|
Faul
Oct 12, 2012 18:44:42 GMT -5
Post by truthseeker on Oct 12, 2012 18:44:42 GMT -5
That second picture is NOT 1969! Stop posting bogus claims. Oh, and you can't answer this:
|
|
|
Post by truthseeker on Sept 14, 2012 19:11:29 GMT -5
It was a different person post 1966
|
|
|
Post by truthseeker on Dec 19, 2011 19:25:58 GMT -5
A name is very important. It affects your character throughout your whole life. But the impostor wasn't called Willam Campbell, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by truthseeker on Dec 19, 2011 19:13:34 GMT -5
The truth is coming out at last!
|
|
|
Post by truthseeker on Aug 28, 2011 7:17:59 GMT -5
Huh?
What is the point of doing any of that? Phil Akrill has got nothing to do with Paul being replaced.
What a weird post.
|
|
|
Post by truthseeker on Jul 10, 2011 7:16:40 GMT -5
You're pulling our chain, right? What is a "mary - go - round" and what the hell has it got to do with a Bruce Springstein song? And what has a "mary - go round" and a Bruce Springstein song got to do with The Beatles? Indeed, what have the highlighted words in the lyrics you have posted got to do with The Beatles? You haven't answered! More insanity. Now, your previous answer was really bad. In fact, it wasn't even an answer - just more random nonsense. Can you justify your posts as being relevant or not? Or are you only here just to post silly, random rubbish with no point or purpose? And what has a "mary - go round" and a Bruce Springstein song got to do with The Beatles?[/color] why don't you ask them? or the last surviving member?[/quote] No - I'm asking you. But you can't answer. Which just proves you are posting meaningless, random drivel. Haven't you got anything better to do?
|
|
|
Post by truthseeker on Jul 9, 2011 18:45:09 GMT -5
The location of the mary - go - round, of course! You're pulling our chain, right? What is a "mary - go - round" and what the hell has it got to do with a Bruce Springstein song? And what has a "mary - go round" and a Bruce Springstein song got to do with The Beatles? Indeed, what have the highlighted words in the lyrics you have posted got to do with The Beatles? You haven't answered! More insanity. Now, your previous answer was really bad. In fact, it wasn't even an answer - just more random nonsense. Can you justify your posts as being relevant or not? Or are you only here just to post silly, random rubbish with no point or purpose?
|
|
|
Post by truthseeker on Jul 9, 2011 16:53:11 GMT -5
This thread is full of drivel. Sorry, but it is. Lots of words that say absolutely nothing at all. Are you all bored or something with nothing better to do than post random videos, photos and song lyrics? Paul is dead. Ain't nothing random about it from me. It's all actually quite precise Like a swiss clock. Well perhaps you can explain what is "precise" about the following post, and what it is "precise" in relation to? With a boulder on my shoulder feelin' kinda older I tripped the merry-go-round With this very unpleasing sneezing and wheezing the calliope crashed to the ground it is a Boss Tone! YOU KNOW IT! ;D Yes! SPRING UP! I await your "precise" explanation. And it better be good. Paul is dead.
|
|
|
Post by truthseeker on Jul 9, 2011 16:50:48 GMT -5
This thread is full of drivel. Sorry, but it is. Lots of words that say absolutely nothing at all. Maybe you should learn how to read? Maybe you should learn how to write?
|
|
|
Post by truthseeker on Jul 9, 2011 13:32:58 GMT -5
Since I have been away, this thread has sunk into the depths of pointless, meaningless drivel.
|
|
|
Post by truthseeker on Jul 9, 2011 13:30:19 GMT -5
This thread is full of drivel. Sorry, but it is. Lots of words that say absolutely nothing at all. Are you all bored or something with nothing better to do than post random videos, photos and song lyrics?
Paul is dead.
|
|
|
Post by truthseeker on Jun 26, 2011 7:46:09 GMT -5
Yeah, cos it's a load of rubbish, lol!!! Hahahahaha! ;D Lol!!! Yeah, well apart from the fact that one looks like a woman and the other looks like a man and the eyebrows, eyes, nose, mouth and chin are completely different - they look very similar! Suspicious difference. She is eye.No dear, she is DEAD. Lol!!! According to GN, a dead woman is posing as Paul McCartney. Hahahahahahaha! ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by truthseeker on Jun 24, 2011 13:37:46 GMT -5
Hello!
|
|
|
Post by truthseeker on Jun 24, 2011 13:33:03 GMT -5
Yeah it's SO So strange! Very strange! Yeah, cos it's a load of rubbish, lol!!! Hahahahaha! ;D Lol!!! Yeah, well apart from the fact that one looks like a woman and the other looks like a man and the eyebrows, eyes, nose, mouth and chin are completely different - they look very similar! Lol!!! They will look even more different now, though. Pearl died on 24 February 2008! Lets do a new comp: Lol!!! ;D ;D This Pearl = Faul is the dumbest claim ever! Everyone knows that Pearl was really the English actor, Timothy Spall - Lol!! Hahaha! ;D
|
|
|
Post by truthseeker on Jun 23, 2011 14:43:06 GMT -5
Hmm, which one of them is little old lady, GN? Both are Phil Ackrill, They look nothing like one another. Where is your evidence the right photo is Phil? It's blurry, poor quality and out of focus. Or are you just making rubbish up like Faul is an old lady?
|
|
|
Post by truthseeker on Jun 22, 2011 8:02:47 GMT -5
sorry jojo and everyone else. truthseeker i sent you a pm u shuld check it out ok? I have read your PM and accepted your apology. Paul is dead.
|
|
|
Post by truthseeker on Jun 22, 2011 7:51:18 GMT -5
Truthseeker, Ive claimed many times i believe there wer multiple fauls, but i was wrong. The REAL magic words? Make-up and plastic surgery. The one and only faul ther is is the man we all know as...... Phil Ackrill. Why Phil Ackril? He looked nothing like Paul and he looks nothing like Faul either - Different body shape. Phil was more gangly than Paul - No, Doubleback Fake Paul is the real impostor. Crossover False Paul is a false Faul beause he is an invention of GN who uses photos of real Paul. Therefore he can't be the real fake. Yes.
|
|
|
Post by truthseeker on Jun 21, 2011 17:26:42 GMT -5
what is a "disfeno" I think it's supposed to be "disinfo". However, thewalruswaspaul can't spell - yet he starts a poll asking if I'm the one who is "brainless"! How do you report a malicious poll to the Mods? Or should I just report this to Proboards?
|
|
|
Post by truthseeker on Jun 21, 2011 17:09:47 GMT -5
please truthseeker, explain this. Firstly, I think it totally wrong that you have set up a poll asking if I am "brainless" and should I be allowed in this forum. Why me? Why are you singling me out? There is no other poll asking if any other member's views are acceptable or not and whether they should be allowed to post. This is totally unfair. Secondly, you post a collection of random photos and ask me to explain them! What, exactly, do you want explaining? And why should I answer your question (even if it did make any sense) when you have repeatedly failed to answer any of mine? invanddis.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=6525&page=2If I'm so brainless, why couldn't you refute my claims in the above thread? Why did you finally concede that you couldn't disprove Doubleback Fake Paul, despite starting a thread endeavouring to do just that? Are you feeling embarrassed that I won the debate - despite me being so "brainless" - and now you are trying to get revenge? I am being victimised and cyber bullied on this forum.
|
|
|
Post by truthseeker on Jun 21, 2011 17:00:11 GMT -5
I think you'll find that if you scale the photos properly the eyebrows, eyeballs, ears, nostrils, upper lips, side of chins and the end of the chins line up perfectly well, thank you very much - "Undeniabley longer head"? Lol! ;D It's very 'deniable', as the comp proves. You need to accept you're mistaken. [glow=red,2,300]That's because they're both Paul.[/glow] so your telling me paul isnt dead? ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! No, I'm saying they're both Paul. Paul wasn't permanently replaced until about 1967/69ish. So? This picture you posted is BEFORE 66 - but i will say these 2 are defiently not the same....... So when are you saying he was first replaced? Your claim that those aren't the same man supports my claim that Paul was first replaced before the established date of 1966. As I've said before, your arguments are quite confusing. You ridicule and argue with my evidence, yet certain things you say actually agree with what I'm trying to get across about Paul and Faul. I have already asked you questions and requested you support your claims. You have deliberately failed to respond to any of them. As a reminder, they are in the following posts - invanddis.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=6525&page=2#87796invanddis.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=6525&page=2#87815Then why start a thread titled "Disproving Doubleback Fake Paul"? invanddis.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=6525&page=1Then please provide some evidence to support such a bold claim. So far, you haven't produced anything. Yes. That is what I believe.
|
|
|
Post by truthseeker on Jun 21, 2011 13:30:26 GMT -5
seeker - I'm guessing there are AT LEAST a few here that are way ahead of you when it comes to certain things. What would be helpful? See if you can find more good profile type ear shots (lack of shadows) etc. - and we'll compare the pics and close ups etc. This is from MFH: That's a good comp. Nice and bright.
|
|
|
Post by truthseeker on Jun 21, 2011 12:50:21 GMT -5
and what about this eh.......undeniabley longer head on the Fual side I think you'll find that if you scale the photos properly the eyebrows, eyeballs, ears, nostrils, upper lips, side of chins and the end of the chins line up perfectly well, thank you very much - "Undeniabley longer head"? Lol! ;D It's very 'deniable', as the comp proves. You need to accept you're mistaken. That's because they're both Paul.
|
|
|
Post by truthseeker on Jun 21, 2011 12:26:17 GMT -5
but i will say these 2 are defiently not the same....... That's because that's Doubleback Fake Paul. (Round head) I'm glad you are slowly coming round to the truth.
|
|
|
Post by truthseeker on Jun 21, 2011 12:25:04 GMT -5
You haven't scaled those two pics properly. You have deliberately made the head on the right smaller. You are trying to fool people in your desperation. You have failed. I have done it properly - Lol!! ;D And we can see that the pic on the right of Paul has the thinner looking head and face. But what did thewalruswaspaul claim? Hmmmm. Thewalruswaspaul creates comps that are not only dishonest - making one photo smaller in order to try and fit his claim - but it actually contradicts his own statements that Paul's head was rounder. We can all see that thewalrusispaul cannot answer my questions, explain himself or refute my points. He just ignores what I post and tries to change the subject. I am debating alone. He cannot beat me, and he knows it. I am too clever and I have truth on my side. This thread is a total failure. "Disproving Doubleback Fake Paul"? He couldn't even prove Faul had a longer head. Paul is dead. R.I.P know this: i use paint, and i dont even know how to make fades. Well that's not my problem. Yes, you have. Let us examine your list of failures - 1. You have failed to answer my questions, prefering instead to ignore them because you have no answer. 2. You have failed to support your position with any evidence whatsoever. 3. You have failed to prove that Faul had the longer head. 4. You have failed to disprove Doubleback Fake Paul. That's one great big failure in my book. Yet you haven't provided any evidence for "multiple" impostors.
|
|
|
Post by truthseeker on Jun 21, 2011 12:16:58 GMT -5
And if they are messed up, then please explain why. Paul is dead. Anything prior to Sept 66' is moot......period. Your delusions of a "doubleback crossover fake Paul" were contrived by someone who never had any credibility with this subject at any time. Yet you also believe Paul was replaced - And as far as facts go, the only clear one is that there was at least one replacement. Paul was replaced, that is what we know. So I am delusional for claiming a replacement and you're not? How does that work, exactly? You say Paul is dead? Hogwash, here we are 45 years later with no body, no witnesses and not even a mild form of leakage in any venue. He wasn't so special that a public death had to be avoided had he actually died. 'You say Paul was replaced? Hogwash. Here we are 45 years later, with no witnesses and not even a mild form of leakage in any venue. He wasn't so special that a secret replacement had to be introduced had he actually left The Beatles.'The same dismissive line of reasoning you apply to a possible dead Paul can equally apply to a possible replacement. A replacement you believe is real. Your argument therefore contradicts your very own claim, by repudiating that Paul is dead and that Paul was replaced.
|
|