|
Post by B on Jul 20, 2009 10:32:39 GMT -5
Or maybe Paul never died nor was replaced. It's as clear as the clear blue summer sky, PAUL IS ALIVE! Same freckles and chin mark= same man! same chin indentation=same man as well Connorterrurru, that's some good detective work, but with all due respect, you are fifteen years old, and you don't have memories of what the real Paul looked like filtering the way you see him. Nobody who actually remembers Paul from the 1960s, who has looked into PID/PWR, is buying that Faul is Paul. The personalities are different, the appearance is different, and Faul is generally bigger in build than Paul was. The name of this board is "Nothing is Real - Paul was Replaced". It was started by people who wanted to know what had happened to the real Paul. If it was "obvious" that Paul had never been replaced, the people who started this board wouldn't have been motivated to start it. What was "obvious" to them was that Faul was not Paul. That having been said, if Faul and Paul have similar freckles and scars, then the question is: how can that be possible if they are not the same person? (Or even if they are!) There are a number of possibilies; most all of them extraordinary. If it should happen that Faul is Paul in some way, the question arises: why does he look so different from the way Paul looked? You posted pictures of two similar-looking people, but do you think they actually look like the same person? If you do, all I can do is marvel, given that they seem to me to be so clearly not the same person. However it may be that in some way my 58 years of experience influence how I see that person/people, while you are looking at him/them with fifteen years' worth. I mean you no disrespect when I say that. Just try to understand that it is not at all "obvious" to many of us here that both pictures show Paul. For many of us, they clearly don't. edit: I just want to be clear. Obviously a person could look at Michael Jackson in the 1980s, and think he was a different person than the fellow who died recently, even if he wasn't (a different person). It is possible that - in some way - Faul is Paul, but if that is the case, Paul must have gone through some major changes in his appearance and personality. It isn't just a small thing like "he grew a mustache". The differences are notable. And it is not just a matter of photographs. Why would there even be references to it in songs, like the Who's "Substitute", or Neil Young's "Mr Soul", or even in "I am the Walrus" with lines like "you let your face grow long"? Clearly something happened that was significant, causing Paul's appearance and personality to change, if he is, in fact, Faul. But the clues suggest that Faul was a different individual who has tried to assimilate the personality and spirit of Paul into his own being. It wasn't "for nothing" that I did the "send in the clones" thread. It could be that the being we know as Faul is a being that was engineered in a lab from two people: Paul McCartney and some cousin of his. If Paul had died in a car crash, the effort may have been to let him continue 'to live' through a being made from a living relative and the genetic material from his dead body. It sounds preposterous, but it appears that the science of creating engineered doubles is further along than what we generally have been led to believe. (I would recommend some of the articles faulconandsnowjob has posted on the subject at PID Miss Him.)
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Jul 20, 2009 17:54:58 GMT -5
So again, the scar heals, then unheals, then heals, then unheals, etc. When it comes to proving that multiple Pauls existed simultaneously, this is just about as smoking gun as it gets. There are some that believe there were two Fauls. One in late 1966/early 1967(known as Pepper Faul), then one in mid 1967 to today. It's discussed in detail here: only1rad.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=plastic&action=display&thread=612Keep in mind, trollers will be quickly banned.
|
|
|
Post by Connor Terru on Jul 20, 2009 20:25:46 GMT -5
Or maybe Paul never died nor was replaced. It's as clear as the clear blue summer sky, PAUL IS ALIVE! Same freckles and chin mark= same man! same chin indentation=same man as well Connorterrurru, that's some good detective work, but with all due respect, you are fifteen years old, and you don't have memories of what the real Paul looked like filtering the way you see him. Nobody who actually remembers Paul from the 1960s, who has looked into PID/PWR, is buying that Faul is Paul. The personalities are different, the appearance is different, and Faul is generally bigger in build than Paul was. The name of this board is "Nothing is Real - Paul was Replaced". It was started by people who wanted to know what had happened to the real Paul. If it was "obvious" that Paul had never been replaced, the people who started this board wouldn't have been motivated to start it. What was "obvious" to them was that Faul was not Paul. That having been said, if Faul and Paul have similar freckles and scars, then the question is: how can that be possible if they are not the same person? (Or even if they are!) There are a number of possibilies; most all of them extraordinary. If it should happen that Faul is Paul in some way, the question arises: why does he look so different from the way Paul looked? You posted pictures of two similar-looking people, but do you think they actually look like the same person? If you do, all I can do is marvel, given that they seem to me to be so clearly not the same person. However it may be that in some way my 58 years of experience influence how I see that person/people, while you are looking at him/them with fifteen years' worth. I mean you no disrespect when I say that. Just try to understand that it is not at all "obvious" to many of us here that both pictures show Paul. For many of us, they clearly don't. edit: I just want to be clear. Obviously a person could look at Michael Jackson in the 1980s, and think he was a different person than the fellow who died recently, even if he wasn't (a different person). It is possible that - in some way - Faul is Paul, but if that is the case, Paul must have gone through some major changes in his appearance and personality. It isn't just a small thing like "he grew a mustache". The differences are notable. And it is not just a matter of photographs. Why would there even be references to it in songs, like the Who's "Substitute", or Neil Young's "Mr Soul", or even in "I am the Walrus" with lines like "you let your face grow long"? Clearly something happened that was significant, causing Paul's appearance and personality to change, if he is, in fact, Faul. But the clues suggest that Faul was a different individual who has tried to assimilate the personality and spirit of Paul into his own being. It wasn't "for nothing" that I did the "send in the clones" thread. It could be that the being we know as Faul is a being that was engineered in a lab from two people: Paul McCartney and some cousin of his. If Paul had died in a car crash, the effort may have been to let him continue 'to live' through a being made from a living relative and the genetic material from his dead body. It sounds preposterous, but it appears that the science of creating engineered doubles is further along than what we generally have been led to believe. (I would recommend some of the articles faulconandsnowjob has posted on the subject at PID Miss Him.) I'm actually younger than it says on there (I'll state my real age when the time is ripe). I respect your peoples opinions, but you're seeing photo's of "Faul" that look like Paul, you say it might be JPM. But when most PIDers see a photo of JPM that looks like "Faul," (I said most meaning majority, so don't think this is totally directed towards you) you call out "DOCTERED!" Personally, I know what was possible in the 60's (my dad grew up in the 60's and 70's), and plastic surgery like that wasn't possible! Sure you might been able to get a new nose, and maybe get some dentures, that look like Paul's, but chances are, they'll look like crap and the beans of Paul's "death" are spilled. I know what Paul looked like in the early 1960's, he looked sorta different, but then again, so did the other Beatles. Even after all these years, you can still see Paul is Paul, but if you don't, then that's okay(btw, those comparisons weren't made by me. They were made by good ol' dakudo from maccafunhouse).
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Jul 20, 2009 20:51:14 GMT -5
Have you seen this? What's with the swelling around the eye? hcd2.bupa.co.uk/fact_sheets/html/blepharoplasty.htmlsoreness, swelling and bruising around your eyes - most of the swelling improves after four or five days but you may still have some after two to three weeksFrom: A Day In The Life video. and plastic surgery like that wasn't possible! IN 1969, Franco Zeffirelli (Italian film director) had a car accident that shattered his cheek bones. A British surgeon used a mold under his cheek bones to make him look like himself again, which was practically a miracle. Of course it also means you could shatter the cheek bones on purpose to make someone look however you wanted. Not saying this was done with a Paul replacement, but don't throw words like "wasn't possible" around when you don't know what you're talking about. Reference: Franco Zeffirelli's autobiography.
|
|
|
Post by FP on Jul 20, 2009 22:10:01 GMT -5
JoJo, that would be a pretty good case if there was some way you could show any differences in eyelid structure from before and after that "swelling".
|
|
|
Post by pauliedied on Jul 21, 2009 2:05:43 GMT -5
JoJo, that would be a pretty good case if there was some way you could show any differences in eyelid structure from before and after that "swelling". also the "weirdness" of "Faul" seems to strongly correlate with bad picture quality...
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Jul 21, 2009 16:33:51 GMT -5
JoJo, that would be a pretty good case if there was some way you could show any differences in eyelid structure from before and after that "swelling". There are probably other surgeries around the eyes that would have that effect, and yes the still is bad quality, well aware of that. Problem is, these frames don't exist in the nice, super clear version on Anthology, only on boots. There was already a lively discussion about the eyes that started five years ago, which is one of the reasons this is getting annoying.. treading old ground. invanddis.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=TAR&action=display&thread=3210&page=1
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Jul 21, 2009 20:21:09 GMT -5
How well is BEATLE-PAUL's timeline documented for the winter of 67-68?
Did Faul spend time in Africa getting surgery and healing around then?
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Jul 21, 2009 20:35:57 GMT -5
That period was '66-'67, just FYI. ADITL video filming came about a month or two later, just top of the head.
|
|
|
Post by mumrikusstarr on Jul 23, 2009 15:09:33 GMT -5
Letter B you wrote:
Nobody who actually remembers Paul from the 1960s, who has looked into PID/PWR, is buying that Faul is Paul.
KHAN, SilverHamer, Bug and NightBazaar were around back then, and they are PIA. NB even saw the Beatles play live. So what you're saying is very, very invalid. Just letting you know.
|
|
|
Post by 8749 on Jul 24, 2009 17:30:26 GMT -5
I was a Beatles fan in the '60's and I almost totally agree with Letter B. There will be a few old Beatles fans who fell for the BS, but if you are a true old fan, you can see the difference(s) clearly.
|
|
|
Post by mumrikusstarr on Jul 24, 2009 18:26:15 GMT -5
I was a Beatles fan in the '60's and I almost totally agree with Letter B. There will be a few old Beatles fans who fell for the BS, but if you are a true old fan, you can see the difference(s) clearly. NB saw them play live, did you?
|
|
|
Post by FP on Jul 24, 2009 19:07:43 GMT -5
I was a Beatles fan in the '60's and I almost totally agree with Letter B. There will be a few old Beatles fans who fell for the BS A few who fell for it? How about the rest of the world? Don't forget, PWR is still the minority, for every age group.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Jul 24, 2009 21:53:34 GMT -5
Onlooker's StoryHer favorite saying was that she was a "one trick pony" in that she had met both a pre '67 McCartney and a latter day version. (and had nothing else much to say about the matter)
|
|
|
Post by mumrikusstarr on Jul 25, 2009 4:04:41 GMT -5
Onlooker's StoryHer favorite saying was that she was a "one trick pony" in that she had met both a pre '67 McCartney and a latter day version. (and had nothing else much to say about the matter) People change, some more than others. Alot of people here seem to think that Paul would've remained with the same look throughout his entire life. But no, the times were (a) changing. New clothes, new hairstyles and most important, new drugs. Drugs can have a impact on someone personality and might explain why Paul got a little kookier after 67 (Alot pf people got kooky, just look at the majority os hippies back then) His eyes changed, they were (as KHAN put it) through the ringer for 3 years. And trust me, if Paul had kept his moptop his entire life, this site wouldn't be the same. Proof? "Faul" in 1980. Looks like Paul from 1964, only older uh oh! I forgot, this picture is doctored
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Jul 25, 2009 7:11:27 GMT -5
Onlooker's StoryHer favorite saying was that she was a "one trick pony" in that she had met both a pre '67 McCartney and a latter day version. (and had nothing else much to say about the matter) People change, some more than others. Alot of people here seem to think that Paul would've remained with the same look throughout his entire life. But no, the times were (a) changing. New clothes, new hairstyles and most important, new drugs. Drugs can have a impact on someone personality and might explain why Paul got a little kookier after 67 (Alot pf people got kooky, just look at the majority os hippies back then) His eyes changed, they were (as KHAN put it) through the ringer for 3 years. And trust me, if Paul had kept his moptop his entire life, this site wouldn't be the same. Proof? "Faul" in 1980. Looks like Paul from 1964, only older uh oh! I forgot, this picture is doctored Please show the quote where someone here said this was "doctored". You KEEP bringing up STALE discussions from five years ago, including "drugs made him change". (Alot pf people got kooky, just look at the majority os hippies back then) Tell me your memories of the time..
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Jul 25, 2009 7:48:50 GMT -5
Proof? "Faul" in 1980. Looks like Paul from 1964, only older That looks nothing like JPM... so what is that proof of? It looks like Silly Billy's going to a Halloween party to me. You may want to refresh your memory as to what JPM looked like.
|
|
|
Post by B on Jul 25, 2009 12:30:45 GMT -5
uh oh! I forgot, this picture is doctored
Now that you mention it....that shadow is totally unconvincing.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Jul 25, 2009 14:54:52 GMT -5
That looks nothing like JPM... so what is that proof of? Yes, you can even see the long face of Faul with the mop top. In fact, it's even more evident. If anything this pic is a good example of how these are two separate men.
|
|
|
Post by mumrikusstarr on Jul 25, 2009 18:36:44 GMT -5
That looks nothing like JPM... so what is that proof of? Yes, you can even see the long face of Faul with the mop top. In fact, it's even more evident. If anything this pic is a good example of how these are two separate men. HOW is that a long face? It's just as round as you claim Paul "had" The mop-top hides the forehead. You can't judge how long a persons face is if you can't see the forehead. Paul had a long face. Look at pictures of him in Hamburg and earlier. And please. Do not say that those old pics are doctored. I'm tired of the "doctored" bull**it.
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Jul 25, 2009 23:59:41 GMT -5
I'm tired of the "doctored" bull**it
I'm tired of reading your posts. What are you doing here?
|
|
|
Post by FP on Jul 26, 2009 1:07:45 GMT -5
I'm tired of the "doctored" bull**itI'm tired of reading your posts. What are you doing here? I think he has a right to express his opinion as long as he's not taking an authoritarian approach, like telling you guys what to do. mumrikusstarr, you're lucky you weren't here when a mysterious and arrogant moderator decided to assign itself dean of NIR... Just don't act like this is a PIA playground, like I did
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Jul 26, 2009 11:11:58 GMT -5
The main debate around here is between PIA/PWR & PID. Y'all's refusal to recognize anything wrong is beyond comprehension. It's kind of like going thru pics of me & pics of my mom & then not being able to tell which is which later. It's so confusing! We're talking about 2 distinctly different individuals. There are zero similarities between JPM & that pic of Bill in his 64 JPM costume, so I can't understand what's so hard about telling the 2 apart. Paul was obviously replaced... at least temporarily... that point isn't up for debate.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Jul 26, 2009 11:50:25 GMT -5
I'm tired of the "doctored" bull**itI'm tired of reading your posts. What are you doing here? I think he has a right to express his opinion as long as he's not taking an authoritarian approach, like telling you guys what to do. mumrikusstarr, you're lucky you weren't here when a mysterious and arrogant moderator decided to assign itself dean of NIR... Just don't act like this is a PIA playground, like I did What are you talking about? That moderator sounds like a situation at another forum. Btw, at that "other" forum, some here would have been banned about 100 posts ago.. Now, what we don't like is constant sidetracking of discussions that people find interesting by argumentative one-liners. Tolerant as we may be, (relatively) and speaking for myself, I have WAY less reservations than I used to about sending someone who continues to be a problem to the ban list. (just a click of the button) -
|
|
|
Post by FP on Jul 26, 2009 13:33:50 GMT -5
I think he has a right to express his opinion as long as he's not taking an authoritarian approach, like telling you guys what to do. mumrikusstarr, you're lucky you weren't here when a mysterious and arrogant moderator decided to assign itself dean of NIR... Just don't act like this is a PIA playground, like I did What are you talking about? That moderator sounds like a situation at another forum. Btw, at that "other" forum, some here would have been banned about 100 posts ago.. Yep, which is why there's barely anyone posting there. But I'm talking about power loving jonna, who constantly flaunted the "yeah i'm a prick, get used to it" attitude.
|
|