PIA - Motivations for defending the honor of Paul McCartney

page: 8
2
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   

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.




This must be the one of the most foolish things I have ever read.

I am a human being and that is a fact. There is a human species. I am part of that species. What are you? If you can find a biology professor who will say I am not human, then I will consider what you say. You may come up with your own definition of what a human being is but who the hell cares? I can come up with my own definition of what is granite is. I can say granite is a red fruit, but that doesn't change it from being an igneous rock.

I am human based on what is taught by every biology department in the world. If you or faulcon want to categorize me as fish or a steam boat, or anything else is entirely irrelevant. You can't make up your own definitions and expect everyone to accept what you say.

Again, my question to all of faulcon's cronies is as follows: Do you REALLY believe that faulcon is a dolphin/whale from the 9th dimension and has been in human form for 4,000 years? Simple question. Yes or no.




posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Benny

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."


I'm assuming nothing,


Yes you are.

I haven't mentioned anything whatsoever about the human STATE.

REFER TO ANY QUOTES I HAVE MADE ABOUT IT.

Go on - quote me!

You won't - because you're talking nonsense.

Therefore, you can only be assuming what my thoughts on it are

.... unless you are a mind reader!


Originally posted by Uncle Benny
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...?


Yes.

You seem to have a 'problem' comprehending that a human is still a human no matter what the definition is.

Does a human stop being a human because someone decides to define the term differently?

No.


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


Did a human stop being a human because someone defined the term differently in 1510?

No.


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


Will a human stop being a human because someone decides to define the term differently in 2510?

No.

The definition of a human is irrelevant to your silly claim.


Originally posted by Uncle Benny
Two important issues here -

One - What we perceive to be human changes over time....

Again- A human is a human no matter how we perceive the term!

Again, you are going off at a tangent here into areas which are completely irrelevant to the issue.

Let's concentrate on the issue at hand - your claim - since this is what you have made a great big meal of.

Myself and The Gorn merely had a good old chortle at it.

You then took issue with this in your usual aggresive, bratish manner.

So I explained quite clearly what was wrong with your comment.

It has nothing to do with what year a human is defined as a human, or how the human "state" may change.....

Nothing..... Nada..... Zilch....


The fact that you are going off at a complete tangent into these totally irrelevant areas seems to be nothing more than a pathetic ruse to turn the direction of discussion away from the ridiculous comment you made and hide your embarrasement over the fact that - once again - you have made a total clown out of yourself.

Nice try, sunshine.... But it don't work.

You are hereby awarded the title of Court Jester Of PID.




Originally posted by Uncle Benny

Originally posted by Dakudo
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."


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


Oh, this is getting a bit tedious now.

Are you really this thick?!

Or just a bare-faced liar?

I already pointed it out in my previous reply.

Obviously your comprehension skills are as lamentable as your ability to tell left from right!


Okay, FOR THE VERY LAST TIME... I will "point it out" for you:

Here is your quote:


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.


You are saying Edmond has a "preconceived notion of what it is to be human." You are speaking in the present tense, since you use the word "have" - highlighted in bold, above.

This makes your claim even more confusing and illogical. But we will ignore that.

Since "preconceived notion" means an opinion formed BEFOREHAND, you are CLEARLY claiming his "notion" has been formed BEFORE he was human - otherwise it wouldn't be a "preconceived notion", would it?!

Edmond cannot have had this "notion" - BEFOREHAND - of what it is to be human", since the notion was formed AFTER he was already human!

What you are claiming is a complete contradiction of itself.

A total impossibility!

COMPLETE GIBBERISH AND NONSENSE.

GOOD GRIEF! :bash:

I can't spell it out any simpler for you.

If you still have trouble understanding why your claim is nonsensical then go and show it to an English teacher......

.... Or any mildly intelligent 10 year old, for that matter!

They'll put you right.

I'm bored of trying to explain it to you now.

Stop wasting my time.

:shk:


Originally posted by Uncle Benny
You're a lying disinfo merchant and you've been found out OVER AND OVER AGAIN!



ROTFL. Yeah - I think we can see who is telling the truth and who has his head up his ass.

Your pathetic insults are as pointless and stupid as your idiotic claim - the very same claim you deny making...



So.....

We can see who the 'liar' is....

We can see where the "disinfo" is coming from.....

We can see who makes idiotic statements that warp logic and insult reason....





[edit on 22-1-2010 by Dakudo]



posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Here are some new comps from diabolo1 at MFH.





















PID is dead.



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   
From diabolo1 showing Paul and his father




quite happy to be sitting there with the "imposter-Paul", 2 month after his son was killed and replaced. haha


I can tell you pidders something as a father. If someone had killed my son and replaced him 2 months before, even two decades before, I would not be sitting there yucking it up with one of those responsible. And, no, I wouldn't give a sh** if they threatend my life. I would not have cared if they took me out.



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmond dantes
From diabolo1 showing Paul and his father




quite happy to be sitting there with the "imposter-Paul", 2 month after his son was killed and replaced. haha


I can tell you pidders something as a father. If someone had killed my son and replaced him 2 months before, even two decades before, I would not be sitting there yucking it up with one of those responsible. And, no, I wouldn't give a sh** if they threatend my life. I would not have cared if they took me out.


Very true!

Only a total idiot would think that Paul's father would be sitting there all friendly with an imposter who has replaced his murdered son.




posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dakudo
I haven't mentioned anything whatsoever about the human STATE.

REFER TO ANY QUOTES I HAVE MADE ABOUT IT.

Go on - quote me!

You won't - because you're talking nonsense.

Therefore, you can only be assuming what my thoughts on it are

.... unless you are a mind reader!



Take a deep breath there dakudo - It's alright... just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not all out to get you!





I can only go by what you say and what you post, if you want to play games that's fine, but you'll be shown up TIME AND TIME AGAIN FOR THE LIER YOU ARE AND SUBTLE DISINFO TACTICS YOU USE!


Previously you said this -


Originally posted by Dakudo
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!


You've just stated above "he's been human for decades." So you have concepts of what it is to be human. I'm not assuming what these are, but you've just affirmed you believe in this label "humanity."


What I'm saying is throw out these concepts of what it is to be human because they're not real, they're just concepts, thoughts - They have nothing to do with who or what you are. They are concepts ABOUT WHO YOU ARE!

Is this clear with you?


Now to iron out the next supposed conundrum in your mind -



Originally posted by Dakudo
Since "preconceived notion" means an opinion formed BEFOREHAND, you are CLEARLY claiming his "notion" has been formed BEFORE he was human - otherwise it wouldn't be a "preconceived notion", would it?!


WrONG, wrONG, WRONG - As usual COMPLETE AND UTTER RUBBISH from dakudo!

I've simply stated his notion of what it is to be human was formed BEFORE HE MADE HIS COMMENTS ON THIS THREAD YOU DONUT! Give a monkey a spoon and he thinks it's a hammer!





Edmond cannot have had this "notion" - BEFOREHAND - of what it is to be human", since the notion was formed AFTER he was already human!



I have to admit I've completely underestimated your levels of idiocy!


Idiocy - • The state or condition of being an idiot; the quality of having an intelligence level far below average; mental retardation; An act lacking intelligence or sense; an instance of senselessness; extremely foolish behaviour.


WHERE did I make the claim he had a preconceived notion of what it is to be human BEFORE HE BECAME HUMAN? Do you always put two and two together and get five?? Is there a list of questions you can give me that I can ask you???



Edmond cannot have had this "notion" - BEFOREHAND - of what it is to be human", since the notion was formed AFTER he was already human!



Save it for the men with the white coats!
You're seriously starting to remind me of Sheriff J.W Pepper lol -







[edit on 29-1-2010 by Uncle Benny]



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 09:15 AM
link   
Don't worry, dakudo. To be called an idiot by such a person is a great comfort. It means you are sane.

And it is not hard to understand that he gets the meaning of "preconceived notion" wrong. Uncle Benny can't tell his left from his right, and could not grasp the concept of a double negative.

This is typical ranting from the pidder crowd. Much of their time is spent ranting and raving, full of hatred. They have issues.

PID is dead.



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmond dantes
Don't worry, dakudo. To be called an idiot by such a person is a great comfort. It means you are sane.


Yep... he's almost as sane as you, which doesn't say much for him, considering you've admitted spending six years on the net trying to disprove PID - Best of luck with the next six!




And it is not hard to understand that he gets the meaning of "preconceived notion" wrong. Uncle Benny can't tell his left from his right, and could not grasp the concept of a double negative.


Haha, is that all you've got? Mind you don't knock yourself out lol.



This is typical ranting from the pidder crowd. Much of their time is spent ranting and raving, full of hatred. They have issues.


Blah blah blah... you ignore what was written and throw a few stones, congrats!



PID is dead.


Or is it?






Go on now and run off back up to your little disinformation forum, there's a good shill.
- maccafunhouse.proboards.com...



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Benny

Originally posted by Dakudo
I haven't mentioned anything whatsoever about the human STATE.

REFER TO ANY QUOTES I HAVE MADE ABOUT IT.

Go on - quote me!

You won't - because you're talking nonsense.

Therefore, you can only be assuming what my thoughts on it are

.... unless you are a mind reader!



Take a deep breath there dakudo - It's alright... just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not all out to get you!


Sad old jokes are no substitute for an answer to my request. :shk:


I can only go by what you say and what you post


Liar. Who do you think you're fooling?

You haven't done that at all. As I previously stated - and you haven't been able to rebut - "you can only be assuming what my thoughts on it are".

Why? Because I have never posted any personal thoughts about the human state in this thread.

Irrefutable fact!

I requested that you back up your claim and quote me on any personal thoughts I have made on the subject of the "human state."

All you could come back with is a sad old joke.

Pathetic. :shk:

So, once again, you are exposed as nothing more than a blatant, barefaced liar.


if you want to play games that's fine, but you'll be shown up TIME AND TIME AGAIN FOR THE LIER [sic] YOU ARE AND SUBTLE DISINFO TACTICS YOU USE!


LOL! What a hypocrite.

Here you go again making up nonsense as if it is fact.

If you are going to accuse me of being a "lier" [sic] - prove it.

If you are going to accuse me of being a "disinfo" agent - prove it.

But you never do.... EVER.

All you can do is pound vigorously away at your little keyboard issuing childish personal insults and empty claims like some angry and frustrated teenager.

That behaviour might impress people on the level of faulcon and deanna2003 - but it doesn't impress rational people who expect to see claims backed up with evidence.

All you are doing is showing what a complete jerk you are.



Previously you said this -


Originally posted by Dakudo
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!


You've just stated above "he's been human for decades." So you have concepts of what it is to be human.


"Concepts" have nothing to do with it. I stated a FACT. Edmond is human.

Humans are bipedal primates belonging to the species Homo sapiens.

That is a fact.

If you are disputing this then I'm sure that the administator at your local mental hospital will be very pleased to hear from you.



I'm not assuming what these are, but you've just affirmed you believe in this label "humanity."


I believe that humans exist. And your point therefore is......?



What I'm saying is throw out these concepts of what it is to be human


Irrelevant to your claim.


because they're not real, they're just concepts, thoughts - They have nothing to do with who or what you are. They are concepts ABOUT WHO YOU ARE!

Is this clear with you?


Again - totally irrelevant to your claim.

You're the only one here rambling on about "concepts" of being human. Whatever the concepts of humans are, the fact remains that humans exist.

Otherwise how could you have a "concept" about them?!
:bash:
:bash:

If you dispute the fact that humans exist then I'm sure that the administator at your local mental hospital will be very pleased to hear from you.


Is this clear with you?



Now to iron out the next supposed conundrum in your mind -



Originally posted by Dakudo
Since "preconceived notion" means an opinion formed BEFOREHAND, you are CLEARLY claiming his "notion" has been formed BEFORE he was human - otherwise it wouldn't be a "preconceived notion", would it?!


WrONG, wrONG, WRONG - As usual COMPLETE AND UTTER RUBBISH from dakudo!

I've simply stated his notion of what it is to be human was formed BEFORE HE MADE HIS COMMENTS ON THIS THREAD YOU DONUT!


WTF?!

You did not 'state' that his notion was formed "before he made his comments in this thread".

What a liar you are. Really, what a total, absolute, complete fabrication.



Let's look at it again then (I'll humour you). Let's see where you 'state' that his notion was formed "before he made his comments in this thread".


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.


Er, don't see any mention of "BEFORE HE MADE HIS COMMENTS ON THIS THREAD".

Where are they Uncle Benny?????

Or should I just call you Pinocchio?!

Boy - your nose must be about 10 feet long with all the irrefutable lies that you tell.



But lets try and put your new words in and see if it makes sense.


Originally posted by Uncle Benny
The trap you fall into (be it intentional or otherwise) is that you have a notion of what it is to be human which was formed before you made your comments on this thread.




WTF?!

LOL!

Just as crazy!

So you're saying that Edmond has fallen into a "trap" because his "notion of what it is to be human" was formed before he made his comments in this thread?

Huh? How the hell could the "notion" he made his comments in this thread about be formed AFTER he posted them?

Don't answer (not that you would). This new 'interpretation' of your original quote - which involves inserting words which were never there in the first place - is BLATENTLY just a pathetic attempt to try and wriggle out of the fact that your original quote was nonsensical.

Don't insult our intelligence with this pityful nonsense.

Instead of just admitting your mistake and moving on, you desperately try and save your obvious embarrassment by concocting some ridiculous 'explanation' of what your original quote actually meant - which is equally STUPID anyway!

Then you then have the audacity to insult us for not 'understanding' it!

ROTFL!


WHERE did I make the claim he had a preconceived notion of what it is to be human BEFORE HE BECAME HUMAN?









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.


Preconceive: To form (an opinion, for example) beforehand.

Preconceived notion: An opinion formed beforehand without adequate evidence.

"Preconceived notion of what it is to be human": An opinion of being human which was formed before being human and without adequate evidence.

Ergo:

Complete gibberish and nonsense speak!

Now off you trot, Pinocchio - er, Uncle Benny, and go think up some more lies and unfounded insults to throw at me, eh?

After all, in the absence of a logical and factual argument, they're all you have.

:shk: :shk: :shk:

[edit on 29-1-2010 by Dakudo]



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmond dantes
To be called an idiot by such a person is a great comfort.


LOL! Being called an idiot by Uncle Benny is akin to being called a gangster by Al Capone.


And it is not hard to understand that he gets the meaning of "preconceived notion" wrong.


No, not on past evidence it's not.

But I'm going with the theory that he's now found out what it means and is trying to cover his embarrassment by concocting some cock and bull story about his quote meaning something else entirely.

Why else would he come up with the laughable claim that his quote actually involved things which were never stated in the original quote?


Uncle Benny can't tell his left from his right, and could not grasp the concept of a double negative.


So true. He is obviously not very good with things like that. Shame for him that he embarrases himself on public forums with his ignorance.


This is typical ranting from the pidder crowd. Much of their time is spent ranting and raving, full of hatred.


Uncle Benny's rantings and insults are clearly a substitution for his lack of any evidence to support his stupid claims. (Rather like PIDers in general, really.)

Without them, he wouldn't have much to post.

Still, he's good for a laugh.

And he's a great advertisement for how ludicrous PIDers thinking processes are.

Long may he post!


[edit on 29-1-2010 by Dakudo]



posted on Jan, 30 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Benny

PID is dead.


Or is it?






Go on now and run off back up to your little disinformation forum, there's a good shill.
- maccafunhouse.proboards.com...



Oh geez! You are posting those pitiful IAAP videos as proof of PID? What a laugh! Those have been shown over and over to be frauds. IAAP shows clips taken COMPLETELY out of context to make them appear as if they prove PID. On MFH, we have shown the complete clips to show how IAAP misleads people with that crap. Using those videos as proof shows that you either ignorant or a fraud as well.

Here are two threads dealing with the fraud of IAAP:

maccafunhouse.proboards.com...

maccafunhouse.proboards.com...

Disinformation forum? Shill? C'mon Man! SOS. Can't you at least come up with SOMETHING new or original?

[edit on 30-1-2010 by edmond dantes]



posted on Jan, 30 2010 @ 06:19 PM
link   
LOL at Pinocchio, er, Uncle Benny, for posting Iamaphoney videos as evidence for PID.

He'll be posting klu klux clan videos next as evidence that they're not racist!




posted on Jan, 30 2010 @ 06:33 PM
link   





posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dakudo
Liar. Who do you think you're fooling?
You haven't done that at all. As I previously stated - and you haven't been able to rebut - "you can only be assuming what my thoughts on it are".
Why? Because I have never posted any personal thoughts about the human state in this thread.
Irrefutable fact!



More like you're an irrefutable idiot! You have the gall to call me a liar when ALL YOU DO is lie and twist around what people say day after day. :bash:
OH THE IRONY!






Let's take a look at some of dakudos RECENT SCAMS (I say recent because hes been a good little disinfo debunker sitting on PID threads all over the net for at least the last year and half!)


Firstly lets look at a comp used by dakudo from the front of the "Yesterday and Today" album (otherwise referred to as the "Butcher" cover).







From these two pictures above dakudo put together a comparison showing three close ups of Paul, here it is -



What poor auld dakudo was attempting to show was the difference between different quality footage, and how in some pieces of film, Pauls face appears to be longer and thinner than in others.


NOW - Take out a ruler and measure the length of all three pictures. The three are clearly the same measurements from bottom to top, BUT....... MEASURE EACH PICTURE ACROSS.


NOTICE HOW THE PICTURE OF PAUL ON THE LEFT IS NARROWER THAN THE OTHER TWO. THE MIDDLE PICTURE AND ONE ON THE RIGHT ARE THE SAME LENGTH, BUT THE PICTURE ON THE LEFT IS MUCH NARROWER!!!



By narrowing in the picture dakudo has attempted to fool people into reaching the conclusion he wants them to reach.

PAULS FACE LOOKS LONGER AND NARROWER AIDED BY THE FACT THAT THE PICTURE ITSELF IS NARROWER THAN THE OTHER TWO!!! :bash:
:bash:



DAKUDO IS A FRAUD!



(The post in question is second from bottom on this page - www.belowtopsecret.com...)




Next example from this FOOLISH, LYING SHILL -


This is a video put together by dakudo, make that DELU-DO, several months back, it always gives me a chuckle -





We'll leave his silly freckle analysis for another day, what I want people to focus on here are the voice comps in the second part of the vid!


The comparisons are taken from these two interviews below, have a listen to both -







What our "good friend" has attempted to do here is "guide" people to the assumption that both interviews are with the same man.


I have ONE QUESTION - WHERE IS ALL THE BACKGROUND NOISE COMING FROM IN YOUR VIDEO? HOW COME IT'S NOT IN THE ORIGINALS??? (Are you going to run for cover and deny making it in the first place, it wouldn't surprise me!).


Deludo also focuses on stock phrases used by Paul and mimmicked by Bill/Faul. Words like "you know" are used many times throughout the comp. This is a subtle way of getting people to identify subconsciously that it's the same man, just because they are THE SAME WORDS used by BOTH MEN.

This is classic mind manipulation by someone who is purposely trying to influence, condition/unjustly persuade the listener. There are many of these dud videos out there - Don't be fooled is all I will say. Pay close attention to what you are asked to listen to and watch. Always focus on the details and these fraudsters will show themselves up time and time again!


Hear that dakudo... YOU'RE A FRAUDSTER!






YOU COULD HANG YOUR CLOTHES OUT TO DRY ON DELUDOS NOSE HE TALKS THAT MUCH CRAP!




[edit on 31-1-2010 by Uncle Benny]



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Benny

Originally posted by Dakudo
Liar. Who do you think you're fooling?
You haven't done that at all. As I previously stated - and you haven't been able to rebut - "you can only be assuming what my thoughts on it are".
Why? Because I have never posted any personal thoughts about the human state in this thread.
Irrefutable fact!



More like you're an irrefutable idiot!


LOL. Temper, temper!

A frustrated, childish insult is no substitute for the fact that you cannot rebut my statement.



Awww, diddums!


You have the gall to call me a liar


It's not a question of "gall" - I let the facts do the speaking. And the facts prove you're a liar; period.


when ALL YOU DO is lie and twist around what people say day after day. :bash:
OH THE IRONY!


Oh, I 'twisted' around what you said did I? LOL.

No - I proved you were talking gibberish.

I then proved you were telling more lies when you attempted to 'twist' your original meaning by laughably claiming:

"I've simply stated his notion of what it is to be human was formed BEFORE HE MADE HIS COMMENTS ON THIS THREAD".

But we can all see you made no mention whatsoever of this "thread" in your quote.

It was just another blatent lie of yours.



Firstly lets look at a comp used by dakudo from the front of the "Yesterday and Today" album (otherwise referred to as the "Butcher" cover).







From these two pictures above dakudo put together a comparison showing three close ups of Paul, here it is -



What poor auld dakudo was attempting to show was the difference between different quality footage, and how in some pieces of film, Pauls face appears to be longer and thinner than in others.


And it shows it perfectly to anyone with a modicum of intelligence and perception.


NOW - Take out a ruler and measure the length of all three pictures.


The length of the two screenshots and photo has nothing to do with the length of the faces! It's the faces that are important here.

DOH!


The three are clearly the same measurements from bottom to top, BUT....... MEASURE EACH PICTURE ACROSS.

NOTICE HOW THE PICTURE OF PAUL ON THE LEFT IS NARROWER THAN THE OTHER TWO. THE MIDDLE PICTURE AND ONE ON THE RIGHT ARE THE SAME LENGTH, BUT THE PICTURE ON THE LEFT IS MUCH NARROWER!!!






Oh, boy. I've read some dumb # in my life but this is just comical.

Can you get it in your thick skull that the length of the "pictures" are not important?

The whole point was to look at the faces - and the face on the left is irrefutably narrower.

I could have made the "pictures" exactly the same width and it wouldn't matter a jot. But I created that comp for people with at least a modicum of intelligence who understood the concept and aren't so mindnumbingly paranoid that they think that because the width of one "picture" is slightly narrower means there is some evil conspiracy going on.

Look, I'll make this very simple for you:

If I was making this comp for a deluded fool who sees a conspiracy behind every PIA comp and claims that the width of the "picture" is evidence of 'evil doing', then I would have made sure that the screenshots were exactly the same size - or I would have put on nice little markings like these:



Now. Look at the left and middle photo. We can see that there is a very slight difference in the heights of the heads. However, if we look at the bottom line we can see there is a big difference in the length of the faces/heads.

The head on the left is clearly longer.

Now look at the green dashes over both heads. These dashes go across the same portion of the heads (as accurately as I could, considering the left head is so distorted).

Count the dashes covering each head Uncle Benny. (You can count, I presume? Well, since you can't tell your left from your right, it's best to make sure.)

If the faces/heads were the same width then the number of dashes would be the same.

But are they the same, Uncle Benny?

No!

It takes less dashes to cover the head on the left than the head on the right.

Which proves the head on the left is narrower.

Simple math!

(You did do math at school, Uncle Benny?)

I could, of course, have presented the comp like this originally. It actually demonstrates the differences in the faces more forcibly than the original comp does. But like I said, the original comp was produced for people who don't see a conspiracy if the width of a "picture" is different!

It was produced for people who are capable of looking at the faces and seeing that they are different widths and lengths.

So, this new version is for moronic people like you who claim that the width of the "picture" on the left is an attempt "to fool people into reaching the conclusion he wants them to reach."

The dashes prove the point I was making in my original comp.

The width of the "picture" doesn't alter the fact that the faces are different. They are measurable different - FACT!

Left "picture". Width of head (including hair):


Width of head = 117 pixels.

Right "picture". Width of head (including hair):


Width of head = 138 pixels!

So, the left head is only 117 pixels wide and yet the right head is 138 pixels wide!

Hmmmm.... Wonder why? LOL!

Side by side:



Hey, look Uncle Benny - the LEFT "picture" is STILL "narrower"!

LOL!



But this time the "picture" is of JUST the width of the head.

Now, how does your "By narrowing in the picture dakudo has attempted to fool people into reaching the conclusion he wants them to reach" theory explain that!?????

It doesn't. Because you are talking through your ASS.

Left "picture". Height of head:


Height of head = 181 pixels.

Right "picture". Height of head:


Height of head = 175 pixels!

So the left head is 181 pixels in height and yet the right head is only 175 pixels in height.

Hmmmm.... Wonder why? LOL!

Side by side:



Hey, look Uncle Benny - the LEFT "picture" is TALLER!

LOL!!!

Are you getting the, er, "picture" yet, Uncle Benny?!

:bash:
:bash:
:bash:
:bash:




By narrowing in the picture dakudo has attempted to fool people into reaching the conclusion he wants them to reach.


And we can all see what a blatent LIE that is! LOL.

I don't need to "fool" people. The faces are irrefutably different in length, width and quality.

Only a complete moron would try and argue differently.

So you're seriously trying to claim those faces are exactly the same?!



Oh, Boy!

Er, any proof?

Huh?

We're waiting.....

Will you give it to us?

Or will you, yet again, ignore claims to back up your feeble reasoning because you have no credible evidence whatsoever?

Hmmm....... Is the pope Catholic?

LOL.


Originally posted by Uncle Benny
DAKUDO IS A FRAUD!




Awww, diddums!




This is a video put together by dakudo, make that DELU-DO, several months back, it always gives me a chuckle -[/quotes]

I'd be more concerned with learning to tell my left from my right, if I were you.






W'hat I want people to focus on here are the voice comps in the second part of the vid!


The comparisons are taken from these two interviews below, have a listen to both -







I have ONE QUESTION - WHERE IS ALL THE BACKGROUND NOISE COMING FROM IN YOUR VIDEO? HOW COME IT'S NOT IN THE ORIGINALS??? (Are you going to run for cover and deny making it in the first place, it wouldn't surprise me!).


Don't judge me by your own standards Pinocchio, er, Uncle Benny.

The reason why the background noise is the same on both interviews is because I felt the changing in the background noise when one interview changed into another was a distraction. So I simply dubbed the same background noise on both so the listener was focussed more on the voice itself.

But of course, in your deluded and paranoid view this is actually another conspiracy on my part. Yes, everything is a conspiracy to you, isn't it?

And yet you laughingly support Iamaphoney videos which are blatently fraudulent.

What a hypocrite you are.

Did I change the voices?

No.

Did I edit the voices in any way to change their sound?

No.

So please explain, exactly, how having the same background on both interviews changes the voice?

Listen. If I wanted to 'fool' people I would have used two interviews taken pre PID!

DUH!



Deludo also focuses on stock phrases used by Paul and mimmicked by Bill/Faul. Words like "you know" are used many times throughout the comp. This is a subtle way of getting people to identify subconsciously that it's the same man, just because they are THE SAME WORDS used by BOTH MEN.


LOL! So comparing the same phrases is now some conspiracy too?!

LOL. Unbelievable!

Why do you think that comparing the same phrases is a well known technique in voice recognition?


"The second step involves the pattern comparison of the same phrases/sentences from the unknown sample and the suspect’s sample."
www.forensicservices.ca...


I'm sure forensic scientists would be in stiches to hear Uncle Benny's moronic claim that comparing the same phrases is actually "a subtle way of getting people to identify subconsciously that it's the same" person.

Seems a guy who can't even tell his left from his right now thinks he knows more about voice analysis techniques than forensic experts!



LOL. Your claims are hilarious, Uncle Benny.

Really, I congratulate you on this remarkable effort.

After failing to rebut any of the points I made about your nonsensical quote and your blatent lies, you gave up and have now moved on to new tomfoolery with this effort.

10 out of 10 for comedy value.

I salute you!



[edit on 31-1-2010 by Dakudo]



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 07:06 AM
link   
Hi

Okay... this is kinda difficult so please bear with me and sorry if I ramble a bit while I get my point across.

My very first post on ATS was over on the PID thread because, after reading the conspiracy and becoming very intruigued by it, I felt compelled to join so I could reply - I thought there really was something in all the clues and photo comparisons. And, as I knew very little about the Beatles and wasn't a huge fan of Paul, I had no prior knowledge to the contrary.

I posted these feelings on the PID thread.

BUT... during my intruigue of this conspiracy I began to watch videos of the Beatles on YouTube, listen to some of their songs... and suddenly found I was enjoying the music - after all these years, I was finally becoming a Beatles fan. And I began to wonder if what I was reading was true. Because in 'early' and 'late' videos I could see mannerisms in Paul that seemed to be the same.

So I looked back at the PID evidence and this time, rather than just taking everything I read at face value, I investigated it for myself. And I realized that some of it was just completely wrong.



Here's just some of the things that have changed my mind:-

Yes Paul looks different in videos like Strawberry Fields. But then again, so does John - he's changed perhaps more than Paul.

On the Hey Jude video, Paul's eyebrows move about a lot, very similar to in the 'Yesterday' video. It's the same movement, same guy. It just is.

One piece of evidence on the PID threads/websites was a screenshot from a cartoon, showing what alleged to be Paul looking grey and deathly, with a comment along the lines of "why does only Paul look grey while the other Beatles are in full colour". Well, I watched the cartoon this came from, it was a cartoon of the Beatles singing Strawberry Fields. In the course of the song, several children's lives are seen to change from dull and grey to colourful and happy. The 'Paul' on the screenshot was actually one of these children.

This one really clinched it for me, because clearly this was a piece of evidence that simply wasn't what it was made out to be.



I recently saw an interview with Paul on a show called 'Zane meets' or something like that. What struck me was that even though this was now a 60-whatever year old guy, there were moments when I actually saw the early-mid-sixties Paul shining through, just in his mannerisms or his eyes. It's hard to explain, but I know I saw it.


So, I no longer believe the PID theory. I've seen with my own eyes through the videos I am watching over and over (as I said, I'm a new fan!) and I've seen proof that evidence purported to be in favour of PID is simply not true. And all that is enough for me.

I feel really embarrassed that I believed the theory for a while - it was compelling and I was naive to think that everything that was posted was the truth without first investigating it for myself. I like to think of myself as open minded, but I think my eagerness to finally post on ATS made me too hasty. :bnghd:

But if nothing else it made me discover the wonderful music and videos that the Beatles did (and in turn, enjoying watching them made me see the truth - it's a roundabout way but I got there in the end!)

Sorry for the terribly long post, but I just had to speak my mind. I've sat back and reviewed my thoughts so that this time, I wouldn't be jumping in feet first.

I'm worried that people will think that I'm either just here to cause trouble or someone who really can't make up their mind. I'd rather you thought the latter because honestly, I'm not trying to cause any trouble. Now I know the truth I can't sit back and not say it. I feel like I need to say something in support of Paul.

Thank you for reading.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by tappy
Hi

Okay... this is kinda difficult so please bear with me and sorry if I ramble a bit while I get my point across.

My very first post on ATS was over on the PID thread because, after reading the conspiracy and becoming very intruigued by it, I felt compelled to join so I could reply - I thought there really was something in all the clues and photo comparisons. And, as I knew very little about the Beatles and wasn't a huge fan of Paul, I had no prior knowledge to the contrary.

I posted these feelings on the PID thread.

BUT... during my intruigue of this conspiracy I began to watch videos of the Beatles on YouTube, listen to some of their songs... and suddenly found I was enjoying the music - after all these years, I was finally becoming a Beatles fan. And I began to wonder if what I was reading was true. Because in 'early' and 'late' videos I could see mannerisms in Paul that seemed to be the same.

So I looked back at the PID evidence and this time, rather than just taking everything I read at face value, I investigated it for myself. And I realized that some of it was just completely wrong.



Here's just some of the things that have changed my mind:-

Yes Paul looks different in videos like Strawberry Fields. But then again, so does John - he's changed perhaps more than Paul.

On the Hey Jude video, Paul's eyebrows move about a lot, very similar to in the 'Yesterday' video. It's the same movement, same guy. It just is.

One piece of evidence on the PID threads/websites was a screenshot from a cartoon, showing what alleged to be Paul looking grey and deathly, with a comment along the lines of "why does only Paul look grey while the other Beatles are in full colour". Well, I watched the cartoon this came from, it was a cartoon of the Beatles singing Strawberry Fields. In the course of the song, several children's lives are seen to change from dull and grey to colourful and happy. The 'Paul' on the screenshot was actually one of these children.

This one really clinched it for me, because clearly this was a piece of evidence that simply wasn't what it was made out to be.



I recently saw an interview with Paul on a show called 'Zane meets' or something like that. What struck me was that even though this was now a 60-whatever year old guy, there were moments when I actually saw the early-mid-sixties Paul shining through, just in his mannerisms or his eyes. It's hard to explain, but I know I saw it.


So, I no longer believe the PID theory. I've seen with my own eyes through the videos I am watching over and over (as I said, I'm a new fan!) and I've seen proof that evidence purported to be in favour of PID is simply not true. And all that is enough for me.

I feel really embarrassed that I believed the theory for a while - it was compelling and I was naive to think that everything that was posted was the truth without first investigating it for myself. I like to think of myself as open minded, but I think my eagerness to finally post on ATS made me too hasty. :bnghd:

But if nothing else it made me discover the wonderful music and videos that the Beatles did (and in turn, enjoying watching them made me see the truth - it's a roundabout way but I got there in the end!)

Sorry for the terribly long post, but I just had to speak my mind. I've sat back and reviewed my thoughts so that this time, I wouldn't be jumping in feet first.

I'm worried that people will think that I'm either just here to cause trouble or someone who really can't make up their mind. I'd rather you thought the latter because honestly, I'm not trying to cause any trouble. Now I know the truth I can't sit back and not say it. I feel like I need to say something in support of Paul.

Thank you for reading.


No reason to be sorry. The post was not too long, and you expressed your feelings quite well.

Actually, you have demonstrated the real reason we are here. There are many pidders, including Uncle Benny above, that state that unless we are paid disinformation agents, we would not spend the time posting things to defend Paul. This, of course, is not true. You show the reason we do this. There are people like you that are looking at the PID thing for the first time. If you just see the PID side of the story, then you can get fooled into believing it. That is because you are fed only the information that they want you to see. We have shown that the pidders manipulate photos and videos in order to make the post '66 Paul look different.

We are here, and at MFH, to present the other side of the story. We are confident that if people see ALL of the evidence, on both sides, they will agree that Paul was never replaced and is still alive. Unlike the pidders, we are not afraid of people seeing the PID side. On MFH, we provide links to all of the PID forums. We want people to look at them.

On their forums, they say mean, hateful things about Paul, Yoko, the other Beatles and their families and friends. Imagine if we just sat back and let them say these things without any refutation. How horrible would it be if people doing research into the PID hoax had only the point of view of the PID people to consider?

We are here to provide the facts, and to refute the lies being told about Paul and the others. People need to see all sides and make their own decisions.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Dakudo.

That is unbelievable. UB wants us to measure the size of the photograph? Oh my God, that is lame.

So if the photograph is 1 inch wide, it means Paul is replaced, but if we cut off a little from each side of the photo, then Paul is alive?


That is the worst yet.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by tappy
 


No need to apologise, Tappy.

It's good that you have seen through the lies of the PIDers and can see that Paul was never replaced.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmond dantes
Dakudo.

That is unbelievable. UB wants us to measure the size of the photograph? Oh my God, that is lame.

So if the photograph is 1 inch wide, it means Paul is replaced, but if we cut off a little from each side of the photo, then Paul is alive?


LOL! It's hard to comprehend that someone can actually come out with such moronic nonsense.

The heads are irrefutably different in width, height and quality as the original comp was showing.

That they are different is beyond dispute. The measurements prove it.

Yet this clown starts babbling that I've tried to fool people into thinking this just because the width of one "picture" is slightly narrower.






That is the worst yet.


You're not kidin'! :shk:





new topics
top topics
 
2
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join