|
Post by Mellow Yellow on Jul 18, 2006 18:15:32 GMT -5
I have converted over to PIA. I still believe the clues and such like stand for SOMETHING but I also now believe that the Paul McCartney we see today is the same one that was on the Ed Sullivan Show.
The evidence at Macca Funhouse is too compelling to pass up. IMO PIA is a much more interesting story indeed, because all the differences between him pre and post 66 cant just be attributed to him being dead.
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Jul 18, 2006 18:22:25 GMT -5
The evidence at Macca Funhouse is too compelling to pass up. There is no evidence there, good luck.
|
|
|
Post by beatlies on Jul 18, 2006 18:23:18 GMT -5
I have converted over to PIA. I still believe the clues and such like stand for SOMETHING but I also now believe that the Paul McCartney we see today is the same one that was on the Ed Sullivan Show. The evidence at Macca Funhouse is too compelling to pass up. IMO PIA is a much more interesting story indeed, because all the differences between him pre and post 66 cant just be attributed to him being dead.
|
|
|
Post by Mellow Yellow on Jul 18, 2006 18:37:01 GMT -5
My vision is fine thank you beatlies.....
I mean, it is easy to get sucked into this whole thing, but look what happens when it goes too far *points to sunking and TKIN!*
Plus I think some of you are the same people! BeatlePaul is Sunking, Beatlies may even be Sunking and for all we know Luvleerita and lili are the same too!
Like the fact that this topic had 6 views and yet only 2 people where online?
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Jul 18, 2006 18:41:16 GMT -5
. The evidence at Macca Funhouse is too compelling to pass up. IMO PIA is a much more interesting story indeed, because all the differences between him pre and post 66 cant just be attributed to him being dead. Whatever, stopped caring about who thinks what a long time ago. But your post is a bit confusing, by saying you notice "differences", to what cause do you attribute that?
|
|
|
Post by Mellow Yellow on Jul 18, 2006 18:54:25 GMT -5
Good question Jo, you see if Paul came out today and showed conclusive evidence that he was not dead. You too would have to find something to attribute the differences to. And isn't that a much more interesting story? Ok here we go Difference in Music: LSD, I have a friend who did drugs but never LSD, I asked him why and he said he once knew a very smart and insightful guy who did LSD and basically made him shallow and stupid. Difference in looks: Aging, facial fat, and the moped accident. Not to mention that at MaccaFunhouse they say that alot of the fades here and at TKIN are rigged anyway. Difference in personality: LSD There you go. I don't see why you guys are taking it so personal, I still believe the album clues are real, and the Charlie Brill thing is fascinating, but I just don't think Paul is dead, maybe he was replaced for a bit in 66-67 but then theres the fact that he remembers everything so specifically! SAME GUY!!!
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Jul 18, 2006 19:12:12 GMT -5
I have converted over to PIA. I still believe the clues and such like stand for SOMETHING but I also now believe that the Paul McCartney we see today is the same one that was on the Ed Sullivan Show. The evidence at Macca Funhouse is too compelling to pass up. IMO PIA is a much more interesting story indeed, because all the differences between him pre and post 66 cant just be attributed to him being dead. It's funny you'd mention the clues right off. All the clues in the world don't prove anything.... In fact they've turned into this fun little game, that Bill still enjoys playing... but it doesn't prove a thing. And there isn't anything that conclusively shows that he did indeed die in 66,... a lot of folks are convinced he was replaced, but didn't die in 66.... I dunno... all I can do is make an educated guess. What is definate is that he had a replacement. The only stance I don't understand is the hardline view that JPM never had a replacement... period. If that's yer view, uhhh, well.... I'm sorry to hear that. I don't really care one way or another, I just find it interesting that folks can look at all these pics of JPM & Bill, then actually think they're only seeing one man. In that case, the eye chart will definately come in handy......... But... whatever... have fun over there, just don't trust the fades!
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Jul 18, 2006 19:13:52 GMT -5
Damn.... I was TOO LATE! DON'T TRUST THE FADES I hope that's the only one we have to endure.
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Jul 18, 2006 19:41:06 GMT -5
What is definate is that he had a replacement. Quite right, its the ONLY thing anyone should be CERTAIN of on this forum.
|
|
|
Post by Mellow Yellow on Jul 18, 2006 19:53:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Mellow Yellow on Jul 18, 2006 20:08:53 GMT -5
What makes NIR's fades anymore trustworth I ask you all?
Don't both Maccafunhouse and NIR have their own agenda?
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Jul 18, 2006 20:24:07 GMT -5
I don't see why you guys are taking it so personal Who's taking it personal?
|
|
|
Post by fourthousandholes on Jul 18, 2006 20:27:41 GMT -5
What would you say was the reason for so many clues, then? I mean, there are literally hundreds when you take all the Beatle albums from Revolver on, and if you count McCartney's solo career there have got to be about 1000 plus.
Why go to all the trouble if there's nothing there? I'm just curious. To me it's as obvious that Faul isn't Paul as it is that Shemp isn't Curley.
I will say that this: "but then theres the fact that he remembers everything so specifically!" troubles me as well, but it's not nearly enough to make the case. It seems Bill was around the Beatles before he took on the role, and he would have known a lot.
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Jul 18, 2006 20:34:48 GMT -5
What makes NIR's fades anymore trustworth I ask you all? Don't both Maccafunhouse and NIR have their own agenda? If the PWR fades aren't reliable (according to PIAers) then by the same reasoning, the PIA fades are just as unreliable. I haven't seen any PWR fades that used altered aspect ratios, but I have seen some PIA ones that did (see below). Regardless, the easiest way to tell the difference is to look at the eyes. They're the window to the soul.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Jul 18, 2006 20:36:07 GMT -5
My vision is fine thank you beatlies..... I mean, it is easy to get sucked into this whole thing, but look what happens when it goes too far *points to sunking and TKIN!* Plus I think some of you are the same people! BeatlePaul is Sunking, Beatlies may even be Sunking and for all we know Luvleerita and lili are the same too! Like the fact that this topic had 6 views and yet only 2 people where online? Oh man, dude...cmon, now, this is forum soap opera 101, worrying about who is a sock puppet for who... This nonsense goes on on EVERY forum to some degree, it really is the lamest part of the forum experience. Who cares! I figured out who all the parties (and their sudsidary sock puppets) are for the most part... (and I ain't tellin'..) Right about BeatlePaul/SK, wrong about LR/Lili.. Guests count as views, to answer your last point.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Jul 18, 2006 20:56:39 GMT -5
What makes NIR's fades anymore trustworth I ask you all? There really aren't many fades here with the purpose of proving that we're looking at a different guy, vast majority of fades are from the early days of the forum put up by the PWNR crowd. Well we have a premise, gotta have at least one, and that one is: Paul..was..replaced... from there I would like to think there are a number of possibilities open for discussion. A carefully crafted agenda? No not really.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Jul 18, 2006 21:04:17 GMT -5
What makes NIR's fades anymore trustworth I ask you all? Don't both Maccafunhouse and NIR have their own agenda? We quit worryin' about fades a long time ago, so I'm not sure which fades yer talkin' about. I haven't noticed any new fades around here. Fades are not needed here. We have nothin' to prove to ourselves. And if there's an agenda here I'm unaware of it. We're certainly not tryin' to "spread the word"... I don't really care & don't have the energy. The ONLY thing we can say with confidence is that JPM had a replacement.... notice the word "permanent" isn't in that statement. Beyond that, it's all speculation.
|
|
|
Post by beatlies on Jul 19, 2006 11:54:47 GMT -5
What would you say was the reason for so many clues, then? I mean, there are literally hundreds when you take all the Beatle albums from Revolver on, and if you count McCartney's solo career there have got to be about 1000 plus. Why go to all the trouble if there's nothing there? I'm just curious. To me it's as obvious that Faul isn't Paul as it is that Shemp isn't Curley. I will say that this: "but then theres the fact that he remembers everything so specifically!" troubles me as well, but it's not nearly enough to make the case. It seems Bill was around the Beatles before he took on the role, and he would have known a lot. Faul actually DOES NOT appear to "remember" pre-1967 details very "specifically" or on any great length or detail; what he says could easily be from a pre-rehearsed short script he was givien to remember and recite, and nothing more. I've also noticed he has tended to repeat statements of John Lennon from previous Lennon interviews, as if they were his own memories --just more giveaways/evidence of PWR, forming a coherent pattern with the physical proofs. Faul remembering the JPM days well? Just the opposite; making this claim, I think, is like what they call on Madison Avenue "selling your weak points," a technique used commonly in advertising, disinformation and propaganda. For another more striking example, there's the case of someone saying that the PWR JoJo Smoking Gun JPM 1966/Faul LSD interview 1967 video montage is what convinces him that PWNR ("PIA") !
|
|
|
Post by jerriwillmore on Jul 19, 2006 13:07:48 GMT -5
I think he might be the same person, it just looks very weird. In some fades his features line up, in others he doesn't. He also looks very different in some photos to the naked eye. Some folks believe that in fades where his features line up the photos had been tampered with. I used to think that was rediculous, but I saw this on the Sun King's site digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/faking_apotheosis.html I actually saw both pictures. One was an annual calendar, the other I saw in the local paper on the anneversary of John's death. Very weird. So who knows.
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Jul 19, 2006 13:28:41 GMT -5
For another more striking example, there's the case of someone saying that the PWR JoJo Smoking Gun JPM 1966/Faul LSD interview 1967 video montage is what convinces him that PWNR ("PIA") ! Did someone actually make that claim, beatlies, or is that just a hypothetical?
|
|
|
Post by beatlies on Jul 19, 2006 13:59:57 GMT -5
For another more striking example, there's the case of someone saying that the PWR JoJo Smoking Gun JPM 1966/Faul LSD interview 1967 video montage is what convinces him that PWNR ("PIA") ! Did someone actually make that claim, beatlies, or is that just a hypothetical? JoJo mentioned that someone made that claim in a post of his on this board, maybe several months ago, don't remember when exactly when I read that post. So I didn't see it directly, JoJo would be the person to ask.
|
|
|
Post by lili on Jul 19, 2006 14:46:19 GMT -5
Nope, I'm not lovelyrita. We've become good friends though. ;D I agree with alot of the points made here. I don't know if the TKIN fades are completely above board. I do know that the PIA ones AREN'T. How do I know this ? It's because I have seen all the photos that they use in the fades. In fact, I have most of them. When I place them side by side it's obvious that they are two different people. In most of the early photos ( 1967 ), Bill's ears are much closer to his head than Paul's were !
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Jul 19, 2006 14:47:35 GMT -5
Well that was a long time ago and I'll look around for it, but it's pretty much a given that those who have a strong PIA mindset are going to see it as something that simply proves their point of view.
|
|
|
Post by Mellow Yellow on Jul 19, 2006 15:40:08 GMT -5
Could I have a link to the lsd interview montage?
|
|
|
Post by beatlies on Jul 19, 2006 17:29:48 GMT -5
|
|