diabolo1 has already shown his hand. He is not working for truth & light. That is evident by the username he chose.

I went to the debunk site and looked around a bit. While they do make a few valid points it seems like some of them are taking photos of post 67 paul and comparing them to post 67 paul and saying, see he looks identical.

I don't know, as I've said before but it's just to strange to write off as stupid or to resort to petty name calling. Especially on a conspiracy website.

Come on people, wheres that open mind everyone loves to brag about on here.

Or does the open mind only come into play when you are talking about something you believe in?

some of them are taking photos of post 67 paul and comparing them to post 67 paul and saying, see he looks identical

Or they compare pics of Paul to pics of Paul. lol Maybe they really can't tell the difference? If not, then they have no eye for detail.

[edit on 8-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Originally posted by Fuggle

The problem is not that the PID nonsense is "disturbing", it's more that it's ridiculous, like reptillians, soul collectors on the moon, Elvis is alive, Morrison is alive. It's disturbing that there are actually people who take this nonsense seriously.

If it were true, Lennon would've been aware of it. What he was aware of was the rumour. And, of course, he refered to the people who believed the rumour as "freaks".

If it were true, the engineers would have been aware of it; Geoff Emerick recorded John saying "Cranberry sauce". He explained the context of it. And yet conspiracy theorists insist he's saying "Paul is Dead"...and you think that Martin (and the engineers...and the mastering engineers at EMI) would allow something so unsubtle to risk letting the cat out of the bag? This logic is Palinian.

And those endless photographs. Pictures and pictures of Pauls and "Fauls". You can do the same with anybody who's been photographed as much as McCartney was. Of course he's going to look different throughout the 60's. He was, what, twenty years old when "Love Me Do" was recorded? Do you expect him to look like a twenty-three year old forever?

This rumour is absurd and embarrassing.

Thank you Fuggle a) for maintaining my sanity and b) for a brilliant post.

Starred.



[edit on 8-7-2009 by pmexplorer]

I agree this doesn't look like the same guy.

there do seem to be, on some sites, a lot of obfuscation occurring which only serves to blur the issue

Misdirection & disinformation. I'm sure some of you have encountered these tactics before?

What exactly is so difficult about believing Paul could have been replaced? Is it b/c the Illuminati-controlled media tells you it's him? I would really, sincerely like to know what the mental block is. B/c if you think it's not possible to replace someone, let me assure you it is.

[edit on 8-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
I agree this doesn't look like the same guy.

Well gee ain't that a shocker!

This is easily the most ridiculous thread going on here at the moment.

But I admire your persistence, I'd accuse you all of simply trying
to accrue ATS points but they are sadly no more so it seems
this is just one big exercise in attention seeking amongst a small
group of likeminded individuals.

Post picture of Paul McCartney / Post other picture of Paul McCartney.

Highlight some barely noticeable irregularity to purposely draw peoples attentions to such as bigger cheeks, a larger forehead (lol!) or a larger
nose (suppsoedly!)
Get your buddies to star your post to make it look at least somewhat creditable, return the favour when they reply supporting your theory
with a 'Gee faulcon' I never noticed that ridiculous difference that
you've just manufactured, wow we are really onto something here,
soon the world will know that Faul lives and managed to fool
not only the millions of fans (millions of seemingly dumb fans as the only intelligent ones who have worked it out(who call themselves 'fans') post in this thread) but also his fellow band members, his FAMILY and FRIENDS,
business colleagues aswell as the hundreds and hundreds of musicians and
fellow artists who knew Paul closely.

I'm off to start one of my own, I'm calling it 'Ringo my arse, Pingo was the real Beatles drummer, read it all here!'

I reckon I will start my showing pictures of Ringo from 1962 compared
with 1967, I reckon by then there should be enough physical differences
given the way, y'know that fact of life how people actually physically change as they develop and grow older, that I can come up with at least a dozen
differences to start with.
Also he gave it away in 'Don't Pass Me By''
"I wonder where you are tonight
And why I'm by myself
I don't see you ..."

Here he is clearly saying that when he by himself that it's not really
him.
I'm telling you man, the truth is out there.

or a larger
nose (suppsoedly!)
:

I would suggest that the effort you put into being rude and accusatory (re: starring etc...there is no organisation, just observation) would be better directed at actually looking at the content that is posted because from the timbre of your posts you obviously haven't.

The nose isn't larger, it's a completely different shape. I suggest you take your Stevie wonder glasses off and actually try to come up with something concrete rather than attack us personally.

As for closing the thread? Why? Just because you, the almighty, want it to because you don't like it?
If you don't like it, ignore it. There are plenty of threads that I ignore on this site because I just plain disagree, why do you persist in coming back if it gives you so much grief. This site is big enough for us all. Let it be.

I knew nothing about this topic before it was posted here, so I think that it's good that it has been and good that it continues.

So you think 911 was an inside job?
Preposterous.

[edit on 8-7-2009 by aorAki]

[edit on 8-7-2009 by aorAki]

[edit on 8-7-2009 by aorAki]

I knew nothing about this topic before it was posted here, so I think that it's good that it has been and good that it continues.

Same !!

Falcon,

I think you should try to find palm shots of pre 67 Paul. If you can find some and they are different you have a smoking gun.

That is the only way to "prove" this. Without it we're just running around in circles. The pictures while they do show some differences aren't proof. They can be written off very easily by skeptics.

If you truly want to prove this, find some palm shots. The ones I've seen look similar but none are clear shots of pre 67 Paul's palms.

Actually, I think when "Paul" got busted in Japan for having marijuana in 1980, there was an issue w/ the fingerprints not matching the ones on file from when the Beatles were there in 1966. He sat in jail for 10 days & then had to leave the country.

But legally, photographs do establish identity. I can cite case law in a later post. Voice prints also establish identity. I tried to get a sound engineer ex-boyfriend to do a sonagram of the 2 voices for me, but he refused. If anyone wants to do that, go for it.

Personally I don't believe it.


However, in the end, does it really matter? Even if Paul died in '66 and was replaced what's the difference really? The replacement still went on to help create some of the best music of the 20th century, and if that is in fact the case, I'm ok with that. Whether he happens to be Paul McCartney, Shepherd, or Marilyn Manson's Liverpool dwelling uncle, doesn't matter to me. What this individual has given the musical community, and music lovers everywhere is more important than an alleged identity theft from 43 years ago.

Whomever he is that is known as Paul McCartney now, still gets my respect, and that's good enough for me.

ok, I read pages and pages and the only way to find an answer is to question the reason for doing such a switch-a-roo.

the question is why.

Why use a double to fill in for Paul?

ok, the theory that many people will commit suicide, ok, just lately didn't 12 commit suicide over MJ's death? But, what would the illuminati or TPTB gain? A few hundred suicides (or a few thousand??) wouldn't bother them. Yet, since the Beatles were so beloved and cause such a reaction then is it more so THAT reaction would cause the anti-rock & roll movement to have valid points in their lectures on the ills of that culture of evils in music in general?

the theory of money. The Beatles were bringing in tons of cash, they were the top seller at the time. So what if one of the members die? A public replacement would seem an obvious choice. The origional members' (with Paul) albums would be worth a hell of a lot more. I don't see any other association that this was done for money. Do you?

To hide messages within the music/lyrics/mixing methods theory. The albums have been analysed to death now, is there even one consistent and viable message within then?

Paul ooops Faul is illuminati. ok, maybe. Heather Mills has her secrets about what she calls 'their sex life' and something about we (the public) would never see him the same if we knew what he does. (Askmen magazine article interterview). She also claims other things that hint to his associations with people that threaten her life (for being a big mouth).
But, lots of stars are associated with and likely illuminati members so who cares? Does this have anything to do with Faul being a double? Were the other Beatles members also? or did they reject it? I don't want specific answers to those questions, since all of the answers are speculation anyways. But, in that questioning (to myself), I hope to find the answers of the why so then I have logical reasoning for the true cause/effect model for the Faul being introduced to us/merging as Paul.

So why???? Why would they (tptb, the Beatles themselves, their managers etc) even want to replace instead of just allowing fans to grieve and move on., then re-forming the band with a new member (hopefully not one that has spooky and uncanny resemblence as in this case--no ghosts)?

What other reasons of why, can you think of?





[edit on 8-7-2009 by suzque66]