|
Post by maclen on Nov 23, 2016 15:59:58 GMT -5
very good question, chica. we hope your research can help us find out. we think it's bung-holio bill, the present day imposter He does show up in the sheeple vid on the stairs with the Beatles on the tarmac waiving at people. You'd need pictures of all their visits with dates to maybe figure it out. well, here's another look at the photo from the wacky vid. it's a bit blurrier than the one in our first post - still resembles bill, though - but reckon it won't be much help in determining his identity, either
|
|
|
Post by maclen on Nov 23, 2016 11:44:49 GMT -5
here's something the general board may need to look at: That's interesting, who is that? very good question, chica. we hope your research can help us find out. we think it's bung-holio bill, the present day imposter
|
|
|
Post by maclen on Nov 23, 2016 11:38:45 GMT -5
get thee to drug rehab, dingus. make haste I don't know who you think you're talking to? It's your lucky day, because I have the original videos saved so you won't deceive anyone, hillbilly How about I go to rehab, after I counterclaim sue you for harassment? we've said it before, and we'll say it again - with a little help from our friend:
|
|
|
Post by maclen on Nov 23, 2016 11:24:17 GMT -5
don't you have a three day meth binge to sleep off, recruit. you do know what stalking is. of course you do - you've been at it around the clock for three days, now, targeting our query into the identity of your unbeloved jughead billy Making threats now, are we? ... really hurt my feelings there In America, that's what we call a Mic Drop.
|
|
|
Post by maclen on Nov 23, 2016 11:22:02 GMT -5
You went from "there will never be a Beatle reunion as long as John remains dead" with a very fast clip of Paul quoting there "would be hell to pay for Yoko" To "he pretty much did it" What am I forgetting to mention? "The catcher in the rye, the phony mustache is the catcher in the rye" "She didn't really know about us, the only name she knew was Ringo because it's Apple in Japanese" You don't like what I'm saying? Ringo Starr, it was a fake Moustache! (These are just making you hate me more, no?) I could go on and on, but "they" won't entertain the idea, now won't they... get thee to drug rehab, dingus. make haste
|
|
|
Post by maclen on Nov 23, 2016 11:11:19 GMT -5
does anybody even know what crackhead is talking about
|
|
|
Post by maclen on Nov 23, 2016 11:05:35 GMT -5
back to the question of the half-century: who is our faul look-a-like posing behind the beatles in the photo at the beginning of our thread. now, that we've heard from the imposter's camp - 5 times in this thread, alone - is there anyone who loved the real paul mccartney enough and willing to weigh in, here, and give us her or his thoughts No actually, it looks like you took the words out of my mouth.. don't you have a three day meth binge to sleep off, recruit. you do know what stalking is. of course you do - you've been at it around the clock for three days, now, targeting our query into the identity of your unbeloved jughead billy
|
|
|
Post by maclen on Nov 23, 2016 9:46:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by maclen on Nov 23, 2016 9:02:52 GMT -5
it's like this post. but whatever it is it's not going to be this thread. have you anything of substance to add Nah I'm good, WAIT Nope we doubt if you're good
|
|
|
Post by maclen on Nov 23, 2016 9:00:31 GMT -5
back to the question of the half-century: who is our faul look-a-like posing behind the beatles in the photo at the beginning of our thread. now, that we've heard from the imposter's camp - 5 times in this thread, alone - is there anyone who loved the real paul mccartney enough and willing to weigh in, here, and give us her or his thoughts
|
|
|
Post by maclen on Nov 23, 2016 8:53:46 GMT -5
we call foul, or is that faul, on the middle photo. and, the more we study it the more obvious the fraud looks to us. from the downward dipping nose tip to the oversized head, this 'paul' is an obvious attempt at 'faul-sification' of an existing paul image via photoshop technique to make our man look like the faul of today. keep trying with your attempts to turn old billy into paul, you faul-lowers, and we'll keep swatting ya down. and, go vandalize another thread or even another website. we don't need that shit, here, especially since it appears to eminate from the imposter's camp. got it. good. now, stay the hell away from our threads I'm sorry -- YOUR threads? youtu.be/1YxNXrew3TwMyself and Mr Key Star call Bull on your charade. But then again, why don't you tell everyone your real agenda here.. You make jokes at Americans and such, yet any American here knows a bullshit performance when they see one (news coverage) Speak up, "maclen" or "billy" well, that was dumb. got anything else, brainiac
|
|
|
Post by maclen on Nov 23, 2016 4:34:26 GMT -5
I will honestly admit that I believe he looks closer to Paul McCartney than any other person I've ever seen. But a question still remains, who exactly is this person? Why would there be a person who shares an uncanny resemblance to Paul McCartney in The Beatles' entourage? And, if not, the most important question I have from learning all of this is; why then? This photograph was taken a few days before The Beatles' first appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show, which was televised publicly on February 9th, 1964. In fact, I am assuming, just by looking at this photograph, that it was taken on the day The Beatles first arrived in America, at JFK airport, but there is still a possibility that I could be wrong. It's definitely not from 1965, because all The Beatles were sporting longer hairdos by then. So, under the assumption that this photograph was taken in early-1964, why would a Paul McCartney doppelgänger (god only knows whatever you folks might want to call him this time, "Faul", "BillyHasAGoatee" or whatever) be hanging out with the group, two-and-a-half years before the alleged "replacement" of Paul McCartney occurred. Can you call me flabbergasted or what? 'he' was with the Beatles since 1963. [img src=" i80.photobucket.com/albums/j178/lilis678/250038082-4.jpg" src=" " alt=" "] Taller than John IMHO 'it's him!' we call foul, or is that faul, on the middle photo. and, the more we study it the more obvious the fraud looks to us. from the downward dipping nose tip to the oversized head, this 'paul' is an obvious attempt at 'faul-sification' of an existing paul image via photoshop technique to make our man look like the faul of today. keep trying with your attempts to turn old billy into paul, you faul-lowers, and we'll keep swatting ya down. and, go vandalize another thread or even another website. we don't need that shit, here, especially since it appears to eminate from the imposter's camp. got it. good. now, stay the hell away from our threads
|
|
|
Post by maclen on Nov 22, 2016 13:57:47 GMT -5
checking in to see if any of the researchers, here, have id'd and found the history of the double turned replacement as shown in the photos we posted. seems to us nir/pwr has some catching up to do if not a great deal of reappraising of it's mission. we know we're reappraising like a diamond merchant looking over suspect stones And what's a time waster of a thread? it's like this post. but whatever it is it's not going to be this thread. have you anything of substance to add
|
|
|
Post by maclen on Nov 21, 2016 19:58:42 GMT -5
here's something the general board may need to look at:
|
|
|
Post by maclen on Nov 21, 2016 19:46:10 GMT -5
checking in to see if any of the researchers, here, have id'd and found the history of the double turned replacement as shown in the photos we posted. seems to us nir/pwr has some catching up to do if not a great deal of reappraising of it's mission. we know we're reappraising like a diamond merchant looking over suspect stones
|
|
|
Post by maclen on Nov 21, 2016 19:38:45 GMT -5
Your dream seems as if it may be strange but it also rings out as possibly true. I don't know why it just does. Funny story actually, I keep getting the TWO mixed up. One is the Canadian Cynthia and John means John a time waster of a thread if we ever saw one
|
|
|
Post by maclen on Nov 20, 2016 19:16:19 GMT -5
yes, and we regret through all the interesting and consuming research by the old members here, that the forum en masse missed this most likely faul candidate and obvious major clue hanging with the boys at the airport. looks like the shot was taken around late '64, early '65
|
|
|
Post by maclen on Nov 20, 2016 18:43:55 GMT -5
well, let's ask the question, then: has any beatles research or researcher yielded the name and history of this bloke who bears a familial resemblance to paul and a striking resemblance to the fraudster faul, as he appears in this detail taken from the master shot in the first post of this thread. here he is:
|
|
|
Post by maclen on Nov 20, 2016 17:15:04 GMT -5
as apt here as over on that other thread,; the imposter is no einstein by either definitions of the term at hand. nor does arik bear any resemblance to paul or to the earliest or latest appearances of faul - making arik an impractical choice as a replacement
|
|
|
Post by maclen on Nov 20, 2016 17:02:52 GMT -5
there's evidence for my solution in the new "i buried faul" topic, which we started. if you have any challenges to what we've posted and they're derived in good faith and you have evidence for any of the claims you make on their behalf, then that would be the thread to post what you got. see ya there
|
|
|
Post by maclen on Nov 20, 2016 15:58:57 GMT -5
the imposter is hardly a fiction. here he is before face reapportionment, make-up, silly dress, substandard self-penned songs, and crude public remarks became his trademark: View Attachmentthe imposter is no einstein by either definitions of the term at hand. nor is there any resemblance to paul or to the earliest or latest appearances of faul - making arik an impractical choice as a replacement
|
|
|
Post by maclen on Nov 20, 2016 14:36:30 GMT -5
with this being the 50th year and the season of paul's passing, we predicted a greater response here to our proposed and proven proposition. justice has no greater foe than apathy
|
|
|
Post by maclen on Nov 20, 2016 14:20:17 GMT -5
we have the eulogistic songs and front album cover with a grave scene and paul spelled out in mums on 'pepper'. we have the great mental and physical deterioration of lennon, common among people who've experienced great personal loss and unbridled grief. we have the beatles monthly feb 7, 1967 #43 issue attempting to quell rumors of paul's death in a car crash, and we have the personal recollections of people, including members here, of an interruption in the 9-12-66 monkees show to announce the death of a beatle in a car crash. and, finally, we have the late paul mccartney, himself, who has not been shown up in any beatles media output since late '66. no, we don't have his body, but what we have is very strong circumstantial and testimonial evidence that paul was killed. and, we think it was murder so what do you have to prove he wasn't killed besides previously proven incorrect opinion Terry Knight? what about terry knight. is there some story you wish to relate
|
|
|
Post by maclen on Nov 20, 2016 13:54:50 GMT -5
Alrightey, but can we definitively prove that a Paul McCartney was killed in 1966? That has to be the biggest setback to this argument. Perhaps McCartney wanted a break from The Beatles, but that in no implies a physical death, and I have yet to find concrete evidence to suggest that he might have ever died in 1966. we have the eulogistic songs and front album cover with a grave scene and paul spelled out in mums on 'pepper'. we have the great mental and physical deterioration of lennon, common among people who've experienced great personal loss and unbridled grief. we have the beatles monthly feb 7, 1967 #43 issue attempting to quell rumors of paul's death in a car crash, and we have the personal recollections of people, including members here, of an interruption in the 9-12-66 monkees show to announce the death of a beatle in a car crash. and, finally, we have the late paul mccartney, himself, who has not shown up in any beatles media output since late '66. no, we don't have his body, but what we have is very strong circumstantial and testimonial evidence that paul was killed. and, we think it was murder so what do you have to prove he wasn't killed besides previously proven incorrect opinion
|
|
|
Post by maclen on Nov 20, 2016 12:58:02 GMT -5
as if the imposter didn't use pieces or, later, have plugs
|
|