|
Faul
Jun 18, 2011 2:21:20 GMT -5
Post by GN on Jun 18, 2011 2:21:20 GMT -5
if there is a faul and a paul, they are merely distinguishable. some times pauls face looks round, sometimes wide and narrow, sometimes the earlobe appears attached, sometimes detached. i do not believe in the "paul looks like this and faul looks like this" thing most of the times. There are some really weird looking pics of faul/paul, i think thats an imposter. but i see Paul mostly. For that Cacca truthseeker the real Paul is that on the right.
|
|
|
Faul
Jun 18, 2011 2:58:39 GMT -5
Post by ipuffin on Jun 18, 2011 2:58:39 GMT -5
No fifty's style hairstyle in sight, and yet the head shapes are still different, lol!!! you really didn't get it did you? CAN'T TELL the exact shape of a head (that is not a skin-head) unless you are VERY intimate with the man - as in, you are his doctor, or if you are stroking his private parts right now. other than that, it's two completely different pictures from the first set of pictures. These COULD be different people - but not the early photos, and here is NO WAY Paul was replaced so early. other than that - you know, people do gain/loose weight, including in the face - they get chubby/skinny....especially if the weight change has come about by different drugs you use - the change can come about pretty quick by 67 McCartney was into coke. NOT the soft drink. oh and one more thing - why are you outlining from UNDER his hair? That's what I was trying to tell you - 50's hairstyle - puffed up Mop Top - combed down straight on their scalp, following the shape of the head more closely....of course it's not EXACTLY the shape, but it's closer. here, take a look: has Marge become shorter? you realize that to MEASURE someone you have to have measuring-tape and to actually TOUCH their top of the head. and as unless you photo Paul and Faul in the EXACT same place, at EXACTLY the same distance from camera - on the fucking millimeter! - then you have photographic proof. But as none of these pics were taken by you, and you have NO WAY OF KNOWING what was the distance from the camera - and the "comp" is meaningless. Because, you know how this extra-super magic called "Perspective" works? Things that are closer appear larger.
|
|
|
Faul
Jun 18, 2011 3:23:25 GMT -5
Post by GN on Jun 18, 2011 3:23:25 GMT -5
No fifty's style hairstyle in sight, and yet the head shapes are still different, lol!!! you really didn't get it did you? CAN'T TELL the exact shape of a head (that is not a skin-head) unless you are VERY intimate with the man - as in, you are his doctor, or if you are stroking his private parts right now. other than that, it's two completely different pictures from the first set of pictures. These COULD be different people - but not the early photos, and here is NO WAY Paul was replaced so early. other than that - you know, people do gain/loose weight, including in the face - they get chubby/skinny....especially if the weight change has come about by different drugs you use - the change can come about pretty quick by 67 McCartney was into coke. NOT the soft drink. The right answer was easier. Old TKIN members have not missed the exhaustive scientific discussion of early times.
|
|
|
Post by ipuffin on Jun 18, 2011 3:31:35 GMT -5
For that Cacca truthseeker the real Paul is that on the right. OMG so the real Paul quit music and became a German sex-tourist? Where is that picture from?
|
|
|
Faul
Jun 18, 2011 3:42:31 GMT -5
Post by GN on Jun 18, 2011 3:42:31 GMT -5
If a double died ( as Cacca truthseeker tells ) they NEVER needed that photo tampering crap
|
|
|
Faul
Jun 18, 2011 6:58:42 GMT -5
Post by truthseeker on Jun 18, 2011 6:58:42 GMT -5
A shadow suddenly makes your ear change shape?! Yikes! No shadows here - Paul is dead. here it is. You have Paul (that you labeled) with the designation UNattached and Attached. I didn't label it - you did. I just wanted clarification - was confused. You don't have to be abrasive. It doesn't say that Paul has unattached ears. Why are you twisting things? Paul is labelled on the left (attached), Doubleback Fake Paul on the right (detached). Then underneath there is a comp of both ears showing they are not the same.
|
|
|
Faul
Jun 18, 2011 7:09:27 GMT -5
Post by truthseeker on Jun 18, 2011 7:09:27 GMT -5
For that Cacca truthseeker the real Paul is that on the right. No, dear - Lol at GN contradicting his own claims. If you are going to post photo comps as evidence of an impostor, you can't then try and ridicule other people's comps and claim perspective and lenses disort the features of their comps, but not yours! GOTCHA! lol!!!
|
|
|
Faul
Jun 18, 2011 7:27:37 GMT -5
Post by truthseeker on Jun 18, 2011 7:27:37 GMT -5
The right answer was easier. Old TKIN members have not missed the exhaustive scientific discussion of early times. So how can you claim a big nose Faul and a small nose Faul? Seems that GN posts comps where perspective and lenses don't alter anything yet when I posts comps, they do! Lol!! ;D
|
|
|
Faul
Jun 18, 2011 7:29:50 GMT -5
Post by truthseeker on Jun 18, 2011 7:29:50 GMT -5
If a double died ( as Cacca truthseeker tells ) they NEVER needed that photo tampering crap I've never said Doubleback Fake Paul died! You are a liar. Stick to claiming the impostor is an old woman and your other crazy theories. I, on the otherhand, am a serious investigator and you are derailing my thread with disinfo. Paul is dead.
|
|
|
Faul
Jun 18, 2011 7:43:54 GMT -5
Post by GN on Jun 18, 2011 7:43:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Faul
Jun 18, 2011 7:49:10 GMT -5
Post by GN on Jun 18, 2011 7:49:10 GMT -5
For that Cacca truthseeker the real Paul is that on the right. No, dear - Lol at GN contradicting his own claims. If you are going to post photo comps as evidence of an impostor, you can't then try and ridicule other people's comps and claim perspective and lenses disort the features of their comps, but not yours! GOTCHA! lol!!! You have serious problem in your glasses. Those comparisons tell that eyes distance and nose length DONT' CHANGE even with different camera lenses. You are just a very poor quality hoaxer
|
|
|
Faul
Jun 18, 2011 8:18:23 GMT -5
Post by truthseeker on Jun 18, 2011 8:18:23 GMT -5
No, dear - Lol at GN contradicting his own claims. If you are going to post photo comps as evidence of an impostor, you can't then try and ridicule other people's comps and claim perspective and lenses disort the features of their comps, but not yours! GOTCHA! lol!!! You have serious problem in your glasses. Those comparisons tell that eyes distance and nose length DONT' CHANGE even with different camera lenses. That's because the photos were taken at different distances from the camera with different lenses. If they were taken at the same distance from the camera, then the nose would get bigger and the eyes distance would change. Do I really have to explain this to you dear? The right answer was easier. Old TKIN members have not missed the exhaustive scientific discussion of early times. So how can you claim a big nose Faul and a small nose Faul? Seems that GN posts comps where perspective and lenses don't alter anything yet when I posts comps, they do! Lol!! ;D ;D We can see who the hoaxer is. lol!
|
|
|
Faul
Jun 18, 2011 9:13:33 GMT -5
Post by ipuffin on Jun 18, 2011 9:13:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Faul
Jun 18, 2011 9:17:56 GMT -5
Post by truthseeker on Jun 18, 2011 9:17:56 GMT -5
Lol!!! How does GN know what lenses were used and the distances Faul is from the camera? He can't. Yet he claims one has a bigger nose than the other?! YIKES! We can all see his hypocrisy. Using one argument to ridicule my proof, yet the same argument he uses somehow doesn't apply to his comps! GN's claims are bogus. He's nothing but a charlatan.
|
|
|
Faul
Jun 18, 2011 9:31:10 GMT -5
Post by ipuffin on Jun 18, 2011 9:31:10 GMT -5
you are both idiots - here the nose looks bigger simply because h is putting his LIPS forward (look at his expression AS A WHOLE, for god's sake.) Once and for all - if PWR was PROVABLE we wouldn't be here today, simply put. Can't you just accept it and go down the merry Rabbit-whole with the rest of us?
|
|
|
Faul
Jun 18, 2011 9:35:49 GMT -5
Post by eyesbleed on Jun 18, 2011 9:35:49 GMT -5
Truthseeker.... geez, take a deep breath.... & a chill-pill. Why are you getting so defensive, argumentative, & abrasive with people who already know JPM was replaced?? Hence the name of the forum..... We've been studying this replacement stuff for the better part of a decade... we get that. Why not save all that energy for the JPM-never-ever-even-had-a-temporary-replacement-and-I-really-need-to-make-an-appointment-with-my-optometrist crowd? I'm seeing pics of JPM labeled Fake Paul.... "your thread" as you call it is a mess..... now I got a headache..... not sure if that's from the vodka or truthseekers presentation.
|
|
|
Faul
Jun 18, 2011 9:41:32 GMT -5
Post by ramone on Jun 18, 2011 9:41:32 GMT -5
Seeker, It wouldn't show all the pics when I quoted your previous post. But GN managed here.
OK, go to GN post 160. The first white square with pics (on left) says Paul - then it says ATTACHED.
OK, scroll down to the next white square of pics. You labeled it Paul. (yes the young guy) - then it says UNATTACHED. (concerning inset ear pic from the young man)
You don't get why I and others could be confused? It's not that hard to grasp.
One isn't DB fake Paull or something. BOTH are PAUL as YOU labeled them yet......
Anyway, if you mislabeled or whatever - just correct it. or explain. No biggie. Chill
Not saying you have no points to consider but -
if you get flippant or abrasive, even if you are making a point, people probably will be turned off from looking at your work.
GN - that's a nice colour injected mustached BILL
|
|
|
Faul
Jun 18, 2011 9:42:30 GMT -5
Post by ipuffin on Jun 18, 2011 9:42:30 GMT -5
Truthseeker.... geez, take a deep breath.... & a chill-pill. Why are you getting so defensive, argumentative, & abrasive with people who already know JPM was replaced?? Hence the name of the forum..... We've been studying this replacement stuff for the better part of a decade... we get that. Why not save all that energy for the JPM-never-ever-even-had-a-temporary-replacement-and-I-really-need-to-make-an-appointment-with-my-optometrist crowd? I'm seeing pics of JPM labeled Fake Paul.... "your thread" as you call it is a mess..... now I got a headache..... not sure if that's from the vodka or truthseekers presentation. I'll tell you why, because truthseeker doesn't actually LIKE the Beatles. She's only in it for the hoax.
|
|
|
Faul
Jun 18, 2011 9:46:29 GMT -5
Post by ipuffin on Jun 18, 2011 9:46:29 GMT -5
Seeker, It wouldn't show all the pics when I quoted your previous post. But GN managed here. OK, go to GN post 160. The first white square with pics (on left) says Paul - then it says ATTACHED. OK, scroll down to the next white square of pics. You labeled it Paul. (yes the young guy) - then it says UNATTACHED. (concerning inset ear pic from the young man) You don't get why I and others could be confused? It's not that hard to grasp. One isn't DB fake Paull or something. BOTH are PAUL as YOU labeled them yet...... Do I have to spell it to you? Gotcha! Yikes! Gotcha! Yikes! Gotcha! Yikes! Gotcha! Yikes! Gotcha! Yikes!
|
|
|
Faul
Jun 18, 2011 10:10:07 GMT -5
Post by ramone on Jun 18, 2011 10:10:07 GMT -5
Great scene. Can you imagine being that guys optometrist? 'No, I said look THIS way - ok, just put your gourd, I mean head into this thing - look straight ahead and at the same time try to read that chart way out in the waiting room to your right."
Contacts the size of oreos.
|
|
|
Faul
Jun 18, 2011 10:12:41 GMT -5
Post by ramone on Jun 18, 2011 10:12:41 GMT -5
A hoax for the folks. wiki - "A hoax is a deliberately fabricated falsehood made to masquerade as truth.'
I think we had some FABrication going on in the back shop - what the details turn out to be - ah, well perhaps we'll see.
|
|
|
Faul
Jun 18, 2011 10:48:15 GMT -5
Post by iameye on Jun 18, 2011 10:48:15 GMT -5
I think we had some FABrication going on in the back shop - what the details turn out to be - ah, well perhaps we'll see. I certainly HOPE so!
|
|
|
Faul
Jun 18, 2011 10:57:33 GMT -5
Post by JoJo on Jun 18, 2011 10:57:33 GMT -5
Truthseeker.... geez, take a deep breath.... & a chill-pill. Why are you getting so defensive, argumentative, & abrasive with people who already know JPM was replaced?? Hence the name of the forum..... We've been studying this replacement stuff for the better part of a decade... we get that. Why not save all that energy for the JPM-never-ever-even-had-a-temporary-replacement-and-I-really-need-to-make-an-appointment-with-my-optometrist crowd? I'm seeing pics of JPM labeled Fake Paul.... "your thread" as you call it is a mess..... now I got a headache..... not sure if that's from the vodka or truthseekers presentation. I'll second that, I can't follow the argument or whose position is what. Most of the regulars here are comfortable with the concept of a replaced Paul due to not only a seemingly changed individual around the beginning of 1967 preceded by a strangely absent Paul for a few months. Concurrent with this, it seemed all involved were behaving differently than before, appearances were controlled, when it was all full speed ahead previously. Based on this, it seems unlikely it was anything other than what you saw is what you got previous to 1967..
|
|
|
Faul
Jun 18, 2011 12:08:11 GMT -5
Post by truthseeker on Jun 18, 2011 12:08:11 GMT -5
Most of the regulars here are comfortable with the concept of a replaced Paul due to not only a seemingly changed individual around the beginning of 1967 preceded by a strangely absent Paul for a few months. Well you could have fooled me. I keep posting proof of the impostor and all I get back are people arguing with me, ganging up on me and trying to ridicule my proof. Seems more like a PIA forum than a PWR forum. What is going on here? And Paul was replaced before 1967 as I keep showing, so that's probably why you are confused because you lot don't read what I post properly and think just because a photo is from 1964 or 1965 then it's definately Paul, but it's not. This is deeper than you realise and you have been conditioned to believe Paul was only replaced after 66 and that's not my fault, is it?
|
|
thewalruswaspaul
For Sale
My mustache draws all the ladys......and the walrus....
Posts: 124
|
Faul
Jun 18, 2011 15:06:13 GMT -5
Post by thewalruswaspaul on Jun 18, 2011 15:06:13 GMT -5
oh and watch my new series the love code on youtube i need help with it if any of you are interested. I will soon be doing a thread called Disproving Doubleback, look out for it.
|
|