It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

PID - Motivations for the Murder of Paul McCartney

page: 24
22
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 04:13 AM
link   
Please check out the following, another piece of PID-fantasy solved:










posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 07:27 AM
link   
Hi I'm just beginning to look at this thread but I wanted to post with a thought that I've had about how some people didn't realize Paul had been replaced back in the 60s.

I recently saw a video of an experiment that had taken place whereby people went to a desk and a guy handed them a form to fill in, then before they handed it back the guy swapped with another guy who then took the form back. In a lot of cases the people taking part did not notice that it was a different person. If they're not expecting to see a change, they won't see it.

Also back in the 60s people probably didn't have any knowledge about such a thing as 'replacements' or 'impostors', therefore the ones that did see changes in Paul after 1966 might well have thought it was odd that he looked different, but wouldn't have thought "he must have been replaced" because that wasn't a concept that was familiar to them.

Does this make sense?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that all of us have ideas about the world around us based on our 'frames of reference'. If we have no concept or knowledge of something, then it doesn't enter our minds as a possible solution to something that we don't understand.


By the way, as a result of these threads I am now for the first time in my life developing an interest in the Beatles music, just now I've been searching YouTube for videos and come across songs from the 'HELP' album, I've never heard them before and I'm liking them. A lot. Hoping I can find this at my nearest record store...



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   
I don't know what that graphic Diabolo (telling username, imo) posted is supposed to show. This comp is from screenshots taken of videos w/ Paul & Faul. Paul in Memphis, Aug. 19, 1966 & Faul in 1967.



The images haven't been faultered in any way. Anyone can go look at the videos & see that for themselves.

There is more than enough at www.plasticmacca.blogspot.com to show that Paul was replaCIAed.


Originally posted by tappy
I recently saw a video of an experiment that had taken place whereby people went to a desk and a guy handed them a form to fill in, then before they handed it back the guy swapped with another guy who then took the form back. In a lot of cases the people taking part did not notice that it was a different person. If they're not expecting to see a change, they won't see it.

Derren Brown did something very similar. He even said it probably wouldn't work so well if he were a famous pop-star. LOL! He totally knows Paul was replaCIAed. Video here:

Derren Brown - Person Swap
www.56.com...

It's kind of sad that some people can't see it, even though the differences have been pointed out to them in exhausting detail. I guess they just see what they want to see.


Also back in the 60s people probably didn't have any knowledge about such a thing as 'replacements' or 'impostors', therefore the ones that did see changes in Paul after 1966 might well have thought it was odd that he looked different, but wouldn't have thought "he must have been replaced" because that wasn't a concept that was familiar to them.

That is a really good point. I think knowledge about replaCIAments is just starting to come out. Dr. Peter Beter talked about imposter-replaCIAments back in the late 1970's, but I don't know of anyone talking about it before that.


I guess what I'm trying to say is that all of us have ideas about the world around us based on our 'frames of reference'. If we have no concept or knowledge of something, then it doesn't enter our minds as a possible solution to something that we don't understand.

Absolutely. If someone is ignorant about something, it's easy to fool them.


By the way, as a result of these threads I am now for the first time in my life developing an interest in the Beatles music, just now I've been searching YouTube for videos and come across songs from the 'HELP' album, I've never heard them before and I'm liking them. A lot. Hoping I can find this at my nearest record store...

That is great
Help! is awesome. So is Rubber Soul, Revolver, & AHDN. I like pretty much everything w/ Paul



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by diabolo1
Please check out the following, another piece of PID-fantasy solved:








Nice one, diabolo!

Another great comp showing how faulcon uses really poor quality still video images that distort Paul's face.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by someotherguy
I don't know what that graphic Diabolo (telling username, imo) posted is supposed to show.


It shows the foolishness of using poor quality video stills with bad compression in order to produce comps.

The picture is distorted.

Is that so hard for you to understand - what, with your hundred law degrees and everything?


This comp is from screenshots taken of videos w/ Paul & Faul. Paul in Memphis, Aug. 19, 1966 & Faul in 1967.



And if you use a better quality video to take a screen capture from you will get this:




The images haven't been faultered in any way. Anyone can go look at the videos & see that for themselves.


The video you use is a really poor copy.

This is much better:



But of course, you will trot out the same old nonsense and claim this video has been "doctored", won't you?


It's kind of sad that some people can't see it, even though the differences have been pointed out to them in exhausting detail.


LOL! Let's remind ourselves that you claimed that this was Paul's face:


Originally posted by someotherguy
This picture Dakudo posted has obviously been doctored.



They just took Paul's face from a picture very similar to the one below & put Faul's hair on.


Faulcon has admitted that Paul was never replaced.

Here's the full photo of Paul in 1967



So much for Faulcon's "differences", huh?

What a joke.


[edit on 8-1-2010 by Dakudo]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by tappy
Hi I'm just beginning to look at this thread but I wanted to post with a thought that I've had about how some people didn't realize Paul had been replaced back in the 60s.

I recently saw a video of an experiment that had taken place whereby people went to a desk and a guy handed them a form to fill in, then before they handed it back the guy swapped with another guy who then took the form back. In a lot of cases the people taking part did not notice that it was a different person. If they're not expecting to see a change, they won't see it.

Also back in the 60s people probably didn't have any knowledge about such a thing as 'replacements' or 'impostors', therefore the ones that did see changes in Paul after 1966 might well have thought it was odd that he looked different, but wouldn't have thought "he must have been replaced" because that wasn't a concept that was familiar to them.

Does this make sense?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that all of us have ideas about the world around us based on our 'frames of reference'. If we have no concept or knowledge of something, then it doesn't enter our minds as a possible solution to something that we don't understand.

By the way, as a result of these threads I am now for the first time in my life developing an interest in the Beatles music, just now I've been searching YouTube for videos and come across songs from the 'HELP' album, I've never heard them before and I'm liking them. A lot. Hoping I can find this at my nearest record store...


Hi Tappy,

Welcome to this thread and, of course, welcome to The Beatles who seem to be having a comeback?

Regarding your interesting contribution to this thread, you are smack on target that people often only see what they are prepared to see. It is called the Theory of Form, or in the original German "Gestalt" (a term better known in the USA for a form of holistic therapy) referring to a conceptual state of being or perception of something existing as a "thing", which we choose to define in a particular way.

This is also one of the fundamental features of the learning process: we must know what exists before we can detect it. Thus knowledge is usually accessible in stages of preparatory predisposition, explaining why we can't graduate from high-school after just a few short months, what we set out to learn is supposed to be mostly preparatory to enable our venture toward further understanding.


The Gorn, Dakudo and Diablolo1,


You succeeded in derailing the previous thread in the Skunk Works Section of ATS. Don't let that fool you into overconfidence that your destructive efforts will work here. STAY OUT OF THIS THREAD, this is your last warning as you have not honored the purpose of our research.


Please read again the first post of this thread. There was an important notice there which you visibly failed to absorb. PID is a Given o of this thread's research effort. This means that in this thread NOBODY is questioning that parameter here. Do so elsewhere and don't pollute our discussion. PID is a given of the problem we are tackling, a criminal investigation. We are ONLY DISCUSSING WHY and HOW he was murdered, not whether he was murdered or not.


Trashing other forum members and disrespecting their opinions here is not to your honor. I therefore recommend to all viewers here who want to remove POLLUTION from the discussion, to place these people on IGNORE.


If your disruptive postings persist I will have to officially request that ATS Moderators take action.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Getsmart

This is also one of the fundamental features of the learning process: we must know what exists before we can detect it.


That's a good explanation for why some people can't see the difference when Faul is such a poor double. I can understand people not noticing when they don't know about replaCIAments, but now that that agenda has been exposed, there's no excuse for thinking it's "impossible" anymore. It just seems disingenuous when people keep claiming that a guy w/ completely different facial features is the same guy. They're just trying to keep other people from figuring out people are replaCIAed.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 04:22 AM
link   
.

Back ON TOPIC.


Regarding the investigation into the death and replacement of James Paul McCartney, we may be able to learn more about the programs and entities which orchestrated his substitution in the coming months by important disclosures by members of the intelligence community.


To support this possibility, there is an ongoing "cleansing operation" going on in the USA, as well as in key European capitals motivated by China's $47 Trillion Lien served by the World Court on the United States Treasury. Interpol has taken on the ambitious task of arresting or otherwise removing members of complicit agencies involved in fraudulent finance.


The same agencies laundering drug and arm sales monies through exotic financial instruments, illegal transactions and shell companies, are presumably also those involved, directly or complicitly by complacency, in the abduction, elimination and replacement of numerous celebrities and political leaders.


So we may also as a side benefit derive essential information regarding who assassinated Paul McCartney and trained his surgically operated impersonator. Was it MI-6, the CIA, Tavistock, Rand Corporation, all of the above or yet another behind the scenes agency? Was this done to further an Elite's blueprint for our future, or to fulfill the agenda of some as of yet undisclosed "foreign" agenda ? We may soon know more.


For it has to be a ruthless organization which hesitates not to murder innocent victims in cold blood. It also must be a powerful organization if targets for assassination are eminent personalities in public view. It then must be a very organized organization, with methods for training and imposing impostors, and with sufficient influence across political horizons and jurisdictional realms to warrant wide ranging collaboration and silence.



[edit on 9-1-2010 by Getsmart]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Getsmart

Regarding the investigation into the death and replacement of James Paul McCartney, we may be able to learn more about the programs and entities which orchestrated his substitution in the coming months by important disclosures by members of the intelligence community.


To support this possibility, there is an ongoing "cleansing operation" going on in the USA, as well as in key European capitals motivated by China's $47 Trillion Lien served by the World Court on the United States Treasury. Interpol has taken on the ambitious task of arresting or otherwise removing members of complicit agencies involved in fraudulent finance.
[edit on 9-1-2010 by Getsmart]



Interesting points GS - Replacing someone of McCartneys stature in the mid-60's no doubt throws up the distinct possibility of Intel collusion (CIA - SIS being the obvious anchors).

I've heard recently on the q.t that since McCartneys replacement the details of actual events, which happened to Paul, have become so diluted that those who may have been implicated are now more or less out of the loop (good news for researchers healthwise lol).

However if it is a given that some group plucked and groomed Faul/Bill for his roll in the band then he is an asset, and assets are protected (as you can see from the midget activity on this thread - kind of like walking onto private property on one level). Imo the only way to make significant headway is through dialogue with people connected to the group at the time. Unless people are willing to talk then researchers are left with analyzing vids/footage and dissecting photos. Without primary sources breaking the mould, little can come about.




[edit on 9-1-2010 by Uncle Benny]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   
One person who was about to spill the beans was Mal Evans. Unfortunately, he was taken out right before his book was going to the publisher.

Mal Evans' suspicious death

Heather Mills was also scared into silence.

What does Heather Mills know?

There is speculation that Iamaphoney is an insider.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by someotherguy

Originally posted by Uncle Benny

I don't know if anyone here has heard of a psychedelic rock group from Cali called the Brian Jonestown Massacre, there was a documentary made about them and the Dandy Warhols a few years back. Imo they've hinted about the McCartney replacement in some of their songs -

To cut a long story short I started two PID threads on a related band forum a few months back. One of the guys in this band used to play guitar for BJM. So I nearly choked on my weetabix a few days ago when I found out BJMs new album is to be called "Who Killed Sgt. Pepper?" ... Groovy! -


Good stuff, Benny. I'm sure it's an open secret to industry insiders that Paul was replaced.



I was a bit gobsmacked for a group like The Brian Jonestown Massacre to give their new album that title - it's one thing if it was simply a song.

There is a rise in consciousness about the permanent replacement of Paul McCartney and it's mainly down to exposure on the net. A friend of my fathers mentioned it in passing about two months ago - my father remembered I had said something about it before and told me a few weeks back.



Originally posted by someotherguy
One person who was about to spill the beans was Mal Evans. Unfortunately, he was taken out right before his book was going to the publisher.

Mal Evans' suspicious death

Heather Mills was also scared into silence.

What does Heather Mills know?

There is speculation that Iamaphoney is an insider.



I agree Someotherguy, imo iamaphoney has alot of insider knowledge - whether it's Ringos camp, Heather Mills, some former associate or Bill/Faul himself leaking information, the team behind these vids have the inside track on the Beatles and the music industry at large.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 11:21 PM
link   
Agreed, iamaphoney could be an insider. The peek into the Luciferian bits, for example 1-2-3-4-5-6-7, all good children, etc @ a Manson murder scene before the Abbey Road album came out... WTF?!?!?!?



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by switching yard
Agreed, iamaphoney could be an insider. The peek into the Luciferian bits, for example 1-2-3-4-5-6-7, all good children, etc @ a Manson murder scene before the Abbey Road album came out... WTF?!?!?!?



Imo the same hidden hand guides the music industry just as it is there behind every other institution, politics esp has become a circus. John Todd (re:Collins) first started to wake people up to the music industries ties with the Illuminati back in the early 70's. Now we even have some rappers breaking ranks and talking (of course you have to be very careful when you go public, especially if you've taken the oath).







www.youtube.com...




^ Also take a look at this one.




[edit on 10-1-2010 by Uncle Benny]



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 09:42 AM
link   
The more I look into this whole thing and the more I get used to the Beatles and their music (as previously stated, I'm a new fan) the more confused I get. I was convinved that there was definitely something different about the earlier and later Paul McCartney's, which led me to fall off the fence and into the PID side.

But, I'm sorry to say, the more I think about it the more I'm just not sure. I can't get my head around the bigger implications of why it would happen, and I wonder if perhaps there is an explanation of the apparent differences that doesn't lead to a conclusion that the 'original' Paul is dead.

After all, I've just noticed that the John Lennon I know from the 'Imagine' video doesn't look anything like any of the Beatles in the early videos (I didn't even know which one was John in the early videos LOL) - so I guess, people just change.

Sorry, folks, but I'm back on the fence again, and therefore it's probably best if I stay out of this particular discussion because I respect the fact that it is for PID'ers (is that the term?) only.

Just wanted to let you know in case you wondered where I'd gone. Please don't think I'm being fickle; frankly I'm new to all this and perhaps I jumped to a conclusion too hastily based on my lack of knowledge.




[edit on 10-1-2010 by tappy]



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 10:06 AM
link   


Isn't the Guy on the left Side: Pavel Chekov?



well.....almost!


PID is so funny! All BS!

[edit on 10-1-2010 by cushycrux]



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by tappy
But, I'm sorry to say, the more I think about it the more I'm just not sure. I can't get my head around the bigger implications of why it would happen, and I wonder if perhaps there is an explanation of the apparent differences that doesn't lead to a conclusion that the 'original' Paul is dead.


Sorry, folks, but I'm back on the fence again, and therefore it's probably best if I stay out of this particular discussion because I respect the fact that it is for PID'ers (is that the term?) only.
[edit on 10-1-2010 by tappy]



No need to be sorry Tappy, your genuine interest and contributions are more than welcome.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by cushycrux


Isn't the Guy on the left Side: Pavel Chekov?


No, the guy on the left side is the REAL Paul McCartney. People have just forgotten what he looked like b/c that dork Faul has been CIAlebrity-impersonating him for so long.







[edit on 10-1-2010 by someotherguy]



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by tappy
The more I look into this whole thing and the more I get used to the Beatles and their music (as previously stated, I'm a new fan) the more confused I get. I was convinved that there was definitely something different about the earlier and later Paul McCartney's, which led me to fall off the fence and into the PID side.



Hi Tappy,


We're pretty much all in the same boat. I didn't imagine for an instant that there could be anything to this, until the pieces fell into place and I couldn't avoid facing what I sure as heck didn't want to see.



Originally posted by tappy
But, I'm sorry to say, the more I think about it the more I'm just not sure. I can't get my head around the bigger implications of why it would happen, and I wonder if perhaps there is an explanation of the apparent differences that doesn't lead to a conclusion that the 'original' Paul is dead.



Sure there are. It could be just a replacement with the original Paul hanging out on an island in the Bahamas sipping cocktails. However his Butcher's Album cover brought some of us to consider other possibilities. Don't pursue it if you don't already know either from experience or well documented evidence that there are some strange goings on in Elite circles, which involve unusual ceremonies to which some don't survive.



Originally posted by tappy
After all, I've just noticed that the John Lennon I know from the 'Imagine' video doesn't look anything like any of the Beatles in the early videos (I didn't even know which one was John in the early videos LOL) - so I guess, people just change.



Tappy, some believe that John Lennon may have been replaced by actor Charlie Brill seen here in the 1967 Star Trek episode "Tribbles".





John Lennon's Replacement


Few of us are a full 100% certain but there's a big difference between "knowing" deep inside that something is up which cannot be explained, and not being able to even consider for a moment something for which we don't have hard evidence.



Originally posted by tappy
Sorry, folks, but I'm back on the fence again, and therefore it's probably best if I stay out of this particular discussion because I respect the fact that it is for PID'ers (is that the term?) only.



Tappy, sorry if my above post seemed harsh. It was not directed at those who sincerely doubt but want to consider various options. It was only meant to reduce the noise level in the thread of those who sidetracked it into a game of insults and derision. You and any other well intended members are totally invited to join in the discussion, whatever your beliefs since you respect the right of others to pursue their own paths of inquiry.


There are a number of members in this thread who can orient you to other locations where there is a lot of well thought out information and with some valid clues to back it up. You can always ask to be steered towards it with a U2U message if you'd like. We're mostly concentrating here on what we do with the information about Paul's demise, and how we can possibly honor his memory by looking into his fate... the least anyone could ask.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Dear Tappy,

I agree that it's hard to come to grips with all of this. I've had a lot of trouble with the paradigm shift.

But just look at the two interview videos posted above. They simply are not the same person.

So, what can be done other than try to figure out how and why it could have been done. I will say this... the switch happened very smoothly. I lived through those times and as a big Beatles fan I can tell you that I didn't suspect a thing.

When the PID concept first hit mainstream media I think in early 1970, I thought it was really chilling because I did see the clues on the covers and I heard "I buried Paul" and so forth. But then LIFE magazine (which almost every household subscribed to) did their cover story mocking it. Then, everyone just kind of forgot about it.

However the switch was done, it was surely planned carefully and carried out as a black op thing.

I really don't know what to believe about the idea John was replaced. I'm neutral on that one but leaning towards he was not replaced but heroin changed him somewhat.
But I don't know, I'm trying to keep an open mind.

Some things over the years nagged my thinking about "Paul", you know just little things like I would say to myself "pity his voice isn't as good as the early days" stuff like that.
Now, some of those nagging questions are kind of resolved under the umbrella concept that after late 1966, a different guy stepped in to be the new "Paul."

It's all so terribly disturbing that sometimes I don't want to believe it, but then I see the interview videos and just know it's two different guys (at least two, maybe more!)

Anyway, I like the fact that you aren't here to tear down everyone else's ideas, so Tappy I would welcome you to stay on this thread for awhile. It can be very interesting in spite of the hardcore attacks this thread has weathered.

Whether anyone ends up as convinced as I am, just studying The Beatles and questioning all the lore and legend is quite fascinating.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by switching yard
Whether anyone ends up as convinced as I am, just studying The Beatles and questioning all the lore and legend is quite fascinating.


Quite true.

If nothing else, it's good people are figuring out about replaCIAments. Thanks to Paul's CIAcrifice, that is happening now.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join