|
Post by B on Jul 4, 2008 12:58:49 GMT -5
But GN, Pauline is dead, and Faul is still among us!
|
|
|
Post by realreality on Jul 4, 2008 13:06:03 GMT -5
Not to rain on anyone's parade but.... This picture is neither proof of a fake ear nor of a detached earlobe... ..it is proof of of how visual ambiguity can allow for dogmatic beliefs to color the perception of reality. Depending on the angle of lighting, attached earlobes can look detached if the shadow cast by the ear lobe itself falls on the crease between the lobe and head. Dear, YOUR " direction of illumination " is clearly wrong. According to YOUR arrow Faul's right forehead could be in the shadow. So actually it is EXACTLY the opposite. I need fun. I' d like an explanation from you about WHAT IS on Faul's forehead in this picture. Thanks I can understand the debate around 'fake ears' and other PWR hypotheses I've seen but this one...!! If I didn't know any better I'd assume the Pearl Cornioley theory must be satire. Surely stuff like this does nothing for the credibility of PID/PWR?
|
|
|
Post by GN on Jul 4, 2008 13:06:30 GMT -5
But GN, Pauline is dead, and Faul is still among us! This is the problem, you know ...
|
|
|
Post by GN on Jul 4, 2008 13:09:15 GMT -5
Dear, YOUR " direction of illumination " is clearly wrong. According to YOUR arrow Faul's right forehead could be in the shadow. So actually it is EXACTLY the opposite. I need fun. I' d like an explanation from you about WHAT IS on Faul's forehead in this picture. Thanks I can understand the debate around 'fake ears' and other PWR hypotheses I've seen but this one...!! If I didn't know any better I'd assume the Pearl Cornioley theory must be satire. Surely stuff like this does nothing for the credibility of PID/PWR? Credibility for Special Operations Executive? They HAVE to be incredible.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Jul 4, 2008 14:15:28 GMT -5
If I didn't know any better I'd assume the Pearl Cornioley theory must be satire. Surely stuff like this does nothing for the credibility of PID/PWR? ya got that right!
|
|
|
Post by jguildersleeve on Jul 4, 2008 18:56:43 GMT -5
I find it interesting that no one here actually dealt with my points that undermined the "tall Paul" theory, and instead just presented more pictures and chose to deal with more of the nuanced comments. That in itself should speak volumes about the nature of the "Paul was replaced" argument, but I will nevertheless proceed with some of the comments addressed to me.
“No one here wants to take this to a court of law!”
My point is not that you should “take this to a court of law” – I certainly would not be in favor of such a waste of time. Rather, my point is that, if you want your claim to be taken seriously no matter what your claim may be, you should adhere to the minimum requirements of evidence. This is not just required in law, but also the sciences, any graduate-level paper in any subject, etc. If you are not prepared to meet this minimum requirement, then you are essentially admitting that you don’t take your own points very seriously, which is fairly clear at this point.
“Anyway, they left us, I'm sure scratching their heads at our "delusions". Most voluntarily, one or two became unbearably obnoxious. (and so were shown the door) I predict you will not get your points across to anyone who is a regular poster here”
Naturally, it will be difficult to convince posters when dissenting opinions are apparently not tolerated. Furthermore, my only desire is to converse with rational people. Only irrational people believe theories based on no evidence, and refuse to change their opinion when evidence is presented that counters or undermines their own point. If someone chooses to behave irrationally, I am certainly not interested in a common discourse, nor do I have any expectations of rationality.
“Oh and what you wish regarding the Neil Aspinall thing.. Ain't gonna happen”
Sure, it’s a choice. If someone wants to act with humanity, they will apologize and if someone wishes to lose their humanity with an act of inhumane barbarism, they can keep silent. As long as they are happy being barbarians without an ounce of humanity, they don’t have to say anything, but that certainly doesn’t change what they are.
“Are you sure you have your info and evidence down and in order to be on solid ground in making such a statement (accusation)? You want others to play by 'the rules', but are you sure you're not breaking them yourself? Have you considered that perhaps there's info you're not personally aware of? Are you cognizant of all that's transpired here? Are you drawing a conclusion first without fully putting things together? - putting the cart before the horse?”
This is in regards to my demand to the admin for an apology regarding their manipulative and inhumane act of claiming a poster was the recently deceased Neil Aspinall. The point is, if you are making a claim, you must present evidence or your claim is meaningless. The Admin claimed that a poster was Neil Aspinall, presented zero proof, and made it impossible to know for sure given that their claim was regarding a person who had recently died. Making a claim about a dead person, real or not, just following their death is in poor taste. Making a claim about a recently dead person, real or not, without providing any evidence to back it up is just pure cowardice and shows a fundamental lack of humanity. The fact that the Admin could not back up their cowardly and inhumane claim with any proof leads me to conclude that the claim is untrue - which is, in fact, the normal way to proceed, once again, in every field. For example, if a person claims that a recently deceased man stole millions of dollars from them, but can't produce evidence, then the claim is understood to have no validity whatsoever. I'm merely basing my conclusion by using the same elements of Reason used in law and the sciences. This, in fact, is precisely the opposite of reaching a conclusion first and finding evidence after. None of us can or should accept the claim as true until evidence is provided, and therefore those that perpetrated the act are barbarians, in my opinion. I’ll gladly review any evidence that is presented but my guess is that it will be unlikely. Until then, unless you are living in a dream world, no rational person could accept the claim as true.
“I can't wait for your explanation about the fake ear”
I asked for evidence. Photographs do not constitute evidence of identity theft, as I have explained repeatedly.
“I suppose you think commenting on the alleged race of the posters here is OK if you assume they are white.. Wrong”
I’m actually referring to the significant amount of convincing study that has been done on conspiracy theories and those who follow them. The conspiracy theory is very much a western phenomenon, carried out mainly by white, middle-class people because they are the ones who generally have the most time to spend on such matters. The working class, poor mother who has five children to feed, for example, quite simply doesn’t have time to indulge in fantasies of Satanic plots to take over the world. I mean, maybe some corner of their brain could believe it, but they certainly don’t have the time to commiserate with others about it on the internet, and over e-mail, and they don’t have time to go through thousands of pictures, and create facial fades, etc. They have genuine life-or-death concerns that are constantly affecting them and the people they care for. So, it is only natural the kinds of people you see who do have the time for such theories. This isn’t a generalization, it’s a fairly understandable sociological phenomenon.
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Jul 4, 2008 19:36:03 GMT -5
Cease your barbarous claims that James Paul McCartney did not die. This inhumane act of denial stunts the grieving process. We will not discuss your photographic evidence regarding height because photographs are meaningless which is why the security-industrial complex spends of billions of dollars on facial recognition software and surveillance equipment and identity cards. Your irrational blatherings are taking valuable resources from the poor lepers you care for during the day. Many sociological studies have been done on your personality type. When middle-class narcissistic personalties who refuse to learn or admit error come to predominate in a society, the society itself turns psychopathic, enslaving poor, working class mothers to an unceasing life and death struggle culminating in sickness, ignorance, and death. It's a fairly understandable sociological phenomenon.
|
|
|
Post by iameye on Jul 4, 2008 21:47:18 GMT -5
This is in regards to my demand to the admin for an apology regarding their manipulative and inhumane act of claiming a poster was the recently deceased Neil Aspinall. The point is, if you are making a claim, you must present evidence or your claim is meaningless. The Admin claimed that a poster was Neil Aspinall, presented zero proof, and made it impossible to know for sure given that their claim was regarding a person who had recently died. Making a claim about a dead person, real or not, just following their death is in poor taste. Making a claim about a recently dead person, real or not, without providing any evidence to back it up is just pure cowardice and shows a fundamental lack of humanity. The fact that the Admin could not back up their cowardly and inhumane claim with any proof leads me to conclude that the claim is untrue - which is, in fact, the normal way to proceed, once again, in every field. For example, if a person claims that a recently deceased man stole millions of dollars from them, but can't produce evidence, then the claim is understood to have no validity whatsoever. I'm merely basing my conclusion by using the same elements of Reason used in law and the sciences. This, in fact, is precisely the opposite of reaching a conclusion first and finding evidence after. None of us can or should accept the claim as true until evidence is provided, and therefore those that perpetrated the act are barbarians, in my opinion. I’ll gladly review any evidence that is presented but my guess is that it will be unlikely. Until then, unless you are living in a dream world, no rational person could accept the claim as true.[/i]
You are correct that no no support evidence was given to the claim that Apollo was Neil. You were not a friend of his, and you do not have 100% of the facts involved. Sorry, I guess you just missed the boat on that one. For the record, I was not part of the decision to share this info, as it was private Revelation to me, (and a few other people like the NIR Committee, ) and that's all I'll say. I do , however, support the go ahead to let others know at the TIME the decision was made to do so, ultimately, though it was a difficult situation personally. Yes I fought it. Partly because the repercussions, and partly because we could never fully explain it. I am satisfied, at this point Neil and ACV were one and the same.
Only because he told me, in his way. Only because I have researched it to death. (< Am I gonna get in trouble for that one? LOL) Was I duped? Does it matter? Does it not matter? Assured, I will find out.
But if you could kindly point out all this libel you speak of, I for one would like to see it. For the life of me, I cannot fathom why one or two regular posters that had issues with Apollo, but they did, and so what? No one ever crossed the line into what you have described so vividly.
In my mind, he did what he could to help us out. And for that, yes, I am grateful. Very, very grateful.
No rational person could accept the claim as true? This was not a press release. This is a group of friends (mostly, Hey Jude!) Love ya!) This is a group of friends who try to trust and respect our goals, which naturally shift gears day to day, and skyrocket to new and unseen places. The release of the info about Neil was given to those that understood his role, with us, and I respect that. Do yourself a favor and find out what the hubbub is about.
Then we can talk.
PS
a great mind as yours finds nothing else interesting here?
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Jul 5, 2008 7:01:28 GMT -5
I find it interesting that no one here actually dealt with my points that undermined the "tall Paul" theory, and instead just presented more pictures and chose to deal with more of the nuanced comments. That in itself should speak volumes about the nature of the "Paul was replaced" argument, but I will nevertheless proceed with some of the comments addressed to me. Why bother? Your not here to learn anything or open your mind. You are only here to disrupt this discussion. That's as plain to see as the existence of Beatle Bill.
|
|
|
Post by guildj on Jul 5, 2008 12:06:14 GMT -5
This is jguildersleeve. This will be my final post on this site as my other account was banned and I have no interest in posting further from this account (assuming too that this account will be summarily banned moments after this post). The only reason why I post this is because I spent about an hour this morning writing my retort, and I do not want that time to go to waste. I would like to say that I never made any personal attacks towards any poster on this board (I will deal with the attacks that I did make momentarily). Note that my one major request, that legitimate evidence be produced to reinforce claims, is a rational one, and is demanded in every accepted field on the planet. That such a request for evidence was met with personal attacks, wherein I was referred to as “the forum’s biggest douchebag” is, I think, telling of the whole enterprise, but I will leave that to the more rational posters and casual viewers to decide. My personal attacks were directed not towards any individual posters but, rather, towards the Admin who purposefully perpetrated the myth that Apollo C. Vermouth was Neil Aspinall, just shortly after Aspinall had died and couldn’t defend himself from being associated with this group. In fact, I am quite sympathetic towards the posters who have been duped by this cruel, offensive joke. Furthermore, there have been some very patient and rational posters, such as Iameye, who quite nicely debated with me and I am grateful for that. But because I was critical of the Admin, and not the posters, it was accepted that it would be only a matter of time before I was banned. Again, I will leave it to the rational posters and casual viewers to decide the legitimacy of this, and they can ponder why I was not banned for questioning the legitimacy of photographic evidence, but was banned for calling out the ACV/Neil Aspinall incident as barbaric. Again, as my final point, I appeal to the humanity of the Admins who perpetrated the vile act of claiming ACV was Neil Aspinall to apologize. Otherwise, let it rest on your conscience. Now, please see below, my retort to the above comments, keeping in mind that I will be unable to respond to whatever follows. Thank you.
“Cease your barbarous claims that James Paul McCartney did not die”
It is not barbaric to believe a person when they claim to be who they are. When a group comes along and constructs a counter-argument, based on zero evidence, it is quite rational and understandable to dismiss that counter-argument and accept the original claims. Furthermore, the onus is not on me to provide evidence – the onus of proof is on those who challenge the accepted truth. If you had any understanding of the nature of evidence, you quite simply would not have made this statement.
“We will not discuss your photographic evidence regarding height because photographs are meaningless…”
I suggest that you look back at my post, because this is exactly what I argued, regarding height. I quite clearly examined the front cover of Sgt. Pepper to show precisely how it is impossible to determine height from photographs.
“…which is why the security-industrial complex spends of billions of dollars on facial recognition software and surveillance equipment and identity cards”
We’re talking about something else, when we’re talking about identity cards and surveillance equipment, so we can omit that. Yes, “the security-industrial complex” does spend money on facial recognition systems, but that doesn’t make them any more effective. It is by now a routine in Western governments, particularly in the US, to have the public pay for the experimental business ventures. On a smaller scale, you have facial recognition systems, but on a much larger scale, you have lasers, satellites, etc. Almost all of them are abysmal failures, much like the facial recognition systems have mostly turned out to be, but some have passed through the crucial risk period in order to be handed off into private hands when deemed successful – such as the internet.
“You are correct that no… support evidence was given to the claim that Apollo was Neil. You were not a friend of his, and you do not have 100% of the facts involved. Sorry, I guess you just missed the boat on that one…I do , however, support the go ahead to let others know at the TIME the decision was made to do so, ultimately, though it was a difficult situation personally… Partly because the repercussions, and partly because we could never fully explain it. I am satisfied, at this point Neil and ACV were one and the same”
Again, part of the problem is a failure to understand what evidence is. If the claim that Apollo was Neil Aspinall “could never fully” be explained, then there is no conclusion other than the fact that there is no evidence to support the claim. And if there is no evidence to support it, then no rational person can or should accept it as true. To anybody who understands the nature of evidence, the fact that ACV and Neil Aspinall were not the same person is overwhelmingly convincing. But this thread alone shows that the nature of evidence is just not properly understood here, and consequently one will naturally believe any fantastical premise given that no real evidence is required. I would be happy to look at “100% of the facts involved” – in fact, I’m eager to see it. But I have not been told what they are, nor where to look for them. If “100% of the facts” are not available, however, and if I can never know by the nature of the premise, then this just falls into another category of the conspiracy theory.
“But if you could kindly point out all this libel you speak of, I for one would like to see it”
I wouldn’t and didn’t call it libel. Rather, even if ACV was Neil (and we have to be very much hypothetical here, considering all evidence suggests that he definitively was not), the claim immediately following his death was an act of inhumane cowardice. Given the lack of evidence though, the revelation that ACV was Neil was merely an act of cruel, inhumane barbarism. So, at best, the claim was inhumane and cowardly – and there is, unfortunately, nothing suggests that this “at best” scenario holds any water. I explained this more thoroughly in my previous post.
“a great mind as yours finds nothing else interesting here?”
Don’t know if I agree with the compliment, but I appreciate it nevertheless. In fact, I’m much more impressed by the level of devotion involved in these kinds of theories. Another thing that bothers me about it though, is how some genuinely real problems in the world could use such devotion. A 1998 US Department of Defense report on the JFK conspiracy noted how important the JFK conspiracy was in diverting the public from making structural and institutional criticisms and how they should ensure that it keeps circulating as “distraction material”. No doubt, this is the function of conspiracy theories – to distract the population from making serious critical analysis by having them chase after things that have no definitive answers but promises such. It bothers me, then, that so much work by intelligent people is done to keep the power machine so well oiled. It bothers me even more when people think that this work actually functions as criticism against power when in fact it does precisely the opposite, as it reinforces and strengthens it.
|
|
|
Post by skyward on Jul 5, 2008 17:25:01 GMT -5
"This is jguildersleeve. This will be my final post on this site as my other account was banned and I have no interest in posting further from this account (assuming too that this account will be summarily banned moments after this post). The only reason why I post this is because I spent about an hour this morning writing my retort, and I do not want that time to go to waste. I would like to say that I never made any personal attacks towards any poster on this board (I will deal with the attacks that I did make momentarily). Note that my one major request, that legitimate evidence be produced to reinforce claims, is a rational one, and is demanded in every accepted field on the planet. That such a request for evidence was met with personal attacks, wherein I was referred to as “the forum’s biggest douchebag” is, I think, telling of the whole enterprise, but I will leave that to the more rational posters and casual viewers to decide. "
When you preface your request for evidence with the nullification of any and all photographic comparison, then I'm not sure what you really expect for someone to bring forth?
Don't you think that people already know that you're going to be adversarial no matter what is provided? Many people feel that there is already plenty of material out there that would cause one to ponder this subject in a more far-reaching manner.
Would the specific comparisons that you might see on these forums hold weight in a court of law, according to you they would not. I believe, here, we're dealing with reasonable doubts about the identity of the two people. Reasonable and rational people have had problems reconciling the differences.
You say you made no personal attack, but you certainly intended to take a shot at the crowd by labelling us all:
"I kind of accepted this as a just a bunch of white middle-class people with too much time on their hands having fun on the internet." . That is what elicited the 'forum's biggest douch-bag' remark from Total Information.
You might come back and say, oh well I only 'kind of accepted', and I'd say it's still a comment meant to position yourself above the 'rabble' that have questions about this topic. You're putting out there, 'I'm Mr. Intellectual and Rational and you're all puttering around wasting time on frivolous and fringy pursuits. Show me the evidence or else shut this place down.'
Others feel that evidence is hard to come by, yet they also have sincere doubts about the identity of this person. Do you think it's beyond foolish to have sincere doubts about this?
|
|
|
Post by iameye on Jul 5, 2008 17:30:52 GMT -5
This is jguildersleeve. This will be my final post on this site as my other account was banned and I have no interest in posting further from this account (assuming too that this account will be summarily banned moments after this post). The only reason why I post this is because I spent about an hour this morning writing my retort, and I do not want that time to go to waste. I would like to say that I never made any personal attacks towards any poster on this board (I will deal with the attacks that I did make momentarily). Note that my one major request, that legitimate evidence be produced to reinforce claims, is a rational one, and is demanded in every accepted field on the planet. That such a request for evidence was met with personal attacks, wherein I was referred to as “the forum’s biggest douchebag” is, I think, telling of the whole enterprise, but I will leave that to the more rational posters and casual viewers to decide. My personal attacks were directed not towards any individual posters but, rather, towards the Admin who purposefully perpetrated the myth that Apollo C. Vermouth was Neil Aspinall, just shortly after Aspinall had died and couldn’t defend himself from being associated with this group. In fact, I am quite sympathetic towards the posters who have been duped by this cruel, offensive joke. Furthermore, there have been some very patient and rational posters, such as Iameye, who quite nicely debated with me and I am grateful for that. But because I was critical of the Admin, and not the posters, it was accepted that it would be only a matter of time before I was banned. Again, I will leave it to the rational posters and casual viewers to decide the legitimacy of this, and they can ponder why I was not banned for questioning the legitimacy of photographic evidence, but was banned for calling out the ACV/Neil Aspinall incident as barbaric. Again, as my final point, I appeal to the humanity of the Admins who perpetrated the vile act of claiming ACV was Neil Aspinall to apologize. Otherwise, let it rest on your conscience. Now, please see below, my retort to the above comments, keeping in mind that I will be unable to respond to whatever follows. Thank you. “Cease your barbarous claims that James Paul McCartney did not die” It is not barbaric to believe a person when they claim to be who they are. When a group comes along and constructs a counter-argument, based on zero evidence, it is quite rational and understandable to dismiss that counter-argument and accept the original claims. Furthermore, the onus is not on me to provide evidence – the onus of proof is on those who challenge the accepted truth. If you had any understanding of the nature of evidence, you quite simply would not have made this statement. “We will not discuss your photographic evidence regarding height because photographs are meaningless…” I suggest that you look back at my post, because this is exactly what I argued, regarding height. I quite clearly examined the front cover of Sgt. Pepper to show precisely how it is impossible to determine height from photographs. “…which is why the security-industrial complex spends of billions of dollars on facial recognition software and surveillance equipment and identity cards” We’re talking about something else, when we’re talking about identity cards and surveillance equipment, so we can omit that. Yes, “the security-industrial complex” does spend money on facial recognition systems, but that doesn’t make them any more effective. It is by now a routine in Western governments, particularly in the US, to have the public pay for the experimental business ventures. On a smaller scale, you have facial recognition systems, but on a much larger scale, you have lasers, satellites, etc. Almost all of them are abysmal failures, much like the facial recognition systems have mostly turned out to be, but some have passed through the crucial risk period in order to be handed off into private hands when deemed successful – such as the internet. “You are correct that no… support evidence was given to the claim that Apollo was Neil. You were not a friend of his, and you do not have 100% of the facts involved. Sorry, I guess you just missed the boat on that one…I do , however, support the go ahead to let others know at the TIME the decision was made to do so, ultimately, though it was a difficult situation personally… Partly because the repercussions, and partly because we could never fully explain it. I am satisfied, at this point Neil and ACV were one and the same” Again, part of the problem is a failure to understand what evidence is. If the claim that Apollo was Neil Aspinall “could never fully” be explained, then there is no conclusion other than the fact that there is no evidence to support the claim. And if there is no evidence to support it, then no rational person can or should accept it as true. To anybody who understands the nature of evidence, the fact that ACV and Neil Aspinall were not the same person is overwhelmingly convincing. But this thread alone shows that the nature of evidence is just not properly understood here, and consequently one will naturally believe any fantastical premise given that no real evidence is required. I would be happy to look at “100% of the facts involved” – in fact, I’m eager to see it. But I have not been told what they are, nor where to look for them. If “100% of the facts” are not available, however, and if I can never know by the nature of the premise, then this just falls into another category of the conspiracy theory. “But if you could kindly point out all this libel you speak of, I for one would like to see it” I wouldn’t and didn’t call it libel. Rather, even if ACV was Neil (and we have to be very much hypothetical here, considering all evidence suggests that he definitively was not), the claim immediately following his death was an act of inhumane cowardice. Given the lack of evidence though, the revelation that ACV was Neil was merely an act of cruel, inhumane barbarism. So, at best, the claim was inhumane and cowardly – and there is, unfortunately, nothing suggests that this “at best” scenario holds any water. I explained this more thoroughly in my previous post. “a great mind as yours finds nothing else interesting here?” Don’t know if I agree with the compliment, but I appreciate it nevertheless. In fact, I’m much more impressed by the level of devotion involved in these kinds of theories. Another thing that bothers me about it though, is how some genuinely real problems in the world could use such devotion. A 1998 US Department of Defense report on the JFK conspiracy noted how important the JFK conspiracy was in diverting the public from making structural and institutional criticisms and how they should ensure that it keeps circulating as “distraction material”. No doubt, this is the function of conspiracy theories – to distract the population from making serious critical analysis by having them chase after things that have no definitive answers but promises such. It bothers me, then, that so much work by intelligent people is done to keep the power machine so well oiled. It bothers me even more when people think that this work actually functions as criticism against power when in fact it does precisely the opposite, as it reinforces and strengthens it. were you actually banned? or did you just bite the bullet? I guess if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.... even if ACV was Neil (and we have to be very much hypothetical here, considering all evidence suggests that he definitively was not), the claim immediately following his death was an act of inhumane cowardice.definitely not? well, THAT certianly would demand a modicum of evidence , yet you present absolutely nothing to support your statement, no? "considering all evidence suggests that he definitively was not" all what evidence? all what evidence? all what evidence? you said absolutely nothing, perhaps it is YOU who are part of that machine? Too bad you ran away from this conversation, as I would really like to understand why you say "It bothers me, then, that so much work by intelligent people is done to keep the power machine so well oiled. It bothers me even more when people think that this work actually functions as criticism against power when in fact it does precisely the opposite, as it reinforces and strengthens it." really? you know this for a fact? Your opinion, not really fact though. I could cite thousands of examples though out history that would challenge that statement, in monumental ways. lol Rosa Parks sat in the front seat of the magical mystery tour, and changed history. Bothers you? yeah, it probably does shotgun!
|
|
|
Post by realreality on Jul 6, 2008 4:32:25 GMT -5
Come on, of course he was banned! Do you really think jgsleeve ran away because he couldn't 'take the heat'?
If this forum is, as you say, just a collection of friends who believe McCartney died or was replaced, I suggest in future admin vets anyone who registers here just to make sure they fit the bill and are 'on-message'. Either that or put a big, bold notice on the home page saying 'believers only please'.
Ok, that was facetious and I may be heading for my ban now, but you get the point.
I know 'Nothing is real, Paul was replaced' is the name of the forum and, naturally, most who register are going to be sympathetic to the premise. But out of the over 400 members I imagine there'll be a fair few who are skeptical but reluctant to post. The reception here to people like jgsleeve could be the reason.
So, how about a section devoted to skeptical argument? A place for further debate where those members who are skeptical can aire their views. I imagine you'd say there's 'Macca Funhouse' for such views but, still, is this not a good idea? Would it not prove how open-minded NIR is compared to the other forums where the PID theory is clearly regarded as an open and shut case?
Of course, I may be wrong. It could be that I'm now the only person registered here who is skeptical to the idea that Paul died or was replaced!
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Jul 6, 2008 7:36:28 GMT -5
Of course, I may be wrong. It could be that I'm now the only person registered here who is skeptical to the idea that Paul died or was replaced! No there are other members here besides you. A person who somehow isn't convinced can easily participate in the discussion & disagree without disrupting the discussion. It takes time & determination to disrupt a thread by repeatedly disagreeing with everything. The Funhouse crew were all members here at one time, but it got to the point to where we couldn't discuss anything without being interrupted with a series of screwy PIA fades & PIA talking points. I rather liked a few of that bunch & it's too bad they couldn't be a part of the discussion instead of being determined to disrupt every discussion. BIG difference! I doubt that you need anyone to explain the difference between your posts & jgs posts. It's the hostile, closed-minded attitude that'll getcha, not the belief in PIA. If ya wanna get technical about it, we have some PIA-er's on staff here.... PIA-er's who also know JPM was replaced for whatever reason.
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Jul 6, 2008 12:04:48 GMT -5
So, how about a section devoted to skeptical argument? A place for further debate where those members who are skeptical can aire their views. I imagine you'd say there's 'Macca Funhouse' for such views but, still, is this not a good idea? Would it not prove how open-minded NIR is compared to the other forums where the PID theory is clearly regarded as an open and shut case?
How about reading some of the older threads? Every angle, and nuance of both sides was covered in great detail. Little if anything, however, was accomplished in those discussions, so there is no need to reinvent the wheel. You can't make someone see what they don't want to. Furthermore we are not trying to "convert" anyone here.
Your skepticism is fine, but understand the tolerance level for such is extremely low. As far as being open minded goes, if you have a theory as to what happened to JPM or why he was replaced go for it, many here will offer an opinion on it. Conversely, if you insist that Paul has been the same entity all along.....let's just say this forum has evolved beyond entertaining that notion. Oh...and welcome!
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Jul 6, 2008 12:59:05 GMT -5
Hey Realreality, I was wondering if you've watched the Africa Bill footage yet? That's always a good place to start because it's the most extreemly un-Paul-like footage out there. After watching Africa Bill, ya have to ask yourself ... why would anybody try to say this is JPM?
|
|
|
Post by thespacebetween on Jul 6, 2008 13:11:40 GMT -5
Yep, it was the pics of pre 67 Paul that clued me into this effect. He had an attached earlobe, that's true. Certain pics show the shadow line and create an illusion of a detached lobe. This only goes to show..Proper analysis requires care and attention to detail. One cannot become an expert by looking at a couple of pictures. The lens affects each picture, just as the observer influences what is observed. It is within each of our abilities to discern what photographs are showing us, but we need to take the time before coming to conclusions. If someone says or writes something that challenges our existing belief system, it would do us well to rule it out or rule it in before we make a knee-jerk response.. Quote- Dear, YOUR " direction of illumination " is clearly wrong. According to YOUR arrow Faul's right forehead could be in the shadow. So actually it is EXACTLY the opposite.
Well, honey-pie, since illumination can come from many directions at once , especially outdoors, I suppose I could have said Predominant Direction of Illumination. But I didn't. It's plain to see that there is shadow between his left side of nose and cheek , there is a shadow on his left eye closest to his nose and that his right side is less illuminated than his left. Also, he casts a shadow on Linda's left side..If I had a three dimensional arrow perhaps I could have indicated the direction somewhat more precisely, but I think what I put is adequate. I like this thread, with all the sanctimony and melodrama, but what it really needs is pictures of Paul's replacement from 1966/67, posted by those who have taken the time to look...
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Jul 6, 2008 22:27:06 GMT -5
Hey Realreality, I was wondering if you've watched the Africa Bill footage yet? That's always a good place to start because it's the most extreemly un-Paul-like footage out there. After watching Africa Bill, ya have to ask yourself ... why would anybody try to say this is JPM? I have to agree. African vacation Bill in Mal's movies comes across to me as a lanky American scientist, or somebody with a Mensa desk job somewhere, frolicking like a kid let loose for the first time in the Serengeti. He just needs horned rim glasses and a white button-down collared shirt, complete with pencils and a protractor in his pocket. And black wing tip Thompson-Boland-Lee non-scuff loafers. Very soon, however, he begins "taking on Paul" piece by piece, until sometime later in '67 he begins to channel McCartney. By the White Album he is 100% immersed. What a transformation. Ir would make a great Movie-of-the-Week even if they had to change all the names to protect the er, um, innocent? Or, perhaps, change all the faces to protect the guilty.....hoho----OK just kidding. I don't really think anyone is "guilty"....... but there may be more than one "checkered past" in the mix....... Goodness knows, we've all crowned a piece or two. hehehe that actually makes no sense Well let's not suffer for the sake of logic.
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Jul 7, 2008 0:02:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Jul 7, 2008 7:33:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by skyward on Jul 7, 2008 10:04:02 GMT -5
Here's a couple of comparisons.... one with JPM's dad. To further validate this comparison, it would be nice to show a full length pic of Macca and Linda side by side, as one might refute that he is standing on some object in that cropped shot.
|
|
|
Post by skyward on Jul 7, 2008 10:22:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by pauliedied on Jul 7, 2008 10:46:19 GMT -5
ok, going along with the theory of "Did JPM return?", i think that this one lots very much like Paul: here is a doctored version : (it is hard to remove a mustache without destroying the lips) compared: But this is soooo weird:
|
|
|
Post by pauliedied on Jul 7, 2008 10:54:34 GMT -5
oh one more: pepper paul is JPM, too. i just realized the likeness: they look exactly a like! but still the LSD pic remains a complete mystery...
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Jul 7, 2008 14:25:58 GMT -5
I meant to post this earlier but this pic of Paul looks stretched.
|
|