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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 31-01-2013, 01:15 AM   #1
lizard_king
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 8
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default McCartney

I know there's all these rumours that he died so my question is is if Lennon was 'awake' and against the illuminati why would he go along with it?
lizard_king is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2013, 05:52 AM   #2
trixie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 4,115
Likes: 68 (49 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lizard_king View Post
I know there's all these rumours that he died so my question is is if Lennon was 'awake' and against the illuminati why would he go along with it?
idk, maybe he changed his mind when it wasn't what he thought it would be.

After a time I think, perhaps people did not want to living such a large lie, I think it would weigh on your mind.

Hard to know what the truth is.
__________________
There is nothing hidden that will not be revealed, and there is nothing secret that will not become known and come to light. Luke 8:17

Last edited by trixie; 01-02-2013 at 06:36 AM.
trixie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2013, 06:51 AM   #3
trixie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 4,115
Likes: 68 (49 Posts)
Default

interesting:



__________________
There is nothing hidden that will not be revealed, and there is nothing secret that will not become known and come to light. Luke 8:17
trixie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2013, 10:41 AM   #4
kiwi_
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,450
Likes: 162 (99 Posts)
Default

Seems like the other members had more integrity than to go on for years pretending that some guy was actually Paul.
kiwi_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2013, 04:15 PM   #5
grakkus
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 978
Likes: 5 (5 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lizard_king View Post
I know there's all these rumours that he died so my question is is if Lennon was 'awake' and against the illuminati why would he go along with it?
Firstly, and most unfortunately, the subject of Paul McCartney being dead and/or replaced is perhaps off limits on David Icke Forums. The subject brings so many shills out of the woodwork that every thread gets shut down as the the shills systematically ruin all the work and research done by the contributors.

Secondly there are more than just "rumours" that he died. There is a mountain of photographic evidence that Paul was replaced. The current Macca is obviously a different person. He is at least two inches taller than the real Paul, has different colour eyes, a different voice, different arms, different ears and different hair. He also can not play bass or guitar as good as Paul and continually has to look at his hands where Paul did not.

The death clues were deliberately put there by the Beatles, but strenuously denied in interviews by them. There are so many, and the story they tell is fairly plain.

My personal theory is that Paul wanted out. He had expressed how he did not want to be playing rock n roll for ever, and also that he wanted to retire. The replacement and Paul were used interchangeably for a while in 1966 while on their final American tour, and when the Beatles announced they would no longer be touring Paul was gone. Paul's narrow palate, beautiful brown eyes and incomparable musical talent was gone, to be replaced by an arrogant, ugly, talentless busker. It just goes to show you how stupid most people on the planet are when they do not realise that these are two different people. Hey ho. What can you do?

So, in my opinion, Paul wanted out and wanted to stay in happy anonymity after four years of absolute madness, the like of which had never been seen before, despite the fact that the music reached heights that may never be equalled. In case some people with functioning eyes and brains twigged that Paul had indeed been replaced I believe the Beatles put the death clues into their music and album covers. This would stop people looking for Paul. People blunder onto the death clues and, like the idiots that they are, think they have found the scoop. "Yeah like Paul's dead because they were like going across the crossing and he had a cigarette in his right hand or something." he Beatles, and especially John (when he was about) were a bit more savvy and subtle than that.

If Faul gets found out and ends up having to admit he's a talentless fraud prick then the only question will be "What happened to the real (talented) Paul?" If he had really died the Beatles would have just said "he died", and they would have carried on with someone else. Paul would have had no peace or anonymity if lots of fans kept looking for him all the time, believing he was alive. The death clues may well have given Paul his anonymity and freedom. The fact is that The Beatles and their fanbase were very useful to a bunch of satan/lucifer worshipping cunts who wanted to use the Beatles to spread fear, darkness and LSD. So after Paul had had enough he was replaced, one of the first things this fucking tool does is to give an interview to ITN talking about how he had taken LSD. LSD usage rocketed after this.

So, in my opinion, John Lennon deliberately made some clues about Paul being dead. "I buried Paul" for example or "cranbury sauce" if you are hearing impaired or possibly brain damaged. Many people are. The reason he made those clues is to create a cover story for why Paul left and was replaced. The reason he would always deny them is because he was, in my opinion, always protecting Paul by keeping him anonymous.

There is a scene in the film Imagine where John and Yoko are poncing around in bed talking shit, and John reads a letter that claims that "Paul McCartney is alive and living in London". John (or Fohn) finds this slightly amusing, but it is clear Yoko does not, and shoots John a very stern look indeed. Have a watch.
grakkus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2013, 12:45 AM   #6
kiwi_
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,450
Likes: 162 (99 Posts)
Default

Watch footage of McCartney in his later years, then watch footage of him from the 'mop top' days. They're so exactly similar in every possible way that it's not feasible to think that they're different people.
kiwi_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2013, 02:38 PM   #7
grakkus
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 978
Likes: 5 (5 Posts)
Default

grakkus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2013, 07:46 PM   #8
kiwi_
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,450
Likes: 162 (99 Posts)
Default

You roll your eyes, but deep down you know it's true.
kiwi_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2013, 03:32 PM   #9
grakkus
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 978
Likes: 5 (5 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi_ View Post
You roll your eyes, but deep down you know it's true.
I am not getting into this with you. I respect your opinion on this, but my belief, after years of study, is that Paul was replaced. There is no point mentioning any evidence it never changes anyone's mind. Only careful study of the photographic record, careful study of the recordings of Paul and his various stand-ins and a deep knowledge of Paul's behaviour and his replacement's (idiotic) behaviour will make anyone change their mind. Even after that many people will still not see it. I know many intelligent people who refuse to accept the blatant differences between the two men. In my opinion this failure to accept the truth of the replacement is down to mental conditioning. If you have had years of believing that these two people are the same it is difficult to change that belief even when facial recognition experts and sound experts say otherwise.

If you read the OP you will see that a question was asked. Why did John deny the replacement took place? I have offered my opinion. Your flat denials of McCartney being replaced are off topic. Please do not continue to go round and round with this. It is not what this thread is about.
grakkus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2013, 07:35 PM   #10
kiwi_
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,450
Likes: 162 (99 Posts)
Default

lol so there's several Paul McCartney imposters now?

Realising that he was never replaced isn't down to 'mental conditioning', it's a result of looking at the 'evidence' and using common sense.
kiwi_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2013, 10:13 AM   #11
twilight_sparkle
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Isle of Wight
Posts: 4,885
Likes: 27 (19 Posts)
Default

I think the story goes that Faul was recruited from a talent show Beatles tribute band.
twilight_sparkle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2013, 10:56 AM   #12
kiwi_
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,450
Likes: 162 (99 Posts)
Default

No I believe it's said to have been a Beatles lookalike competition, although there's no evidence to suggest such a contest ever took place.
kiwi_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2013, 10:58 AM   #13
grandmasterp
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: The SkegVegas Coast
Posts: 31,797
Likes: 2,580 (1,693 Posts)
Default

It's feasible.
'Old' Paul was a happy meat eater never far from a bacon sarnie.
'New' Paul can't stand meat.
grandmasterp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2013, 11:05 AM   #14
kiwi_
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,450
Likes: 162 (99 Posts)
Default

He didn't take up that stance until he met Linda no?
kiwi_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2013, 02:41 PM   #15
grakkus
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 978
Likes: 5 (5 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by twilight_sparkle View Post
I think the story goes that Faul was recruited from a talent show Beatles tribute band.
It wasn't him. First of all the actual replacement had plastic surgery most probably while in Africa. Also lookalikes can't necessarily play the guitar.

The story you speak is one of the oldest rumours in all of PID. Well done for digging that one particular nugget out.
grakkus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2013, 02:48 PM   #16
grakkus
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 978
Likes: 5 (5 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grandmasterp View Post
It's feasible.
'Old' Paul was a happy meat eater never far from a bacon sarnie.
'New' Paul can't stand meat.
Old Paul never really took a political stand against anything (apart from the Vietnamese War along with the other Beatles possibly), and even distanced hiself from being some sort of role model to his fans.

New Paul took all sorts of political stands. LSD, Vegetarianism and the absurd interview he did on behalf of the Times Indica thing.

Old Paul was a brilliant bassist and guitarist. Brilliant musicians tend to only rarely look at their hands. Look at the old pre 67 videos on Youtube and you will see the evidence for this.

New Paul always looks at his hands. Again look at the videos to prove this. Most musicians get better with age. Not Paul McCartney if you actually believe that this is the same person.

Old Paul had brown eyes

New Paul has green eyes.

Old Paul was short. About 5'8" or 5'9"

New Paul is pushing 6'

Paul was a cutie

New Paul mings quite considerably.

Last edited by grakkus; 06-02-2013 at 04:06 PM.
grakkus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2013, 04:12 PM   #17
grakkus
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 978
Likes: 5 (5 Posts)
Default

Over dinner at the Hotel Edelweiss in Obertauern, Austria, he spoke with Coleman. Asked Coleman, "Do you think you have some sort of responsibility to your fans? Do they look up to you?"


PAUL: "No, it would probably be a nicer answer if I said yes, we have a responsibility to fans. But I can't be noble for the sake of it. The answer's no. I don't believe we have any responsibility frankly, and it takes a bit of saying. It's insulting the intelligence of a lot of young people to say we have. We used to get requests from people, asking us if we'd go to a meeting and tell loads of people they shouldn't drink. What do they take us for? We'd get laughed at if we said the youth of Britain shouldn't drink. It'd be bloody impertinent. I haven't the right to interfere with anybody else's life. Do you think just because a Beatle said, 'Don't go beating people up.' the crime figures would go down? They wouldn't. And it's a cheek to expect us to do it. And I'd feel a right nit saying, 'Thou shalt not drink'."

If you believe that Paul is Faul then you must think that he changed his mind about that since he banged on about vegetarianism ad nauseum. Easily glossed over though. He just changed his mind like he changed his hair parting, ears, eye colour and height. Easy.
grakkus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2013, 04:27 PM   #18
salamander
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Babylondon
Posts: 1,026
Likes: 2 (1 Post)
Default

I'm trawling through the big Faul thread and the other Beatles thread at the moment...

I was a little girl when the Beatles really hit the scene... I lived in Manchester then... 1962... I was 8... I had an older friend who was really into them... we bunked off school once to go and see them but got lost so I never had the pleasure of seeing them live... my first record was the Twist and Shout EP which my Dad got me from a shop on Cheetham Hill...

My friend gave me loads of pics to put on my wall and I remember buying one of those mags with song lyrics in that had pics of The Beatles... Paul was my favourite... he was so beautiful... those eyes...

We moved to the South Coast when I was 9 and I sort of got out of my Beatles thing although I heard them on the radio of course...

I got into them again with the song 'Come Together' but I couldn't understand why my Paul wasn't so cute anymore... and he sort of looked older... my sister was into George Harrison so I left Paul for John...

I know he was a few years older by then but not that bloody much... I don't know what happened but I don't think it's the same guy...

Just my take on this... for what it's worth...
salamander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2013, 04:32 PM   #19
the mighty zhiba
Inactive
 
the mighty zhiba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 20,828
Likes: 5,989 (2,995 Posts)
Default

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showt...highlight=paul
the mighty zhiba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2013, 09:38 PM   #20
kiwi_
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,450
Likes: 162 (99 Posts)
Default

The whole Paul being replaced theory can be so easily debunked it's ridiculous.
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 02:20 AM.


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