Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Entertainment Industry

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-08-2010, 08:22 PM   #5141
toty1994
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Lancashire, UK
Posts: 792
Likes: 119 (71 Posts)
Default

Anyway, ar20: You didn't comment upon the Tom Berenger comps in relation to PID...
Quote:
Originally Posted by nimoyl View Post









Same person. Yet if we follow PID logic those differences 'prove' the older guy is an imposter. LOL!

Effects of aging, continued:



Gee - will you just just look at the different head shape! Perhaps phrased eyebrow will get on the case. LOL!

He looks nothing like his younger self.
Help me understand how these cannot be compared to McCartney/Faul comps that make the same points (nose, ears etc). As I understand it PID researchers believe it is impossible for ears to grow or noses to become 'hookier'. If this is correct then that means Berenger must have been replaced too. Or is it lighting/angles etc? Thanks.

Last edited by merlincove; 07-08-2010 at 11:38 PM. Reason: off topic
toty1994 is offline  
Old 07-08-2010, 08:38 PM   #5142
orb27
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 815
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

I see what you mean toty -


Quote:


^ Bill/Faul true eye colour, without dark contacts ("Fool on the Hill" 1967 screenshot on the right).




^ Faul to the left, JPM to the right.




^ Paul McCartneys eye colour.

Interesting you left out nimoyl, hardly surprising... Do carry on.

Last edited by merlincove; 07-08-2010 at 11:38 PM. Reason: ref del post
orb27 is offline  
Old 07-08-2010, 08:52 PM   #5143
jannie baby
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Your guess is as good as mine
Posts: 122
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ar20 View Post
You highlighted that which applied to you.

I highlighted that which applies to the word "debate". The dictionary. com definition is simply that, an unbiased definition. No mention of PIA/PID. LOL

I don't need a dictionary definition of debate(Really? ), I'm simply stating how are we supposed to get anywhere if one side says "IM RIGHT", "NO, I'm RIGHT"... and on and on.

That is what people who are debating do. Each side tries to show that they are right.

Thus the point in asking questions... such as, why do these people believe this? Is there any validity to their argument? etc. etc.

You're talking about philosophy and opinions here, not cohesive arguments and/or evidence.

Proper debating. What you people are doing is the equivalent to puting your fingers in your ears and going LALALALALALA like little kids.

And "you people" are doing the same.

The fact you had to bring up a definition of debate proves you have nothing to contribute anyway, so what's the point?
The fact that I had to bring up a definition of "debate" and then post again to explain it even further proves that you don't understand the fundamental concept of the word. Attempting to make sure that both sides are clear on what's supposed to be going on here is my contribution.

Last edited by jannie baby; 07-08-2010 at 08:59 PM.
jannie baby is offline  
Old 07-08-2010, 09:06 PM   #5144
orb27
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 815
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jannie baby View Post
The fact that I had to bring up a definition of "debate" and then post again to explain it even further proves that you don't understand the fundamental concept of the word.
What?

No, it really doesn't prove that at all... not today, yesterday or even tomorrow.


Quote:
Attempting to make sure that both sides are clear on what's supposed to be going on here is my contribution.
And how fortunate we all are.
orb27 is offline  
Old 07-08-2010, 09:21 PM   #5145
chrysoprase
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,665
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Why would the color of Paul's eyes be the basis of any proof of his replacement?

It has already been demonstrated (in several ways) that eye color can change with age.

Quote:
Age is the most common reason why eye color can change. According to Dr. Burt Dubow, OD, between 10 and 15 percent of the Caucasian population will experience a change in eye color as they age. This is usually due to a degradation of the color of the pigments in the eye, or a loss of melanin granules in the eyes over time. This can cause the eyes to become lighter as you age.


Read more: Causes of an Eye Color Change | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/how-does_5494240...#ixzz0vxLFeKZY
The fact that this is ignored should show any interested reader that PIDers are not interested in facts; only interested in their theory. It also shows that some PIDers think people are stupid and if you keep on repeating something - that will make it real.

PIDers are doing themselves no favors by continually repeating that Paul's eye color change is proof of his replacement.

If part of your theory falls apart with contrary evidence - then leave that part behind. Otherwise, you discredit yourselves and make all your other evidence suspect.

How much documentation will it require for you to drop this line of reasoning?

My eye color is greener/lighter than it used to be. Maybe I have been replaced?

Every time you repeat this as evidence - you diminish your own credibility.

If you want to convince others; never use evidence that has already been disproven.

****

I completely expect to see more posts about his eye color; as well as the fact that he is "OLD" - as proof that he is a fraud
chrysoprase is offline  
Old 07-08-2010, 09:22 PM   #5146
ar20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,083
Likes: 7 (7 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by toty1994 View Post
@ar20, orb & wakeuptime. Judging by your recent posts one could be forgiven for thinking you're actually pushing for the thread to be closed rather than trying to prevent it. Can you not see?

Anyway, ar20: You quoted nimoyl's post below but didn't comment upon the Tom Berenger comps in relation to PID...

Help me understand how these cannot be compared to McCartney/Faul comps that make the same points (nose, ears etc). As I understand it PID researchers believe it is impossible for ears to grow or noses to become 'hookier'. If this is correct then that means Berenger must have been replaced too. Or is it lighting/angles etc? Thanks.
I ignored it because it's bunk. The poses aren't even similar. The Jimmy Page one I made is infact similar.






Selective, no?
ar20 is offline  
Old 07-08-2010, 09:30 PM   #5147
toty1994
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Lancashire, UK
Posts: 792
Likes: 119 (71 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by orb27 View Post





Interesting you left out nimoyl, hardly surprising... Do carry on.
Haha, ok - point taken.
toty1994 is offline  
Old 07-08-2010, 09:53 PM   #5148
orb27
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 815
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrysoprase View Post
Why would the color of Paul's eyes be the basis of any proof of his replacement?

It has already been demonstrated (in several ways) that eye color can change with age.

Ok, now you should go and actually read up on this thread and the older threads which I posted up yesterday. We would then avoid having to go through these points repeatedly.


If you did read up on the McCartney replacement you'd know by now (and you should know by now as you've posted here numerous times before) that these changes in eye colour occurred within 6 months to a year -



^ Bill/Faul true eye colour, without dark contacts ("Fool on the Hill" 1967 screenshot on the right).


Quote:
The fact that this is ignored should show any interested reader that PIDers are not interested in facts; only interested in their theory. It also shows that some PIDers think people are stupid and if you keep on repeating something - that will make it real.
^ Now this is a blatant lie, because it has been discussed on countless occasions.

Is it any wonder people sometimes lose their cool on this thread when we have to keep repeating the basics to those who continually post rubbish here.


Quote:
If part of your theory falls apart with contrary evidence - then leave that part behind. Otherwise, you discredit yourselves and make all your other evidence suspect.
On and on...


Quote:
How much documentation will it require for you to drop this line of reasoning?
And on...


Quote:
My eye color is greener/lighter than it used to be. Maybe I have been replaced?
And on and on...


Quote:
Every time you repeat this as evidence - you diminish your own credibility.
....Like the duracell bunny


Quote:
I completely expect to see more posts about his eye color; as well as the fact that he is "OLD" - as proof that he is a fraud
Thanks very much for an "excellent" post.... do call again!




^ Faul to the left, JPM to the right.

Last edited by orb27; 07-08-2010 at 09:58 PM.
orb27 is offline  
Old 07-08-2010, 10:38 PM   #5149
ar20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,083
Likes: 7 (7 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by orb27 View Post
Ok, now you should go and actually read up on this thread and the older threads which I posted up yesterday. We would then avoid having to go through these points repeatedly.


If you did read up on the McCartney replacement you'd know by now (and you should know by now as you've posted here numerous times before) that these changes in eye colour occurred within 6 months to a year -



^ Bill/Faul true eye colour, without dark contacts ("Fool on the Hill" 1967 screenshot on the right).




^ Now this is a blatant lie, because it has been discussed on countless occasions.

Is it any wonder people sometimes lose their cool on this thread when we have to keep repeating the basics to those who continually post rubbish here.




On and on...




And on...




And on and on...




....Like the duracell bunny




Thanks very much for an "excellent" post.... do call again!




^ Faul to the left, JPM to the right.
Well isn't that something. Another poster sharing the same problems when responding to people on the other side of the debate.

That same, tired old round and round we go until we're blue in the face approach.

Exhausting, ain't it Orb? Frustrating and exhausting.
ar20 is offline  
Old 07-08-2010, 11:27 PM   #5150
toty1994
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Lancashire, UK
Posts: 792
Likes: 119 (71 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Ok, now you should go and actually read up on this thread and the older threads which I posted up yesterday
The funny thing is that reading carefully through all the PID threads will, in my opinion, only confirm this: that the tired old 'eye colour' thing is just one of many theories that have been shown, at best, to be highly dubious. That orb & ar20 are actually encouraging people to do this is a bit of an own goal I think. So, chrysoprase, please do read through them (if you can be bothered of course).
toty1994 is offline  
Old 08-08-2010, 01:09 AM   #5151
nimoyl
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 94
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by toty1994 View Post
Anyway, ar20: You didn't comment upon the Tom Berenger comps in relation to PID...
....

Hilarious!

AR20 makes that comment after producing his tried and trusted rib-tickler of a distorted, low quality comp:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ar20 View Post
Old pic...

Yeah - we can clearly see the 'similar poses' in AR20's comp, can't we?

LOL.

Since the poses are certainly NOT the same in AR20's comp - by his own definition - his own comp must be "bunk" too. LOL!

And so are all the other numerous PID comps which show different facial poses.

AR20 has just dismissed the majority of PID comps as "bunk". Nice one.

Anyhow, it's just great to see AR20's total consistency in logic, reasoning and rationale when producing PID comps and dismissing PIA comps.

?!!!!!?

LOL! Just....... LOL!

AR20 logic:

PID comps with different poses are ok.
(Because the facial features look more different.)

A PIA comp of the same man - Tom Berenger - with different poses are not ok.
(Because the facial features look more different.)

Unbelievable. I don't know how AR20 can post this total and utter bunkum with a straight face, I really don't.

I think he's just here to pull our chain along with getsmart.

Last edited by nimoyl; 08-08-2010 at 02:14 AM.
nimoyl is offline  
Old 08-08-2010, 01:28 AM   #5152
orb27
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 815
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by toty1994 View Post
The funny thing is that reading carefully through all the PID threads will, in my opinion, only confirm this: that the tired old 'eye colour' thing is just one of many theories that have been shown, at best, to be highly dubious. That orb & ar20 are actually encouraging people to do this is a bit of an own goal I think. So, chrysoprase, please do read through them (if you can be bothered of course).

You're after ignoring the main point I put across regarding eye colour. To use your own words I'm amused and fascinated but not surprised - Show us a picture of Paul McCartney with light green eyes before Sept 1966.

You won't be able to do it, the best you'll come up with is one where Paul is looking up towards the light and his eyes appear a little lighter than usual in colour tone. I await with mild amusement ("Paul has hazel eyes yada yada yaw...")

Paul was replaced.

Last edited by orb27; 08-08-2010 at 01:29 AM.
orb27 is offline  
Old 08-08-2010, 01:56 AM   #5153
nimoyl
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 94
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by orb27 View Post
Show us a picture of Paul McCartney with light green eyes before Sept 1966.

You won't be able to do it
Which proves absolutely nothing.

Colour pics were quite rare before '66 in comparison to b/w.

How many colour pics of "Faul" with "light green eyes" can you produce, exactly?

3, 10, 20, 300?

How many?

You've got literally thousands of colour photos to choose from.

So - how many?
nimoyl is offline  
Old 08-08-2010, 02:14 AM   #5154
orb27
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 815
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default Temporary shut down?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ar20 View Post
Well isn't that something. Another poster sharing the same problems when responding to people on the other side of the debate.

That same, tired old round and round we go until we're blue in the face approach.

Exhausting, ain't it Orb? Frustrating and exhausting.

Hey ar20, I don't find it near as tiring as when I first started into it in the older threads. As serious as the subject can get I'm more light hearted about it now as there's not much point in getting tied up in knots. I'm not surprised by most of the posts anymore, have a thicker skin and more patience.

I find the replacement of McCartney an intriguing area and it's evolving all the time, that's why it would be a pity to see a permanent end to it here. However it is a privilege to post on someone elses forum and I respect that, there is alot more going on and this is a great place for finding out about things outside of the mainstream media.

I've been thinking about it over the last few days and I've come to the conclusion that I'd have little or no problem if admin on this forum want to shut down the "PID" thread for a couple of months. Imo it would make sense as this thread has grown in substance very quickly, we are already over the 500 page mark. It would make sense for people to go away, research more and then come back down the road to add more.

I've always been of the opinion there's no point in keeping the threads going just for the sake of it - mostly people end up getting bogged down, knifing each other and repeating too much. This is just my opinion but it's something I've done on the older threads, go away research and come back at it again with fresh material and a fresh approach. I don't like when posting becomes a habit as some threads become too ego driven over time.

If it was a thing whereby this thread was shut for awhile and reopened it would allow other people to get up to spead on it - 500 pages is alot of posting in a short time. Maybe shut it down for six months, open for 3 - 4 months, shut it down again (on and off) it would allow for a better standard of posting and a higher level of research to be put in between openings. If people get out of line give them warnings or ban them. This is a tricky area for admin to moderate but it can be done. It may also work for similar type of threads on the forum.

A permanent closure for any topic is no solution especially in this area which has really opened up over the last few years. People need to cool down and look at what's important here, being right or getting to the truth. If the thread is permanently shut down then the forum ultimately loses (as it cannot preach about free speach anymore) and so do the posters on it.

How would other people feel about a temporary closure?
orb27 is offline  
Old 08-08-2010, 02:20 AM   #5155
chrysoprase
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,665
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

chrysoprase is offline  
Old 08-08-2010, 02:28 AM   #5156
orb27
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 815
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

^ Have to say that picture is a pretty good stab at it - Have you got a few head-on shots? As I was saying snaps from below, the side etc allow for more of a glare and are not a true refection of colour tone.
orb27 is offline  
Old 08-08-2010, 03:25 AM   #5157
the squire of gothos
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: IHQ Retirement Village
Posts: 170
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

__________________
Living is easy with eyes closed.
Misunderstanding "Faul" you see...
the squire of gothos is offline  
Old 08-08-2010, 03:35 AM   #5158
orb27
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 815
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

^ That's the picture I've been talking about, thanks.
orb27 is offline  
Old 08-08-2010, 05:04 AM   #5159
jannie baby
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Your guess is as good as mine
Posts: 122
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by orb27 View Post
People need to cool down and look at what's important here, being right or getting to the truth.?
Since when are the two mutually exclusive? Being right is getting to the truth. Unless the truth is somehow wrong? Please enlighten me.
jannie baby is offline  
Old 08-08-2010, 06:33 AM   #5160
orb27
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 815
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Being "right" is a fixed point in space/time - definitive.

"Being" is what "is" - what is can never be a fixed point.

"Truth" is ever changing depending on your perspective, it is not a fixed point.

The truth is "right and wrong." Do you see?


Those who post here about PID are "right" when they say Paul McCartney has been permanently replaced in the Beatles imo.

Last edited by orb27; 08-08-2010 at 07:18 AM.
orb27 is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:48 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.