|
|
Post by Silversong on Jun 11, 2011 21:56:28 GMT -5
I’ve put together some new information in my continuing search for what this is all about. I’m by no means at the end of my search, but here is what I have right now. I think we’re being kept in a world run by an evil magician who is casting spells on us. I now know we’ve never seen the original Beatles, let alone the original James Paul McCartney. From the information I can garner, the Beatles were replaced VERY early. It seems that in the early to mid 60s, one group was touring Europe, while the other came to the states. They possibly “interchanged” with each other during this time, or there were even more “sets” of Beatles to draw from, as I will show in this thread. My findings indicate that this is the First REAL Paul McCartney – Low brows, flat ears, wide nose. He was shorter, too. There may be more than one former Paul McCartney in these first three photos. I'm still sorting through the information. The one on the far right is from Pipes of Peace 1983 - same one as earliest Paul McCartney in second picture - notice unattached lobe, matches in both pictures.  Low brow, wide nose, flat ears – now watch him change over the years. Picture on right is from 1961 "Tony Sheridan and the Beat Brothers". See later in this thread for youtube links.   The First REAL BeatlesThey were in a group called "Tony Sheridan and the Beat Brothers". More research could find there was even another name they played under, further back yet. I Just KNEW I remembered George being taller than Paul when they started out in the U.S. in 1964 (I was just 17). Paul is barely taller than Ringo in this early picture of them in Liverpool 1962. Notice no swooped eyebrows like we see a year or two later on a taller Paul, flatter. John is taller and appears to have a wider nose. Short with unattached lobe Tony Sheridan and the Beat Brothers The Beatles original group in Liverpool 1962 Here again, Paul is shorter than George, with George being the tallest. My memory didn’t fail me after all! This shorter Paul had a wider nose, as well as this John having a wider nose.  The Beatles in Stockholm 1963. Paul is the shortest one here. Again with the wider nose, low brow line, flat ears. Why is John taller than George? I’m beginning to wonder how many “Beatles” there were. I’ve heard there were about 6 sets of these guys, of which there were two sets who did live performances. Maybe they were interchangeable. Which one died, if anyone really did, and which one was John missing, if that is to be taken literally?  It gets even more complicated from here, but if it was easy, they wouldn’t have gotten away with it in the 1960s. We had no access to this kind of technology or viewing or scrutinizing different facial features, height discrepancies, etc. back then, but we do now. The powers are making it no secret anymore that they want to replace all of us, after getting rid of 90% of the current human population. It’s time we wake up and do something about it. The Beatles first U.S. Tour – Feb. 11, 1964 Washington DCPaul the tallest one for onstage performances, younger looking, “cuter”. George taller than John. This is 1964 in Washington D.C.  Paul much shorter later that same year, and George, too. There was yet another Tall Paul in 1965, the one to whom John said “Thank you, Paul, that was just like him” after the song Yesterday. The youtube for this has been removed since this discussion started at TKIN and PID, but you can catch the comment on this next youtube, it has been taken away from its context, though. Others have seen it and can vouch for it. This height ratio is more like the original one. Only George is taller again.  Paul and Ringo both taller than ever:  The long version of this post and many other comments is at PID: only1rad.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=frontman&action=display&thread=2325 |
|
thewalruswaspaul
For Sale 
My mustache draws all the ladys......and the walrus....
Posts: 124
|
Post by thewalruswaspaul on Jun 12, 2011 20:32:21 GMT -5
wow i dont know about they want to replace th population but the theory is brilliant
|
|
|
|
Post by Silversong on Jun 14, 2011 16:43:00 GMT -5
This is my updated understanding of it now. It would sure help if there were some kind of class to take about this, to get an understanding from the very beginning on through. I was alive back then, but now I see we never saw the group from England (or at least not all of them), so we thought the group presented to us in America in 1964 were the originals. It is taking a lot of trial and error on my part to piece all of this together. This first Paul and group of 3 were the true originals, so it would seem and if I'm starting to get a handle on it. George the tallest, Paul the shortest, unlike the pictures I showed above with Paul the tallest. This (first?) Paul had an unattached earlobe.  Another picture showing unattached lobe:   This seems to be the second Paul and the second group – is this to you the same Paul and same 3? The first Paul has unattached earlobes. The second Paul does not.  Another pic showing attached lobe.  These two don’t seem identical to me. One has a longer, narrower face, and a narrower, taller cranium. One has attached lobes, the other does not. A difference in eyes and browline.  We never saw either of them in the U.S. to my knowledge. I was 17 when they came to America. Paul was always either the same height as John or even taller. George was always the same two different ways as Paul. Ringo got shorter and taller. Is this the Paul most people believe was killed? Do most people believe the first and second pictures are of the same one? How about these? Are they the same as the first two?    And I’ve put this together about the first Paul. I see him again in the 70s and 80s on videos, and on up into 2006, if I'm putting this together right. The second Paul must be the one who is gone. He probably did the recordings for songs like Michelle and Til There Was You. None of the Pauls in America could sing like that.  |
|
|
|
Post by Silversong on Jun 14, 2011 18:17:10 GMT -5
So now I would like to ask if anyone can point me to any youtube videos of the Paul you believe was killed. I'm not sure I've ever seen him perform. He doesn't seem to be the Paul McCartney who came to America in 1964 that I watched on television. Now looking at the available youtubes, he isn't as short in those as he should have been up next to George and John.
|
|
thewalruswaspaul
For Sale
My mustache draws all the ladys......and the walrus....
Posts: 124
|
Post by thewalruswaspaul on Jun 15, 2011 15:23:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Silversong on Jun 15, 2011 20:40:00 GMT -5
What are your opinions?
|
|
thewalruswaspaul
For Sale
My mustache draws all the ladys......and the walrus....
Posts: 124
|
Post by thewalruswaspaul on Jun 16, 2011 11:52:03 GMT -5
of the one who died
|
|
|
|
Post by GN on Jun 16, 2011 14:20:25 GMT -5
 Read her lips |
|
|
|
Post by B on Jun 16, 2011 15:13:12 GMT -5
Just fyi, someone suggested once that the "George" in this picture might have been Neil Aspinall, or another stand in. I'm not trying to complicate the subject. ;D I'm just saying you might not want to use this picture as a basis for comparison to Harrison. |
|
|
|
Post by zerocool on Nov 15, 2011 0:05:03 GMT -5
i have a pic of neil playing with them...i think this is him too. untangling this is amazing. no one has to try to complicate it fer sure. it's almost like dungeons and dragons...hey maybe it would be easier for everyone if we made new beatle cards
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Bearer on Jan 10, 2012 3:46:45 GMT -5
Years ago, before the PID forums begun on the net, I had aa very vivid dream that Paul had died of NATURAL causes, but the dream gave me the impression it was in October 1963. I'd ignored that last bit, thinking maybe it was really 1966 but I wonder...
|
|
|
|
Post by B on Jan 10, 2012 10:56:45 GMT -5
Chronic Irritable Bowel Syndrome? That was what 60IF said, all those years ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by LOVELYRITA on Jan 11, 2012 14:10:47 GMT -5
I had noticed a strange thing in HELP. I don't know if it was discussed in this forum, but I've read it other ones, during the scene where they were in the studio recording "You're Gonna Lose That Girl", it shows Paul playing by George, and in the distance a somewhat blurred "Paul" figure playing piano. Later, during the scene with "You've Got To Hide Your Love Away", a quick shot away from John shows a "Faul". I've freeze framed it and looked at that several different occasions because I didn't want to let my mind play tricks on me. But it clearly wasn't the real Paul's face.
There had been talk about a Faul being seen during the '66 tour...like one where they were coming out of a plane and "Paul" was wearing a striped shirt, the face didn't look like the real Paul's.
If he had some serious health issues, they most likely did have an imposter. While it may have been the real Paul in the recordings, for the appearances, they could have very well used a different man.
On another forum, I recall viewing pics people have posted that were supposed to be the real Paul, and some appeared different, some excused away the discrepancies to "photo tampering". While that may be evident in later materials released of the "Beatles", to make it look as though "Bill/Faul" was the real Paul...but I think there was a span of time even a fake Lennon was used, because I've seen some pics possibly 65/early 66 of "Lennon/Mc Cartney" and the Lennon nose appeared to be straight without his "nosetip" that pointed down.
I don't have the capacity to scan pics, and it may very well be, that the comps I'm referring to were on the "Paul Is dead Miss him..." site and alot of that material was lost.
As "big" as the entity of the Beatles were during the 60's, it would not be a stretch to have had several sets of them out there because of the high demand of public appearances.
Some people have a difficult time accepting that Paul was replaced....but even more difficulty thinking the other Beatles were either replaced, or had several doubles out there over the course of time.
|
|
thewalruswaspaul
For Sale
My mustache draws all the ladys......and the walrus....
Posts: 124
|
Post by thewalruswaspaul on Jan 11, 2012 18:00:45 GMT -5
I think Faul definitley was there around in the recordings of help. I think he made his FIRST appearance in the 65 Yesterday vid that we all know and love  But. I don't think he "dissapeared" at Pepper. He sings She's Leaving Home, Fixing a hole, and SPLHCB not the reprise.. |
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Jan 11, 2012 22:57:23 GMT -5
I had noticed a strange thing in HELP. I don't know if it was discussed in this forum, but I've read it other ones, during the scene where they were in the studio recording "You're Gonna Lose That Girl", it shows Paul playing by George, and in the distance a somewhat blurred "Paul" figure playing piano. Later, during the scene with "You've Got To Hide Your Love Away", a quick shot away from John shows a "Faul". I've freeze framed it and looked at that several different occasions because I didn't want to let my mind play tricks on me. But it clearly wasn't the real Paul's face. There had been talk about a Faul being seen during the '66 tour...like one where they were coming out of a plane and "Paul" was wearing a striped shirt, the face didn't look like the real Paul's. If he had some serious health issues, they most likely did have an imposter. While it may have been the real Paul in the recordings, for the appearances, they could have very well used a different man. On another forum, I recall viewing pics people have posted that were supposed to be the real Paul, and some appeared different, some excused away the discrepancies to "photo tampering". While that may be evident in later materials released of the "Beatles", to make it look as though "Bill/Faul" was the real Paul...but I think there was a span of time even a fake Lennon was used, because I've seen some pics possibly 65/early 66 of "Lennon/Mc Cartney" and the Lennon nose appeared to be straight without his "nosetip" that pointed down. I don't have the capacity to scan pics, and it may very well be, that the comps I'm referring to were on the "Paul Is dead Miss him..." site and alot of that material was lost. As "big" as the entity of the Beatles were during the 60's, it would not be a stretch to have had several sets of them out there because of the high demand of public appearances. Some people have a difficult time accepting that Paul was replaced....but even more difficulty thinking the other Beatles were either replaced, or had several doubles out there over the course of time. For whatever it is worth, the shadowy presence of Paul at the piano during "You're Going to Lose that Girl" (while he's otherwise playing bass and singing with George) has been explained as an overdub. I don't see the image that you're talking about in "You've Got to Hide Your Love Away". |
|
|
|
Post by iameye on Jan 12, 2012 10:05:15 GMT -5
\ I don't see the image that you're talking about in "You've Got to Hide Your Love Away". Chuck  |
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Jan 12, 2012 15:01:16 GMT -5
\ I don't see the image that you're talking about in "You've Got to Hide Your Love Away". Well, yeah. That's not "You've Got to Hide Your Love Away"; that's "You're Gonna Lose That Girl". Again, the presence of McCartney in one location playing bass and in another location playing the piano at the same time has been explained as an overdub. |
|
|
|
Post by iameye on Jan 12, 2012 16:25:28 GMT -5
\ I don't see the image that you're talking about in "You've Got to Hide Your Love Away". Well, yeah. That's not "You've Got to Hide Your Love Away"; that's "You're Gonna Lose That Girl". Again, the presence of McCartney in one location playing bass and in another location playing the piano at the same time has been explained as an overdub. yeah, that's what I said 
in one location playing bass and in another location playing the piano at the same time has been explained as an overdub  |
|
|
|
Post by iwilliam on Oct 12, 2012 21:53:45 GMT -5
So... I may have missed someone else commenting on this... but am I the only one who wants to rewind to the " I think we’re being kept in a world run by an evil magician who is casting spells on us," comment from the OP?
Kind of jumped out at me, for some reason.
|
|
1billyshears1
Hard Day's Night
Living the beatles legend!
Posts: 34
|
Post by 1billyshears1 on Oct 25, 2012 20:41:52 GMT -5
So... I may have missed someone else commenting on this... but am I the only one who wants to rewind to the " I think we’re being kept in a world run by an evil magician who is casting spells on us," comment from the OP? Kind of jumped out at me, for some reason. Probably because of how silly it is. The evidence here isn't good enough, these pictures you can clearly see how height would of been affected in a multitude of ways. |
|
|
|
Post by LOVELYRITA on Nov 24, 2012 10:07:16 GMT -5
There was a Paul at the piano, but you did not post the frames that included a Faul at the piano.
I know I've seen it several times, and someone pointed it out on another forum, and I've shown that to a friend who saw it as well.
But I've seen interviews that were supposed to be during the mop top era of a fake Paul as well as a fake John. I think that when the Beatles were taken to Hamburg Germany, they were undergoing mind control programming as well as preparing their dopplegangers for decoys.
What would be the significance of any Liverpool group to go to Hamburg Germany's sleaze district?
I'm sure there are enough sleazy places in England, so it's not that it was a great place to perform, but be programmed.
|
|
|
|
Post by duodamsel on Nov 25, 2012 4:34:50 GMT -5
There was a Paul at the piano, but you did not post the frames that included a Faul at the piano. I know I've seen it several times, and someone pointed it out on another forum, and I've shown that to a friend who saw it as well. But I've seen interviews that were supposed to be during the mop top era of a fake Paul as well as a fake John. I think that when the Beatles were taken to Hamburg Germany, they were undergoing mind control programming as well as preparing their dopplegangers for decoys. What would be the significance of any Liverpool group to go to Hamburg Germany's sleaze district? I'm sure there are enough sleazy places in England, so it's not that it was a great place to perform, but be programmed. Think Paul and maybe John ... heck, maybe ALL the Beatles may have been replaced before 64. There seems to be something special about Paul that goes beyond his being a Beatle www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dPoybHXF9s |
|
|
|
Post by B on Nov 25, 2012 4:58:50 GMT -5
duodamsel wrote: "There seems to be something special about Paul that goes beyond his being a Beatle"ya think? ---------------------------LOVELY RITA wrote: "What would be the significance of any Liverpool group to go to Hamburg Germany's sleaze district?
I'm sure there are enough sleazy places in England, so it's not that it was a great place to perform,
but be programmed."Foorp?  general rule for posting here:If you're going to make allegations, offer some evidence for what you have to say. |
|
|
|
Post by LOVELYRITA on Nov 25, 2012 20:08:18 GMT -5
Allegations of the Beatles performing in the red light district of Hamburg, Germany?  Watch any documentary of them about that era. Or....sleazy bars in England? Do you need a list? I don't get it. |
|
|
|
Post by B on Nov 25, 2012 20:18:30 GMT -5
No. The idea that they were secretly programmed at Dracula's castle in the dark
of night between shows, or whatever or wherever it is.
Yes, they performed in Germany. And England.
And I'm aware that there are people like Brice Taylor.
But not every band is programmed by evil illuminati satanists and "handlers"
in their off hours while in their vegetative state.
I have no doubt that the Beatles were "a conspiracy", and that there were
'powers behind the throne' so to speak, but where is the evidence that Hamburg
is the great dark "programming center" for Europe?
"Mean Mr. Mustard"? Aha!
|
|
Watch any documentary of them about that era.