|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 30, 2004 15:25:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by YoDawgSUP on Sept 30, 2004 22:25:34 GMT -5
Oh please. I'll always be back, reading or posting. Don't worry, I'll delete this account FOR you. But you don't tell me what to do because you don't control my life.
BTW, before I delete this account myself:
NIR = just as flippin' ignorant as 60if. You can't even admit the f*cking Pepper pic was stretched.
Ignorant jacka$$.
|
|
|
|
Post by YoDawgSUP on Sept 30, 2004 22:39:28 GMT -5
Before I leave here, I don't think you should be welcomed ANYWHERE. I don't welcome you. Don't come back.
You're simply too blind to run a forum, or anything for that matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Oct 1, 2004 5:19:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Oct 1, 2004 14:38:21 GMT -5
Oh please. I'll always be back, reading or posting. Don't worry, I'll delete this account FOR you. But you don't tell me what to do because you don't control my life. BTW, before I delete this account myself: NIR = just as flippin' ignorant as 60if. You can't even admit the f*cking Pepper pic was stretched. Ignorant jacka$$. - Somehow I don't think you guys would be so threatened by PID/PWR if you didn't sense there was some truth to it. Else, why not laugh it off rather than getting hostile?
- We've shown that red pepper isn't stretched, but you ignore the evidence in front of you.
- Personal attack is the last refuge of a weak position. Real sign of maturity too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Oct 7, 2004 10:28:52 GMT -5
- Somehow I don't think you guys would be so threatened by PID/PWR if you didn't sense there was some truth to it. Else, why not laugh it off rather than getting hostile?
There is this logic again. It is flawed. It is just because I believe there is NO truth to it that I speak against it. If someone falsly accused me of a crime, I would fight like hell because I knew there was no truth to it. People fight quite hard when they feel lies are being spread because they want the record set straight. I do not feel "threatened" by PID/PWR. What the hell does it matter to me? (Now if I were in line to inherit his millions, I'd care a great deal, but no such luck.) I just don't believe it is true and will voice my opinion to say so. |
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Oct 7, 2004 12:56:13 GMT -5
- Somehow I don't think you guys would be so threatened by PID/PWR if you didn't sense there was some truth to it. Else, why not laugh it off rather than getting hostile?
EXACTLY!!!  |
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Oct 7, 2004 13:35:37 GMT -5
EXACTLY!!! Exactly wrong. If I stated on this forum that Revolver is a known **Sun King worshiper"**, would you fight the allegation only if you thought there was some truth to it? Wouldn't you defend Revolver just as much, if not more, because you know that there is NO truth to it? No one is "threatened" by PID/PWR. We just don't believe it to be correct and that it is wrong to slander another human being without damned good proof. **Modified to make more pleasant. I don't want to cause any trouble. |
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Oct 7, 2004 16:11:35 GMT -5
Whoah slow down there Bug, we just discussin' what we see, we may be misguided, but it isn't gonna stop. If you find that too much to bear, then maybe coming here is getting too upsetting for you? I won't quote your apples and oranges analogy, it was not too uh.. pleasing to read, to put it mildly..  |
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Oct 7, 2004 16:34:18 GMT -5
No one is "threatened" by PID/PWR. . There's probably not too many of them out there, but I'm sure there's a few people out there who are threatened by the remote possibility of PWR becoming public knowledge. Of course they also know they have next to nothing to worry about. We just don't believe it to be correct and that it is wrong to slander another human being without damned good proof. Ya... & I feel that it was wrong to pursue a "McCartney" solo career & I don't think that was ever part of the overall plan. Some of those sorry excuses for albums are the biggest cases of slander that I can think of. |
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Oct 8, 2004 8:40:17 GMT -5
I won't quote your apples and oranges analogy, it was not too uh.. pleasing to read, to put it mildly.. I modified it. See above. But it is not apples and oranges. An accusation is being made, not only about Paul McCartney, but about John, Ringo and George, along with others like George Martin, Jane Asher, Linda McCartney. I admire and respect some of these people and the reason we PIAers passionatley post our opinions and rebuttles is precisely because we believe there is NO truth to the allegations, not because we are "threatened" or we believe there is some truth to it. Another person I admire and respect is Wynton Marsalis. Played trumpet with him in high school. If someone was making allegations about him that I belived were not true, I would do my best to set the record straight. I would not be threatened, I would do it because I believed them NOT to be true. This idea that the reason we post what we post is because we believe that PID/PWR is true is rediculous. |
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Oct 8, 2004 11:28:37 GMT -5
An accusation is being made, not only about Paul McCartney, but about John, Ringo and George, along with others like George Martin, Jane Asher, Linda McCartney. . I think most of us believe that John, Ringo, George, & Jane were all tragic victims in this whole deal. They didn't look or act like evil conspirators. It was more like they were stuck on this nightmarish ride that they couldn't get off of & was out of their control. |
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Oct 8, 2004 12:59:23 GMT -5
If this happened, then they would have to be willing participants. It would have been easy enough for any or the parties, and there would have to be many, to leak the information to the press. It happens all the time. If they wanted to get it out, it would have been out and nobody would ever know who leaked it.
|
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Oct 8, 2004 13:52:41 GMT -5
If this happened, then they would have to be willing participants. It would have been easy enough for any or the parties, and there would have to be many, to leak the information to the press. It happens all the time. If they wanted to get it out, it would have been out and nobody would ever know who leaked it. [img src="http://galeon.hispavista.com/akostuff/img/Good-Post[1].gif"]  |
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Oct 8, 2004 15:05:10 GMT -5
I probably speak for everyone here when I say we're not out to slander or malign anyone. We're just seeking the honest truth. We believe there are strong indications that Paul was replaced in late 1966. We're just trying to find out the how and the why. I'm not sure why I was singled out for that lame analogy, but just to set the record straight, I am not now nor have I ever been a Sun King Worshiper.  |
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Oct 8, 2004 15:32:42 GMT -5
If this happened, then they would have to be willing participants. It would have been easy enough for any or the parties, and there would have to be many, to leak the information to the press. It happens all the time. If they wanted to get it out, it would have been out and nobody would ever know who leaked it. Yes and who's going to believe it? People believe what they hear and see on the news and the news is very controlled as to what gets shown, etc. I'm sure it has been leaked from individual to individual many times, but to the masses no. And who is gonna come forward and say they know the McCartney of today is a double? I wouldn't if I still cared about my reputation as a celebrity or a person of high power. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2004 15:33:52 GMT -5
If this happened, then they would have to be willing participants. It would have been easy enough for any or the parties, and there would have to be many, to leak the information to the press. It happens all the time. If they wanted to get it out, it would have been out and nobody would ever know who leaked it. WHO do you think "owns" the "press" ? Ever read Media Monopoly? |
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Oct 8, 2004 16:20:38 GMT -5
I agree, and it looks like something tragic happened after they were reintroduced to the public after a 3 month hiatus. Or rather the demeanor of all involved changed in some way. It's not black and white, like, oh they went along with a horrible lie, so therefore they go from being saints to devils. To understate this quite a bit, there were "issues". The biggest reason that will never happen is that the concept of "Paul is dead" is bulletproof, it's the province of the addle brained conspiracy buffs, right?  It was shaped and formed that way from the very beginning. Picture a scenario where an associate comes to a reporter and says I have an off the record piece of info for you.. (to me, a "leak" is along those lines, off the record) So anyway, the stunned reporter takes this to his editor. The editor is skeptical, but agrees to run it by the publisher. The publisher makes a few phone calls, and what do ya know, the reporter is doing morgue duty the next day for even proposing to run a preposterous story like that. I suspect the English press heard things, or rumors were flying, and it looks like some curious ones were following him around at the filming of MMT, and he was always in a hurry to be going.. I don't know of course, but I suspect the story, if there was one, was clamped down before it reached more than one or two people. I guess you mean that you don't believe that you are fighting some kind of battle with your subconscious. Or that you "doth protest too much." If it helps, I'll say here that I believe you.. A recent visit to M4ever shows me that you guys are taliking about it a lot more than we are, whatever that means. Try to have a sense of humor about this, but you guys weren't posting all that much about this topic until we came along. Wasn't there even a poll about closing the board? So you should thank us! ;D I think there is a wide gulf between how you perceive what we're doing, and how we perceive it, bottom line. We see it as an open discussion of what we see, and from there, who what where how and why? Is this so terrible really? If your friend had those accusations made against him, it would drastically affect his life. Does talking about this old business affect Sir Paul in any way? To prove slander, you must also show it had some effect on your reputation, but you also have to show that it isn't true. Whatever, one, he doesn't know we're alive, nor care. Two, obviously he can prove he's alive, after all, there he is. (how many times has he made that joke) I've tried to keep my own comments in the realm of the theoretical, and have refered to him as "alleged", or pre 67 or post 66 for the most part. Some have a stronger way of stating it, yes. (as a fact) Well, take it with a grain of salt and leave it at that is my advice. |
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Oct 8, 2004 16:58:24 GMT -5
If this happened, then they would have to be willing participants. It would have been easy enough for any or the parties, and there would have to be many, to leak the information to the press. It happens all the time. If they wanted to get it out, it would have been out and nobody would ever know who leaked it. It was "out" in 69. I've got several hours of radio shows on this subject, & there have been other printed articles also. All they had to do was go on hiding the truth in plain view for all to see & deny everything. "How can I be dead when your interviewing me & taking my picture?" The fact that all of the "insiders" denied the existance of every single clue, both audio & visual is absurd. How could every single clue either be an "accident" or a "coincedence"? So do you believe that too? |
|
|
|
Post by Morph on Oct 8, 2004 23:23:24 GMT -5
I'm not sure why I was singled out for that lame analogy, but just to set the record straight, I am not now nor have I ever been a Sun King Worshiper. I will admit I am. While some of his fades can be picked apart, and the 60IF document be questionable, the fact remains that I never looked, or listened, to the real Paul before coming across it. Even then, with the facial comparisons, I didn't get it...this was the same guy, just older, with different hair, etc. right? Then in a split second, it clicked...after accepting that it was possible for this to be a different person, that it was easier for people to lie than it was for someone to physically change like that, I never saw Paul and Faul the same again. It explained everything...why I didn't like the Beatles, due to my utter dislike of "Paul McCartney" and Wings, even when I was growing up, the rift between Red and Blue, the tension that appeared... But now, watching his grace and assertiveness in old videos, or listening to such mature, thoughtful songs as "And I Love Her", a voice that picks you up and sends you flying, like in "The Night Before", without the mask of some limp, vapid dreck such as "Say, Say, Say" overriding it...ugh... So, I for one am grateful to SK, for providing the spark. He may be jeered and "discredited", but I have absolutely no qualms about saying that. |
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Oct 9, 2004 2:15:26 GMT -5
I probably speak for everyone here when I say we're not out to slander or malign anyone. thank you very much, Revolver. no one is going to convince me that this is Paul McCartney:  Many members of this board have stated their opinion that they see and / or hear differences in pre-and-post '66 Paul. That is not slander. The 60IF freak show, however, "channels" dead Beatles and accuses John, George, and Ringo of complicity in murder. Perhaps TheBug's anger would best be directed their way. TheBug would also do well to remember that slander is spoken. Libel is written. I do suggest that anyone who finds the subject matter of this board personally offensive, might be happier if they simply leave the premises. |
|
|
|
Post by Morph on Oct 9, 2004 8:42:40 GMT -5
Revolver, I started to write one thing, then went into rant mode, it wasn't in any way directed at you or anyone here. Apologies if I've conveyed that. |
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Oct 9, 2004 11:43:06 GMT -5
I will admit I am. While some of his fades can be picked apart, and the 60IF document be questionable, the fact remains that I never looked, or listened, to the real Paul before coming across it. Even then, with the facial comparisons, I didn't get it...this was the same guy, just older, with different hair, etc. right? Then in a split second, it clicked...after accepting that it was possible for this to be a different person, that it was easier for people to lie than it was for someone to physically change like that, I never saw Paul and Faul the same again. It explained everything...why I didn't like the Beatles, due to my utter dislike of "Paul McCartney" and Wings, even when I was growing up, the rift between Red and Blue, the tension that appeared... But now, watching his grace and assertiveness in old videos, or listening to such mature, thoughtful songs as "And I Love Her", a voice that picks you up and sends you flying, like in "The Night Before", without the mask of some limp, vapid dreck such as "Say, Say, Say" overriding it...ugh... So, I for one am grateful to SK, for providing the spark. He may be jeered and "discredited", but I have absolutely no qualms about saying that. [img src="http://galeon.hispavista.com/akostuff/img/Good-Post[1].gif"] [img src="http://galeon.hispavista.com/akostuff/img/Good-Post[1].gif"] Yep... the second that it first clicks can be rather earth-shattering. Once you see it, there's no goin' back either. It's more like... How did I NOT see this for so long?? |
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Oct 9, 2004 12:32:55 GMT -5
Morph, who are/were you on 60IF?
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Oct 9, 2004 14:33:30 GMT -5
[img src="http://galeon.hispavista.com/akostuff/img/Good-Post[1].gif"] no one is going to convince me that this is Paul McCartney: Surely one these will convince you.       No? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
It was shaped and formed that way from the very beginning. Picture a scenario where an associate comes to a reporter and says I have an off the record piece of info for you.. (to me, a "leak" is along those lines, off the record) So anyway, the stunned reporter takes this to his editor. The editor is skeptical, but agrees to run it by the publisher. The publisher makes a few phone calls, and what do ya know, the reporter is doing morgue duty the next day for even proposing to run a preposterous story like that. 