 different threads on the same topic. I already asked the mods to join them , (which othey did), but somehow there are still two threads..

Anyways, since you ignored the topic disussion, here is my last post again:


i have discussed that picture, and i think that the guy on the left isn't Paul.

You can barely see his face...

I dont understand how you can take that as evidence that Paul was replaced.

This is what i call evidence that Paul never died:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNjpxr2_sGg

[fireman]

That picture above is from 1968

I think it is just not logical to asume, Paul would look the same still like in 1964..

But let for a second asume that picture shows really Paul.. What would be the consequences?

That would be proof that he never died, BUT also proof that he was replaced..
:confused:
:)

(^PS another great post Socrates)

[dark66horse]

I expected this kind of response about the boat picture, (you argue the guy on the left leaning on the railing isn't Paul). http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/3081/640pp.jpg (http://img18.imageshack.us/my.php?image=640pp.jpg)
http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/640pp.jpg/1/w324.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img18/640pp.jpg/1/)
What else could you say? You can't say that the photo has been tampered, because it's on an official Aug. 1968 Beatles Book, issue 61, and this admission on you part would lead to the conclusion that many other official photos of james Paul could have been altered, to fool the fans, as it's becoming more and more obvious for many. I'm sure you know this classic example of false moustaches, added to an old 1966 James Paul's picture (JPM never grew moustaches).
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/Paultamperedtwo.jpg
http://img124.imageshack.us/img124/784/imgimg.jpg (http://img124.imageshack.us/my.php?image=imgimg.jpg)
http://img124.imageshack.us/img124/imgimg.jpg/1/w510.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img124/imgimg.jpg/1/)

[orbandsceptre27]

It is his right to discount any evidence he sees fit if that is his opinion.

It is everybodies right to accept/reject what they see as proper.

What evidence have you accepted which may suggest Paul McCartney was NOT replaced? Non that I have read.

It is plainly obvious Paul McCartney was permanently replaced. When time is taken to view all the available information, I have no doubt this will become crystal clear to everyone. More and more people are waking up to this fact.

It is blatantly obvious to anyone reading the PID threads that Fireman has an agenda (as have you).

....you had to apologise to Supertzar only highlights the fact that you are a rude and insulting person who cannot debate in a respectful manner but has to resort to abuse and name-calling because you are not mature enough to control yourself.

I apologised to Supertsar for calling him/her "a ridiculous person," nothing more. I will always apologise if I think I`ve wronged somebody, would you?

- Will you apologise to all the people you`ve abused and insulted for the last number of months?

- Will you apologise to the good people reading these threads for the lying, deceitful and disparaging comments made?

- For using many different user id`s which include Socrates, Lightman, Redman to name but a few.

I`d be surprised if you do. Somebody like you needs psychological help, I sincerely mean that. Anyone who can do what you do is not a healthy individual.

Your frustrations get to you and their only outlet comes in your vitriolic character attacks on people who disagree with you and who put forward contary evidence to support their view. Hence your imature and ridiculous jibe that Fireman is a "troll".

Most of my attacks are on you - I don`t do frustration. Lmao... you`re the one who responded to a post I made on a completely different thread.

Are you sure you`re not a little frustrated yourself?

He would probably say the same about your comments.

Well that`s for him to say - you don`t want to be putting words in other peoples mouths now do you?

You cannot just debate about the relevant topics. Sooner or later you always bring it round to a personal attack.

^ You`re describing yourself here - this is you in a nutshell!

Of course you are. It's so obvious. You're abusive, insulting behaviour betrays it. You cannot stick to just debating the relevant points because you feel threatened by those who put forward intelligent and well constructed views that oppose your own. So, because you feel you are not winning the argument by the force of your evidence, you lash out with insults and imature outbursts. And this quote illustrates my point perfectly...

You do like to repeat the same old garbage over and over... If I ever feel threatened by you intellectually it`ll be a very sad day lol. Everything is an argument to you and that`s the thing, you`re no good at it - the old philosopher Socrates must be turning in his grave just thinking you`re using his name as an id.

Why stick to debating the evidence when you can release your frustrations by indulging in totally irrelevant insults and character attacks in the misguided belief that such abuse strengthens your argument?

Like I said... you`re the frustrated one lmao - this is only a thread about someone being replaced. Chill out, people will see what`s in front of their eyes - why do you feel responsible for what other people think? - that`s called mind-control. People are seeing that Paul was replaced, and that`s a fact.

What can be asserted without evidence - can also be dismissed without evidence.

I`m glad to see you`re coming around.

Let's correct that to -[I] I welcome any and everyone who`s interested in this topic as long as they agree with me that Paul is dead and don't post any evidence supporting the view that Paul is alive. Otherwise they are a troll.

Socrates/Lightman you`re a star. :)

[fireman]

I expected this kind of response about the boat picture, (you argue the guy on the left leaning on the railing isn't Paul). http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/3081/640pp.jpg (http://img18.imageshack.us/my.php?image=640pp.jpg)
http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/640pp.jpg/1/w324.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img18/640pp.jpg/1/)
What else could you say? You can't say that the photo has been tampered, because it's on an official Aug. 1968 Beatles Book, issue 61, and this admission on you part would lead to the conclusion that many other official photos of james Paul could have been altered, to fool the fans, as it's becoming more and more obvious for many. I'm sure you know this classic example of false moustaches, added to an old 1966 James Paul's picture (JPM never grew moustaches).
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/Paultamperedtwo.jpg
http://img124.imageshack.us/img124/784/imgimg.jpg (http://img124.imageshack.us/my.php?image=imgimg.jpg)
http://img124.imageshack.us/img124/imgimg.jpg/1/w510.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img124/imgimg.jpg/1/)



The beatles monthly from 1967 contains also shots of George and Ringo with added mustaches:

http://www.jojoplace.org/Shoebox/BB_Mar_1967/BB_3_1967_15.jpg

http://www.jojoplace.org/Shoebox/BB_Mar_1967/BB_3_1967_02.jpg



it seems they ran out of up-to-date pics...

;)

[dark66horse]

QUOTE fireman it seems they ran out of up-to-date pics...

ran out of pictures? true!
Even Faul had to use one of JPM's pictures for his 1984 "Broad Street"
look:
http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/8057/paulpaul.png (http://img244.imageshack.us/my.php?image=paulpaul.png)
http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/paulpaul.png/1/w390.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img244/paulpaul.png/1/)

[socrates]

It is his right to discount any evidence he sees fit if that is his opinion.

It is everybodies right to accept/reject what they see as proper.

Yet you accuse him of being a "troll" for doing just that. I quote:

He spreads disinformation

You're other, so-called, 'justification' in accusing him of being a "troll" is the fact that all his posts have been about Paul:

109 of his posts (every one of them up to the present) are on this thread. He is a troll just like you.

So, if someone only posts in one thread, that automatically makes them a "troll"? That is your definition of a "troll"? Yet I have posted in various threads on Icke, yet you still label me a "troll" too. :rolleyes: I suppose your blatent self-contradiction is completely lost on you?

And what about dark66horse? At the time of writing they have 5 posts - all in the Paul is dead thread. So, by your own definition, they must be a "troll" too. :rolleyes: But - if darkhorse66 or fireman post in another thread, are they no longer a "troll"? :confused: But as I said, I have posted in many threads on Icke - yet according to you I'm still a "troll". So even if fireman posted in different threads he would still be a "troll" according to you - which thus automatically invalidates and contradicts your reason for calling him a "troll":

109 of his posts (every one of them up to the present) are on this thread. He is a troll just like you.

Let me move away from your confused, and contradictory definition and point out to you what the general meaning of a "troll" actually is...

A troll in internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

As we can see, by this generally accepted definition of the word "troll", fireman does not conform to this description whatsoever. He does NOT post "controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages". He simply puts forward his views regarding Paul not being dead and supplies evidence to support his view - behaviour you yourself condone...

It is everybodies right to accept/reject what they see as proper.

So, orbandsceptre27, it's about time you showed some maturity and intelligence and stopped labeling anybody who merely disagrees with you as being a "troll". If anything, YOU display more qualities of a "troll" than anybody...

A troll in internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages.

Like these......

You`re dealing with a ridiculous person Truthseeker.

I am wondering what a nutter like you gets from all of this? You`ve been here quite a while now and you`re still bawling.

He`s been posting utter crap on this thread from the very first page lol.

You on the other hand are a lying, deceitful individual

Somebody like you needs psychological help, I sincerely mean that. Anyone who can do what you do is not a healthy individual.

you are one of the darkest people I have come across on this forum.

Those quotes are clearly "inflammatory, irrelevant" and "off-topic... with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response."

Being called a "troll" by orbandsceptre is like being called a gangster by Al Capone! :)

It is plainly obvious Paul McCartney was permanently replaced.

Merely your opinion.

When time is taken to view all the available information, I have no doubt this will become crystal clear to everyone.

Many people have viewed the "available information" and do not accept it as proof that Paul was replaced. Therefore, you are irrefutably wrong that it will "become crystal clear to everyone".

More and more people are waking up to this fact.

How many? I notice you do not give any numbers. So I checked the Paul is dead forums. The Nothing Is Real forum has a mere 500 members. Paul Is Dead Miss Him has a grand total of just 132 members.

While it may be true to say "More and more people are waking up to this fact", the fact remains that the actual number of people this encompasses is absolutely tiny if the number of members on the Paul Is Dead forums is an accurate reflection of your claim. So, "more and more" could be 10 a year, or maybe even 50 people a year; but absoloutely meaningless and insignificant in the big scheme of things when millions believe Paul McCartney is very much alive. :rolleyes:

It is blatantly obvious to anyone reading the PID threads that Fireman has an agenda (as have you).

A troll in internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

I apologised to Supertsar for calling him/her "a ridiculous person," nothing more.

Irrelevant. You stated...

People with different opinions are very welcome here - all views and opinions respected.

I therefore quoted your insulting and clearly unwelcoming posts which adequately prove that you are a liar. Here they are again...

You`re dealing with a ridiculous person Truthseeker.

I am wondering what a nutter like you gets from all of this? You`ve been here quite a while now and you`re still bawling.

He`s been posting utter crap on this thread from the very first page lol.

You on the other hand are a lying, deceitful individual

you are one of the darkest people I have come across on this forum.

"People with different opinions are very welcome here - all views and opinions respected."

Yeah, right! :rolleyes:

Will you apologise to the good people reading these threads for the lying, deceitful and disparaging comments made?

Please provide proof for this allegation, or show yourself to be a liar yet again.

For using many different user id`s which include Socrates, Lightman, Redman to name but a few.

Please provide proof for this allegation, or show yourself to be a liar yet again. Please remember: what can be asserted without proof, can also be dismissed without proof.

Somebody like you needs psychological help, I sincerely mean that. Anyone who can do what you do is not a healthy individual.

You just can't cut out the insulting and abusive trolling, can you?

A troll in internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

Unfortunately for you, I don't take your bait. Your rude, insulting and troll like behaviour only shows I'm correct about you. :)

Most of my attacks are on you

Yep. Trolling definately includes attacking someone.

But those who have arguments provide facts, along with conclusions. However, those who have none, provide insults. :)

I don`t do frustration.

No point you keep denying it....

Most persons feel frustrated when someone or something obstructs them in some way. And most persons respond to the feeling of frustration by immediately wanting the satisfaction of forcing the “obstacle” to get out of the way—or, if it won’t move, to curse it and insult it.

From: A Guide To Psychology And Its Practice by Raymond Lloyd Richmond, Ph.D.

"I don`t do frustration."

Yeah, right! :rolleyes:

So, orbandsceptre27, are you going to show some maturity and stick to the topic under discussion? Or are you going to continually behave like a troll by letting your frustrations get the better of you and posting irrelevant, vindictive, personal insults - merely because people post messages disagreeing with you?

Time to grow up and cut out the abuse.

[socrates]

@orbandsceptre

the only one with trolling behaviour is you. We where already back on topic.

Anyways, since you ignored the topic disussion, here is my last post again:

orbandsceptre is clearly a troll, fireman. I'm glad you are not lowering yourself to his level by responding to his off-topic, unpleasant, rude and insulting posts.

Keep up the good work. :)

[orbandsceptre27]

So, if someone only posts in one thread, that automatically makes them a "troll"? Yet I have posted in various threads on Icke, yet you still label me a "troll" too.

When you post under a variety of names (as you have been doing - Socrates, Lightman, Redman) and you spread blatant disinformation (as Fireman and you have been doing) then you are "a troll" by all intents and purposes.

..... and point out to you what the general meaning of a "troll" actually is...
- A troll in internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

This is exactly what you`ve been doing for the entire thread. However, with your present username Socrates, you have so far refrained from direct insults....for the moment lol.

Myself and others PIDers, do not have the luxury of changing to different usernames. I suppose I could, but I`d be cheating and acting as ridiculously as yourself.

As we can see, by this generally accepted definition of the word "troll", fireman does not conform to this description whatsoever. He does NOT post "controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages". He simply puts forward his views regarding Paul not being dead and supplies evidence to support his view - behaviour you yourself condone...


Fireman posts blatant disinformation, he ignores in your face evidence which suggests McCartney was replaced (of which there is plenty) and again, he has consistantly posted on the same threads as a debunker.

So, orbandsceptre27, it's about time you showed some maturity and intelligence and stopped labeling anybody who merely disagrees with you as being a "troll". If anything, YOU display more qualities of a "troll" than anybody...

I don`t know what your definitions are for maturity and intelligence but you consistantly miss the mark.

Being called a "troll" by orbandsceptre is like being called a gangster by Al Capone!

Oh I`m sure you`d know alot more about being a gangster than me Lightman/Socrates/Redman. Your blatant disruption of the PID threads is completely on record.

Many people have viewed the "available information" and do not accept it as proof that Paul was replaced. Therefore, you are irrefutably wrong that it will "become crystal clear to everyone".

In your opinion - I`ve spoken with many, many people who now know McCartney was replaced.

How many? I notice you do not give any numbers. So I checked the Paul is dead forums. The Nothing Is Real forum has a mere 500 members. Paul Is Dead Miss Him has a grand total of just 132 members.

Do you have to become a member of a PID forum once you see Paul was replaced?

How about the 70,000 hits on the "Is Paul really Dead" and almost 60,000 hits on this excellent thread and this is only on the D.I forum.

What about on you tube - look at the hits on iamaphoneys vids alone.

I`m sorry to disappoint you disinfo agents, but you`re failing miserably :).

While it may be true to say "More and more people are waking up to this fact", the fact remains that the actual number of people this encompasses is absolutely tiny

Ehh.... see above!

So, "more and more" could be 10 a year, or maybe even 50 people a year; but absoloutely meaningless and insignificant in the big scheme of things when millions believe Paul McCartney is very much alive.

The truth is the truth if only believed by one person!

Unfortunately for you, I don't take your bait. Your rude, insulting and troll like behaviour only shows I'm correct about you.

As I keep saying you`re as evil an individual as I`ve come across on this forum - I don`t say that likely.

Yep. Trolling definately includes attacking someone.

You would know all about that.

[orbandsceptre27]

orbandsceptre is clearly a troll, fireman. I'm glad you are not lowering yourself to his level by responding to his off-topic, unpleasant, rude and insulting posts.


That`s good coming from Lightman/Socrates/Redman and a former mod I refrain from naming. :)

[astrochicken]

That`s good coming from Lightman/Socrates/Redman and a former mod I refrain from naming. :)


Lightman/Socrates/Redman = most likely the same person or 2 people, posting page upon page of utter shite ("well thank you socrates", "you're welcome fireman" blah blah blah.)

It's so blatantly obvious that i've just pointed out to the mods, here's hoping they keep IP records..

[fireman]

Lightman/Socrates/Redman = most likely the same person or 2 people, posting page upon page of utter shite ("well thank you socrates", "you're welcome fireman" blah blah blah.)

It's so blatantly obvious that i've just pointed out to the mods, here's hoping they keep IP records..


then we will have peace for once. You are really annoying with your paranoia, and all yor talk about me beeing other persons and an illuminati-agent.

The IP track will show that.

AND:

We were long back on topic.


The mods will see, when they read my posts, that i was never trolling and never went off topic (or not that often ;-)


Can we get back to topic now, or do you guys still have a problem?

[socrates]

When you post under a variety of names (as you have been doing - Socrates, Lightman, Redman)

Prove it. You're big on accusations but short on proof. What can be asserted without proof can also be dismissed without proof. You obviously cannot grasp this concept.

and you spread blatant disinformation (as Fireman and you have been doing) then you are "a troll" by all intents and purposes.

In YOUR opinion. So, who made you 'judge and jury' as to what is "disinformation"?

Disinformation: Any views or opinions which 'dare' to disagree with or dispute the Paul is dead theory.

This is exactly what you`ve been doing for the entire thread.

No, I've been trying to discuss the Paul is dead theory. But I, and others, keep getting sidetracked by your insulting, off-topic and irrelevant messages about hidden agendas, multiple id's etc. :rolleyes:

Such as:

Myself and others PIDers, do not have the luxury of changing to different usernames. I suppose I could, but I`d be cheating and acting as ridiculously as yourself.

Fireman posts blatant disinformation

In your opinion. Good grief. :rolleyes:

If you think he posts "disinformation", then debate it! Put forward evidence to dispute it, discuss and give your conclusions. Don't sit there and just cry that he posts "disinformation" and call him a "troll". That is NOT debate. That is not discussion. That is just pathetic.

he ignores in your face evidence which suggests McCartney was replaced (of which there is plenty) and again, he has consistantly posted on the same threads as a debunker.

And yet you say:

It is everybodies right to accept/reject what they see as proper.

I suppose the self contradiction is lost on you. :rolleyes:

He has much right to post evidence that Paul has NOT been replaced than you have of posting evidence that he has. Yet, he is a "troll" and you're not? How does that work, Einstein?

Your blatant disruption of the PID threads is completely on record.

Blatant disruption: Posting views or opinions which 'dare' to disagree with or dispute the Paul is dead theory.

Do you know what a discussion forum is for? It's for debating and discusing certain subjects. You have posted evidence to support a theory. Others, including me, have posted messages disagreeing with your evidence and pointing out what we believe to be flaws in your evidence. Yet you take exception to people disagreeing with you and thus resort to petty name-calling, insults and irrelevant accusations which takes us completely off-topic as we then have to address your frustrated rantings.

Look- a debate can be defined as:

1. To consider something; deliberate.
2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument.
4. Obsolete To fight or quarrel.

v. tr.

1. To deliberate on; consider.
2. To dispute or argue about.
3. To discuss or argue (a question, for example) formally.
4. Obsolete To fight or argue for or over.

n.

1. A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.
2. Deliberation; consideration: passed the motion with little debate.
3. A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.

Understand?

You accuse myself and others of 'disrupting' the Paul is dead threads and trolling simply because we have a different point of view! :mad: You obviously do not want debate as to whether Paul is dead - you just want debate and discussion on the belief that he IS dead! Any opposing posts are quickly condemned and the authors attacked as "trolls" and charged with "disruption of the PID threads" and posting "disinformation". You obviously haven't got a clue as how the Icke discussion forum works. :mad:

This is NOT a forum or thread exclusively for Paul is dead believers. Get it? Understand? If you want that kind of forum then kindly bugger off to one of your Paul is dead boards where you can post photos and "ooh" and "ah" and agree with each other to your heart's content.

This forum is for open and free discussion on a wide range of topics - NOT purely on the belief that Paul McCartney has been replaced. People who do not believe Paul has been replaced and wish to put forward their views are fully entitled to - without being harrassed and insulted for so doing.

Got it?

Let me point out the forum guidlines for you, since you are obviously totally ignorant of them:

FORUM GUIDELINES

Treating Others
This is a place for open and free discussion on a wide range of topics, and we ask that you respect each other by not bullying or harassing other members of the forum.

This is not the place for personal attacks, or to deliberately stop the flow of conversation from taking place...do not make any personal insults

Open and free discussion. No bullying or harassing. No personal insults. Get it? Understand? Take note, orbandsceptre and behave yourself. Stop being so imature just because people post opposing views to you.:mad:

I`ve spoken with many, many people who now know McCartney was replaced.

In your opinion - and theirs.

Do you have to become a member of a PID forum once you see Paul was replaced?

How about the 70,000 hits on the "Is Paul really Dead" and almost 60,000 hits on this excellent thread and this is only on the D.I forum.

What about on you tube - look at the hits on iamaphoneys vids alone.

Meaningless.

How many of those hits are from people who DO NOT believe Paul is dead? You have no reliable or accurate way of telling, have you? You use those large numbers of hits to support your argument that "more and more people are waking up" and yet you have no data as to who has been 'woken up' and who thinks it's the biggest load of old garbage they have ever read or seen.

Take a look at any youtube video saying Paul is dead and see how many comments disagree with it:

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/1232/46177552.jpg

High hits on general forums or youtube videos do not provide any information as to what percentage of those hits have resulted in somebody 'waking up'. It is only a measure of how many people are interested in the subject of Is Paul dead? Interest (high hits) does not automatically equate to belief. Therefore your use of high hits to support your claim of high numbers of believers that Paul has been replaced is flawed as an accurate and reliable measure. It is "disinformation" - to use your own (favourite) word. :)

So, the most reliable way of measuring interest in those who actually believe Paul is dead is the number of people who are members of Paul is dead boards - because by their very definition, most members, if not all, will believe that Paul has been replaced. However, as I stated, the number is completely insignificant in comparison to the millions who believe Paul has not been replaced. The Nothing Is Real forum has a mere 500 members. Paul Is Dead Miss Him has a grand total of just 132 members.

A good indication as to the number of people who believe, or are interested in, a topic is the number of members of forums specifically devoted to that topic - not on the number of hits on general websites like Icke and youtube. People with an interest in something tend to join forums which cater to that specific interest.

And to put the likely kind of number of Paul is dead believers into some kind of perspective, let us consider the following:

The Flat Earth Society forum has 17398 members. While there are likely to be some members who are not flat earthers, it would still be fair to conclude that a vastly superior number of people who believe the earth is flat belong to a relevant forum than those people who believe Paul McCartney has been replaced! The membership ratio is over 27 to 1!

Even a forum for people interested in the tiny niche of chain saw collecting (!) (http://www.chainsawcollectors.se/) has more than THREE times as many members as Nothing Is Real and Paul Is Dead Miss Him - combined! (2372)

I think that puts the number of people who believe Paul has been replaced into perspective. It is a miniscule number, and certainly NOT the "60,000" or "70,000" you so misleadingly quote.

The truth is the truth if only believed by one person!

And a myth is a myth if only believed by one person! :)

As I keep saying you`re as evil an individual as I`ve come across on this forum - I don`t say that likely.

A troll in internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

FORUM GUIDELINES

Treating Others
This is a place for open and free discussion on a wide range of topics, and we ask that you respect each other by not bullying or harassing other members of the forum.

This is not the place for personal attacks, or to deliberately stop the flow of conversation from taking place...do not make any personal insults

You can try and provoke me as much as you want - but I won't bite. I'm here to discuss the Paul is dead theory, not have a slanging match with a frustrated troll. So, I won't respond to your irrelevant insults and off-topic nonsense any longer. Got it?

That goes to all you other Paul is dead believers, as well. Stop trying to side-track the discussion by posting off-topic nonsense and irrelevant accusations when you think you are losing the argument. Please obey the forum rules and cut out your irrelevant nonsense. I am no longer going to respond to it. If you do not wish to debate your evidence and conclusions with non believers then you should simply not post. End of story. Stick to your own Paul is dead boards. This is a forum for non believers too. We are just as entitled to voice our opinions as you are.

Now, please behave like adults and stick to the topic.

[faulconandsnowjob]

So, I've been trying to get information about Mal Evans' highly suspicious death from the FBI via a Freedom of Information Act request. The 2nd one I sent has now been returned to me. The FBI wants Mal Evans to sign a privacy waiver and certification of identity. :rolleyes: lol This is after I provided lots of information - at their request - that he was dead. :confused:

For those who don't know, Mal Evans, the Beatles roadie, was shot to death by police in LA right before he was about to publish a tell-all memoir. Only portions of his book, "Living the Beatles Legend," have been published. Mal Evans' suitcase & remains mysteriously went missing after his shooting death. More info at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mal_Evans

[accuracy]

So, I've been trying to get information about Mal Evans' highly suspicious death from the FBI via a Freedom of Information Act request. The 2nd one I sent has now been returned to me. The FBI wants Mal Evans to sign a privacy waiver and certification of identity. :rolleyes: lol This is after I provided lots of information - at their request - that he was dead. :confused:

For those who don't know, Mal Evans, the Beatles roadie, was shot to death by police in LA right before he was about to publish a tell-all memoir. Only portions of his book, "Living the Beatles Legend," have been published. Mal Evans' suitcase & remains mysteriously went missing after his shooting death. More info at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mal_Evans


A great post there, faulconandsnowjob. :D:D

Accuracy;)

[faulconandsnowjob]

^ Gotta love bureaucrats. The guy who wrote the book about John Lennon's FBI files had to sue them to get anything. I wonder if they told him to get John Lennon to sign a privacy waiver... :rolleyes:

[truthseeker49]

Orb posted:
The truth is the truth if only believed by one person!

That is so very true, Orb. Concise & to the point. Non-believers can throw their "arsenal" at us all day long. I will continue posting comparison after comparison of photos to show that Paul & Faul are NOT the same person. Telling me that "Paul" had a receding hairline when he was a child was the last straw for me. I am NOT going to correspond with people who will use any means ( no matter how ridiculous ) to try to invalidate my POV.
And yes, that is TROLLING.
I do not have the time or the patience. My photo comparisons will reach those who are open-minded enough to see the obvious differences between the two men.

Paul http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/11-23-65-1.jpghttp://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/Beatles20W20Key2060002-1.jpghttp://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/2007-11-16T04_58_43-08_00-1.jpg

[truthseeker49]

Paul http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/2007-11-16T04_58_43-08_00-1.jpghttp://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/Billsigpgm4-1.jpg Faul
Paul http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/Beatles20W20Key2060002-1.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/548097871968mccartneyseto0-1.jpg Faul
Check out what's under the mirror... Faul's so FUNNY !!! ;)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/posingprettily.jpg
Paul http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/Paul01-1-1.jpghttp://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/Paul-bike1-1.jpg Faul
Paul http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/11-23-65-1.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/PrettyearlyMaccasinging.jpg Faul

[truthseeker49]

Paul http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/scan0043-1.jpghttp://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/Bill4-2-1.jpg Faul
Paul http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/possiblytamperedwith.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/playingpiano.jpg Faul
That above photo of Paul at the piano has been soooo tampered with ! :rolleyes:

Paul, untamperedhttp://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/Earcomparison3.jpg]http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/possiblytamperedwith.jpg

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/FaulandLinda2.jpg
"Damn, they did a great job on your face !!!!"

The pure joy that Paul experienced when he was creating. We lost that when we lost this wonderful man in September, 1966... :(
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/pglasses.jpg

[truthseeker49]

Please come by my forum. I have written you a private message. :)

[karol2020]

Paul pre 1967 remindes a bit of Kaka the brasilian soccer player of Milan... the cute baby face type....

http://blog.miltonneves.ig.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/kaka.jpg

[karol2020]

What about John Lennon be of MKULTRA program? Stewart swerdlow says this (if you havent seen yet, here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1cqSNPlT50 but i dont remember know what part of the conference)...

[truthseeker49]

Karol, that is so true !

Paul http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/proper-paula.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/67y_coat.jpg Faul, 1967
Paul http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/proper-paula.jpghttp://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/DR1020_Paul_McCARTNEY_6-1-1.jpg Faul, 1967

[lostworld]

Paul http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/2007-11-16T04_58_43-08_00-1.jpghttp://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/Billsigpgm4-1.jpg Faul
Paul http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/Beatles20W20Key2060002-1.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/548097871968mccartneyseto0-1.jpg Faul
Paul http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/Paul01-1-1.jpghttp://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/Paul-bike1-1.jpg Faul
Paul http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/11-23-65-1.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/PrettyearlyMaccasinging.jpg Faul


Great comparisons Truthseeker :)

It's so weird, I totally can see Faul but I understand why so many can't too.

It's like they are not at all alike, yet they are in some bizarre way. It's like Faul is Paul "stretched out" in all ways possible, both physically and in personality...

[lostworld]

What about John Lennon be of MKULTRA program? Stewart swerdlow says this (if you havent seen yet, here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1cqSNPlT50 but i dont remember know what part of the conference)...

Also, Truthseeker - you posted this on Stepford:
(Hi! :) I answered you on Stepford btw, post #1417.)

Hello lostworld. Sorry that we haven't had a chance to talk lately ! :D
Check THIS one out !
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/weirdphoto.jpg
The man on the far right looks like a mannequin !!! :eek:

The "mannequin" was like I thought, Andy Warhol...

This is what Jen posted on Stepford:

Hi all :)

Yes it is Andy Warhol, here is another piccie for you

http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/2156/145679.jpg (http://img113.imageshack.us/my.php?image=145679.jpg)
http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/145679.jpg/1/w440.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img113/145679.jpg/1/)

^
A lot of touching going on there... Warhol was supposedly gay yet asexual...

Warhol was a central pop-culture figure in the 60's.
What's the Beatles-Warhol connection you guys?
Think you may find something interesting there, if you dig into it... :rolleyes:

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/3110/beatlespaulmccartneyandy.jpg

(not original Warhol painting)

[supertzar]

Prove it. You're big on accusations but short on proof. What can be asserted without proof can also be dismissed without proof. You obviously cannot grasp this concept.



In YOUR opinion. So, who made you 'judge and jury' as to what is "disinformation"?

Disinformation: Any views or opinions which 'dare' to disagree with or dispute the Paul is dead theory.



No, I've been trying to discuss the Paul is dead theory. But I, and others, keep getting sidetracked by your insulting, off-topic and irrelevant messages about hidden agendas, multiple id's etc. :rolleyes:

Such as:





In your opinion. Good grief. :rolleyes:

If you think he posts "disinformation", then debate it! Put forward evidence to dispute it, discuss and give your conclusions. Don't sit there and just cry that he posts "disinformation" and call him a "troll". That is NOT debate. That is not discussion. That is just pathetic.



And yet you say:



I suppose the self contradiction is lost on you. :rolleyes:

He has much right to post evidence that Paul has NOT been replaced than you have of posting evidence that he has. Yet, he is a "troll" and you're not? How does that work, Einstein?



Blatant disruption: Posting views or opinions which 'dare' to disagree with or dispute the Paul is dead theory.

Do you know what a discussion forum is for? It's for debating and discusing certain subjects. You have posted evidence to support a theory. Others, including me, have posted messages disagreeing with your evidence and pointing out what we believe to be flaws in your evidence. Yet you take exception to people disagreeing with you and thus resort to petty name-calling, insults and irrelevant accusations which takes us completely off-topic as we then have to address your frustrated rantings.

Look- a debate can be defined as:

1. To consider something; deliberate.
2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument.
4. Obsolete To fight or quarrel.

v. tr.

1. To deliberate on; consider.
2. To dispute or argue about.
3. To discuss or argue (a question, for example) formally.
4. Obsolete To fight or argue for or over.

n.

1. A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.
2. Deliberation; consideration: passed the motion with little debate.
3. A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.

Understand?

You accuse myself and others of 'disrupting' the Paul is dead threads and trolling simply because we have a different point of view! :mad: You obviously do not want debate as to whether Paul is dead - you just want debate and discussion on the belief that he IS dead! Any opposing posts are quickly condemned and the authors attacked as "trolls" and charged with "disruption of the PID threads" and posting "disinformation". You obviously haven't got a clue as how the Icke discussion forum works. :mad:

This is NOT a forum or thread exclusively for Paul is dead believers. Get it? Understand? If you want that kind of forum then kindly bugger off to one of your Paul is dead boards where you can post photos and "ooh" and "ah" and agree with each other to your heart's content.

This forum is for open and free discussion on a wide range of topics - NOT purely on the belief that Paul McCartney has been replaced. People who do not believe Paul has been replaced and wish to put forward their views are fully entitled to - without being harrassed and insulted for so doing.

Got it?

Let me point out the forum guidlines for you, since you are obviously totally ignorant of them:

Open and free discussion. No bullying or harassing. No personal insults. Get it? Understand? Take note, orbandsceptre and behave yourself. Stop being so imature just because people post opposing views to you.:mad:



In your opinion - and theirs.



Meaningless.

How many of those hits are from people who DO NOT believe Paul is dead? You have no reliable or accurate way of telling, have you? You use those large numbers of hits to support your argument that "more and more people are waking up" and yet you have no data as to who has been 'woken up' and who thinks it's the biggest load of old garbage they have ever read or seen.

Take a look at any youtube video saying Paul is dead and see how many comments disagree with it:

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/1232/46177552.jpg

High hits on general forums or youtube videos do not provide any information as to what percentage of those hits have resulted in somebody 'waking up'. It is only a measure of how many people are interested in the subject of Is Paul dead? Interest (high hits) does not automatically equate to belief. Therefore your use of high hits to support your claim of high numbers of believers that Paul has been replaced is flawed as an accurate and reliable measure. It is "disinformation" - to use your own (favourite) word. :)

So, the most reliable way of measuring interest in those who actually believe Paul is dead is the number of people who are members of Paul is dead boards - because by their very definition, most members, if not all, will believe that Paul has been replaced. However, as I stated, the number is completely insignificant in comparison to the millions who believe Paul has not been replaced. The Nothing Is Real forum has a mere 500 members. Paul Is Dead Miss Him has a grand total of just 132 members.

A good indication as to the number of people who believe, or are interested in, a topic is the number of members of forums specifically devoted to that topic - not on the number of hits on general websites like Icke and youtube. People with an interest in something tend to join forums which cater to that specific interest.

And to put the likely kind of number of Paul is dead believers into some kind of perspective, let us consider the following:

The Flat Earth Society forum has 17398 members. While there are likely to be some members who are not flat earthers, it would still be fair to conclude that a vastly superior number of people who believe the earth is flat belong to a relevant forum than those people who believe Paul McCartney has been replaced! The membership ratio is over 27 to 1!

Even a forum for people interested in the tiny niche of chain saw collecting (!) (http://www.chainsawcollectors.se/) has more than THREE times as many members as Nothing Is Real and Paul Is Dead Miss Him - combined! (2372)

I think that puts the number of people who believe Paul has been replaced into perspective. It is a miniscule number, and certainly NOT the "60,000" or "70,000" you so misleadingly quote.



And a myth is a myth if only believed by one person! :)



A troll in internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.



You can try and provoke me as much as you want - but I won't bite. I'm here to discuss the Paul is dead theory, not have a slanging match with a frustrated troll. So, I won't respond to your irrelevant insults and off-topic nonsense any longer. Got it?

That goes to all you other Paul is dead believers, as well. Stop trying to side-track the discussion by posting off-topic nonsense and irrelevant accusations when you think you are losing the argument. Please obey the forum rules and cut out your irrelevant nonsense. I am no longer going to respond to it. If you do not wish to debate your evidence and conclusions with non believers then you should simply not post. End of story. Stick to your own Paul is dead boards. This is a forum for non believers too. We are just as entitled to voice our opinions as you are.

Now, please behave like adults and stick to the topic.

Excellent post by Socrates that cuts through many of the logical fallacies used in this thread.

[truthseeker49]

Wow, that is incredible. So, he at least introduced himself to the boys in the mid 1960's. I hope someone takes the time to look into this further. :cool:

[lostworld]

^
Hi Truthseeker,:)
I've answered you on Stepford and also posted here today (2 posts)! Please go back and look. Only a page away... :)

[truthseeker49]

I saw. I look forward to talking to you at length when you have the time. You can PM me over at my forum anytime you feel like talking... {{{ HUGS }}}

[lostworld]

I saw. I look forward to talking to you at length when you have the time. You can PM me over at my forum anytime you feel like talking... {{{ HUGS }}}

I know, you're a great friend. :)

Big hug back! :)

PS - I still think that you, Orb or Faulcon should check out that "Andy Warhol-connection"... maybe there is something there... ;)

[truthseeker49]

You're probably right. The FACT that John, Yoko & him were grabbing each other in public says to me that there was definitely a connection. In that photo John looks out of it, & Yoko looks slightly pissed off. Those people were
s-t-r-a-n-g-e !!!!!! ;)

[lostworld]

Faulcon's been a good girl and she's been taking the bar AND got herself a new job! BIG CONGRATS! :)

But Faulcon, where are you? Still working? :rolleyes:
There's been a lot of activity over at stepford today! Good activity I'm glad to say, so I hope that we just had a temporary negative-energy set back...


Where is she?
We others start to miss you out here in the cold... :D
http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/6436/svartafr.jpg

[lostworld]

You're probably right. The FACT that John, Yoko & him were grabbing each other in public says to me that there was definitely a connection. In that photo John looks out of it, & Yoko looks slightly pissed off. Those people were
s-t-r-a-n-g-e !!!!!! ;)

Yeah, and that photo was sooo awful :eek:
Maybe we're better off not knowing? Too much information and all that... :rolleyes:

[truthseeker49]

Lostworld wrote:
It's like they are not at all alike, yet they are in some bizarre way. It's like Faul is Paul "stretched out" in all ways possible, both physically and in personality...

I've never heard it explained quite that way before. Thank you for your input on this... :cool:

And you're right, that photo IS too much information !!! < wink >

[lostworld]

Lostworld wrote:
It's like they are not at all alike, yet they are in some bizarre way. It's like Faul is Paul "stretched out" in all ways possible, both physically and in personality...

I've never heard it explained quite that way before. Thank you for your input on this... :cool:

And you're right, that photo IS too much information !!! < wink >

It's hard to explain it, and you know English is not my native language either...
So I just wrote it down as I saw it - cause I CAN tell them apart but I can't explain WHY cause sometimes it's like their facial features can be very much alike, yet Faul's don't match together somehow enough for him to become Paul...

Oh I don't know, forget about it. Just me rambling on... :rolleyes:

[socrates]

Orb posted:
The truth is the truth if only believed by one person!

And a myth is a myth if only believed by one person.

Conclusion: 'Belief' does not make something true if it is not true in the first place. :rolleyes:

I will continue posting comparison after comparison of photos

You Paul is dead believers have posted literally hundreds of photo comparisons already. Aren't they enough to 'convince people'? Obviously not, otherwise you wouldn't think it neccessary to post even more. But, what will posting even more (often duplicates of those already posted) photos prove if the ones you have posted already haven't succeeded?

to show that Paul & Faul are NOT the same person.

Most people disagree.

Telling me that "Paul" had a receding hairline when he was a child was the last straw for me.

Nobody has told you that "Paul had a receding hairline when he was a child". In the interests of truth and accuracy, you really do need to stick to facts and not blatent misrepresentation and disinformation. It does your argument no good whatsoever when people can see that you are blatently not sticking to facts.

And yes, that is TROLLING.

No it's not. :mad: This is an example of "trolling":

Regarding calling you "a lying and deceitful person" - I stand by every word, you are one of the darkest people I have come across on this forum.

My photo comparisons will reach those who are open-minded enough to see the obvious differences between the two men.

So people are only "open minded" if they can "see the obvious differences between the two men."?

LOL!

If you were really serious about showing people that Paul has been replaced then you would seek judicial prosecution. Take your case to court! Why do the Paul has been replaced believers waste their time posting endless photos on message boards instead of demonstrating that they are not just a great big bag of hot air by proving Paul has been replaced in a court of law - to the whole world?

Any "open minded" person will form their own conclusions as to why the Paul is dead/replaced believers prefer mere rhetoric to action. :rolleyes:

[truthseeker49]

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/beatlesyyyythepic-2.jpghttp://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/HGN_196722_BEATLES_6.jpg Paul
Paul http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/beatlesyyyythepic-2.jpghttp://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/Oobu_Joobu_1__2.jpghttp://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/Oobu_Joobu_3.jpg Faul
After looking at many photos, I have come to realize that Faul tends to open his mouth wider than Paul did. I will have to further research this, but it can point towards Faul having a wider mouth than Paul.
I will post more photos illustrating this possibility as I come across them.

Paul http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/HGN_196722_BEATLES_6-2.jpghttp://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/mad.jpg Faul

[socrates]

After looking at many photos, I have come to realize that Faul tends to open his mouth wider than Paul did. This is further proof that Paul had a smaller mouth than him.


Are you serious?! :rolleyes:

Really, some of the so called "proof" that Paul McCartney has been replaced is absolutely laughable. truthseeker has just selected photos that fit in with her 'wider mouth' allegation.

Here is a photo showing Paul with the "wider" smile, and Faul with the narrower smile, thus demonstrating that truthseeker has ignored evidence which disproves her allegation in favour of photos which appear to substantiate it.

http://www.bopped.com/copyright/bopped_Beatles_James_Paul_McCartney_1964_bigger_pi cture.jpghttp://assets.mog.com/pictures//artists/0000/0000/2905/pictures/83935.jpeg

As can be seen, the "wider" smile claim is pure, unadulterated, disinformation. :mad:

[truthseeker49]

Please disregard what socrates has said. As I posted above, I will be providing further proof as I come across it. This is something that I had gradually noticed over the past 6 years of my investigating this subject. How long have you been interested in the Paul is Dead conspiracy Socrates ?
Socrates, I have just reported you for harrassing me. Please discontinue this behaviour, or I will do everything in my power to have you banned from the PID threads...

[truthseeker49]

Paul http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/bopped_Beatles_James_Paul_McCartney.jpghttp://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/Oobu_Joobu_3.jpg Faul

Very interesting...

Faul's chin looks rather odd in that photo.

I will reiterate this one more time for those who haven't read it before. PLEASE, do not take what we tell you to be fact one way or the other. Research this possibility for yourself. My forum has many side by side comparisons plus other information to help you form an opinion. There are ample photos that you can pull off the internet from many professional photo sites. There are also a great many fan sites that have posted on them hundreds of photos of Paul. I pulled the majority of my photos off of these sites when I first became interested in this 6 years ago. I'm sure that some of these photos have been tampered with, but many haven't. You look at as many photos as I have, you get a feeling for this kind of thing. Anyway, you will eventually be able to tell the differences between "Paul" before & after Sept. 1966. They are most obvious in the first few years, before his replacement had been given enough plastic surgery to make the resemblance more convincing.
And enough time had passed for most people to forget what the original Paul McCartney looked & acted like.

[socrates]

Please disregard what socrates has said.

Why should they? The photos I posted proved what I stated. Anybody can select certain photos in order to give a false representation. There will be loads of photos of Paul with different smiles - some with wide smiles and some with narrow smiles. You just selected those that fit your "wide" mouth claim.

The two photos that I posted proved your claim is completely false.

As I posted above, I will be providing further proof

There is no proof to begin with.

Socrates, I have just reported you for harrassing me.

Well hopefully the mods will see what a ridiculous claim this is. How is discussing and debunking your claims about Faul having a wider mouth "harrassing"?

Is this - or is this not - a discussing board? If you put forward claims that Faul has a wider mouth than Paul, am I not allowed to discuss why I think your claim is completely wrong?

Obviously you think anybody who disagrees with your claims is "harrasing" you. You want to censor me because I disagree with you?! How sad. It just shows how you do not want open debate about this issue. You just want everybody to agree with you. If not, you want to censor them.

As I have stated before - this is an OPEN forum - not a Paul Is Dead Forum. What gives you the right to try and censor people who disagree with you? If you do not want people to post views opposing yours, then stick to your Paul Is Dead boards. Why are you even here on Icke? You already have your own boards.

Please discontinue this behaviour,

You mean: Please stop posting your views which disagree with mine.

or I will do everything in my power to have you banned from the PID threads...

So much for free speech, eh? :mad:

[truthseeker49]

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/1965.jpghttp://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/bandpic17.jpg
The Beatles 1965 vs. The Beatles 1968/69

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/bahamas2.jpghttp://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/bandpic51.jpg

John, Paul & George 1965 vs, the Beatles, 1967

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/corrida.jpghttp://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/bandpic50.jpg

The Beatles vs. the Beatles

I am saying this to you, socrates, because you have insisted on singling me out. You have attempted to refute many of my posts on here for awhile now. I have simply been posting on here as I have at other forums over the years. I do not expect everyone to see what I see. I do not expect everyone to agree with me. I do expect not to be attacked for my POV.
I get it. You don't think that Paul was replaced. Why then are you still posting here ? All your posts are doing is causing disruption.
I post my comparisons, often without comment. Anyone who has been following these threads can see that I am just sharing what I believe in a non-offensive way. I make these posts hoping to help others see what I see. It is people like you who personalize it & then it turns into character attacks.

[truthseeker49]

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/bandpic59.jpghttp://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/wives5.jpg

The Beatles 1963/64 vs. Faul & Ringo, 1967

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/bandpic37.jpghttp://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/bandpic40-1.jpg

The Beatles, 1963/64 vs. the Beatles 1968/69

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/0419.jpghttp://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/wives1.jpg

Paul & George, 1963/64 vs. Faul & John, 1967

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/49472399_83bc1e35de.jpghttp://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/49472772_87963fa444.jpg

The Beatles, 1965 vs. the Beatles 1968/69

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/DR1001_Paul_McCARTNEY_6.jpghttp://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/lm04.jpg

Paul, 1964 (?) vs, Faul 1968

[socrates]

This is the last thing I'm going to say to you socrates. This is only because you have insisted on singling me out

Completely untrue. I have posted my opposing views in response to various posters on here - not just you. For example: faulconandsnowjob and orbandsceptre27, to name two. So, upon what evidence - what proof - substantiates your claim that I have 'singled' you out? You really need to stick to FACTS, not nonsense.

I do expect not to be attacked for my POV.

I haven't attacked you for your POV. All I have done is examined your claims and given my opinion upon them, in many cases, providing independent evidence to back up my claim. So, please post exact quotes of mine which specifically "attack" you for your POV.

If you don't, it will just demonstrate that your claim has no substance.

All your posts are doing is causing disruption.

My posts merely express my disagreement with the evidence you provide. If you class that as "disruption" in an OPEN and FREE forum where I am as just as entitled to voice my opinion as you are, then you really shouldn't post on Icke.

You have your own Paul is dead boards. They are for people who believe Paul has been replaced. Therefore, I don't post there. This is ICKE. This is NOT a Paul is dead forum. Why are you here?

Why don't you stick to your Paul is dead boards if you do not like people disagreeing with your evidence?

I make these posts hoping to help others see what I see. It is people like you who personalize it & then it turns into character attacks.

You are clearly mixing me up with orbandsceptre27. Remember these:


Regarding calling you "a lying and deceitful person" - I stand by every word, you are one of the darkest people I have come across on this forum. You use a variety of id`s and have written some of the most vile, vindictive and abusive comments on this thead.

I am wondering what a nutter like you gets from all of this? You`ve been here quite a while now and you`re still bawling.

truthseeker49, I only discuss your evidence. If you post something which I disagree with then I am entitled to say so. This is a public forum where disagreement and argument is part and parcel of free and open discussion.

And that is how it should be on an OPEN forum. Your censorship tactics and untrue "harrassment" claims do you no favours whatsoever. :(

[astrochicken]

Completely untrue. I have posted my opposing views in response to various posters on here - not just you. For example: faulconandsnowjob and orbandsceptre27, to name two. So, upon what evidence - what proof - substantiates your claim that I have 'singled' you out? You really need to stick to FACTS, not nonsense.



I'm looking through you.


Your posts on this thread are exceedingly tiresome.
Seriously.
Boring.

Maybe hang out with friends more?

[truthseeker49]

I am friends with both Orbandsceptre & Faulconandsnowjob. Stating that you're harrassing 3 people instead of one does not make what you're doing right. Obviously you are going to twist everything I say around to suit yourself. You are not here to have a logical discussion. You're here to try to tear down everything that we present to the public.
I only use photos that I have found on the internet. I have been fooled more than once by photos that have been tampered with, but if I use one it is an honest mistake. I have never, ever attemped to change a photo other than to crop something out of it or to change it's size ( for better side by side comparison ).
I have noticed that certain parties have created fades between Paul & Faul in which Faul's dimensions have been tampered with to closely overlap Paul. In the very beginning of PID being introduced to the internet, TKIN & it's parent website did fades showing that this is not possible. When you take photos of Paul & compare them to photos of Faul from 1967, the dimensions are way off. Faul's eyes are narrower. His head is longer & more oblong, and Paul's ears ALWAYS stick out past Faul's. ALWAYS.
Everyone should check out the first few pages of this thread. They are very illuminating. They will show you why I became so involved with this. Those fades ( or some like them ) are what convinced me that there is no way that the man in those 1967 pics is Paul. In fact, I thought that it was very clever that Accuracy showed that Paul's photos match Paul and Faul's photos from 1967 to the present, match him.
Bravo, I say...
It seems to me that SunKing from TKIN created those fades in a fair & even manner, as I have gotten the same results ( seen the same thing ) in a myriad of side by side photo comparisons over the years.
However, I must say that photo fades can be adjusted to prove whatever a person wants to prove. That is why I stay away from them.
So, Astrochicken, how's tings ??? :D

[lostworld]

^
Stay strong Truthseeker.

I'm with you :)
Sometime it will be known that we were right all along... :cool:

[truthseeker49]

Thank you, lostworld. It's because of you & my many other friends on the internet, that I continue doing this day after day... :)

[socrates]

Stating that you're harrassing 3 people instead of one does not make what you're doing right.

Why do you deliberately tell untruths? Where did I state I am "harrassing 3 people"?

I'll tell you - absolutely nowhere. Here is what I actually said, in response to yet another false claim of yours:


This is only because you have insisted on singling me out

Completely untrue. I have posted my opposing views in response to various posters on here - not just you. For example: faulconandsnowjob and orbandsceptre27, to name two.

There is no point in twisting my words truthseeker. Everyone can see what I wrote - and your version is clearly misrepresentation.

I also asked you to provide quotes to substantiate your claim - and the fact that you have not just proves the point I make at the end:

So, please post exact quotes of mine which specifically "attack" you for your POV.

If you don't, it will just demonstrate that your claim has no substance.

You are not here to have a logical discussion.

Yes, I am. It is YOU who doesn't want a discussion and threatens censorship because I disagree with your photo evidence. I refuted your 'Faul has a wider smile' claim by providing my own photo evidence. Did you 'discuss' it? No. You just diverted the whole topic away from that and made completely false claims of 'harrassment' and threats to censor me.

So, who really wants to have a "logical discussion"?

You're here to try to tear down everything that we present to the public.

I'm here to voice my opinion. This is a discussion forum; that's what happens. If you present something I disagree with then I am entitled to voice it. Why can't you understand this? Take a look at many threads within Icke and you'll see people disagreeing and arguing over ideas and evidence all the time. Examples:

911: Planes V No Planes:
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=49589

Jesus is the only truth .... Are you sure??????
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=56521&page=2%22

Ridiculous new claim from the holocaust industry
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=56180

Neil Armstrong's Speech About Nothing.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=56558&highlight=Apollo+hoax

See?

So, what gives you the right to censor my opinions on your evidence just because I disagree with it? For the umpteenth time: This is a public forum - NOT a PID forum. It is for OPEN and FREE debate on any topic! If you do not want people disagreeing with your evidence then the answer is simple: Don't post it on a public forum. Stick to your Paul is dead boards.

Trying to play the 'victim' because I post evidence rebutting claims that Paul has been replaced is ridiculous.

[lostworld]

Hi Truthseeker :)

I'm updating my music collection. I just found this song that I've completly forgot about...

George Michael is as you perhaps may know one of my favourite artists.
Unfortunately he may have been replaced - certainly mind controlled :( - as we've discussed over at PID before...

That aside - he has written this beautiful song with very telling lyrics and even if he sings about John and Elvis I think Paul (and the other sad victims) should be included here too... :)

So, for you:
video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UddGaGY__uA&feature=related
(the video is great too - John is in it...)

John & Elvis Are Dead (by George Michael)

Close friend of mine as a child fell into a slumber
No sign of life since '75
Then one day he just, what do you know
I guess God just called his number

He called me up he called me up and said
"I've been awake about a week
I'm thinking about asking the doctor
If he could put me back to sleep"
Then he laughed and said
"Hey all the girls they look the same"
Don't they know just what their mothers
Paid in blood, and tears to change

But the words that made me cry
The thing he softly said
It stayed with me, it keeps messing with my head
He said, "If Jesus Christ is alive and well
Then how come John & Elvis are dead?"

Youth, beautiful youth
We walked through the walls until we found the truth
And said "Change it, it's ugly just change it"
Everyone we used to know
Must have given up, so long ago
You can see it, it's written on their faces
And the inside of their clothes

But the words that made me cry
'Cos I knew just what they meant
He turned to me and said
"Hey boy, if Jesus Christ is alive and well
Then how come John & Elvis are dead?"

"Tell me if Jesus Christ is alive and well
Then how come Marvin & Elvis are dead?"

I said "If Jesus Christ is going to save us from ourselves
How come peace, love and Elvis are dead?"

[lostworld]

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/Beatlesagain/FaulandLinda2.jpg
"Damn, they did a great job on your face !!!!"


:D

[faulconandsnowjob]

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

[lostworld]

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

There will soon be an explanation for that... :rolleyes:

Coming up soon - after some help from you Faulcon :)

[truthseeker49]

All I can do is keep posting these comparisons:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/salsplainswall.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/fringe.jpg
Paul, 1965 vs. Faul, 1968
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/seriousagainaa.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/faul_hand2.jpg
Paul, 1965 vs. Faul, 1968
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/verynicerightprofile.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/announcingApple.gif
Paul, 1963/64 vs. Faul, 1968
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/64suiteyeslighterthanusual.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/Airport5_11_67small.jpg
Paul, 1964 vs. Faul, 1968
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/shades2.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/beatles67.jpg
Paul, 1966 vs. Faul, 1968

[truthseeker49]

All I can do is keep posting these comparisons:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/salsplainswall.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/fringe.jpg
Paul, 1965 vs. Faul, 1968
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/seriousagainaa.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/faul_hand2.jpg
Paul, 1965 vs. Faul, 1968
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/verynicerightprofile.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/announcingApple.gif
Paul, 1963/64 vs. Faul, 1968
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/64suiteyeslighterthanusual.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/Airport5_11_67small.jpg
Paul, 1964 vs. Faul, 1968
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/shades2.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/beatles67.jpg
Paul, 1966 vs. Faul, 1968

Thanks for posting those lyrics, Lostworld. I never heard of that song.

[truthseeker49]

All I can do is keep posting these comparisons:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/salsplainswall.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/fringe.jpg
Paul, 1965 vs. Faul, 1968
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/seriousagainaa.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/faul_hand2.jpg
Paul, 1965 vs. Faul, 1968
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/verynicerightprofile.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/announcingApple.gif
Paul, 1963/64 vs. Faul, 1968
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/64suiteyeslighterthanusual.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/Airport5_11_67small.jpg
Paul, 1964 vs. Faul, 1968
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/shades2.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/beatles67.jpg
Paul, 1966 vs. Faul, 1968

Thanks for posting those lyrics, Lostworld. I never heard of that song.

[truthseeker49]

Thanks for posting those lyrics, Lostworld. I never heard of that song. :cool:

[lostworld]

Thanks for posting those lyrics, Lostworld. I never heard of that song. :cool:

It wasn't a big hit. I didn't even know there was a video to it, until today :)

[faulconandsnowjob]

^ I love the comps, Truthseeker.

I'm looking forward to the explanation of how people's vision can be clouded, Lostworld. :cool: Get to it! *cracks whip* :D

[truthseeker49]

Thank you, Faulcon. < smile>
I will watch the video tomorrow. Right now, I'm pretty tired. I've been at this on & off ( mostly on ) since around 8 am this morning.
I bounce back & forth between quite a few photobuckets. It's nowhere near as easy as one would think to find photos that match up. The last few haven't really been up to par for me. I guess I'm running out of steam.
My hand & wrist are starting to hurt. I had carpel tunnel surgery done on Monday. My palm & wrist are black & blue. Ouch... :(
This is very exhausting work, but Paul is well worth it ! ;)

[lostworld]

^ I love the comps, Truthseeker.

I'm looking forward to the explanation of how people's vision can be clouded, Lostworld. :cool: Get to it! *cracks whip* :D

Ja, ja :rolleyes:

I will!

Some of us have been posting all day you know... :p

[truthseeker49]

Don't I ever ! < rolls eyes & laughs ! > :p

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/babyfaceb.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/pid_on_magazine_p2.jpg
"Babyface" Paul 1963 vs. Faul, 1967
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/babyfaceb.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/MaccaandLinda.jpg
By the 1970's, the surgery is getting him closer to how Paul looked in 1963. His face is still too long though...
It is scary how much he looks like Paul at a certain stage of Paul's life. The thing is, Paul had already changed before he died. He didn't look like that anylonger. Once a person matures & changes, they don't typically go back to being babyfaced.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/paulcoat2.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/paulsmallheadaa.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/Paulsinging5.jpg
Paul, 1965, Paul, 1965/66 and Paul, 1965/66

[faulconandsnowjob]

Faul's ridiculously exaggerated eyebrows crack me up :p

Some of us have been posting all day you know...
I know, I'm such a slacker. My new job is really eating into my day :(

[lostworld]

Thank you, Faulcon. < smile>
I will watch the video tomorrow. Right now, I'm pretty tired. I've been at this on & off ( mostly on ) since around 8 am this morning.
I bounce back & forth between quite a few photobuckets. It's nowhere near as easy as one would think to find photos that match up. The last few haven't really been up to par for me. I guess I'm running out of steam.
My hand & wrist are starting to hurt. I had carpel tunnel surgery done on Monday. My palm & wrist are black & blue. Ouch... :(
This is very exhausting work, but Paul is well worth it ! ;)

You've done an amazing job Truthseeker! :)
We have to fill in for each other, when some of us are away for whatever reason. It's intensive for a while, but like you say - it's worth it :)

[truthseeker49]

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/Paulcolour662.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/80btlpal.jpg
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d196/Beatlesphotos/Paulcolour662.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/paul-6-28-91.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/billlongface.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/postbust2.jpg
Paul vs. Faul, Faul, Faul & Faul

[paradise_1000]

I am not convinced I could be wrong though the Faul pics do look kinda evil :eek:

but to many factors tbh

[faulconandsnowjob]

^ What are you picking up on? We just mentioned on the other PID thread how some of us thought Faul was dark...

[paradise_1000]

On the Faul pics there is some thing in the look its like he has evil eyes and its like he knows something we dont I duno it is def abit weird where the Paul pics he seems more innocent to me . But I am comparing two pics one labeled Paul who is ment to be real and the other labeled Faul who is ment to be fake so subconsciously the mind can label the Faul pics as Bad and the Paul pics Good.

Its like a subliminal suggestion if you get what I mean

[faulconandsnowjob]

Yeah, I totally get what you mean. What if the pic is not labelled? Do you get a vibe at all? Just curious... :-)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/Bill_2008_Green_Eyes.jpg

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

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/i71z15.jpg

[orbandsceptre27]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/i71z15.jpg

^ Sorry to butt in here - but Bills head (above) is definately bigger than Pauls, no doubt about it! Also Pauls head was rounder (and no it had nothing to do with different hairstyles).

[faulconandsnowjob]

^ Well, what do you think, Orb? Is there a negative vibe you're picking up on w/ Faul? Does it seem like he's hiding something?

I can't resist posting this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfBBZdE6M48&feature=PlayList&p=6D83266E756D9B62&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=32

[paradise_1000]

Yeah, I totally get what you mean. What if the pic is not labelled? Do you get a vibe at all? Just curious... :-)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/Bill_2008_Green_Eyes.jpg

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

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/i71z15.jpg


There is def something with his eyes in the middle pic at first he was the more happy face then you look into the eyes the top pic he looks old bottom pic def face looks abit skinny and he looks pissed off lol

[humito]

same old rubbish comparisons!

If you put a load of pre 66 pics together you can find the same sort of differences between the faces , the actual reasons for this have been disscussed a million times..........yawn

[faulconandsnowjob]

Glad to see that you're expanding you're trolling, Humito. Maybe you should try diversifying your trolling to other topics. Trolls should endeavor to be well-rounded. :D

[ar20]

Iamaphoney has a great video where it shows Paul's last 66 appearence... then the Faul appearence outside EMI and he looks completely different, I'll dig it out.

[orbandsceptre27]

I can't resist posting this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfBBZdE6M48&feature=PlayList&p=6D83266E756D9B62&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=32

That clip is from "Soily," recorded at Abbey Road studios and released in 1976 on the live album "Wings Over America."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CfCcHKYliA

There`s definately something to it - If you slow the vid down, or freeze frame it at up-close moments. During performances like this attachments/entities become more apparent (there`s less egoic interference). Always look just past/beyond someone if you want to see what they`re channeling. It`s the same when viewing an aura (the darker the room, the better). Never look directly at the person - You`re using the right side of the brain to see auras etc. When you focus specifically on something you`re using the left side again.

We`ve been brought up to literally look at things the same way since we were kids, so we seldom use the right brain when we`re viewing anything. Everyone can see auras but generally if you haven`t been shown, you won`t know how to look for them. Faul is channeling something here and it isn`t good.

[faulconandsnowjob]

Faul is channeling something here and it isn`t good.
That, or maybe he is just a dark soul?

[dream9]

I think anyone that agrees to live the life as a double has something wrong in their soul....although there are always exceptions.

[faulconandsnowjob]

That's a good point. I wonder if he knows what happened to Paul? Faul gets on my nerves. He's so pleased w/ himself, but he's only popular b/c people think he's someone he isn't. Poser.

[dream9]

I'm sure his life is a living hell in some ways.

Wouldn't he just love to come out and tell his story, get reacquainted with who he really is.

[faulconandsnowjob]

That would be so awesome if he would 'fess up. I'm sure Paul is rolling in his grave b/c some of Faul's goofy songs have been attributed to him. :D

[hunter77]

That would be so awesome if he would 'fess up. I'm sure Paul is rolling in his grave b/c some of Faul's goofy songs have been attributed to him. :D

paul is not dead, get over it your dead because youve been stuck in this rutt for months and by the way ringo is thomas the tank engine:rolleyes:

[faulconandsnowjob]

^ I think since the last time Paul was seen was 1966, we can safely assume he's dead. Why would he willingly let that dork Faul assume his identity?

[howie]

Wouldn't he just love to come out and tell his story, get reacquainted with who he really is.

He says it all the time during interviews (post 1966), sometimes he even says "I'm not that guy" or "there are 2 Paul McCartneys", he drops a little hint almost every time he speaks publicly.

[bulletproofheart]

So maybe Paul is not to blame for the Frog Chourus (we all stand together) after all?

[accuracy]

I noticed that orbandsceptre27
is "inactive" status for some reason.

Can anyone enlighten me on this? :confused:

[boots]

I noticed that orbandsceptre27
is "inactive" status for some reason.

Can anyone enlighten me on this? :confused:

Coz his dead!! TPTB are searching for a replacement. hahaha.

.

[faulconandsnowjob]

I noticed that orbandsceptre27
is "inactive" status for some reason.

Can anyone enlighten me on this?
He's going to be inactive for a little while b/c he has some important things he has to attend to & doesn't want to be distracted. He'll be back as soon as he can. :-)

[accuracy]

Aaahhh after visting other sites, explains why (imo)

[accuracy]

I noticed that orbandsceptre27
is "inactive" status for some reason.

Can anyone enlighten me on this? :confused:

My response, the previous post....................

[humito]

QUOTE=faulconandsnowjob;1003265]Glad to see that you're expanding you're trolling, Humito. Maybe you should try diversifying your trolling to other topics. Trolls should endeavor to be well-rounded. :D[/QUOTE]


thanks for the advice faulcon but i will just stick to trolling this topic as i find the PID topic profoundly amusing and love being called an asleep sheep .


I am still waiting for you to post up the pictures or footage you promised that shows "fauls" extensive plastic surgery scars from the 66/67 period as that is when they would have been most obvious .........the "illuminati" would have to have operated on every part of the replacements face to get a believable resemblance and to get the symmetry just right when mirrored to match pauls,they would also have to have replaced his eyes and given him extensive dental work.
Lets assume for a moment that this sort of surgery were possible then ....( although that would be fantasy as even the most expert plastic surgeons 40 years later cannot perform such miracles with the human body)....his face would be covered in visible scars ,he would not have been out of the public eye long enough for a recovery,its impossible.
If " faul" does indeed exist then he would have to have been planned years before mc cartneys alledged death so the replacements face could heal and so he could learn to be a left handed multi instrumentalist and perfect mimic in voice/playing and writting style and a perfect impersonator of mannerism and personality.
This would mean that the theory that he was bumped off for non compliance of "illuminati" goals and replaced with a double to continue the agenda is wrong .

If he died accidently in 1966 you have the same problem of the tiny timespan from his alledged death to his public reapearance ...........not long enough for the "fauls" facial recovery.

This could only mean that theory that mc cartney wanted annonimity and backed down and dissapeared of his own volition ,allowing an imposter to take over his life,girlfriend,,family and fortune would have any weight ........but, this would mean no sinister illuminati involvement ,just the beatles and their management and mc cartneys family.I am sure his was very wealthy even in 1966 ,but I doubt he could have afforded the money it would have taken to find the best surgeons in the world to operate on a lookalike that was willing to give up his own identity ...anyway the chances of finding a lookalike/soundalike willing to do this are astronomical to say the least,plus you have the problem that he was still very busy making amazing music with the beatles and appearing everywhere and loving the fame and attention and obviously having a lot of fun,so its not very likely that he was planning to quit etc ,also the plan would have taken years to fruit so we would be talking about 1963 when the process would have started and a planning of it before then which would take us up to about the time the beatles started! so thats not really an option either .

Paul is not dead..........we now have speculation that he is a reptillian shapeshifter!! fantastic , thats one musically talented lizard!

or maybe just channeling a demon.......... could be possible,he was/is undoubtably aware of the occult and the sex magick of crowley,he may well have sold his soul for Yesterday and a lifetime of fame and fortune.
However I dont believe mc cartney ( or even "faul" ) if he exists,is not into invoking demons........

His music through the years has bought joy to millions and to this day he mostley sings about love and positive things...not very evil behaviour !!

Not when you consider what a lot of the satanic metal bands of today openly sing about and the message they are trying to convey to the world.


He has obviously had some cosmetic surgery during the years .......ear pinning,hair replacement and recently botox jabs ,but for the obvious reasons of vanity.

There is also no doubt the beatles were experimenting not only with music and fashion and drugs but also with mysticism,the occult and sex magick and other types of magic .

however their main message was unconditional LOVE (although they were not enlightened enough to practice it,it seems !).

He is not and never has been squeeky clean,he only human though.

I am open minded and have looked at this theory in quite a lot of detail from the original PID radio rumour and album clues to the laughable iamaphoney and rotten apple youtube series but no credible evidence is there or even a credible or convincing reason for his execution and replacement.......its all just what people want read into it all and an inability to have a basic grasp of the power of drugs on personality and creativity/the ageing process/ photography/plastic surgery/marketing/and magick.

latley he is even a CIA spy and a (vegetarian) reptilian shapeshifter or possibly an android or a clone implanted with false memories that thinks its the real paul!! fantastic! lol


IMO opinion he can still write a good tune.......his last couple of releases have been amazing and some of the tracks on the fireman album make you feel really good and chilled out..........not very evil at all.

Also why does everyone knock the frog chorus!!!


its a classic!!



He looks only slightly different.........he is thinner........probably because of speeding his tits off for months in the studio making a groundbreaking LP and also has different haircut thats all.


Alot of fuss seems to me made of his moustache covering up his surgery scars.........however at the sgt pepper album lauch he is the only one without one............he always wanted to be different from the rest and more popular and cuter and more talented..........i am surprised lennon put up witrh him for as long as he did !

[humito]

QUOTE=faulconandsnowjob;1003265]Glad to see that you're expanding you're trolling, Humito. Maybe you should try diversifying your trolling to other topics. Trolls should endeavor to be well-rounded. :D[/QUOTE]


thanks for the advice faulcon but i will just stick to trolling this topic as i find the PID topic profoundly amusing and love being called an asleep sheep .


I am still waiting for you to post up the pictures or footage you promised that shows "fauls" extensive plastic surgery scars from the 66/67 period as that is when they would have been most obvious .........the "illuminati" would have to have operated on every part of the replacements face to get a believable resemblance and to get the symmetry just right when mirrored to match pauls,they would also have to have replaced his eyes and given him extensive dental work.
Lets assume for a moment that this sort of surgery were possible then ....( although that would be fantasy as even the most expert plastic surgeons 40 years later cannot perform such miracles with the human body)....his face would be covered in visible scars ,he would not have been out of the public eye long enough for a recovery,its impossible.
If " faul" does indeed exist then he would have to have been planned years before mc cartneys alledged death so the replacements face could heal and so he could learn to be a left handed multi instrumentalist and perfect mimic in voice/playing and writting style and a perfect impersonator of mannerism and personality.
This would mean that the theory that he was bumped off for non compliance of "illuminati" goals and replaced with a double to continue the agenda is wrong .

If he died accidently in 1966 you have the same problem of the tiny timespan from his alledged death to his public reapearance ...........not long enough for the "fauls" facial recovery.

This could only mean that theory that mc cartney wanted annonimity and backed down and dissapeared of his own volition ,allowing an imposter to take over his life,girlfriend,,family and fortune would have any weight ........but, this would mean no sinister illuminati involvement ,just the beatles and their management and mc cartneys family.I am sure his was very wealthy even in 1966 ,but I doubt he could have afforded the money it would have taken to find the best surgeons in the world to operate on a lookalike that was willing to give up his own identity ...anyway the chances of finding a lookalike/soundalike willing to do this are astronomical to say the least,plus you have the problem that he was still very busy making amazing music with the beatles and appearing everywhere and loving the fame and attention and obviously having a lot of fun,so its not very likely that he was planning to quit etc ,also the plan would have taken years to fruit so we would be talking about 1963 when the process would have started and a planning of it before then which would take us up to about the time the beatles started! so thats not really an option either .

Paul is not dead..........we now have speculation that he is a reptillian shapeshifter!! fantastic , thats one musically talented lizard!

or maybe just channeling a demon.......... could be possible,he was/is undoubtably aware of the occult and the sex magick of crowley,he may well have sold his soul for Yesterday and a lifetime of fame and fortune.
However I dont believe mc cartney ( or even "faul" ) if he exists,is not into invoking demons........

His music through the years has bought joy to millions and to this day he mostley sings about love and positive things...not very evil behaviour !!

Not when you consider what a lot of the satanic metal bands of today openly sing about and the message they are trying to convey to the world.


He has obviously had some cosmetic surgery during the years .......ear pinning,hair replacement and recently botox jabs ,but for the obvious reasons of vanity.

There is also no doubt the beatles were experimenting not only with music and fashion and drugs but also with mysticism,the occult and sex magick and other types of magic .

however their main message was unconditional LOVE (although they were not enlightened enough to practice it,it seems !).

He is not and never has been squeeky clean,he only human though.

I am open minded and have looked at this theory in quite a lot of detail from the original PID radio rumour and album clues to the laughable iamaphoney and rotten apple youtube series but no credible evidence is there or even a credible or convincing reason for his execution and replacement.......its all just what people want read into it all and an inability to have a basic grasp of the power of drugs on personality and creativity/the ageing process/ photography/plastic surgery/marketing/and magick.

latley he is even a CIA spy and a (vegetarian) reptilian shapeshifter or possibly an android or a clone implanted with false memories that thinks its the real paul!! fantastic! lol


IMO opinion he can still write a good tune.......his last couple of releases have been amazing and some of the tracks on the fireman album make you feel really good and chilled out..........not very evil at all.

Also why does everyone knock the frog chorus!!!


its a classic!!

[faulconandsnowjob]

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

[humito]

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

these are the promissed pictures of extensive surgery are they?

look like more laughable comparisons of the same man years apart with different haircut and moustache...........this is your typical response and is rather boring ( get ready for being called blind and stupid for not being able to see the difference !!! lol)

you cannot post evidence of surgery because there blatantly are none !

...... or are you just doing what you have done throughout these threads to any poor soul who does not accept your silly theories and comparissons and just ignoring me ?


just post loads of pictures of the same man in the vain hope that people will just go away.?????

Hating others who have a different view of things is the root of facism,I would ask you for the umpteenth time to stop stating Paul mc cartney is dead as a matter of fact ........its not FACT its conjecture .


post pictures of him from just 66 and before and you would still see the same sort of differences in the features between the photographs........

the only real difference post 66 is a slight change in personality that came with the flower power era and the beatles dropping their teen image and striking out on their own musically etc as well as starting their own record label......this death of the old beatles is intimated at on the sgt pepper cover.

[humito]

also i would like to know ......if for the sake of arguement mc cartney was killed by the illuminati and a replacement groomed to take over and further the "agenda"...what is it in their music and films that we are meant to be influenced by? what songs are evil or demonic or able to influence a person to become something else??

love is all you need ?

revolution ?


oh darling ?


lovely rita?


happiness is a warm gun?


julia?

martha my dear?



come on ..............what is so evil about their music?


It could be argued that they were promoting drug use subliminally with a lot of lyrics.........and alternative spirituality...........but this was not the exclusive territory of the beatles...........remember pink floyds piper at the gates of dawn was being made at the same time as pepper!

a far more drug drenched experience...........

dylan influenced them musically and turned them on to drugs alledgedly.................he sang some of the most pwerfull anti war protest songs ..not really an illuminati endevour!!!

they would rather you did not turn off your mind relax and float downstream and become enlightened i would think.

they would only use lsd s ability to temporarily suspend mental imprints for brainwashing victims with applied trauma , not for attaining mystical states of conciousness and bliss and being able to see through the flimsy structure of society and those that think they are in charge.............

if anything,the beatles and paul mc cartney helped set a lot of people free from the tryanny and censorship of the governments of the world.

and helped forge a new conciousness based on love and respect for each other and the planet ...........both what i would consider to be anti "illuminati"
etc..........

also there is nothing in mc cartneys solo work that could be considered as promoting the illuminati new world order.......

So why would they bother to spend a fortune hiding this man among the beatles?? when he has done nothing to further their cause.


many other bands before the beatles song more openly about drugs.


take jefferson airplanes white rabbit for example.

TPTB want silly pop songs promoting mind numbing states .........they dont want to help free people an expand thier minds .what could would that do them ????

like i said there is no way they were influencing the beatles in any way.they might have tried to .but the beatles sang nothing to promote their objectives making the murder and replacement of mc carney even more unlikely!!

if any lookalikes were ever used by the beatles themselves it would have been as a joke on us and uber fans such as the PID crowd and the press!!

the fact that still today people are trying to decipher their songs and films shows how clever they really were.

ENJOY THE LOVELY WEATHER ANY UK READERS!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ar20]

Humito, this ones for you - watch this.

They aren't years apart with mustache and different haircut, this is within the space of a few months:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zg6MTRWioMk&feature=PlayList&p=3DB7371263F724FE&index=40

[ar20]

Actually I'll do the work for you:

http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/4514/paulfaulfinal.jpg

Please, don't insult my intelligence saying these two are the same person.

[ar20]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akg9xpyQqWY&feature=related

Then follow it up with this to find out where all the Beatles where between Aug-66 / Dec-66.

[ar20]

I didn't believe in the photo tampering and foul play, but this one is suspicious.

They show this in the anthology video at 5:20.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FC5TZcDeZHs&feature=PlayList&p=B9CA9F960CB897F7&index=1

It looked too much like Faul so I did a search for the real or apparently real photo.

http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/9905/foulplay.jpg

Anyone spot any difference here?

[dream9]

Actually I'll do the work for you:

http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/4514/paulfaulfinal.jpg

Please, don't insult my intelligence saying these two are the same person.



Great comparison ar20.

[faulconandsnowjob]

They aren't years apart with mustache and different haircut, this is within the space of a few months:
PIA people always try to claim that, conveniently ignoring the drastic difference from Aug 1966 to Dec 1966.

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/1966_comp.jpg

But yeah, I agree those comps are great, Ar20. The negatives really make it clear that they have totally different facial structures.

[socrates]

The negatives really make it clear that they have totally different facial structures.

This is absolutely laughable.

You are comparing blurry, low quality pics, where the angles aren't the same, where the expressions aren't even the same and then 'Oooh' and 'Ahh' at the so-called differences in the negatives.

Has Paul turned Chinese in that first photo? :eek:

What a joke!

Guess what? You'll see the same kind of differences if you take another pic of the 'real' Paul with a different expression, camera angles etc:

http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/4752/b99999.jpg
http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/8607/b7777v.jpg

PID has reached a new low in hare-brained lunacy with this crap.

[socrates]

"Different facial structures", eh?

http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/689/screenhunter488.jpg
http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/5781/b76.jpg

LOL! :rolleyes: Even though these pics were taken over 20 years apart, the same facial characteristics are clearly there.

Once again, PIDers try and mislead by comparing totally unsuitable pictures.

[ar20]

This is absolutely laughable.

You are comparing blurry, low quality pics, where the angles aren't the same, where the expressions aren't even the same and then 'Oooh' and 'Ahh' at the so-called differences in the negatives.

Has Paul turned Chinese in that first photo? :eek:

What a joke!

Guess what? You'll see the same kind of differences if you take another pic of the 'real' Paul with a different expression, camera angles etc:

http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/4752/b99999.jpg
http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/8607/b7777v.jpg

PID has reached a new low in hare-brained lunacy with this crap.
-

[ar20]

Also well done on addressing the negative and not the actual image. The man looks completely different in 3 months, COMPLETELY, and not because of a haircut or added mustache, the face isn't the same shape at all.

[ar20]

"Different facial structures", eh?

http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/689/screenhunter488.jpg
http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/5781/b76.jpg

LOL! :rolleyes: Even though these pics were taken over 20 years apart, the same facial characteristics are clearly there.

Once again, PIDers try and mislead by comparing totally unsuitable pictures.

Well this is just plain dis-info I'd say!

There is no way those two are the same face, even your negative shows it -- it's actually just YOUR opinion, and unfortunately the opinion of the majority.

Sheer shame is what it is.

[humito]

Actually I'll do the work for you:

http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/4514/paulfaulfinal.jpg

Please, don't insult my intelligence saying these two are the same person.

dont insult my intelligence by showing photos from completely different angles and distances.........also his face on the moustahed pic has deep shadow down pauls right cheek and neck creating the illusion of a thinner face........the illusion is still there with the negative ,also paul had also lost some facial fat ............not surprising when you consider ( and he has admitted) that during the time spent during the sgt pepper sessions he was caining all sorts of drugs........cocaine, speed ,lsd etc.............Its laughable how most of the PID crowd are so easily fooled ...........

i wont watch iamaphoney or the rotten apple series any more as they are farcical quite frankly. and i have seen most of them.......anyone taking them seriously should have their head looked at !

its just a weird looking still from an interview .......where are all the surgery scars on this mans face....? or is it one of the many "fauls" ???? lol

[humito]

as usual faulcon cannot come up with the evidence she is supposed to have :rolleyes:

or is she just ignoring me :)............I would like to see some surgery scars on at least one of the "fauls"...........there are supposed to many of them as once faulcon wanted to start a thread on all the different ones!

I wonder which one is a reptillian and which one is a cia spy? lol

[faulconandsnowjob]

http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/689/screenhunter488.jpg

I like how Socrates keeps using doctored photos to prove his points. That picture of Paul on the left has been tampered w/ to make him look more like Paul. By now, people should know that Paul had a round face. Faul is the one w/ the long face.

[socrates]

the face isn't the same shape at all.

Try comparing SUITABLE pics and not blurry screen caps of videos. Try comparing the faces from similar angles. :rolleyes:

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/4815/p45.gif

Only fanatical PIDers see a different shape. :eek:

[faulconandsnowjob]

^ Apparently only people w/ a decent eye for detail see the difference btw those 2 people in that comp, who are obviously not the same person.

But yeah, Socrates, why don't you try doing a photo negative comp of an untampered picture of Paul & compare it to one of Faul? Maybe the difference would be too obvious even for you to deny it...?

[socrates]

http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/689/screenhunter488.jpg

I like how Socrates keeps using doctored photos to prove his points.

I like how you keep saying pics are doctored without a shred of proof.

Do you just make things up as you go along?

Change the record faulcon. :rolleyes:

The pic stands.

[faulconandsnowjob]

This picture on the left was posted by Socrates as a picture of Paul. Obviously, his face is a lot longer than the untampered picture of Paul below. Notice how round his face was.

http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/689/screenhunter488.jpg
http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/memphis_66_paul.jpg

[socrates]

This picture on the left was posted by Socrates as a picture of Paul. Obviously, his face is a lot longer than the untampered picture of Paul below. Notice how round his face was.

http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/689/screenhunter488.jpg
http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/memphis_66_paul.jpg

Notice how Paul's face is not round here:

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/9348/41217616.jpg

Or here:

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/1728/ba1f.jpg

Or, er, here:

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/84/24442580.jpg

Or..... here:

http://i41.tinypic.com/wiukqv.jpg

According to faulcon, Paul's face was ALWAYS round. According to Faulcon, he never had a thinner face when younger and never gained any weight from his teenage years onwards...

According to Faulcon, any pic showing Paul with a longer face is "doctored".

Who does she think she's kidding? :eek:

[socrates]

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/memphis_66_paul.jpghttp://img32.imageshack.us/img32/4918/b6777.jpg

:eek: :eek: :eek:

Perhaps Faulcon would kindly explain how that second pic - showing Paul with a longer face - has been doctored?

It's from a 1964 vintage magazine scan of the original. And, yeah, I know it's been flipped. But it's from 1964!

We await Faulcon's reply...... :D

[faulconandsnowjob]

Why don't you do a photo negative of this one & see what it looks like. Oh, & be sure to post it, even if it doesn't support your "theory" that it's the same guy. I can see right now that the guy on the right has quite a nose on him.

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/1966_comp.jpg

[socrates]

Why don't you do a photo negative of this one & see what it looks like. Oh, & be sure to post it, even if it doesn't support your "theory" that it's the same guy. I can see right now that the guy on the right has quite a nose on him.

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/1966_comp.jpg

Once again Faulcon cannot answer my rebutal to her false claims. :rolleyes:

[faulconandsnowjob]

Ar20, I think you hit upon a great way to prove these aren't the same guys. It's really hard to argue w/ this (though I know *some* people will). At least they can't argue that they don't have the same expression!

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

Changing perspective... yeah, Faul has a huge honker.

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/Paul_Faul_66_upside_down.jpg

[socrates]

Ar20, I think you hit upon a great way to prove these aren't the same guys. It's really hard to argue w/ this (though I know *some* people will). At least they can't argue that they don't have the same expression!

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

The nonsense continues... :rolleyes:

They certainly DON'T have the same expression. It is slightly different. Faul's mouth is making a different shape for starters.

And the first pic is so blurry and lacking in any fine detail (and the second isn't much better!) that this silly comparison by negatives is nothing but an excercise in stupidity.

Oh, and the lighting is completely different too which will produce differences in any negative comparison.

Really, why am I wasting my time pointing out all this? Any normal person can see how utterly stupid this is.

You need to do it properly!

Get photos of at least half decent quality.... Taken at similar angles.... Similar lighting...

And...

Voilà!

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/4180/sharpened.gif
http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/5624/nega.jpg

Same facial features! :rolleyes:

Same chin markings:

http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/7253/c11z.jpg
http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/4338/b888.jpg

Same man. :D

[socrates]

And the little vertical line at the bottom of the chin can be seen more clearly here:

http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/5508/get6.jpg

But I know what's a coming....

"That pic is doctored." - Copyright Faulcon. (Taken from 101 PID Excuses For Any Evidence Which Refutes An Impostor) :rolleyes:

[bulletproofheart]

I consider myself a major music fan I have about 3000 records nearly as many cds.However I dont own one Paul/Wings/Beatles item.Don't like one of his songs....just hit me as I viewed this post

[faulconandsnowjob]

To help people see them in a different light

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

[faulconandsnowjob]

Don't really look so much the same when you look at it this way, huh?

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

[humito]

Don't really look so much the same when you look at it this way, huh?

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

LOL! Faulcon............stand in front of a mirror and move your mouth about ,grin and smile and flare your nostrils slightly as happens in speech etc and see how the shape of your nose changes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

you spend too long looking at STILL photographs of paul mc cartney that you have forgotten what actual people look like and the facial muscles change appearance during different facial expressions and speech...........when in normal conversation we concentrate on the eyes mainly........( unless a fantastic pair of breasts are lurking!) only unconciously noticing nostril flaring etc.......when you keep studying photographs of someone you look all over the face for minor differences............of course you are going to find them there are well over 100 facial muscles all moving to create the expression !!!!!!!!!!!!!

go on smile into a mirror or change the shape of your mouth see how it makes the nose look thinner ect........:rolleyes:



@ Socrates......I think we are being ignored socrates !!!!.

Faulcon cannot provide any of the evidence that she has promised you or me!!! we both know it simply isnt there!!!


What a great person to have on a discussion forum!!!!!!!!!

someone who wont talk to anyone who disagrees with you :D

what a continuing farce............

[astrochicken]

I consider myself a major music fan I have about 3000 records nearly as many cds.However I dont own one Paul/Wings/Beatles item.Don't like one of his songs....just hit me as I viewed this post


LOL

I'm the same.. alhtough i do like the early beatles once they stopped doing covers of other people's songs.


As regards *P*aul and wings.... just fucking sad and devoid of talent.
In fact.. it's so bad, songs like "spys like us" and "hope of deliverance".. you needn't be musically tone-deaf to realize that it is utter shite.

[toty1994]

Gifts for the pid'er in your life.


http://images0.cafepress.com/product/335733830v5_350x350_Front_Color-Black.jpg

http://images6.cafepress.com/product/335733826v4_350x350_Front.jpg

http://images2.cafepress.com/product/335759572v0_350x350_Back.jpg


...Not sure about this one though. :eek:

http://images1.cafepress.com/product/335761651v1_350x350_Front.jpg

[socrates]

And I like your idea about him being shot in the head.

:eek:

The kind of mentality of PIDers.

[humito]

LOL

I'm the same.. alhtough i do like the early beatles once they stopped doing covers of other people's songs.


As regards *P*aul and wings.... just fucking sad and devoid of talent.
In fact.. it's so bad, songs like "spys like us" and "hope of deliverance".. you needn't be musically tone-deaf to realize that it is utter shite.

the same could be said of john lennons and george harrisons solo outputs..................mostly dross and dirge with only the occaisional good track to be found...........musical taste and fluctuation in creativity and experimentation that works ,does not make a man dead.............

[humito]

Gifts for the pid'er in your life.


http://images0.cafepress.com/product/335733830v5_350x350_Front_Color-Black.jpg

http://images6.cafepress.com/product/335733826v4_350x350_Front.jpg

http://images2.cafepress.com/product/335759572v0_350x350_Back.jpg


...Not sure about this one though. :eek:

http://images1.cafepress.com/product/335761651v1_350x350_Front.jpg

lol !! WTF are those ??? sumo wrestling pants?

[socrates]

@ Socrates......I think we are being ignored socrates !!!!.

Faulcon cannot provide any of the evidence that she has promised you or me!!! we both know it simply isnt there!!!


What a great person to have on a discussion forum!!!!!!!!!

someone who wont talk to anyone who disagrees with you :D

what a continuing farce............

Sure is! :D

Faulcon hasn't got the evidence she alleged she had for the surgery scars. She had to desperately ask for some on the PID board and got absolutely nowhere:

http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/3392/screenhunter489.jpg

http://only1rad.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=plastic&action=display&thread=1389

LOL. :D

[humito]

Sure is! :D

Faulcon hasn't got the evidence she alleged she had for the surgery scars. She had to desperately ask for some on the PID board and got absolutely nowhere:

http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/3392/screenhunter489.jpg

http://only1rad.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=plastic&action=display&thread=1389

LOL. :D

LOL! ........well spotted mate ha ha :D

[ar20]

Humito sez

"dont insult my intelligence by showing photos from completely different angles and distances.........also his face on the moustahed pic has deep shadow down pauls right cheek and neck creating the illusion of a thinner face........the illusion is still there with the negative ,also paul had also lost some facial fat ............not surprising when you consider ( and he has admitted) that during the time spent during the sgt pepper sessions he was caining all sorts of drugs........cocaine, speed ,lsd etc.............Its laughable how most of the PID crowd are so easily fooled ...........

i wont watch iamaphoney or the rotten apple series any more as they are farcical quite frankly. and i have seen most of them.......anyone taking them seriously should have their head looked at !

its just a weird looking still from an interview .......where are all the surgery scars on this mans face....? or is it one of the many "fauls" ???? lol"

Okay sir, you just insulted your own intelligence.

You're saying, within 3 months of taking LSD coke and speed, he suddenly turned into a long-faced 70's porn-star? Mustache in all? I've made this point in the other post showing other rock-stars who were doing harder drugs and none of them changed drastically over 3 months, it happened within a period of time. If that was the case, come Sgt. Peppers he would have looked totally different to you as well from being wasted all the time.

You and Socrates are hiding behind "different angles, different times" blah blah cowardice.

The two of them are near enough facing the same direction aside from Faul with a slight open of the mouth, you're actually proving my point arguing against it here!

Think about it, if that was actually still Paul you wouldn't have to argue with me on it. Paul should be recognised instantly by your logic from anywhere, anytime, so angles and perspectives shouldn't come into the matter, right?

Don't watch Iamaphoney, but would you at least watch over the Blue Jay Way again? Thanks.


Now, onto Socrates:

We post comparisons of Paul/Faul quite near the transformation, and cowardice suffices, all we get is...

"The picture is too blurry"
"They're at different angles"
"He just had a haircut"
"He just grew a mustache"
"The lighting is different"

And on, and on, and on.

The only thing that would make these people see any difference if Paul and Faul took a picture in purgatory on the same platform.

Since that isn't humanly POSSIBLE, refer to my point above -- you can notice Paul anyway, right? You recognise him when watching the old Beatles videos, why would we even need to have the doppelganger in the same poses and light as (what we're saying) the original Paul?

But since this is what you hide behind, allow me to demonstrate what I actually mean.

http://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/faul_1967_lsd_interview/faul_lsd_1.jpg

http://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/faul_1967_lsd_interview/faul_lsd_3.jpg

Are you basically retorting by saying, you can't use videos, because they're in motion all the time and the shapes change as the focal point changes?

Keep it up guys, you're aiding PiD.

[humito]

yeh whatever dude.......... all the beatles looked different.............consentrate on john lennon instead ............you can find photos and footage of him looking like a differnt bloke too...........

[socrates]

Now, onto Socrates:

We post comparisons of Paul/Faul quite near the transformation, and cowardice suffices, all we get is...

"The picture is too blurry"
"They're at different angles"
"He just had a haircut"
"He just grew a mustache"
"The lighting is different"

And on, and on, and on.

Are you seriously suggesting that using low quality, blurry images of faces with completely different expressions, taken at different angles, under different lighting shouldn't show any differences in a negative comparison?

Are you really suggesting that?! :eek:

A simple "Yes" or "No" will surfice.

[socrates]

yeh whatever dude.......... all the beatles looked different.............consentrate on john lennon instead ............you can find photos and footage of him looking like a differnt bloke too...........

You sure can....

http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/2350/screenhunter490.jpg

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/7438/b7878.jpg

Compare '64 and '67, for example:

http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/8196/79259870.jpghttp://img30.imageshack.us/img30/6021/bca.jpg

:eek: :eek: :eek:

Was John replaced too? LOL! :D

[ar20]

The nonsense continues... :rolleyes:

They certainly DON'T have the same expression. It is slightly different. Faul's mouth is making a different shape for starters.

And the first pic is so blurry and lacking in any fine detail (and the second isn't much better!) that this silly comparison by negatives is nothing but an excercise in stupidity.

Oh, and the lighting is completely different too which will produce differences in any negative comparison.

Really, why am I wasting my time pointing out all this? Any normal person can see how utterly stupid this is.

You need to do it properly!

Get photos of at least half decent quality.... Taken at similar angles.... Similar lighting...

And...

Voilà!

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/4180/sharpened.gif
http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/5624/nega.jpg

Same facial features! :rolleyes:

Same chin markings:

http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/7253/c11z.jpg
http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/4338/b888.jpg

Same man. :D


To show people how delusional and obnoxious you can be.

You say do it properly, then tilt a Faul picture to marry up with the side by side of Paul...

Well hold on there champ, I'm tilting it back.

I'm also puting Photoshop brushes all over it.

I never actually thought you would edit photos, so, this is just a hunch on my part at the moment - post the originals of these, in there original form, or I'm calling you out for just manipulating the pics.

Original:
http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/4180/sharpened.gif

Re-Edited:
http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/5553/socrates.jpg


You were expecting us to believe, two photos, years apart, the two of them just happened to have the very same expression on there faces?

Red Arrow: THE VERY SAME BLACK LINE UNDER THE EYE -- do you have any more of these miricles, I'd love to see them.

Yellow Arrow: The exact... EXACT, to a TEE, SHADING OF SHAPES ROUND THE MOUTH? Also, what the hell did you do to the teeth on the Faul one, give him a big Fang?

And it's speculation on my part here, but there is something not right about the neck.

Overall... you've just put the same face on two pics.

Post the originals, and make sure the second one is in colour this time.

I'm not even going to go into the fact you've probably brushed the eyebrows a bit as well, it's pretty sad on your part.

I want links to the pics, not imageshack uploads.

[ar20]

Are you seriously suggesting that using low quality, blurry images of faces with completely different expressions, taken at different angles, under different lighting shouldn't show any differences in a negative comparison?

Are you really suggesting that?! :eek:

A simple "Yes" or "No" will surfice.


I never relied on my negative for anything, that was Faulcon.

You didn't even address the fact that within 3 months the guy looked completely different!

You haven't even suggested some form of surgery or nothing, so you're just as capable of ignoring facts we point out - to facts you point out.

[ar20]

You sure can....

http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/2350/screenhunter490.jpg

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/7438/b7878.jpg

Compare '64 and '67, for example:

http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/8196/79259870.jpghttp://img30.imageshack.us/img30/6021/bca.jpg

:eek: :eek: :eek:

Was John replaced too? LOL! :D

Hey guess what... JOHNS FACE DIDN'T CHANGE SHAPE! :eek:

[toty1994]

You're saying, within 3 months of taking LSD coke and speed, he suddenly turned into a long-faced 70's porn-star? Mustache in all?

Presumably it's what you see. It's like a weird strain of projected body dysmorphia that only pid believers suffer from; when they view images of post '66 McCartney they see something utterly grotesque and can't understand why others don't. The only explanation they can come up with is that everyone who doesn't see what they see has been brainwashed etc etc.

[ar20]

Presumably it's what you see. It's like a weird strain of projected body dysmorphia that only pid believers suffer from; when they view images of post '66 McCartney they see something utterly grotesque and can't understand why others don't. The only explanation they can come up with is that everyone who doesn't see what they see has been brainwashed etc etc.

Exactly, same could be said about you.

And I'm not saying Faul is grotesque or misshapen, I'm saying he has subtle differences that distinguish him from the original (such is the role of a doppelganger), it wouldn't make sense making him look nothing like the original, would it?

[toty1994]

Exactly, same could be said about you.

And I'm not saying Faul is grotesque or misshapen, I'm saying he has subtle differences that distinguish him from the original (such is the role of a doppelganger), it wouldn't make sense making him look nothing like the original, would it?

Good examples of this can be found on that 'pid miss him' forum - you'd think they were comparing pictures of Paul to Jabba The Hut!

[socrates]

To show people how delusional and obnoxious you can be.

You say do it properly, then tilt a Faul picture to marry up with the side by side of Paul...

Well hold on there champ, I'm tilting it back.

I'm also puting Photoshop brushes all over it.

I never actually thought you would edit photos, so, this is just a hunch on my part at the moment - post the originals of these, in there original form, or I'm calling you out for just manipulating the pics.

Original:
http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/4180/sharpened.gif

Re-Edited:
http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/5553/socrates.jpg


You were expecting us to believe, two photos, years apart, the two of them just happened to have the very same expression on there faces?

Red Arrow: THE VERY SAME BLACK LINE UNDER THE EYE -- do you have any more of these miricles, I'd love to see them.

Yellow Arrow: The exact... EXACT, to a TEE, SHADING OF SHAPES ROUND THE MOUTH? Also, what the hell did you do to the teeth on the Faul one, give him a big Fang?

And it's speculation on my part here, but there is something not right about the neck.

Overall... you've just put the same face on two pics.

Post the originals, and make sure the second one is in colour this time.

I'm not even going to go into the fact you've probably brushed the eyebrows a bit as well, it's pretty sad on your part.

I want links to the pics, not imageshack uploads.

LOL! Typical PID claptrap.

"That pic is doctored." (101 PID Excuses For Any Evidence Which Refutes An Impostor)

They are two completely different photos whether you want to believe it or not.

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

The eyes are looking in a slightly different direction, for one thing!

You want us to believe that in the hundreds of photos taken of Paul McCartney during these years that there aren't at least two photos taken of him with the same expresion when he's smiling?

Okaaay.... :eek:

The reason why those two photos are so similar is......

Wait for it.....

Because they are the same man!

[socrates]

Hey guess what... JOHNS FACE DIDN'T CHANGE SHAPE! :eek:

http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/8196/79259870.jpghttp://img30.imageshack.us/img30/6021/bca.jpg

You think John's face is the same shape?! :eek:

Give us a break! It's clearly thinner in the second pic because he'd lost some weight since the earlier pics.

You'd argue black was whitle if it supported PID! :D

[ar20]

LOL! Typical PID claptrap.

"That pic is doctored." (101 PID Excuses For Any Evidence Which Refutes An Impostor)

They are two completely different photos whether you want to believe it or not.

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

The eyes are looking in a slightly different direction, for one thing!

You want us to believe that in the hundreds of photos taken of Paul McCartney during these years that there aren't at least two photos taken of him with the same expresion when he's smiling?

Okaaay.... :eek:

The reason why those two photos are so similar is......

Wait for it.....

Because they are the same man!

Thank you!

This is the post I was expecting, where are my links to the originals?

And the non-tilted version?

[humito]

http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/8196/79259870.jpghttp://img30.imageshack.us/img30/6021/bca.jpg

You think John's face is the same shape?! :eek:

Give us a break! It's clearly thinner in the second pic because he'd lost some weight since the earlier pics.

You'd argue black was whitle if it supported PID! :D

good one mate.......exactly what I was saying!

prooves the point perfectly,it escapes me how PID cannot comprehend the basic realites in life.
This Lennon comparison is exactly the same as the still from"the last known footage of paul mc cartney" and the stills dragged out constantly from the EMI and LSD interviews used to proove mc cartney is a different man.

chubby face....to.....longer thinner face with moustache.........both men had lost weight and the images were taken from different distances ect ect ect..........
:cool:

[ar20]

good one mate.......exactly what I was saying!

prooves the point perfectly,it escapes me how PID cannot comprehend the basic realites in life.
This Lennon comparison is exactly the same as the still from"the last known footage of paul mc cartney" and the stills dragged out constantly from the EMI and LSD interviews used to proove mc cartney is a different man.

chubby face....to.....longer thinner face with moustache.........both men had lost weight and the images were taken from different distances ect ect ect..........
:cool:

Does it escape you what I am ACTUALLY SAYING?

FACIAL.... FEATURES..... UNCHANGED....

FAUL AND PAUL HAVE DIFFERENT FACIAL FEATURES.

God it's like you refuse to even acknowledge a word I say.

[ar20]

Observers take note, the two "debunkers" haven't reviewed any points I've made and have resorted to attacking the rebuttal I made concerning doctored pics.

I can claim doctored, because you clearly edited them.

[humito]

Does it escape you what I am ACTUALLY SAYING?

FACIAL.... FEATURES..... UNCHANGED....

FAUL AND PAUL HAVE DIFFERENT FACIAL FEATURES.

God it's like you refuse to even acknowledge a word I say.

I acknowledge what you are saying but it is my opinion that you are deluding yourself......no offence intended.:)

[ar20]

I acknowledge what you are saying but it is my opinion that you are deluding yourself......no offence intended.:)

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=197&pictureid=1732

[humito]

Observers take note, the two "debunkers" haven't reviewed any points I've made and have resorted to attacking the rebuttal I made concerning doctored pics.

I can claim doctored, because you clearly edited them.

what points are those then ? the one you made where you think paul mc cartney turned into a pornstar? or the one daying that the pics of lennon do not show an apparent change in the shape of the head and face?

Again what facial features are different between faul and paul that cannot be explained away ?

[humito]

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=197&pictureid=1732

??? he has a different expression ,sideburns and longer hair in the second pic........his eyebrows are also visible because of the angle of photography and the fact his eyes are open wider!!!..................:) look in a mirror and move your mouth around.......notice how the shape of your nose changes.............

[ar20]

Wriggle your way out of this one.

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/5185/explainthisoney.jpg

http://www.maccafan.net/Vaultquiz/SecretVault/Portrai2.jpg

[humito]

Wriggle your way out of this one.

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/5185/explainthisoney.jpg

what are you trying to show us here? also you seem to be avoiding answering questions now.

[ar20]

??? he has a different expression ,sideburns and longer hair in the second pic........his eyebrows are also visible because of the angle of photography and the fact his eyes are open wider!!!..................:) look in a mirror and move your mouth around.......notice how the shape of your nose changes.............

This is the kind of post Socrates would make, where everything is the same pose, posture and expression (or near enough match).

The difference is here... they don't match, and it's not because his mouth is changing the shape of his nose or vice-versa.

[ar20]

what are you trying to show us here? also you seem to be avoiding answering questions now.

Are you serious?

:eek: LOOK, for gods sake.

Paul McCartney in the first four, wearing a fake mustache.

Looking nothing like FAUL, who's wearing a fake mustache.

And even with the beard, looks nothing like:

http://www.maccafan.net/Vaultquiz/SecretVault/Portrai2.jpg

[humito]

Are you serious?

:eek: LOOK, for gods sake.

Paul McCartney in the first four, wearing a fake mustache.

Looking nothing like FAUL, who's wearing a fake mustache.

And even with the beard, looks nothing like:

http://www.maccafan.net/Vaultquiz/SecretVault/Portrai2.jpg

your opinion dude.

[fireman]

To show people how delusional and obnoxious you can be.

You say do it properly, then tilt a Faul picture to marry up with the side by side of Paul...

Well hold on there champ, I'm tilting it back.

I'm also puting Photoshop brushes all over it.

I never actually thought you would edit photos, so, this is just a hunch on my part at the moment - post the originals of these, in there original form, or I'm calling you out for just manipulating the pics.

Original:
http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/4180/sharpened.gif

Re-Edited:
http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/5553/socrates.jpg


You were expecting us to believe, two photos, years apart, the two of them just happened to have the very same expression on there faces?

Red Arrow: THE VERY SAME BLACK LINE UNDER THE EYE -- do you have any more of these miricles, I'd love to see them.

Yellow Arrow: The exact... EXACT, to a TEE, SHADING OF SHAPES ROUND THE MOUTH? Also, what the hell did you do to the teeth on the Faul one, give him a big Fang?

And it's speculation on my part here, but there is something not right about the neck.

Overall... you've just put the same face on two pics.

Post the originals, and make sure the second one is in colour this time.

I'm not even going to go into the fact you've probably brushed the eyebrows a bit as well, it's pretty sad on your part.

I want links to the pics, not imageshack uploads.



Hi i'm back! :D

i have no energy for debating this nonsense anymore, but i read your request.

Your post was useless, the poster DID NOT "DOCTOR". The picture is vintage.
It's from Beatles monthly magazine 51:

http://www.jojoplace.org/Shoebox/Valis/bb49-8.jpg

[ar20]

Wriggle your way out of this one.

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/5185/explainthisoney.jpg

http://www.maccafan.net/Vaultquiz/SecretVault/Portrai2.jpg

That's fine, my opinion against yours... explain this one.

Fireman, I believed the first image to be doctored, not that one, that's clearly Faul -- by some miricle he has two photos where they share the same expression and the same line on the left side of their face?

Well okay then, I'm willing to go PIA, if he can produce another identical one.

You all haven't addressed this.

[faulconandsnowjob]

Maybe some people will be able to break thru their programming by looking at the pics in difft ways.

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

[ar20]

Paul in a beard doesn't look the same as Faul in one. Good job, Ar20.

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/5185/explainthisoney.jpg

Maybe some people will be able to break thru their programming by looking at the pics in difft ways.

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

No doubt they'll call you crazy for flipping pictures but it proves a valuable point, because they're incredibly stubborn and assertive in their perceptions of a person.

Yup, we actually have to resort to playing "Magic Pictures". :D

[faulconandsnowjob]

^ People have been trained to see them the same, so maybe by showing a difft perspective, they'll be able to see that Faul's face isn't the same as Paul's.

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/Paul66_faul67.jpg

[ar20]

^ People have been trained to see them the same, so maybe by showing a difft perspective, they'll be able to see that Faul's face isn't the same as Paul's.

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/Paul66_faul67.jpg

Faul has narrower eye space, longer nose and a mustache disguises his nose to lip distance. That's evident from that pic alone.

THE FACE SHAPE ISN'T THE SAME (last time I'm stating this, I'm tired of it).

[faulconandsnowjob]

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/Private_View1.jpghttp://www.maccafan.net/Vaultquiz/SecretVault/Portrai2.jpg

[socrates]

No doubt they'll call you crazy for flipping pictures but it proves a valuable point, because they're incredibly stubborn and assertive in their perceptions of a person.

I think you'll find that pertains to you, not us. After all, you're the one insisting that Paul McCartney has been replaced when he clearly hasn't. :rolleyes:

Thanks Fireman for posting the original pic. :)

Perhaps AR20 should look at decent photos, where the expressions are similar and the angles are similar - and not blurry screen caps of videos where Paul has the eyes of a Chinaman! :D

Maybe then she's see they are the same man...

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/forfaulc2.jpg

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/forfaulc2_overlay.jpg

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n20/khanmfh/fades/fadez27bl.gif

http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/9654/teethcomparisonko8.gif

..... If only she'd open her eyes to the truth and not be brainwashed by PID.

[socrates]

And while we're at it, lets put the 'How could he change so dramatically in a few months' crap to bed:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y111/Dylan_arg/64cheers.jpghttp://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y111/Dylan_arg/67car.jpg

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n20/khanmfh/comps/SandH.gif

:D

[ar20]

I think you'll find that pertains to you, not us. After all, you're the one insisting that Paul McCartney has been replaced when he clearly hasn't. :rolleyes:

Thanks Fireman for posting the original pic. :)

Perhaps AR20 should look at decent photos, where the expressions are similar and the angles are similar - and not blurry screen caps of videos where Paul has the eyes of a Chinaman! :D

Maybe then she's see they are the same man...

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/forfaulc2.jpg

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/forfaulc2_overlay.jpg

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n20/khanmfh/fades/fadez27bl.gif


..... If only she'd open her eyes to the truth and not be brainwashed by PID.

Lovely disinfo.... Smell the familiar smell of bullshit folks. Typical moving the images to fit the profile of the shapes, the same thing I dug you up about in the last topic.

You can turn anything round into anything, leave them as they are and we can judge for ourselves. You're just trying to prove your own belief by doing so.

Tilting the photos fits your assertions. Just leave them alone, they'll speak for themselves.

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

http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/4514/paulfaulfinal.jpg

HERES THE VIDEO, where he doesn't have "chinese eyes" for the majority of it:

http://www.youtube.com/v/zg6MTRWioMk


Observers: Notice Socrates constantly clutches at everything else but the ACTUAL Faul vs Paul pictures? It's always perspective, or it's too blurry, or it's not the right way, or the haircut, or whatever. It's cowardice from fact.

Look, if they're the same guy -- NONE OF THAT SHOULD MATTER. It clearly bothers you.

WATCH that video, and then get back to me. Don't denounce the source, it's a GREAT point.

EXPLAIN the noticable differences between 3 months, and drugs don't cut it!

It's suspicious that within 3 months every single one of them had to change appearance, where they just setting a new trend then? Or will you denounce that as coincidence? Yes, John looks thinner, but his face remains the same profile. He has the same features.

Paul and Faul don't. It's not like I'm a lone voice noticing this.

He at the very LEAST looks somewhat difference (will you at least agree on some form of surgery? It would be a start.)

Let's not put this crap to bed, this is a very legitimate point, Socrates -- and you painting hair on PAUL keeps PAUL AS PAUL (DUH), you could paint an afro on him and it would still be PAUL.

Afro on FAUL keeps him as Faul, okay? But keep going, you lend credence to our claims.

Claiming you've "debunked" this and this has been "put" to rest shows how tired your arguments are becoming.

http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/4514/paulfaulfinal.jpg

This is Jimmy Page in 1972:

http://www.bluekitchen.com.au/images/page2.jpg

This is him in 73

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2279/2208385465_158e8c17ef_o.jpg

These guys where coked out their minds for the entirety of their career.

They don't change THAT much.

Not to mention LSD doesn't change the shape of your facial features.

[socrates]

Paul and Faul have the same shaped lines on their hands.

Pity the pics are not in high resolution, but they are the best I could find:

http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/4743/screenhunter510.jpg

http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/3595/screenhunter511.jpg

Did Faul have Paul's hands amputated so he could use them? :D

Paul has a distinct turn in the last segment of his index finger. Guess what, so does Faul's. :eek:

No doubt the PIDers will say the fingers are not the same shape or a certain finger is longer/shorter than another blah, blah....

..... or their favouite, taken from Chapter 42, page 387 of 101 PID Excuses For Any Evidence Which Refutes An Impostor.....

"That pic has been doctored!"

Having the same hands usually signifies it's the same man. :eek:

[ar20]

Paul and Faul have the same shaped lines on their hands.

Pity the pics are not in high resolution, but they are the best I could find:

http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/4743/screenhunter510.jpg

http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/3595/screenhunter511.jpg

Did Faul have Paul's hands amputated so he could use them? :D

Paul has a distinct turn in the last segment of his index finger. Guess what, so does Faul's. :eek:

No doubt the PIDers will say the fingers are not the same shape or a certain finger is longer/shorter than another blah, blah....

..... or their favouite, taken from Chapter 42, page 387 of 101 PID Excuses For Any Evidence Which Refutes An Impostor.....

"That pic has been doctored!"

Having the same hands usually signifies it's the same man. :eek:

Hand lines prove nothing and I don't trust one pic from you unless it's a direct link. :p

And for the record, even those hands look different.

[ar20]

How do you explain P/Fauls shoe size increase?

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

[socrates]

Lovely disinfo.... Smell the familiar smell of bullshit folks.

Yep, and it comes from those who post crappy pics of Paul looking like a Chinaman so as to prove Paul was replaced. :rolleyes:

You post photos where the subject looks as different as possible. Ie. blurry, different angles, different expressions, different lighting and then say:

'They look different!'

Go figure. :rolleyes:

You can do that with anybody!

Observers: Notice Socrates constantly clutches at everything else but the ACTUAL Faul vs Paul pictures? It's always perspective, or it's too blurry, or it's not the right way, or the haircut, or whatever. It's cowardice from fact.

I refer you to my earlier answer. Everybody else understands that the same person can look different if you use blurry pics, taken at different angles, with different expressions under different lighting conditions.

Don't insult our intelligence with this clap-trap!

EXPLAIN the noticable differences between 3 months, and drugs don't cut it!

What "noticable differences" are you talking about? Explain what they are in these two pics:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y111/Dylan_arg/64cheers.jpghttp://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y111/Dylan_arg/67car.jpg

Notice these two pics offer a FAIR comparison - where the subject is photographed from a similar angle, with a similar expression etc. Not like your crappy pic of Paul looking like a Chinaman! :rolleyes:

And guess what? When you use RELEVANT photos for comparison they look like the same person. :eek:

But of course, you are insisting that there are "noticable differences" in these 'two' men. So, please - enlighten us. What, precisely, are they?

We're waiting....


It's suspicious that within 3 months every single one of them had to change appearance,

Only "suspicious" to those who want to believe it is.

"Had to change their appearance"? From what source do you conclude they "Had to"?

[socrates]

Hand lines prove nothing

Er, I think you'll find they do:

The New York Times -- For more than a century, the fingerprint has been a cornerstone of crime scene evidence. But fingerprints are only a tiny part of the story. All of a person’s “friction ridged skin” is distinctively patterned: soles, palms and even the so-called writer’s palm, which usually rests on the paper as one is writing.

Surveys of law enforcement agencies indicate that at least 30 percent of the prints lifted from crime scenes -- from knife hilts, gun grips, steering wheels and window panes -- are of palms, not fingers.

http://tech.mit.edu/V123/N58/long4.58w.html

and I don't trust one pic from you unless it's a direct link. :p

Usual PID excuse. :rolleyes:

And for the record, even those hands look different.

Only to somebody who has difficulty in recognising the same thing. ;)

[socrates]

How do you explain P/Fauls shoe size increase?

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

LOL. Iamaphoney has been discredited. The fact that you cite 'evidence' of different shoe sizes from that source just shows how you'll use any source to support PID, no matter how spurious.

A quick check on google came up with some interesting results regarding changing shoe sizes:

Have shoe sizes changed since the 60's?

Yes, men's shoe sizes differ by about one size. a size 12 d today is about the same as a size 11 d from the 1960's. the military was slower to adapt to this change and some of the long time oem providers still made military shoes at size 10.5 or 11 that matched street shoes size 12 late into the 1980's.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Have_shoe_sizes_changed_since_the_60%27s

Besides, due to regular wear and tear, foot ligaments and joints stretch—which means that over the course of a lifetime, shoe size tends to increase by about one size.
http://www.slate.com/id/2065546/

Maybe you shouldn't be too quick to swallow any old crap Iamaphoney throws at you. His name is certainly apt! :D

[faulconandsnowjob]

I've never heard of drugs causing someone's nose to grow longer as Paul's supposedly did from Aug '66 to Dec '66.. Making that argument is just lame. I'm hoping most people on this forum will be smart enough to not fall for that one :p

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/Paul_PW_Faul_1967.jpg

[hunter77]

Paul and Faul have the same shaped lines on their hands.

Pity the pics are not in high resolution, but they are the best I could find:

http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/4743/screenhunter510.jpg

http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/3595/screenhunter511.jpg

Did Faul have Paul's hands amputated so he could use them? :D

Paul has a distinct turn in the last segment of his index finger. Guess what, so does Faul's. :eek:

No doubt the PIDers will say the fingers are not the same shape or a certain finger is longer/shorter than another blah, blah....

..... or their favouite, taken from Chapter 42, page 387 of 101 PID Excuses For Any Evidence Which Refutes An Impostor.....

"That pic has been doctored!"

Having the same hands usually signifies it's the same man. :eek:

thats a great post, very noticable as no two persons hand are the same

[socrates]

thats a great post, very noticable as no two persons hand are the same

Cheers dude. Those lines are clearly the same shape and the same distance from one another on both hands.

And the hand shape, finger shape are the same. As well as the index finger being slightly turned in the last segment.

The PIDers can only trot out the same lame excuses for this, but any objective observer will conclude that those two hands are very similar.

What are the chances that an imposter would just happen to have identical looking hand lines, and the same turn in the last segment of his index finger?? :rolleyes:

[fireman]

How do you explain P/Fauls shoe size increase?

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


How do you know it did?

iamaphoneys video proofs NOTHING. Again, just clever editing to deceive ones perception.

How did he come from THAT pic

http://i42.tinypic.com/24fgpjb.gif


to THAT pic???

http://i39.tinypic.com/343isf6.gif


Iamaphoney has proven to be a hoaxer so many times now, still people believe this youtube-guy more then theire common sense!:rolleyes:

[socrates]

How do you know it did?

iamaphoneys video proofs NOTHING. Again, just clever editing to deceive ones perception.

How did he come from THAT pic

http://i42.tinypic.com/24fgpjb.gif


to THAT pic???

http://i39.tinypic.com/343isf6.gif


Iamaphoney has proven to be a hoaxer so many times now, still people believe this youtube-guy more then theire common sense!:rolleyes:

LOL. Common sense and PID are mutually incompatible. :D

[faulconandsnowjob]

I love how Socrates has to resort to insults b/c he can't make decent arguments & doesn't have the facts to back up his position. It's so transparent. We, on the other hand, can show that Paul & Faul aren't the same guy. And we don't even have to doctor photos to do it.

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

[fireman]

Don't really look so much the same when you look at it this way, huh?

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

and thanks for that Faulcon! Facial features of two different pictures of the same man can not be a better match then in this one!

Absolutly the same guy!!:)

Did you go PIA while i was gone?

[humito]

thats a great post, very noticable as no two persons hand are the same

yeh good work socrates !!!

PID will probably say that the illuminati cut off the originals and put them on the replacement and then promise to post pics of the operation scars and plastic surgery:rolleyes:

Oh that reminds me ,have you found the pictures you said you would post yet Faulcon of Paul's facial surgery scars by the way.................. ?

Also Faulcon ,are we supposed to believe pauls nose grew just because you say it did ? Like pauls feet grew because iamaphoney says so ?

Who are the sheep and the repeaters here I wonder?



Socrates dont let these hand comparisons and the John lennon comparisons get buried on this thread .........both good points well made.:)

[humito]

I love how Socrates has to resort to insults b/c he can't make decent arguments & doesn't have the facts to back up his position. It's so transparent. We, on the other hand, can show that Paul & Faul aren't the same guy. And we don't even have to doctor photos to do it.

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

No one has been more insulting and dishonest than you Faulcon!

You have consistantly been rude to everyone who disagrees with PID and have lied time and again about having non existant evidence......the casual obsever is more than capable of seeing what has transpired on this thread..

Socrates and Fireman have prooved beyond doubt that PID is nothing more than urban legend and morbid wishfull thinking.

Socrates has posted a pic that shows pauls hand markings are the same!!

Where are your pics of Pauls facial scars you promised?????

Who is making false claims and not backing it up with evidence ??


I realise Faulcon that you have gone so far with this that you cannot now back down ,but for goodness sake ....can you stop being such a hypocrite ,its getting boring now .

[fireman]

you sure can....

http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/2350/screenhunter490.jpg

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/7438/b7878.jpg

compare '64 and '67, for example:

http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/8196/79259870.jpghttp://img30.imageshack.us/img30/6021/bca.jpg

:eek: :eek: :eek:

Was john replaced too? Lol! :d


great post!!

[socrates]

Socrates dont let these hand comparisons and the John lennon comparisons get buried on this thread .........both good points well made.:)

Cheers dude.

http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/4743/screenhunter510.jpg

http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/3595/screenhunter511.jpg

:D

http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/2350/screenhunter490.jpg
http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/8196/79259870.jpghttp://img30.imageshack.us/img30/6021/bca.jpg

:D

[faulconandsnowjob]

The PIA'ers on here must have the worst eye for detail if they can't tell the difference. Actually, they've proven time & again they can't discern at all - even when the differences are really obvious, like a much longer nose. It's kind of sad & pathetic at some point... I'm not posting anything for the benefit of them. It doesn't matter how difft Faul looks from Paul, it's still the same person no matter what as far as they're concerned. Why? B/c the Illuminati told them so, & they're good little sheep, don't question anything.

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

[socrates]

The PIA'ers on here must have the worst eye for detail if they can't tell the difference. Actually, they've proven time & again they can't discern at all - even when the differences are really obvious, like a much longer nose. It's kind of sad & pathetic at some point... I'm not posting anything for the benefit of them. It doesn't matter how difft Faul looks from Paul, it's still the same person no matter what as far as they're concerned. Why? B/c the Illuminati told them so, & they're good little sheep, don't question anything.

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

Yawn.... You're like a broken record faulcon... ZZZzzzzz.........

Was John replaced too?

http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/2350/screenhunter490.jpg

http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/8196/79259870.jpghttp://img30.imageshack.us/img30/6021/bca.jpg

LOL. :D

[faulconandsnowjob]

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/hey_jude-comp.jpg

[humito]

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/hey_jude-comp.jpg

LOL..........more rubbish...........I see you are yet again branding everyone sheep,sad and pathetic and accusing people of not questioning anything :rolleyes:
we seem to be doing a good job of questioning you and you wild claims Faulcon.
Are the above pictures the ones showing pauls surgery scars you said you would post?
Did they replace john too? the comparisons are in the same league as PID evidence.

[faulconandsnowjob]

Another picture of *green* eyed Faul.

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

It doesn't even matter to the PIA'ers on here if the guys have different colored eyes. lol :rolleyes:

[cheeney1]

http://bp2.blogger.com/_g05rcQEz--I/R8tl_qizfuI/AAAAAAAAAXU/YVbhq5vb4yk/s400/flogging+a+dead+horse.jpg

[fireman]

Here is a better comparison, with the same picture:

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

perfect match:

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



Faulcon, you really don't see that Paul is blowing air up his cheeks in the picture you posted above?

Did you ever had the feeling that those close to you (family, friends) may have been replaced, too?

Then you should seek advise on this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capgras_delusion
:(

[toty1994]

Yawn.... You're like a broken record faulcon... ZZZzzzzz.........

Was John replaced too?

http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/2350/screenhunter490.jpg

http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/8196/79259870.jpghttp://img30.imageshack.us/img30/6021/bca.jpg

LOL. :D


Some people on the site that faulcon promotes apparently think so.

I like alot of people on this forum believe that john was replaced because of the grief he felt over paul's disapearance

They call the imposter Fohn Lennon on there.

See also...

George Harrison Was Replaced
http://only1rad.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=gonebutnotforgotten&action=display&thread=1170

Ringo Was Replaced
http://only1rad.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=gonebutnotforgotten&action=display&thread=1168

[humito]

Another picture of *green* eyed Faul.

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

It doesn't even matter to the PIA'ers on here if the guys have different colored eyes. lol :rolleyes:

Here we go again.........the apparent change in eye colour has been covered umpteen times on this thread ..........BIG YAWN.:D

Can I have the photographic evidence please Faulcon you promissed of the early "fauls" extensive plastic surgery scars please ??????????? You did say you would find them when you had time??????????

[humito]

http://bp2.blogger.com/_g05rcQEz--I/R8tl_qizfuI/AAAAAAAAAXU/YVbhq5vb4yk/s400/flogging+a+dead+horse.jpg
lol this made me laugh:D

[humito]

@ Faulcon........also would you like to comment on the fact that the lines on Pauls hands are the same and also the lennon comparissons .........if this was " Lennon was replaced "that is what L I D would be posting as evidence !!:D


Also can you comment on the reasons for Pauls apparent replacement please,

To promote LSD is not a very convincing arguement to honest ......even on the sgt pepper LP the two really psychedelic tracks, Lucy in the sky and within you and without you, were written respectivley by Lennon and Harrison I believe........
There is no doubt that revolver ,sgt pepper,magical mystery tour, abbey road and the white album are amazing to listen to when tripping .........but that is about it

again if we look at pauls songs.....

I cant see what was evil about them or what it is about them that is promoting an illuminati agenda,


I know got to get you in to my life was supposed to be about smoking dope ,but thats something TPTB are quite hysterically against!

And why dont we do it io the road and helter skelter are about sex but hey it was the sixties ....oh yeah baby !:D


So again ,why bother to spend what must have been millions of pounds at the time on a " replacement".

What has Paul done since The Beatles to further the illuminati agenda ??

Be a vegetarian ? release live lobsters from a restaurant back into the wild? protest against seal clubbing?

Give huge sums of cash to charity?

Why do it ?

[fireman]

@ Faulcon........also would you like to comment on the fact that the lines on Pauls hands are the same and also the lennon comparissons .........if this was " Lennon was replaced "that is what L I D would be posting as evidence !!:D


Also can you comment on the reasons for Pauls apparent replacement please,

To promote LSD is not a very convincing arguement to honest ......even on the sgt pepper LP the two really psychedelic tracks, Lucy in the sky and within you and without you, were written respectivley by Lennon and Harrison I believe........
There is no doubt that revolver ,sgt pepper,magical mystery tour, abbey road and the white album are amazing to listen to when tripping .........but that is about it

again if we look at pauls songs.....

I cant see what was evil about them or what it is about them that is promoting an illuminati agenda,


I know got to get you in to my life was supposed to be about smoking dope ,but thats something TPTB are quite hysterically against!

And why dont we do it io the road and helter skelter are about sex but hey it was the sixties ....oh yeah baby !:D


So again ,why bother to spend what must have been millions of pounds at the time on a " replacement".

What has Paul done since The Beatles to further the illuminati agenda ??

Be a vegetarian ? release live lobsters from a restaurant back into the wild? protest against seal clubbing?

Give huge sums of cash to charity?

Why do it ?


Paul always was the Beatles nice-guy type.

Satanic? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joglQUdjV_I

:D:D:D:):):)

[fireman]

@ Faulcon........also would you like to comment on the fact that the lines on Pauls hands are the same and also the lennon comparissons .........if this was " Lennon was replaced "that is what L I D would be posting as evidence !!:D


Also can you comment on the reasons for Pauls apparent replacement please,

To promote LSD is not a very convincing arguement to honest ......even on the sgt pepper LP the two really psychedelic tracks, Lucy in the sky and within you and without you, were written respectivley by Lennon and Harrison I believe........
There is no doubt that revolver ,sgt pepper,magical mystery tour, abbey road and the white album are amazing to listen to when tripping .........but that is about it

again if we look at pauls songs.....

I cant see what was evil about them or what it is about them that is promoting an illuminati agenda,


I know got to get you in to my life was supposed to be about smoking dope ,but thats something TPTB are quite hysterically against!

And why dont we do it io the road and helter skelter are about sex but hey it was the sixties ....oh yeah baby !:D


So again ,why bother to spend what must have been millions of pounds at the time on a " replacement".

What has Paul done since The Beatles to further the illuminati agenda ??

Be a vegetarian ? release live lobsters from a restaurant back into the wild? protest against seal clubbing?

Give huge sums of cash to charity?

Why do it ?



oh, yeah and i wanted to add: humito, very good post. you nailed it! :)

:)

[boots]

http://bp2.blogger.com/_g05rcQEz--I/R8tl_qizfuI/AAAAAAAAAXU/YVbhq5vb4yk/s400/flogging+a+dead+horse.jpg

ROFLMAO:D

Nice one mate. Speaks volumes.

.

[ar20]

Yep, and it comes from those who post crappy pics of Paul looking like a Chinaman so as to prove Paul was replaced. :rolleyes:

You post photos where the subject looks as different as possible. Ie. blurry, different angles, different expressions, different lighting and then say:

'They look different!'

Go figure. :rolleyes:

You can do that with anybody!

I refer you to my earlier answer. Everybody else understands that the same person can look different if you use blurry pics, taken at different angles, with different expressions under different lighting conditions.

Don't insult our intelligence with this clap-trap!


What "noticable differences" are you talking about? Explain what they are in these two pics:

Notice these two pics offer a FAIR comparison - where the subject is photographed from a similar angle, with a similar expression etc. Not like your crappy pic of Paul looking like a Chinaman! :rolleyes:

And guess what? When you use RELEVANT photos for comparison they look like the same person. :eek:

But of course, you are insisting that there are "noticable differences" in these 'two' men. So, please - enlighten us. What, precisely, are they?

We're waiting....



Only "suspicious" to those who want to believe it is.

"Had to change their appearance"? From what source do you conclude they "Had to"?

This is the last time I'm posting anything with you, honestly -- it's pointless, I'm better off running face first into a bus.

"Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see."

I do not post pictures where they look COMPLETELY different and declare difference, I post a picture where they are 3 months apart and Paul is squinting a little, then he is all of a sudden tashed, different nose, bigger face and his eyes don't match -- it has sod all to do with the angle considering they're facing practically the same way -- I even left Faul's mouth open knowing the difference is VISIBLE enough to do so.

It's a cop out and you know it, let's do a test:

Kevin Spacey from the front:

http://www.mediabistro.com/agencyspy/original/kevin-spacey-2.jpg

Kevin Spacey from the side AND BALD:

http://lifeafterwcg2.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/supermanreturns017.jpg

Still essentially Kevin Spacey, you recognize your friends in a crowd right, surely, you can do that - right Socrates? How about a nightclub where it's dark?

So all your absolute garbage about "oh thats only because perspective / light / angle / facial expression - he looks different" isn't even an issue, you're actually stating your incapable of noticing anything unless they're practically the same picture.

Like I keep saying, keep that up -- it gives this credence by proving your ignorance. Paul is too "chinese" looking in there for you so you're able to mistake him? Psh, garbage.

Your two pics are just as fair a comparison as anything posted in here, you're claiming Paul is looking like a chinaman in my pic comparison...

But on the other side of the pic he's looking like a pornstar -- gee.

God, you realise how dumb that sounds? You're essentially saying the Paul you know looks Chinese in that pic (when he doesn't), so how then - by your perception, can you be accurate about anything you've said?

I'll tell you, you bloody well can't. Anyone with two briancells knows that because Paul is squinting his eyes.....HE'S STILL PAUL. If Paul stands on his head with his mouth wide opened, HE'S STILL PAUL -- how dense would you have to be not to recognise someone because they aren't in the same expression or pose?

Same goes with you painting Faul's hair and tash on anything ... yeah -- it's still Paul's face. Go put an afro on that bald spacey pic. Better yet, do us all a favour - paint Paul's head of hair onto Faul and marry the pics up....

You won't do it because it won't match.

It's okay, take the cowards road then and continue to insult the pics -- you know fine well they speak volumes without the editing which you do.

Here is the video where he is CHINESE AND A PORNSTAR:

http://www.youtube.com/v/zg6MTRWioMk

Why don't you look? I'm not capping every scene the guy is in to prove a point -- the video is essential anyway, I think this speaks more as well:

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/5185/explainthisoney.jpg

http://www.maccafan.net/Vaultquiz/SecretVault/Portrai2.jpg

You STILL HAVE NOT POSTED THE LINKS to the originals which I asked. It's an easy request to fulfill -- surely on your road to slandering everyone in PiD you could at least do this one little thing.

I also would like to see these other miraculous pics where they have the same LINE going through them and happen to have the very same expression, pose, angle, blah blah -- everything you asked for.

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/5553/socrates.jpg


You happen to be one of the greatest trolls I've ever come across, honestly -- hats of to you brother, you really know how to rile someone up over the internet, you should get laid for your endeavors in these two topics.

Socrates pattern of trolling:

Ignore every response
Insult within response
Ignore clear cut imagery
Declare non-proof "Too blurry, not right angle, Pauls got a sore toe that day, etc. etc. ad nauseum"
Declare everything debunked (when it's the complete opposite)

Honestly, I can't contend with that monumental level of ignorance.

[ar20]

One more for the road:

http://www.maccafan.net/Vaultquiz/SecretVault/Portrai2.jpg
http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/Private_View1.jpg

I'm away for a few days, spending too much time on this topic ain't good at all.

[socrates]

I do not post pictures where they look COMPLETELY different

For the last time... You post completely ridiculous comparison pics which are blurry, of exceedingly poor quality, where the expressions are different and the lighting is different! :mad:

Are you denying this?!

LOOK...

http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/4514/paulfaulfinal.jpg

Why do you choose such crappy pics for a comparison? Because the poor quality of those pics itself heightens the so called differences!

You are asking people to look at blurry, poor quality pics and assess if there are "differences".

Who you trying to kid?

Why make it more difficult than it has to be? Why not compare GOOD quality pics? Is that not more SENSIBLE? :rolleyes:

I pointed this out in a previous post, and asked you to tell us the "noticable differences" in the pics.

You conveniently ignored this request - and you have the nerve to accuse me of ignoring posts. :mad:

10 out of 10 for your hypocrisy.

Here it is again:

What "noticable differences" are you talking about? Explain what they are in these two pics:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y111/Dylan_arg/64cheers.jpghttp://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y111/Dylan_arg/67car.jpg

Notice these two pics offer a FAIR comparison - where the subject is photographed from a similar angle, with a similar expression etc. Not like your crappy pic of Paul looking like a Chinaman! :rolleyes:

And guess what? When you use RELEVANT photos for comparison they look like the same person.

But of course, you are insisting that there are "noticable differences" in these 'two' men. So, please - enlighten us. What, precisely, are they?

We're waiting....

I'll also add this comp:

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/6667-1.gif

Are you seriously trying to tell us that your blurry, low quality is comparable to the comps, above?

Don't insult our intelligence!

The rest of your little rant I'll ignore since you are obviously losing it.

On the matter of the original pic of Paul, I've told you I'm trying to find it. However, your claim that it is the same pic can be easily disproved by this fade - the angles are clearly different:

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/scan0fade_edit.gif

I'm better off running face first into a bus.

Might knock some sense into you. :p

[socrates]

How do you know it did?

iamaphoneys video proofs NOTHING. Again, just clever editing to deceive ones perception.

How did he come from THAT pic

http://i42.tinypic.com/24fgpjb.gif


to THAT pic???

http://i39.tinypic.com/343isf6.gif


Iamaphoney has proven to be a hoaxer so many times now, still people believe this youtube-guy more then theire common sense!:rolleyes:

A great point Fireman, that AR20 has also totally ignored. Yet she accuses me of ignoring posts. :rolleyes:

[faulconandsnowjob]

Getting back to those doctored photos Socrates posted...

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/truePaul-1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/CorporateA/FacialStructure.jpg

[dusthead]

Without reading through the hundreds of pages of arguing here, am I the only person who can tell it's Paul McCartney's voice on every single recording? Paul is unquestionably the same Paul who fronted the Beatles from the beginning.

You can do a lot with plastic surgery these days, but it's currently impossible to emulate a human voice exactly - even through electronic synthesis.

Added to that, his song-writing has familiar traits, his interviews show the same personality at work (with the same sense of humour) and his music has sold consistently to the same audience, who would be the first to spot something amiss in his musical style.

To be honest, none of the 'before and after' photographs look suspicious. I genuinely can't see anything wrong with them. If I look at photographs of myself they contrast more than the ones I have seen here. Does that mean I am actually someone else masquerading as me?

If you can't see that it's Paul, that is your opinion and your welcome to it - but you are wrong and arguably a little bit mad. I suppose you could e-mail Paul about it. Ringo is a bit harder to contact these days.

[faulconandsnowjob]

Actually, it's not the same voice. People have been conditioned to hear them as being the same, just as they've been conditioned to see them as the same. There may be some studio magic that could make them sound very similar, but there is distortion on Faul's voice in some songs (Lady Madonna, for ex).

http://digilander.libero.it/p_truth/the_truth/paul_faul_vocal_comparison.gif
Paul on left, Faul on right

http://digilander.libero.it/p_truth/audio.html

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

The best thing would be to do a vocal analysis of the interviews, not the songs.

But anyway, the guys don't look the same, don't have the same color eyes, are not the same height, don't have the same ears or eyebrows, so there's no way they're the same person.

[socrates]

Getting back to those doctored photos Socrates posted...

Stop making unfounded allegations. Some lawyer you are! :rolleyes:

[socrates]

Actually, it's not the same voice.

Actually, yes it is. :D

People have been conditioned to hear them as being the same, just as they've been conditioned to see them as the same.

No they haven't.

There may be some studio magic that could make them sound very similar, but there is distortion on Faul's voice in some songs (Lady Madonna, for ex).

http://digilander.libero.it/p_truth/the_truth/paul_faul_vocal_comparison.gif
Paul on left, Faul on right

http://digilander.libero.it/p_truth/audio.html

LOL! Faulcon's famous software analysis that she refuses to give any details about like what software it actually is and how reliable it is.

Chances are it's some two bit piece of crap that some PIDer downloaded off the internet for 5 bucks!

No wonder Faulcon has refused all requests for details about this sofware analysis. What has she got to hide? I think we know. :D

But anyway, the guys don't look the same, don't have the same color eyes, are not the same height, don't have the same ears or eyebrows, so there's no way they're the same person.

So you keep saying ad nauseum - despite evidence to the contary and which you generally ignore and fail to rebut.

Just because you think there are differences doesn't make it fact.

Anybody with an open, objective mind can surely see these are the same person...

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/6667-1.gif

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[socrates]

Without reading through the hundreds of pages of arguing here, am I the only person who can tell it's Paul McCartney's voice on every single recording? Paul is unquestionably the same Paul who fronted the Beatles from the beginning.

You can do a lot with plastic surgery these days, but it's currently impossible to emulate a human voice exactly - even through electronic synthesis.

Added to that, his song-writing has familiar traits, his interviews show the same personality at work (with the same sense of humour) and his music has sold consistently to the same audience, who would be the first to spot something amiss in his musical style.

To be honest, none of the 'before and after' photographs look suspicious. I genuinely can't see anything wrong with them. If I look at photographs of myself they contrast more than the ones I have seen here. Does that mean I am actually someone else masquerading as me?

If you can't see that it's Paul, that is your opinion and your welcome to it - but you are wrong and arguably a little bit mad. I suppose you could e-mail Paul about it. Ringo is a bit harder to contact these days.

Good post! I entirely agree.

[stonn]

http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/6582/c67article2037645bodyar.jpg

Hello! :)

[hurr]

I think Paul really died in 1966... but rose from the died on the third day !!!

Remember, the Beatles were not just a band... they were GODS !!! We mortals cannot come back from the dead... BUT GODS CAN !!!

The second WINGS album was RED ROSE SPEEDWAY.
Paul obviously crashed on a speedway... there was blood and it was red... but then he ROSE.
He had WINGS when he came back. At first John thought that he saw a walrus (the walrus was Paul...) Then he realized that it was Paul.

[dusthead]

Good post! I entirely agree.

Thank you Socrates.

I'm fed up with all this guff about people being 'conditioned to see and hear things'. It's bloody obvious that Paul McCartney is still Paul McCartney. The pictures comparing 'Paul and Faul' are laughable and put up a very poor case. Evidence for an impersonator is thinner than an anorexic stick insect.

As for the 'scientific evidence' and analysis of McCartney's voice, if 'Faul' has distortion on his voice that is a result of the microphone used or the recording technique. There are certain singers who can synthesize electronic distortion vocally, but they are generally human beatboxers or 'vocal contortionists' (see Rahzel and Mike Patton). It's painfully obvious that Paul is the performer singing the songs - just use your ears!

There are some people here who will claim squares are actually circles and 2+2=5. They will say that we have been conditioned to believe otherwise. I only hope these people don't become accountants or architects, because the world will be in a lot of trouble and an awful lot of buildings will collapse (but that's another thread).

[socrates]

Thank you Socrates.

I'm fed up with all this guff about people being 'conditioned to see and hear things'.

Me too. But it's one of Faulcon's favourite lines. :rolleyes:

She accuses everybody who disagrees with her of being under the influence of some illuminati conspiracy and therefore cannot look at things for themselves. What a poor opinion she must have of people's intelligence and ability to judge. :(

Not everybody is a sheep.

It's bloody obvious that Paul McCartney is still Paul McCartney. The pictures comparing 'Paul and Faul' are laughable and put up a very poor case. Evidence for an impersonator is thinner than an anorexic stick insect.

Very true!

As for the 'scientific evidence' and analysis of McCartney's voice, if 'Faul' has distortion on his voice that is a result of the microphone used or the recording technique. There are certain singers who can synthesize electronic distortion vocally, but they are generally human beatboxers or 'vocal contortionists' (see Rahzel and Mike Patton). It's painfully obvious that Paul is the performer singing the songs - just use your ears!

Faulcon refuses to give any specific details of what software was used and how the test was conducted. Therefore, her claim cannot be taken seriously and must be viewed with the utmost suspicion.

She obviously has something to hide.

There are some people here who will claim squares are actually circles and 2+2=5. They will say that we have been conditioned to believe otherwise. I only hope these people don't become accountants or architects, because the world will be in a lot of trouble and an awful lot of buildings will collapse (but that's another thread).

Hate to break this to you, but Faulcon is allegedly a lawyer! :eek: :D

[dusthead]

Me too. But it's one of Faulcon's favourite lines. :rolleyes:

She accuses everybody who disagrees with her of being under the influence of some illuminati conspiracy and therefore cannot look at things for themselves. What a poor opinion she must have of people's intelligence and ability to judge. :(

Not everybody is a sheep.

Very true!

Faulcon refuses to give any specific details of what software was used and how the test was conducted. Therefore, her claim cannot be taken seriously and must be viewed with the utmost suspicion.

She obviously has something to hide.

Hate to break this to you, but Faulcon is allegedly a lawyer! :eek: :D

She may be a lawyer, but I'm a music lecturer and her argument for 'Faul's voice' is stick thin. Those diagrams don't prove anything I'm afraid.

[humito]

Actually, yes it is. :D



No they haven't.


LOL! Faulcon's famous software analysis that she refuses to give any details about like what software it actually is and how reliable it is.

Chances are it's some two bit piece of crap that some PIDer downloaded off the internet for 5 bucks!

No wonder Faulcon has refused all requests for details about this sofware analysis. What has she got to hide? I think we know. :D



So you keep saying ad nauseum - despite evidence to the contary and which you generally ignore and fail to rebut.

Just because you think there are differences doesn't make it fact.

Anybody with an open, objective mind can surely see these are the same person...

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/6667-1.gif

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I agree with this as well ,also you have to take into account that some tracks were speeded up e.t.c and voices manipulated as well ( echoes,distorted,reveresed,doubled etc)

voice patterns can also change with exess drug and alcohol taking..................something all the Beatles induldged in!

Also many hours in studio singing can alter the voice,especially in mc cartneys case with his ability to sing like little richard.......( something he can still pull off today!)......which gives the vocal cords a right workout.

I would also add as a Fan that his Fireman release Electric arguements shows just how talented he still is ,the album is amazing psychedelia,completed in under 2 weeks ! he started and finished a track a day improvised from scratch ! again playing all instruments!

anyone who considers this man to be untalented is deluded.

Faulcon can we please have your comments on the lennon comparisons the hand comparisons and the surgery scar pics you promised?.:)

[faulconandsnowjob]

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

[fireman]

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

WOW great post Faulcon! :rolleyes:

What is that supose to tell us? That is trolling at its best.

You are only posting random pics of Paul.

Do you think this is the same guy?

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/PID%20stuff/new1.gif

If so why? He looks more different in these two, then in your comp above.

Thats life: people look different in different photos! :D

PAUL is ALIVE! :)

[socrates]

She may be a lawyer, but I'm a music lecturer and her argument for 'Faul's voice' is stick thin. Those diagrams don't prove anything I'm afraid.

Faulcon just got OWNED! :D

Her amateur, armchair opinions are dismissed by a qualified expert.

Thanks Dusthead. Hope you stick around to educate people of the TRUTH and highlight how these PIDers are deluding themselves.

We don't want innocent people being taken in by their ill-informed claims.

[socrates]

Do you think this is the same guy?

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/PID%20stuff/new1.gif

Ooh! Look at the great big nose on that first Paul! Can't be the same person! :D

[faulconandsnowjob]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/JPM/thumbs2.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/TheFaker/pid_on_magazine_p67.jpg

[fireman]

ANOTHER POST IGNORED BY FAULCON! Are you afraid of facing reality?

WOW great post Faulcon! :rolleyes:

You are only posting random pics of Paul.

Do you think this is the same guy?

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/PID%20stuff/new1.gif

If so why? He looks more different in these two, then in your comp above.

Thats life: people look different in different photos! :D

PAUL is ALIVE! :)

[faulconandsnowjob]

I don't have to come up w/ a million excuses like the PIA'ers. The pictures speak for themselves.

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

[fireman]

And these don't?

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/PID%20stuff/new1.gif


Following your logic Paul has always been dead and replaced! :D

:p

[astrochicken]

It's a cop out and you know it, let's do a test:

Kevin Spacey from the front:

http://www.mediabistro.com/agencyspy/original/kevin-spacey-2.jpg

Kevin Spacey from the side AND BALD:

http://lifeafterwcg2.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/supermanreturns017.jpg

Still essentially Kevin Spacey, you recognize your friends in a crowd right, surely, you can do that - right Socrates? How about a nightclub where it's dark?

So all your absolute garbage about "oh thats only because perspective / light / angle / facial expression - he looks different" isn't even an issue, you're actually stating your incapable of noticing anything unless they're practically the same picture.

LOL

From the "SIDE" and "BALD" .. yep.. it's still Kevin Spacey.

Thanks AR20 that will convince a lot of casual readers that the "paul is alive" crowd are talking out their arse.

[accuracy]

LOL

Thanks AR20 that will convince a lot of casual readers that the "paul is alive" crowd are talking out their arse.

What an attitude you have, it would be great if you stop talking crap. :rolleyes:

[i_am]

Right!!!

You can discuss the pros and cons of this without resorting to personal insults and attacking the character of those whose views differ from your own.

No one is going to change their mind one way or the other so stop with the put downs and ridiculing, please. It is pointless!!

[dream9]

The insults were being thrown long before astrochicken said anything.

[faulconandsnowjob]

The insults were being thrown long before astrochicken said anything.
It's ok just as long as they're insulting PID'ers, lol. I don't care, really. When people have to resort to insults, it just shows how desperate they are. :D

The pictures speak for themselves.

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

[socrates]

When people have to resort to insults, it just shows how desperate they are. :D

The PIA'ers on here must have the worst eye for detail ... It's kind of sad & pathetic... & they're good little sheep...

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[dusthead]

It's ok just as long as they're insulting PID'ers, lol. I don't care, really. When people have to resort to insults, it just shows how desperate they are. :D

The pictures speak for themselves.

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

How?!!!

IT'S THE SAME PERSON IN BOTH PICTURES!

Am I going mad here?!! What am I missing?

Those are really obviously two different pictures of Paul McCartney - not Paul McCartney & Lord Lucan, or Paul McCartney & a man who had plastic surgery in 1966.

IT'S PAUL CHUFFING McCARTNEY!

Why in the name of cock would anyone from a record company want to pretend Paul was still alive after his alleged death?!!!

Nirvana's record sales sky-rocketed after Cobain's death - Nirvana are currently outselling Elvis. See also - Jimi Hendrix, Nina Simone, Ian Curtis, Janis Joplin, Johnny Cash etc, etc, etc... When a famous musician dies, the cold cynical hand of media-mourning begins and companies like Geffen, EMI and Sony are only too glad to cash in. The death of Paul McCartney would shift literally billions of units.

Why am I even bothering to justify my argument?!! Look at the pictures!!! Anyone who thinks Paul is two different people should not be trusted to fill out a 'spot the difference' competition in a child's puzzle-book. I would also be wary of their ability to identify a criminal in a line-up or read a number plate from 2 yards distance. They are probably not safe to drive either.

[socrates]

Hi Dusthead,

Can you give your expert opinion on this:

http://digilander.libero.it/p_truth/audio.html

[faulconandsnowjob]

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

Posted by sonikdave here:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=30205&page=457


Hi there,

I have been reading this thread for a while and thought I'd share my little pid story with you guys as I'm sick in bed today and can't do much but watch tv (dreadful) or go on the laptop.

My friends and I are all music buffs, I'm not really huge on the beatles and I don't know an awful lot about them, but my best friend is a huge Beatles fan and I first got into this paul is dead business when I read a book about it on his bookshelf. My friend doesn't think Paul was replaced he just collects Beatles stuff, but I was fascinated with it. I am however a huge fan of The Smiths, Morrissey and Johnny Marr.. Well I had an opportunity to meet Johnny Marr at a major record store here in Toronto Ontario(HMV). I was very nervous in meeting him and wasn't sure what to say, but when we had concluded our talk in which I got a picture with him he introduced me to Zak, Ringo's son who plays drums in Johnny's new band at the time, the Healers. Well after talking to him about 5 mins I remembered the whole deal with Paul is dead so I asked him about it, can't remember exactly what I said, but he said "definitely something there isn't there? There will always be a Paul McCartney" then proceeded to change the subject quite quickly...

Also my brother's friend owns a bar in Brantford Ontario where I was living last year and Pete Best was performing there one night. I had no idea he was coming I was there watching a hockey game (typical canadian) He actually sat down next to me and my brother and had a drink with us, I also asked him about the whole Paul is dead theories and what he thought, and his entire demenour changed and he looked like he was stressed out about something and he said "Such a sad story, I wish I had time to properly discuss my feelings about it but either nobody cares anymore or nobody asks." I was pretty buzzed as I was drinking quite a bit (my team was losing) when I was talking to him and I asked him straight up if Paul was dead in his opinion and he just shook his head and kept drinking staring at his beer and left within a few mins into the back.

I have shown my wife faul/paul pictures and she knows nothing about mccartney didn't even recognize him in the pictures, but I asked if it was the same guy with about 5 photos and each time she could distinctively pick out which one was faul and which was paul. These things make me think maybe I'm not insane in thinking it is a real possibility Paul was replaced or died. I can't say for sure either way and I don't think anybody can really. It's a great forum to present people the information on the subject from both sides so that people reading can formulate their own conclusions.

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

^ Completely difft nose, chin, eyebrows, shape of face.

[toty1994]

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

Posted by sonikdave here:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=30205&page=457



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

^ Completely difft nose, chin, eyebrows, shape of face.

...and yet people disagree with you for perfectly logical reasons which, for whatever reason, you have chosen not to accept. That you call such people 'sheep', disinfo agents' 'untrained' etc etc says more about you than it does about them imo.

As for sonikdave's post I agree that it's interesting. The problem is it's just an anecdotal story; if Pete Best had come straight out and told him pid was a load of rubbish you'd have dismissed it.

[dusthead]

Hi Dusthead,

Can you give your expert opinion on this:

http://digilander.libero.it/p_truth/audio.html

Not really.

It's fantastically vague and curiously there is only one rendition of the word 'go' in the sample. It says quite clearly that the two samples are included which is misleading.

The visual 'diagrams' are obviously intended to make the whole thing look academic, but in reality they are just standard images of wav files. I could record two of my farts and it would look very similar.

With digital recording you can make anything sound like anything these days. Sound is manipulated in exactly the same way as photographs are processed through photoshop.

However, the one thing that is almost impossible to emulate is a unique human voice. It's VERY hard indeed. We can change pitch, duration, dynamics, volume, rhythm etc, etc... but it's very hard to emulate personality, regional accents, emotions or anything that makes it uniquely human. People have worked on it for years with minimal success - why do you think Stephen Hawking still sounds like someone who's had a tracheoctomy?

Added to that, individual voices just have a certain timbre to them. I always know when Mike Patton is singing. Bjork and Frank Zappa also. There is currently no electronic way of emulating that quality. It simply exists.

Paul always sounds like Paul. There's no electronic way of altering that fact unless you distort his voice into a bizarre mess of digital FX.

[faulconandsnowjob]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v462/OnlyBeatles/paul_faul_vintage.png

[ar20]

For the last time... You post completely ridiculous comparison pics which are blurry, of exceedingly poor quality, where the expressions are different and the lighting is different! :mad:

Are you denying this?!

LOOK...

http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/4514/paulfaulfinal.jpg

Why do you choose such crappy pics for a comparison? Because the poor quality of those pics itself heightens the so called differences!

You are asking people to look at blurry, poor quality pics and assess if there are "differences".

Who you trying to kid?

Why make it more difficult than it has to be? Why not compare GOOD quality pics? Is that not more SENSIBLE? :rolleyes:

I pointed this out in a previous post, and asked you to tell us the "noticable differences" in the pics.

You conveniently ignored this request - and you have the nerve to accuse me of ignoring posts. :mad:

10 out of 10 for your hypocrisy.

Here it is again:



I'll also add this comp:

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/6667-1.gif

Are you seriously trying to tell us that your blurry, low quality is comparable to the comps, above?

Don't insult our intelligence!

The rest of your little rant I'll ignore since you are obviously losing it.

On the matter of the original pic of Paul, I've told you I'm trying to find it. However, your claim that it is the same pic can be easily disproved by this fade - the angles are clearly different:

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/scan0fade_edit.gif



Might knock some sense into you. :p


Well ladies and gentlemen, he actually copped out on my "little rant".

Clearly he's above common sense as I've pointed out.

To the "Music Lecturer" -- you're easily challenged as well.

Paul and Faul do NOT sound the same, not even interviews.

Do you teach voice?

Otherwise that's a stick thin argument.

Socrates -- I'm also a GUY, where the hell did you get she from?

[ar20]

Not really.

It's fantastically vague and curiously there is only one rendition of the word 'go' in the sample. It says quite clearly that the two samples are included which is misleading.

The visual 'diagrams' are obviously intended to make the whole thing look academic, but in reality they are just standard images of wav files. I could record two of my farts and it would look very similar.

With digital recording you can make anything sound like anything these days. Sound is manipulated in exactly the same way as photographs are processed through photoshop.

However, the one thing that is almost impossible to emulate is a unique human voice. It's VERY hard indeed. We can change pitch, duration, dynamics, volume, rhythm etc, etc... but it's very hard to emulate personality, regional accents, emotions or anything that makes it uniquely human. People have worked on it for years with minimal success - why do you think Stephen Hawking still sounds like someone who's had a tracheoctomy?

Added to that, individual voices just have a certain timbre to them. I always know when Mike Patton is singing. Bjork and Frank Zappa also. There is currently no electronic way of emulating that quality. It simply exists.

Paul always sounds like Paul. There's no electronic way of altering that fact unless you distort his voice into a bizarre mess of digital FX.

I'll try and address this post, but no doubt you'll coward past it to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNYVxqJ83W8

Faul's interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aqGtxoXPLE

Being a music lecturer, they do have subtle variances in their diction as well as their mannerisms, and anyone with an inclination to body language knows they act with a difference.


I won't post the "yesterday" then and now comparisons because Socrates pointed out that the videos are too blurry so no audio discrimination can be made........................................ yeah that's right.

But you can check for yourself.

If you hit back with "well years take toll on the voice, drugs and smoking"

I'll refer to you Freddie Mercury, take a performance of his in the 70's then into the 80's, he keeps the same vocal stylings and twang to his multi-range voice.

Also:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSS3m8MT0kY

This guy has EVERYTHING down to a tee, so emulating a person isn't hard, plenty of people can do impressions.... Alistar McGowan and the guys from Dead Ringers in the UK make a living of it, and they're pretty good.