Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

PIA - Motivations for defending the honor of Paul McCartney

page: 7
2
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Another example of Faulcon's (plasticmacca's) rotten observation skills:





WARNING! May take a while to scroll down. ;D











































Incidentally, Paul looked at the neck more than 18 times during that song - compared to 'Faul' looking down at the neck "about five times" during the X Factor song.

And yet our PID 'experts' claim Paul "never ever looks at the neck" and "Bill looks at the frets a lot more than Paul ever did".



ht dakudo

[edit on 20-12-2009 by edmond dantes]




posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Faulconandsnowjob has proven time and time again that her observational skills are retarded.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dakudo
Faulconandsnowjob has proven time and time again that her observational skills are retarded.


You're missing three important words at the end of the above statement and these words are -

in

my

opinion



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Benny

Originally posted by Dakudo
Faulconandsnowjob has proven time and time again that her observational skills are retarded.


You're missing three important words at the end of the above statement and these words are -

in

my

opinion



Welcome, Uncle Benny. Kick back and have a beer.

Just to clear things up, though. If it has been proved, then it is not opinion. It is fact.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Benny

Originally posted by Dakudo
Faulconandsnowjob has proven time and time again that her observational skills are retarded.


You're missing three important words at the end of the above statement and these words are -

in

my

opinion



I missed NOTHING.

It's very simple....

I don't need to say it's my opinion when the FACTS prove my statement:




















































FACTS are FACTS Uncle Benny!

My opinion is formed by them.

FACTS first - opinion second.

Unlike Faulcon - and all PIDers. She forms a theory. It becomes her opinion. But her opinions are based around untruths.

Untruths such as 'Paul didn't have freckles', for example.

Or 'Paul had brown eyes', for example.

And many more....

The statement that "Faulconandsnowjob has proven time and time again that her observational skills are retarded" is a PROVEN, IRREFUTABLE fact - not an opinion.

The proof is there for ALL to see.

I have just provided a small sample.

Trouble is, you obviously don't want to see the truth.

And that is the problem with PIDers.

Truth is your enemy. So you deny it....

Ignore it....

Close your eyes to it...

Pretend it's not there.

You would rather believe in fantasy.

Paul is alive, whether you believe it or not...




[edit on 6-1-2010 by Dakudo]



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 12:55 PM
link   
I see that faulcon (someotherguy) is still promoting the fraud that forensic science proves Paul was replaced. Of course that was shown to be false. She uses some article in a pop magazine which uses only evidence provided by a PID website run by a guy who says that Paul was replaced by the clone of a female WWII spy. How's that for credibility?

Also, at MFH, we linked to a REAL forensic scientist who discredits all of that magazines supposed photographic evidence.

But here is something I would like to know.

Faulcon (someotherguy) states that she is a cetacean light being. The order of Cetacea includes whales, dolphins and porpoises. She also states that she took human form 4,000 years ago. This supposedly gives her deep insight that we mere mortal human beings do not have.

To those who blindly follow this being, do you REALLY believe this? Do you really believe what she is telling you?

In other posts she states she is 37 years old and has 3 law degrees, although she is not licensed to practice law. These degrees were received in the 1990's I believe for the most part. If she has been human for 4K years, why does she say she is 37? And if she only got her degrees withing the last 20 years, what did she do with the other thousands of years?

Where was she all of these years? Where was she 2,000 years ago? Wouldn't you like to see a detailed account of the events she has seen over the past 4,000 years? I would.

And if you don't believe she is a dolphin who has been human for 4,000 years, why do you believe any of the other things she says? Consider the source.







[edit on 13-1-2010 by edmond dantes]



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Just to clarify, I've interacted with Faulcon about the McCartney replacement on the net for about a year and a half, and have found her to be a very knowledgable, educated and completely sane individual who has seen through the whole "Paul McCartney" charade that goes on.

From what I understand, Faulcon has channeled information about the cetaceans and feels she has a strong connection with them. I'll say to anyone reading, if you believe you are just this human "flesh bag" then you're in for quite a shock when it's time to move on. Down through the years man has identified himself with the physical body, the mind, the soul (and no doubt will see himself as something else in the years to come.... such is thought).

Our existence doesn't terminate with the human bodys death - before anyone shouts... "I want proof," I can tell you nothing will satisfy the mind and this is something people must go through individually. I've been out of the physical body a few times and it is an amazing experience, I've also carried out energy work (with the chakras/meridian lines) and can tell you a human being is a much more powerful entity than it may presently seem.

So if the energy, that is us, is now experiencing life in a human body, what's to stop it taking on life as a dolphin, a dog or a cat after it leaves the physical? I'm not saying what is going to happen, but perhaps we just don't know it all when it comes to life.

Do you have all the answers regarding existence Edmond dante, and if you don't, what makes your answers so much better than Faulcons (or anyone elses here)?

Regards



[edit on 13-1-2010 by Uncle Benny]



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Ah, but she says not that the just channeled cetacian beings, but that she is a 9th dimensional cetacean light being pretending to be human. She also has stated that she has been human for 4,000 years. I would still like my above questions to be answered.

Do I have all of the answers? No. But I can tell you that I do not believe Faulcon is a 9th dimensional cetacean light being who has been pretending to be human for 4,000 years.

I am, in fact, the spirit of Paul's dead mother, and I know that Paul never died. It's too bad if you want proof. You just have to experience it to understand; and since you were never Paul's mother, you will never understand. I have typed it here on the internet, so it must be true.



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmond dantes
Ah, but she says not that the just channeled cetacian beings, but that she is a 9th dimensional cetacean light being pretending to be human.



She didn't say this, at least not in what you've quoted above - She stated she "received" information (in a channeling) not that she thought, believed or knew she was a cetacean.



I am, in fact, the spirit of Paul's dead mother, and I know that Paul never died. It's too bad if you want proof. You just have to experience it to understand; and since you were never Paul's mother, you will never understand.



Yeah well... good luck with that one.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 08:07 AM
link   
Baloney.

Here she states flatly that she has been human for 4,000 years. Flat statement. No channeling.



Here is a barf inducing statement. What condescension!



Here is nothing about receiving information that humans are stupid. Pretty clear statement that she is not human.



Faulcon again mentions her superiority to humans by reminding us of her higher conciousness. Doesn't sound like channeling.




And this is just delusional.



These are all flat out statements. She directly says she is not human, and that she is superior. She is not saying she is channeling this.

Again, this is the standard bearer of PID. You people who blindly follow her, do you REALLY believe her? Do you really believe she has been in human form for 4,000 years, is not human, and is vastly superior to us mere human mortals?


[edit on 15-1-2010 by edmond dantes]



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   
The trap you fall into (be it intentional or otherwise) is that you have a preconceived notion of what it is to be human. So someone like Faulcon who looks outside the box is smeared as idiotic, delusional etc.

As for Faulcon being "the standard bearer of PID" - It is only you (and your cronies) who say this - nobody else. I've never seen her, or anyone else I've met researching this area make such a claim. You want her on a pedestal because you feel she's a soft target (you'd be wrong).


The serious questions lie with yourself and this forum (everyone on this thread posts at MFH) - maccafunhouse.proboards.com... A forum set up to "debunk the PID Hoax," as you call it.

If the McCartney replacement didn't hold any truth "Paul" would be wetting himself over it. Let's face it album sales for "The Firemen" isn't exactly going through the roof. The extra attention from PID is a strong catalyst (marketing heaven), and he'd milk it for all it was worth. But of course there is truth to the replacement, otherwise A GROWN MAN LIKE YOURSELF WOULDN'T BE SPENDING SIX YEARS ON THE NET ATTEMPTING TO DEBUNK A "RIDICULOUS" THEORY LIKE PID, WITH "DELUSIONAL" POSTERS.




[edit on 16-1-2010 by Uncle Benny]



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Benny
The trap you fall into (be it intentional or otherwise) is that you have a preconceived notion of what it is to be human. So someone like Faulcon who looks outside the box is smeared as idiotic, delusional etc.


A preconceived notion? I am human. Have been all my life. She is stating that she is not human. So I should know a heck of a lot more about being human than she does.

She is stating that she is not human. That she is a dolphin from the 9th dimension. I just want to know if any of her followers actually believe that. Simple question.


If the McCartney replacement didn't hold any truth "Paul" would be wetting himself over it. Let's face it album sales for "The Firemen" isn't exactly going through the roof. The extra attention from PID is a strong catalyst (marketing heaven), and he'd milk it for all it was worth. But of course there is truth to the replacement, otherwise A GROWN MAN LIKE YOURSELF WOULDN'T BE SPENDING SIX YEARS ON THE NET ATTEMPTING TO DEBUNK A "RIDICULOUS" THEORY LIKE PID, WITH "DELUSIONAL" POSTERS.


The dude is almost 70 years old and has had a run of popularity like no other. He doesn't need the money and plays whatever the hell he wants. "The Fireman" was an experimental thing and is quite good. So it didn't top the charts. The fact is, as has always been the case, the young determine what is on the charts and they go mostly for younger performers. How many 60+ year-old do you know that are on top of the charts? StuPID argument.

And again, as explained many times, we hang around and debunk the PID stuff because we respect and admire Paul McCartney, the other Beatles and their families and friends. You and your friends have accused Paul and the others of murder, conspiracy to commit murder, pedophilia, wife beating, fraud and other crimes. In addition, your highly enlightened superior dolphin from the 9th dimension repeatedly calls Paul a "fag", creepy, ugly and other nasty things. Some highly developed superior being. LOL!

We don't mean to sit back and let that happen. As long as people like you post such vile things, we will be there to debunk them. I would do less for anyone else I know so treated.



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 07:06 PM
link   
It's amazing that anyone can actually support Faulcon's assertion that she's a 4000 year old dolphin from the 9th dimension.

It's one thing to claim that Paul McCartney was replaced, but this takes the craziness to another stratosphere.

Uncle Benny will still support her no matter what idiotic rubbish she spouts.

Incredible.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmond dantes
A preconceived notion? I am human.


You have no idea "who" or "what" you are - You think you're human because you've been told all your life that this is "what" you are.

Do you think a feral child (brought up away from civilization) knows it's a human being? Of course not, it doesn't even know it's an individual. You've been conditioned to see yourself as human, just like me and everyone else. The reality is you don't have a clue who you are.



She is stating that she is not human. That she is a dolphin from the 9th dimension. I just want to know if any of her followers actually believe that. Simple question.


What Faulcon has done is simply swap one label for another, she doesn't know what a dolphin is any more than you know what it is to be human. She does, however, appear to be at the point where she is questioning her own existence, which is more than I can say for you.



The dude is almost 70 years old and has had a run of popularity like no other. He doesn't need the money and plays whatever the hell he wants. "The Fireman" was an experimental thing and is quite good. So it didn't top the charts.


Top the charts, they didn't come within a country mile of it. Of course he doesn't need the money, but he also doesn't need the bad publicity of not being able to make music people aren't prepared to buy.



And again, as explained many times, we hang around and debunk the PID stuff because we respect and admire Paul McCartney, the other Beatles and their families and friends.


For six years... constantly on the net, I wouldn't hang around for five minutes if I thought it was a waste of time.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Benny
The trap you fall into (be it intentional or otherwise) is that you have a preconceived notion of what it is to be human.


This very well may be the single funniest thing I have ever read. Anywhere. Bravo.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Gorn

Originally posted by Uncle Benny
The trap you fall into (be it intentional or otherwise) is that you have a preconceived notion of what it is to be human.


This very well may be the single funniest thing I have ever read. Anywhere. Bravo.


LOL!


Preconceived notion - an opinion formed beforehand without adequate evidence.

So, according to Uncle Benny, Edmond only has a "preconceived notion of what it is to be human" - despite the fact that he's been human for decades!

Er, okaaaaaaaay.....



How can us PIAers compete against such an intellect?

:shk:


[edit on 20-1-2010 by Dakudo]



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Gorn
This very well may be the single funniest thing I have ever read.


That's because you're a little bit mad lol.




[edit on 20-1-2010 by Uncle Benny]



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dakudo

LOL!


Preconceived notion - an opinion formed beforehand without adequate evidence.

So, according to Uncle Benny, Edmond only has a "preconceived notion of what it is to be human" - despite the fact that he's been human for decades!

Er, okaaaaaaaay.....



How can us PIAers compete against such an intellect?

:shk:

[edit on 20-1-2010 by Dakudo]



If you can put the smug comments and ridiculous graphics aside for one moment, you might be able to fire one or two of those brain cells into action... ("might" lol).

See here's your problem -

"...despite the fact that he's been human for decades!"


You assume you know all there is to know about this "human" state, what I'm saying is... you don't, you think you know. Just like you think you know what a bird, a camel, or (dare I say it) a dolphin is!

Comprendez?


Now off back to "copy and paste" land and show us all how much "you know" about humanity!




[edit on 20-1-2010 by Uncle Benny]



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Benny
If you can put the smug comments and ridiculous graphics aside for one moment, you might be able to fire one or two of those brain cells into action... ("might" lol).

See here's your problem -

"...despite the fact that he's been human for decades!"


You assume you know all there is to know about this "human" state


See, here's your problem -

You are assuming I'm assuming I "know all there is to know about this "human" state."

I have made no comments whatsoever about the "human state".

I simply agreed with The Gorn that your claim about Edmond's thoughts on being human was idiotic.

Here it is again:

The trap you fall into (be it intentional or otherwise) is that you have a preconceived notion of what it is to be human.

See, here's your problem -

Firstly, you obviously don't seem to know the definition of "human"!

Here, I'll help you:

Human: A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species Homo sapiens.

Homo sapiens - the only surviving hominid; species to which modern man belongs; bipedal primate having language and ability to make and use complex tools; brain volume at least 1400 cc.

All humans now living belong to the subspecies Homo sapiens. The closest living relative of Homo sapiens is the chimpanzee.

Edmond is a human - FACT!

He has been human for decades - FACT!

Which leads to your second problem.....

You're spouting complete idiotic nonsense that he has formed an opinion about being human before he was human!



Here's your ridiculous quote again:

The trap you fall into (be it intentional or otherwise) is that you have a preconceived notion of what it is to be human.

Seriously, if you cannot see how utterly ludicrous and nonsensical your claim is then you need to seek help.

Let me help you:

It is impossible for Edmond to have "a preconceived notion of what it is to be human" since he was already a human at the time you claimed he had a "notion of what it is to be human".

Preconceived: (an idea or opinion) formed beforehand.

Comprendez?

Are you competing with Faulcon for the Most Stupid And Idiotic Statement Made By A PIDer prize?


what I'm saying is... you don't, you think you know. Just like you think you know what a bird, a camel, or (dare I say it) a dolphin is!

Comprendez?


I learned what they were at nursery school - as most kids do.

Guess you must have been off sick when your teachers taught your class about different animals, huh?

Here - I'll help you again:

Bird: Any of various warm-blooded, egg-laying, feathered vertebrates of the class Aves, having forelimbs modified to form wings.

Camel: A humped, long-necked ruminant mammal of the genus Camelus, domesticated in Old World desert regions as a beast of burden and as a source of wool, milk, and meat.

Dolphin: Any of various marine cetacean mammals, such as the bottle-nosed dolphin, of the family Delphinidae, related to the whales but generally smaller and having a beaklike snout.

(Hey - more copy and paste there for you!
)

Comprendez?

Now, off you trot and find a good encyclopedia so you can learn what humans, birds, camels and dolphins are!



www.encyclopedia.com...

www.learnanimals.com...




[edit on 21-1-2010 by Dakudo]



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dakudo
See, here's your problem -

You are assuming I'm assuming I "know all there is to know about this "human" state."



:shk: :shk: :shk:

I'm assuming nothing, you've just gone on to copy and paste your "knowledge" like I said you would!



Firstly, you obviously don't seem to know the definition of "human"!
Here, I'll help you:



No... help yourself! Here is your dilemma - what is "a definition?"


- A definition is a formal passage describing the meaning of a term (a word or phrase). The term to be defined is the definiendum (plural definienda). A term may have many different senses or meanings.

Do you see the problem yet...?

Definitions (like everything else) CHANGE OVER TIME... and let me qualify that in the case of a "human being."


- Do you believe that the definition for "a human being" in 1510 was different to today???

- Don't you think the definition for "a human being" in 2510 will be different from the definition we have today???


Two important issues here -

One - What we perceive to be human changes over time. We are constantly finding out more about the human being (and the human experience) which makes older knowledge, concepts and definitions redundant.

Two - Human beings as a species are constantly changing, so what a human being is at present will significantly change over time (and is changing as we speak) - Nothing stays the same. Scientists today are stating that humanity is now going through a significant biological change.


SO NOT ONLY WILL OUR CONCEPTS REGARDING HUMANITY CHANGE, THE ORGANISM ITSELF IS CHANGING. DOES ANYONE THINK THE DEFINITIONS WILL REMAIN THE SAME WHEN HUMANITY ITSELF WILL NOT???

OF COURSE NOT - EVERYTHING CHANGES!



Which leads to your second problem.....

You're spouting complete idiotic nonsense that he has formed an opinion about being human before he was human!



"Preconceived notion - an opinion formed beforehand without adequate evidence."

I NEVER SAID he formed an opinion BEFORE HE WAS HUMAN YOU LYING FOOL - POINT IT OUT IF I DID!

You're a lying disinfo merchant and you've been found out OVER AND OVER AGAIN!

BUSTED AGAIN! ! ! !





Guess you must have been off sick when your teachers taught your class about different animals, huh?



YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THEM - All you can do is reguritate this horse-crap below from wikipedia, or wherever else
-




Bird: Any of various warm-blooded, egg-laying, feathered vertebrates of the class Aves, having forelimbs modified to form wings.
Camel: A humped, long-necked ruminant mammal of the genus Camelus, domesticated in Old World desert regions as a beast of burden and as a source of wool, milk, and meat.
Dolphin: Any of various marine cetacean mammals, such as the bottle-nosed dolphin, of the family Delphinidae, related to the whales but generally smaller and having a beaklike snout.

(Hey - more copy and paste there for you!)



^ Well you're good for something - COPY AND PASTE LOL!






[edit on 22-1-2010 by Uncle Benny]






top topics



 
2
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join