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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 23-02-2017, 12:47 PM   #361
polyhedron
Premier Subscribers
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 2,178
Likes: 869 (581 Posts)
Default

Lots of nice photos of Paul Macca. He's photogenic isn't he? I also have a couple of McCartney albums. They're good arn't they.
polyhedron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-03-2017, 08:18 PM   #362
revolv3r
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 18
Likes: 10 (10 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by polyhedron View Post
Lots of nice photos of Paul Macca. He's photogenic isn't he? I also have a couple of McCartney albums. They're good arn't they.
Can't write a lyric to save his life.
Likes: (1)
revolv3r is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-03-2017, 08:38 AM   #363
techman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,160
Likes: 1,228 (681 Posts)
Default

The main supporters of the PID theory are, as far as I'm aware, Mark Devlin, Nick Kollerstrom and Jim Fetzer, and I think the people who run various PiD sites. Despite their sane and serious approach to the subject I still find it hard to believe the theory, not ecessarily the switch as such but the theory that Billy Shears had some miraculous surgery done to look almost exactly like Paul McCartney. Because it's such a far out idea, it is immediately dubunked and dimissed as impossible - or is it?.

As I've said before, if there was a "different" person that replaced the original Paul I don't think it could be just some random person. The Fabfour dozen blog goes into great detail in dissecting and comparing all of the "was he or wasn't he" replaced clues, descreprences in heights post and pre 66 photos, going back to the very early days of when the Beatles formed. Their conclusion, in their opinion, shows that there was another Paul who was 99.99% identical to the one we've been lead to believe was the original Paul and shows there mayve been a few more. They pointed out some photos of McCartney has having a very slight facial and eye sagging, which they theorised could be some kind of condition he had. yet other photos (taken at the same time, before and after) show him with no sagging at all. That's just one example. Interesting site.

Last edited by techman; 31-03-2017 at 12:17 PM.
techman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-03-2017, 12:36 PM   #364
itsnotallrightjack
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: England
Posts: 642
Likes: 443 (259 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by polyhedron View Post
There is a stark difference between the footage of their live performances and their studio recordings. Live, they sound like any other pub band, you know, average. No great shakes there.

But the studio stuff, sounds like a different lot of musicians. If they could really play like the studio recordings portray, why didn't they?
Because they didn't have the sound systems like powerful amps those days and the Beatles were one of the first to use overlaying in studios.
__________________
Imagination... its limits are only those of the mind itself.

It may be said with a degree of assurance that not everything that meets the eye is as it appears.


Rod Serling.
itsnotallrightjack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2017, 04:44 PM   #365
techman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,160
Likes: 1,228 (681 Posts)
Default

How does one discredit the "evidence" showing Paul at different heights, providing that the photos haven't been touched up of course and that the dates of the photos are from the correct date?. Do people suddenly shrink or get taller from time to time possibly to due to weight loss or weight gain? - I don't know. The well talked about photo of McCartney with Jane Asher looking back at the photographer could be easily explained away as just the camera angle, perspective or that they were actually standing on something which made Paul look considerably taller, but the height of Paul in that photo is the height that most people attribute as being Paul McCartney's height (510-511).

I find the theory of clones fascinating, even if it is a ridiculous idea (but nothing's impossible). Why would there be clones (as opposed to lookalikes or doubles) of Paul and possibly others too? and where did these clones come from?. Where The Beatles reincarnations of people from the past? no idea, but I have heard that the Beatles look eerily like four kings in a painting (can't recall who they were). Off topic here, but I know Elvis looked exactly like the greek gods of greek mythology; he had the same full lips, eye-lids, perfect shaped nose, cheekbones, even the hair style (no I don't mean the quiff or sideburns). If you look at some of the greek statues of Hermes, Apollo, etc, even Alexander the Great, they all have those same facial features that Elvis had. No other human being I've seen has those features, except Elvis Presley. He looked like a completely different race of human, or not even human at all. Was Elvis a reincarnation, again I've no idea.
Likes: (1)
techman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2017, 06:48 PM   #366
techman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,160
Likes: 1,228 (681 Posts)
Default

I find PiD is a silly and far fetched theory, but it certainly is very intriguing and somewhat intoxicating to read about.

I often ponder on a few hypothesis:

1: that the PiD theory is 100% nonsense.

2: that Paul did die in 1966 and replaced immediately by someone named William Shepard (I've heard from die hard PiD believers like Mark Devlin that the replacements real name was likely William Shepard not Billy Shears; Shears apparently being a code for Shepard as in sheep shearer), and he took over the role of Paul McCartney from thenon. The reasons likely to continue with the band as they were such a huge success.

3: The "other Paul" was always there right from the very beginning of The Beatles days. If this is true, then I'd say it's possible this other Paul, or Faul, was introduced in order to muddy the waters as to who was Paul and wasn't, mixing in both Paul and Faul into the works gradually so people wouldn't know who was who. Then the original Paul, in Sept 66 (or prior to 66) was disposed of.

The 3rd theory (if the theory has any credibility at all) would be my choice.

Last edited by techman; 12-04-2017 at 06:52 PM.
techman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-04-2017, 01:38 AM   #367
kiwi_
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,450
Likes: 162 (99 Posts)
Default

Some say Paul has an identical twin (Faul) named Mike McCartney, and the Mike McCartney who everyone came to know is actually just an actor to cover it up. Which is apparently why they look exactly the same yet somehow different.
kiwi_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-04-2017, 11:26 AM   #368
adralicus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: London
Posts: 363
Likes: 136 (63 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi_ View Post
Some say Paul has an identical twin (Faul) named Mike McCartney, and the Mike McCartney who everyone came to know is actually just an actor to cover it up. Which is apparently why they look exactly the same yet somehow different.
Mike McCartney is also known as Mike McGear and was a member of The Scaffold (Lily the Pink). I met him once in a recording studio I worked in the 70's. I wouldn't say in any way he was identical.


adralicus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-04-2017, 07:40 PM   #369
elenita
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,311
Likes: 246 (137 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by adralicus View Post
Mike McCartney is also known as Mike McGear and was a member of The Scaffold (Lily the Pink). I met him once in a recording studio I worked in the 70's. I wouldn't say in any way he was identical.


They're not talking about Mike, who doesn't even look like part of the family.
elenita is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-04-2017, 09:12 AM   #370
techman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,160
Likes: 1,228 (681 Posts)
Default

There are plenty of siblings who don't resemble each other in the slightest yet are certainly related.

Mike McGear dosent bear a very good physical resemblance to Paul, but if you take the time to study them both you'll notice that they are related. Certain tell tale signs like the eyes and other traits reveal it. Whether Paul also had a secret "twin" is anyone's guess. I find the whole clone theory fascinating because it is such a far out theory. But why would they clone Paul McCartney?, who cloned him and how did they do it?.

I just don't buy this Billy Shears transformed himself into Paul McCartney theory. Whoever "Faul" is or was looks 99% identical to the original or real Paul McCartney, and I don't think any surgery can ever make someone look almost identical to someone else. Something else is going on here.

Last edited by techman; 16-04-2017 at 09:13 AM.
techman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2017, 10:56 PM   #371
techman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,160
Likes: 1,228 (681 Posts)
Default

I agree though that Mike McGear (why is he known by the surname McGear and not McCartney?) doesn't really look like he is remotely related to Paul, I'll admit that. But regards the PiD theory, I'm still more inclined to believe that Paul has or did have an identical twin brother. When I look at all of the various PID related clues and researchers pointing to evidence which may show a identical looking Paul popping up in various Beatle related photos, albums, etc, which clearly show someone almost identical but with very slight facial features and of a different height, I'm left with the only suggestion that he was a twin. Where this twin is now and how come nobody knows about him is anyone's guess. Is it possible to suggest that they bumped off the twin as a sacrifice, and that Faul (Mike McCartney) has been fooling everyone ever since that he is Paul?. You hear talk about twins being used as mind control and MK ultra.

I think this is why people are constantly arguring over Paul being alive and Paul being dead, with both sides of the argument at loggerheads. The PID theorists do genuinly feel the Paul post 66 and now is not the same person pre 66, but it's something they just can't put their finger on why. Then you have the skeptics who, quite rightly believe Paul isn't dead and that he looks like the same person as before. But of course they are ignoring certain points such as the earlobes, etc, which clearly cannot be explained away so easily. It can if you can imagine a twin brother being involved.

Last edited by techman; 12-05-2017 at 11:06 PM.
techman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-05-2017, 03:18 AM   #372
kiwi_
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,450
Likes: 162 (99 Posts)
Default

Why would they not surgically alter Paul's brother's earlobes to look like Paul's
kiwi_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-05-2017, 11:33 AM   #373
techman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,160
Likes: 1,228 (681 Posts)
Default

Mike McGear, when you think about it, does not look remotely related to Paul. This subject can have your brain on overburn. I've been looking at the "Beatles never existed" blog site, and as much as the whole Paul is dead theory is sounds ludicrous on hearing it, when you look at the "evidence" the site puts forward, it does make you sit up and think.

The site dismisses the traditional theory that Paul was killed or murdered in a car crash and was subsequently replaced then on by an imposter lookalike (aka 90% double), but instead looks at the abundance of photos and videos which they say clearly show a number of "Paul's" that look 99% identical to one another but with very slight differences. I've looked at some of these anomalies and I have to agree there are some differences. Some so-called discrepancies are clearly the result of angles of photos and perspective; for example they claim Paul in Help! show him with different shaped molars, which during certain scenes show them angled and in other shots show them pointing inwards. I can't see any difference in that particular piece of their evidence. I do agree though the the attached/detached ezrloabe evidence is quite compelling because they do appear to be different in varying photos and videos of Paul.

They also point to evidence which may show two Paul's today. There are some interesting photos of Paul with appearing to look rather short. and at other times he's much taller.
techman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-05-2017, 12:13 PM   #374
kiwi_
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,450
Likes: 162 (99 Posts)
Default

Paul was always the tallest, with George being a fraction shorter and John being a fraction shorter again.
kiwi_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-05-2017, 12:28 PM   #375
techman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,160
Likes: 1,228 (681 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi_ View Post
Paul was always the tallest, with George being a fraction shorter and John being a fraction shorter again.
But there are photos that show a shorter Paul. These are clearly not due to odd photo angles. Like I said, there are recent photos of Paul of different heights. There's a photo showing him walking down a street with his partner (I think); he was wearing heeled boots and she's wearing heeled shoes, and hes about the same or just a shorter than her. Then there's a photo of them and he's wearing trainers and she's also wearing sports shoes, yet he clearly is taller than her by about 2 inches. I thought that was a little odd. Are there two Paul's around? I don't know.

Last edited by techman; 15-05-2017 at 12:29 PM.
techman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-05-2017, 05:48 AM   #376
kiwi_
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,450
Likes: 162 (99 Posts)
Default

That's why you need to watch video of them together instead. Perspective in still images can be easily distorted.
kiwi_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-05-2017, 05:56 PM   #377
techman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,160
Likes: 1,228 (681 Posts)
Default

A little off the PID debate here but still staying with the Beatles, I came across this rather interesting video regarding John Lennon. Apparently it centers around an incident at Lennon's home, not sure when, either the late 60s or 70s, when there was a homeless man living in the grounds at his home. The video claims the footage of Lennon talking to the man is nothing more than a staged piece made for the cameras in order to make Lennon out to be some kind of nice guy and a hero. I have absolutely no idea if this is true, but I would not surprise me in the slightest if Lennon was actually anything but the warm hearted and concerned person he was known for. Considering the amount of dark stuff associated with the Beatles and their supposed connection to Crowley, etc, it wouldn't surprise me.

What does anyone else think about this?.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bydpXS_Aiyk

Last edited by techman; 16-05-2017 at 05:57 PM.
Likes: (1)
techman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-05-2017, 06:11 PM   #378
BlakeBeliever
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Nothern Ireland
Posts: 89
Likes: 63 (33 Posts)
Default

I've heard that Lennon was a nasty piece of work, women beating etc.

You want to talk heroes of the sixties, Joni Mitchell gets my vote - The song Woodstock is a fantastic consciousness shift. Beatles lyrics were bubblegum, they perfected the template of the vacuous pop star sucking the he(art) out of music.
BlakeBeliever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-05-2017, 07:41 PM   #379
techman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,160
Likes: 1,228 (681 Posts)
Default

Hard to say if Lennon was a nasty piece of work, but he often is looked upon as an establishment hero who said what he said regardless of what others thought, particularly within the alternative arena.
Likes: (1)
techman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2017, 06:47 AM   #380
kiwi_
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,450
Likes: 162 (99 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by techman View Post
A little off the PID debate here but still staying with the Beatles, I came across this rather interesting video regarding John Lennon. Apparently it centers around an incident at Lennon's home, not sure when, either the late 60s or 70s, when there was a homeless man living in the grounds at his home. The video claims the footage of Lennon talking to the man is nothing more than a staged piece made for the cameras in order to make Lennon out to be some kind of nice guy and a hero. I have absolutely no idea if this is true, but I would not surprise me in the slightest if Lennon was actually anything but the warm hearted and concerned person he was known for. Considering the amount of dark stuff associated with the Beatles and their supposed connection to Crowley, etc, it wouldn't surprise me.

What does anyone else think about this?.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bydpXS_Aiyk


Seems to be the same guy asking John a question at 1:21:44. Make of that what you will..
kiwi_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 10:52 PM.


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