|
|
Post by NothingIsReal1985 on Sept 12, 2013 21:36:24 GMT -5
NothingIsReal1985 I responded to your post in another thread. I think my response applies to what you wrote here as well, and I ask that you read it: invanddis.proboards.com/thread/2575/physical-evidence?page=4&scrollTo=106592Honestly, I kind of wish I'd seen your post here before I wrote that. I probably would have been a little more thorough, and probably a little more stern / harsh with you. No offense. But you write as though you've got it all figured out, and everyone else is stupid. You said, to Beacon: Now, I don't know if maybe you think "notwithstanding" means something different than it really does***, but Beacon is probably one of the most knowledgeable people in the field of PID in the world. He's studied it like it's the bible. He's written multiple books on the subject. For you with 23 posts to come in here and speak to Beacon as though he doesn't know shit, is somewhat insulting to me. I can't imagine how poor Beacon must feel. It's funny-- you speak like you are privvy to "The Real Truth" and everyone else is just deluded, and you're prepared to argue against anyone, no matter what. Yet, in your post, you said this: What I gather from this (taken with everything else you posted) is that the ultimate, "objective" truth doesn't really matter-- you're just firm about your position, whatever that may be, and unwavering, and unwilling to consider any conflicting info or evidence, that you're ready to argue with people, and "cuss them out" and call them stupid sheeople or whatever, if they don't agree with you. Do you not see how your current position is exactly identical to your former position, with the one small change of which side you're standing on? If you really care about finding the objective truth, such a position will only hinder you. But of course, your post gets even better...: Ah, so that's why you know that you're 100% right and the rest of us are just deluded sheep? Because god told you so?. Sweetheart, god has "told" lots of people lots of things throughout human history. 99.9999% of the time this can be proven as delusion. I'm not trying to shit on your beliefs. I believe in god, and I also believe that if a person can still their mind enough, that in a manner of speaking, they can get "impressions" if you will... not quite the same as being spoken to... but a gentle feeling, that something is right or wrong. The thing is, there is no objective way of confirming this, much of the time. And such a system is completely prone to self-delusion. And if you're the kind of person who can't truly "still your mind" as I say, and keep your personal ideas and opinions out of it, you're more likely to get the delusional part. I think having beliefs and convictions is great. I really do. But insulting people, and telling them that they don't know shit, because god told you that you're the PID-messiah sent to lead us all to salvation....? That's very much not cool. We're all here because we find this stuff interesting. If you're still somewhat new to the whole PID thing, you may just be learning that a lot of people, have widely differing beliefs. I think you will find, that with your "half of all celebrities have been replace with evil doppelgangers" belief, that you are very much in the minority in the PID scene. With the exception of a few boards, like TKIN as mentioned earlier. From what you've written here, it almost seems like you'd fit in better there. More people to agree with you, and less people you'll have to call "sheep"... if that's all you're looing for. If you're instead looking for objective discussion, regarding a wide range of theories-- then you're in the right place. I just really think you need to open your mind a little more. Not sure how you can't see that one. I mean, by your own admission, just a few years ago you were on the other side, ready to insult anyone who saw things differently. And now... you're on the other other side, and.... ready to insult anyone who sees things differently. You know that both of these positions can not be right. So at one point, at least, you were ready to insult others in defense of a wrongly-held position. Consider the fact that this may presently be the situation you're in. It is possible both of your positions are wrong. And as much as you need to open your mind a little more, you definitely need to cut the shit with your subtle insults. No one needs that. Like I said, we're all in the same boat here. We're just very interested in this phenomenon, and curious about the truth. That's where the similarities end. Personally, I think "Faul" is an AMAZING musician. I think post-1966 "Paul" beats the pants off of pre-1966 Paul, any day of the week. If you want a forum where almost everyone else agrees with you that "Faul is shit," like I said, there are places for that. Plenty of that on TKIN. Plenty of that on Tina's forum, too: pid.hoop.la/topics lots of people there to agree with you that Faul is a horrible musician, and an evil satanic clone, replaced by the CIA and the tavistock institute, alone with Fohn Lennon and Lady Gaga and Gwen Stefani. You can spew all the hate you want, and plenty of people around to mindlessly agree with it. Or you can stay here and open up your mind a little, maybe try to speak in a slightly less condescending manner.... Or just disregard everything I've said. I've only been studying this for over ten years... what the hell do I know? (*** It means "nevertheless," "regardless," or "in spite of this..." which would make that sentence nonsensical) It's NOT a matter of what MY opinion is; it's a matter of what the TRUTH is. You must haven't read my commentary thoroughly. Whatever has taken place w/ The Beatles and their clones and/or replacements -- and people's views are, whether mines yours or anyone else's -- there's only ONE TRUTH, and that will come out on at the Final Judgment (whether people like it, believe think so or not) when God/Jesus Christ will judge the world and bring out the deepest, darkest secrets of men for the whole world to see. As much as many people -- myself included -- knows, only GOD knows everything, so DO NOT put words in my mouth. He's the Fountain of All Knowledge after all, and there's NOTHING that will EVER change that. He's also gonna set things straight that (sinful) mankind has messed up for thousands of years. Only HE knows everything and will ultimately judge the secrets of men's hearts and deliver PERFECT justice as a result. Since us mere, finite humans have NO way of fully knowing people's motives, there is NO way perfect justice can be achieved down here. Oh, and for the record, it's not a matter of religion; religion is man-made [and people are imperfect, DUH!] and has NOTHING to do with God Himself; it's also common HORSE sense. For that reason I'm not worried. Since the truth is gonna come out on Judgment Day anyway, I'm not worried. Oh, and for the record, anything God tells people is ALWAYS -- not SOMETIMES, or MOST of the time, but ALWAYS -- congruent with The Bible, the ultimate source of TRUTH. God is NOT the author of confusion. Otherwise, anything else wrong and contrary to His will comes from a demon, or Satan/the Devil, who HATES both God and mankind with an unadulterated PASSION, and wants nothing more than to drag as many people as possible to hell to burn, be tormented and suffer with him and his demons forever. Get your facts straight before making unfounded judgments. BTW, it's wrong to judge, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with fruit-inspecting, which means making (proper) judgments based on what you DO already know, so don't get it twisted.
I've seen/heard many people see visions, foretell and prophesy things that were false and contrary to the Bible (especially cult leaders), yet it won't make me turn on God. Jesus Himself told (2,000 years ago) that there would be more false prophets, deceptive 'shepherds' than ever, claiming to know the truth, preach/teach/tell the truth and know the way to find salvation & heaven, but are sorely mistaken and just deceive and lead many astray, like ravenous wolves in sheep's clothing, only intending to prey on the sheep. I just know those people aren't saved/converted/born-again Christians, but are hell-bound, their so-called dreams, visions, doctrines, teachings and prophecies are non/un-biblical and NOT of God. For that reason I will no longer trust, follow or pay them any mind. I don't worry about them, because I already know of people that are sincere, honest, blood-washed true born-again saved Christians that are on their way to heaven; those are the ones who have my attention. If you can't tell the difference, then you've got a long way to come/run to catch up with the rest of us, because this race is almost over. Many wars and conflicts over the course of human history have been 'in the name of "God" and religion' and God didn't have ONE THING to do with it, because it's against His Word to commit cold-blooded murder. He also hates all of these false man-made religions, which, unlike the Holy Bible, have NOT had prophecies come forth (and many other great promises for His children), then come to pass; they merely just tell people how to act, live and treat others, on top of the fact that they have MANY inconsistencies, unfortunately. But there's MUCH more to the Good Book than that, believe it or not. So run and tell THAT. No matter what comes or goes people are gonna find fault with and despise truth, so what is there to be do about it? I can only do me, and you do YOU. The mistake is with PEOPLE, [and demonic spirits who wreak havoc and inspire people to do all manner of evil] who are are born with a sinful nature and are flawed, and not GOD, because He's the only one that's perfect and has NEVER let ME down, whereas people have.
But people are so ignorant and idiotic they'd rather blame GOD for all the evils in the world. But this life is brief; life as we know it will someday come to an end, but eternity will go on forever. God hates evil too much to let it go on forever, and 6,000+ years of tumultuous human history is like a virus cell (knowing how small that is) on the timeline of eternity. He will someday put an end to it and judge everyone guilty of it and send them to hell forever. If I didn't know/have hope in this fact, I would have killed myself and given up on everything long time ago. Believe it or not, GOD is running the show. I know I ain't b/c I'm only a person -- although very intelligent -- with limited knowledge. Moreover God made Jesus [He was born from Mary, a virgin who'd never had sexual relations with a man, so she was pure], sent here on earth in a flesh body -- like ours, which can be both seen and touched -- so He'd know how we feel in everyday situations, trials and temptations, to shed His blood, die, raise from the dead and ascend back into heaven in a glorified body. He died [and shed His blood] so that our sins would be covered (because we can't atone for our own sins, no matter how much 'good' we do), forgiven and our sinful nature changed into a godly one. We would also be perfect like Him, our souls saved so we'll go to heaven, either when we die [and later get resurrected in a heavenly body, one that stays forever young, disease-proof and never die] or when He comes back to give us a glorified body (to those already alive on this earth) to go back with Him to live in heaven for eternity. That's VERY Good News to me. Amen.
Don't like/can't accept it, nor are convinced? Too bad, your loss, so can't help ya any further. Well, since I've already made my point, I won't waste anymore of my time reiterating it to you, or anyone. I have too much tea to serve, many other things to do/get to, not to mention bigger fish to fry, serve (to others) and eat. If you believe, good, if not, that's fine, too. Take care, and I wish you the best.  |
|
|
|
Post by NothingIsReal1985 on Sept 12, 2013 22:17:34 GMT -5
NothingIsReal1985 said:I agree on your assessment. That's why -- for a long time -- I didn't bother checking in with nor researching whether or not JPM REALLY being dead and replaced by someone else, an impostor, because I knew (all of this time [since the Faul *cough, ahem* Fall of 2010], until two weeks ago, of course) deep down inside that it was the truth. When I first found out the possibility I complained to a friend -- who not only believes much of that jazz (nonsense) the Illuminati-controlled mass media pumps out, grew up in a less stable home than I did, doesn't have as deep a [realistic] worldview as I do, doesn't see eye-to-eye with me on many things, and is slightly naïve, although she's slightly less than 2 years older than me, but still love her in spite of it -- who said (to the effect of) that there's no such thing as somebody getting 'replaced'. But I always felt (in my subconscious) that it was otherwise and now know why. It's all a matter of putting two and two together, but I wasn't strong, mature or knowledgeable enough then to handle it [the ugly, naked TRUTH, that is].
I (strongly) believe that this cloning & replacement [with other look-alike individuals] has not only happened to JPM, but to other celebrities as well, such as:
Michael Jackson (for many reasons, some rather obvious to those with an open mind; multiple clones &/or doubles)
Eddie Murphy (in '89 or '90 for obvious reasons)
The Beatles (well, the rest of them John, JPM, George & Ringo as well, as CherilynZennah7 pointed out earlier on this page) John Travolta
Courtney Love
Kim Kardashian (outta ALL of her siblings she's changed the MOST physically; there's just something different about her now than 10 years ago)
Megan Fox
Sheryl Crow
Eminem (AKA, Marshall Mathers)
Mick Jagger
Bret Michaels
Ice-T
Bob Dylan (AKA Robert Zimmerman)
Tara Browne
Eric Clapton
Brian Epstein
Beyoncé (I can tell she either has clones on the side, or has been replaced by a clone altogether)
Jay-Z
Rod Stewart
David Bowie
Sting
Sylvester Stallone
Mickey Rourke
Amy Winehouse
Josh Groban
Hanson
And (possibly):
Mariah Carey (she's changed SO much over the years, whether it was her face, nose, singing voice, body, hips, weight, shape, personality, etc., and some of that stuff can't just be contributed to plastic surgery or acting coaches or whatever)
Avril Lavigne (why is it that a girl/young woman that's pushing 30 still looks like she's half that age? The entertainment industry is obsessed with youth and want to not only stay forever young, but has pedophile tendencies, as well, so it wouldn't surprise me in the least if she was cloned & replaced at one point or another)
Christina Aguilera (no comment, lol)
Jennifer Lopez (she looks young for being 44 years old, too, which is a red flag to/for me)
Gwen Stefani (she's the same age as J.Lo, only months apart, but still looks like she's in her late 20's/early 30's)
Britney Spears
Marilyn Monroe
Angelina Jolie
Cher
Elvis Presley
Whitney Houston
Jessica Simpson
..and many others.
Some of these people haven't been killed & replaced (whether by clones or another individual that looks almost identical to them) altogether, but just have these people on the side to meet the rigorous schedules [concerning various gigs like live concerts, writing, composing, producing & recording songs, doing movies, interviews, television & talk show appearances, autograph signings, photo shoots/sessions (whether for magazines, advertisements, posters, editorials, articles, or just publicity &/or promos), touring the U.S. & the world, etc.] their contracts require, that they have to meet. It makes sense because with the amount of work that has to be done in the entertainment business... well, it would either put a person in the hospital, or the grave, b/c I just don't understand how it can be done by one person, PERIOD. Moreover Hollyweird/Trashy Tinseltown is a pretty scandalous, dishonest, greedy & nasty place, so this wouldn't surprise me in the LEAST.
And then there's the OCCULT (which is the main) aspect of cloning &/or replacing individuals in politics, sports, the entertainment industry as a whole, and other upper echelons of society. Unless the occult(ic), supernatural part is taken into consideration, then the the cloning &/or replacement of human beings (in mainly the entertainment industry, whether it be television, stage, movies or music -- will NOT make much sense.
With that said... I believe that there are supernatural, occult factors involved in JPM's murder & subsequent replacement, one of them being a ritual blood sacrifice, which only scratches the surface of the whens, hows, wheres & whys of him being rubbed out at the tender age of 24, like James Dean was approximately 11 years earlier [BTW, the 30th of each month is a signficant date of sacrifice on the occult(ic) calender, because Robert Kardashian (Sr.) died on that same date 48 years later, and BAM! those sleazy Kardashians(-Jenners) had their own show aired on the E! Network 5 years [and 2 weeks] later and have crazily & constantly promoted, pushed & shoved in our faces relentlessly since then. Don't know about the rest of you, but that sounds quite suspicious to me].Beware the biological speculations...
The occult and "magick" are, according to some, just exotic forms of science that scientists haven't figured out yet. I certainly believe that both the occult and advanced science play a role in all the wonders and often confounding mysteries we've encountered through the decades. There's MANY things that science just CAN'T explain logically. Whether people believe it or not, supernatural forces -- whether good or evil -- exist in not only this world, but the universe as a whole and DO NOT obey the rules of our three dimensions (here on earth) of Time, Space and Matter, and also of Depth, Breadth and Height here in our mere physical world. Just because you can't see something doesn't mean it isn't there. Demonic forces, Satan/the Devil (who absolutely HATE and want to supplant God and destroy mankind) and the occult are a fact of life, but most people are too ignorant, in denial and blind to see it. But this truth is very obvious to many people, already. Moreover the technology we have now, on top of the cultural, spiritual, mental, moral, etc. so-called "norms" we have today like cloning were very commonplace with the Illuminati long before they ever came out in the open and made mainstream with the general world populace in these modern times. Scientists are smart, but they don't know The Bible, which does NOT contradict science in any way. So I take much of what they say -- although there's an element of truth to some of it -- as a grain of salt. Many of the theories that scientists come up/blindly go along with (such as the unproven evilution evolution) is like either fitting a square peg into a round hole, or better yet a dirt-poor, homeless drunk trying to advise a billionaire as to how to manage his finances. It just doesn't make any sense. Unfortunately many so-called "educated" and "enlightened" people are only victims of indoctrination, which is today's public schools, colleges and universities main objective(s). Some of -- not all, but SOME -- of the most dim-witted, demented, arrogant, stiff-necked, nutty and simpleminded people I've ever met are "educated" and have a number of college degrees and diplomas, so professional accomplishments are secondary, IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by NothingIsReal1985 on Sept 12, 2013 22:28:00 GMT -5
Practice what you preach, Mr. "Paul is in fact dead." And if "we have a long way to go to solving this thing and we really can't dismiss possibility!" is your new stance, then, welcome to the real world! Just as you suspected? What, were you trying to corner me? I suspected the very same thing for myself, and for everyone else. That is what my post was about, and what I've been saying the whole time I've been here - that none of us know anything for a solid fact. That is what I tried to communicate to you in the Physical Evidence thread recently. If you get it now, I'm glad. And I trust you realize you are not exempt from the things you just stated. Everything I think is for myself. "Just like a PIDer..." You contradict yourself Linus. I've been here since this board started, while there have been disagreements, there have not ever been personal attacks ( well, except for the time when a poster named HowDoYouSleep managed to piss off a whole board, but I digress...). What is new is coming to this board and being the recipient ad hominem attacks; being accused of being and agent and trying to brainwash others and having my point of view slandered, ridiculed, stereotyped, mischaracterized, misrepresented, and misinterpreted by others with condescending, offish attitude. How would you like to come to this board see other posters saying things like: "It's just like Linus (or those who hold his theory/view) to miss the point..." "Show any photo/video of Paul/Faul to Linus (or those who hold his theory/view) and he'll say..." "Only Linus (or those who hold his theory/view) could think/believe..." Think for yourself Linus. You too, I.William. I strongly agree, JDG; I've been done the same way. You articulated your point better than I ever could, so I don't need to say anymore. There's always a few oddballs hanging around that want to start a whole lot of mess, to throw us off of the main scent in regards of what REALLY happened with The Beatles (and their clones and/or replacements decades ago) "just because" of what they're afraid of discovering. Mankind has had a rather long history of disliking, not being able to withstand and being afraid of the truth. Overlook them, don't worry about them, nor let them get to you, for they know not what they're doing. I also reckon they make the world a more interesting place.  And for the record, there's only TWO ways one can be brainwashed; with either TRUTH or ERROR. Don't know about anyone else, but I'd rather have the former, as unpleasant as it sometimes can be. Some people can't see the truth if it came up and slapped them in the face. People do what they want to do, so what can you do? |
|
|
|
Post by NothingIsReal1985 on Sept 13, 2013 15:51:00 GMT -5
  The "John Lennon" on the right in the top image is (obviously) the same one in the image below it. They're also wearing the same sunglasses. But I can't say/promise that he (in both the top & bottom pictures) is the same one as the REAL John Lennon, the one on the left in the top photo [taken in '65 when The Beatles were knighted at Buckingham Palace in London, England]. And what's that thing near the front base of his neck? Also, what's up with the pit stains, too? Poor Julian, he looks so lost & miserable [not to mention his eyes are dead (like a part of him had died, which it most likely did years ago) and his expression is blank], but everyone else looks happy and relaxed. I would, too if I had to pretend that some clown guy -- who was a practical stranger -- was my father, let alone that same man be someone he's apparently NOT, trying to take his place.  So much for a kid to go through when he's yet so young.  |
|
|
|
Post by NothingIsReal1985 on Sept 13, 2013 16:26:55 GMT -5
 These two photos -- taken 2 years apart, left in '67 and right in '65 -- are obviously NOT of the same man. Based on many pictures taken (that I myself have seen) of these two, it's quite obvious that JPM has more shorter, rounded features [eyes, nose, ears, lips, cheeks, skull, profile, face, chin, longer, thicker eyelashes, complexion, eyebrows, jawline, cuter overall, etc.] and Faul McFalsie has longer, narrower features [concerning the same aforementioned facial features]. Their skin complexions (in general) are also a bit different.   The very same thing applies to the above images (of JPM & Faul, respectively), taken about 4 years apart. Stuff like this just CANNOT be casually & offhandedly explained away as mere coincidences, as something due plastic/cosmetic surgery -- which JPM did NOT need -- or something due to getting older/aging/maturing a few years. Remember, a person just CANNOT change their bone structure, it's genetic and set for life. For those interested, look here for more evidence: Undeniable Proof that Paul McCartney was replaced with a Look-Alike |
|
|
|
Post by NothingIsReal1985 on Sept 13, 2013 17:11:17 GMT -5
Dream_High: May be the perspective of being killed soon for refusing to collaborate with those who secretely rule the world?... Does this pass as a reason? This is IMHO, sending some vital clues to Paulie's changes inside and out. In Plasticmacca's blog article titled, "Sir Paul and the Serpent Cult: Rock n' Roll and Nazi Mind Control"There're an interesting reply by someone. Sounds creepy! Here are the reply: Anonymous, October 5, 2010 at 4:17 PM Found a rather sad quote in a transcript from Paul in a 1965 interview during the American Tour when asked, "Is it all worth it in the end?"
Paul looked at her very closely and his eyes seemed sadder than Ringo's and he said, "No it isn't. I'd pack up today if I could, but it's gone too far for that. It really hasn't any sense left to it, and all the fun is missing now. All those bloody people, reporters, fans, they keep me from, well, I don't know. I s'pose I should be grateful and all that is, but it doesn't seem to be worth it anymore. You meet the phonies and the pryers, the hip kids who think it's posh not to like you, the ones that treat you as a curiosity item and the not-so-nice exhibitionists who claim all manner of things - like they were once engaged to you or the like. So we're forced to limit our friends, to only trust a few, to sit about at home and all when we're wanting to go to a club or the like. I don't care for it at all."Afterwards, he walks the female interviewer to the door and says this "Good bye Kathie. I hope I meet you again soon cause it's great to meet any of my friends ever. I wish I could have met you more. Tell your magazine I wish them lucky times and all that. Stay shy, and you won't get into the trouble I am. Think of me a bit, and if you ever come to London leave your name off at Jennie's and we shall come to see you." He scribbled an address of Jane Asher's on her notebook, kissed her on the cheek and left.-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wonder what was going on behind the scenes. Poor guy.
Dream_High: I have a different big picture from what you have, but I hate to blaze a trail in the open air.
I'm neither an atheist nor an agnostic, so I do believe that ONLY GOD does know what had happened to Paulie. And the words said by Paulie in that 1965 interview text were a nerve-cracking piece and lead a path of the truth that most of people can't handle.
To be honest, I'm someone who are involved in literature, and had read many writing pieces- in form of novel, short stories and poems. Some of it I want to read it again and again because of 'getting drunk' in it, some of it I can't stand and just left it unfinished. And I do believe that what are we write are the manifestations of our own energy flow. I found out that Paulie's words in that interview were fill with energy that uneasy for me to handle, stabbing deeply more than a bayonet, smells like blood, and somehow kept playing in my mind and hearts again and again. He's so honest in manifesting his own bottling feelings and I have to accept it with all open heart and mind I could, and to accept the possibilities that perhaps the words, " Stay shy, and you won't get into the trouble I am.", was his epitaph. While waiting the truth coming like a glorious springtime.
SOURCE: Our Paulie?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------I couldn't agree more with Dream High's assessment . I've accepted the fact that many will totally and utterly deny the fact that JPM is in fact, really deceased, and has been for decades now. Here's another quote by him/her from the same above link:
Dream_High: Fleshing out possible motives for the murder and replacement of Paul McCartney Convincing enough for me. I think this text comes for Tina not as speculation and theorizing, but as a result of many years of studying the subject. At least noone had ever disproved it. But if you talk about actual forensic proof (remains, witnesses, physical evidence) I'm sure the world will never get it. So, I guess theories is all what's left for us?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We'll NEVER get the aforementioned type evidence, b/c TPTB almost always make sure that they've covered their tracks [and have the public mind-controlled and dumbed-down enough] so that NO one will ever find out the truth. If they do, then they don't get too far with it. They are either killed (or otherwise the threat is eliminated, smeared with a sullied/ruined reputation or neutralized in other ways) killed, for going -- or at least trying -- public with it, or if they try to tell others the others won't believe it, even when CONCRETE evidence is staring them straight in the face. I reckon when people are in denial they are deliberately blind, NOT wanting to see the truth [no matter what] because it's too much for them to handle.
|
|
|
|
Post by cherilyn7 on Sept 13, 2013 17:22:57 GMT -5
That was a large pot of tea! I.m.o Jimmy Nichol was better looking and indisputably a better drummer/musician than Ringo and with his beatle haircut looked just the part and I think could have been told this was a "dress rehearsal"...George threatened to pull out of the tour but had to be persuaded by Brian and George Martin "not to let the fans down"....Jimmy became a "hermit" in later years. Very strange for a session drummer used to playing on other people's records and who also stood in for Dave Clark (of Dave Clark 5)when he was ill on tour also....Whatever, if you look at the photos the face is "different" from the mid sixties up to present day.
|
|
|
|
Post by cherilyn7 on Sept 13, 2013 18:15:02 GMT -5
The "John Lennon" on the right in the top image is (obviously) the same one in the image below it. They're also wearing the same sunglasses. But I can't say/promise that he (in both the top & bottom pictures) is the same one as the REAL John Lennon, the one on the left in the top photo [taken in '65 when The Beatles were knighted at Buckingham Palace in London, England]. And what's that thing near the front base of his neck? Also, what's up with the pit stains, too? Poor Julian, he looks so lost & miserable [not to mention his eyes are dead (like a part of him had died, which it most likely did years ago) expression is blank], but everyone else looks happy and relaxed. I would, too if I had to pretend that some clown guy -- who was a practical stranger -- was my father, let alone that same man be someone he's apparently NOT, trying to take his place. So much for a kid to go through when he's yet so young. ************************************************************************************************************ Notice with the person on the right the bottom teeth are showing. However, with the photo on the left of the true John he is smiling with his upper teeth showing but no bottom teeth visible. I would say also that the eyebrows became thicker after 1967. This is reminiscent of Ralph Ellis who though looking a lot like John and similar physique had thicker eyebrows. He also was from Liverpool hence had the same accent. |
|
|
|
Post by cherilyn7 on Sept 13, 2013 18:41:02 GMT -5
These two photos -- taken 2 years apart, left in '67 and right in '65 -- are obviously NOT of the same man. Based on many pictures taken (that I myself have seen) of these two, it's quite obvious that JPM has more shorter, rounded features [eyes, nose, ears, lips, cheeks, skull, profile, face, chin, longer, thicker eyelashes, cuter overall, etc.] and Faul McFalsie has longer, narrower features [concerning the same aforementioned facial features]. Their skin complexions (in general) are also a bit different. I think Paul was out of his depth....well, one of the Pauls JPM but what happened to the other one in the publicity shots circa 1962? John was the undisputed leader and spokesman of the group but post 1966 Paul became very outspoken and even in the press conference during the American tour 1966 Paul was doing most of the talking, and Ringo and George remaining virtually silent. So there was a different Paul on the 1966 tour? |
|
|
|
Post by ramone on Sept 13, 2013 21:54:20 GMT -5
These two photos -- taken 2 years apart, left in '67 and right in '65 -- are obviously NOT of the same man. Based on many pictures taken (that I myself have seen) of these two, it's quite obvious that JPM has more shorter, rounded features [eyes, nose, ears, lips, cheeks, skull, profile, face, chin, longer, thicker eyelashes, cuter overall, etc.] and Faul McFalsie has longer, narrower features [concerning the same aforementioned facial features]. Their skin complexions (in general) are also a bit different. I think Paul was out of his depth....well, one of the Pauls JPM but what happened to the other one in the publicity shots circa 1962? John was the undisputed leader and spokesman of the group but post 1966 Paul became very outspoken and even in the press conference during the American tour 1966 Paul was doing most of the talking, and Ringo and George remaining virtually silent. So there was a different Paul on the 1966 tour?  The guy on the left should just look like this pic with some lip hair. No, not the same. No one to date has given me a SANE explanation for what's going on with that '67 ear! First of all, JPM's lobe is about twice as big, and what the heck is that THING in there?! |
|
|
|
Post by ramone on Sept 13, 2013 22:00:38 GMT -5
And as far as JL is concerned - can you spot the differences? - not too hard with a keen eye.  |
|
|
|
Post by cherilyn7 on Sept 14, 2013 6:32:36 GMT -5
I think John's identity was taken over by an impersonator and John may have not wanted to go along with various things so a double was used. The real John's chin does not recede as much as the double. So far, we have JPM being replaced completely by 1966; John's double being used from 1966 onward to ? and Ringo being replaced circa 1964/65.....
|
|
|
|
Post by cherilyn7 on Sept 14, 2013 7:02:01 GMT -5
You only have to compare the photos to see these are different people
about (see source, John Lennon's Official Double, Page 3)
|
|
|
|
Post by cherilyn7 on Sept 14, 2013 7:12:17 GMT -5
  [/quote] Does anyone know what Ralph Ellis did after he left the Swinging Blue Jeans in early 1966 due to the "hectic tour schedule and not liking the musial direction" of the group? |
|
|
|
Post by duodamsel on Sept 15, 2013 0:44:55 GMT -5
Posted by NothingIsReal1985
I (strongly) believe that this cloning & replacement [with other look-alike individuals] has not only happened to JPM, but to other celebrities as well, such as:
Beyoncé (I can tell she either has clones on the side, or has been replaced by a clone altogether)
You're right, because while looking at this video I noticed that at one point Beyonce is being played by tennis champion Serena Williams, and at another point in the video she is being played by r&b singer Ciara. It's very strange, but I'm absolutely certain this is the case. Beyonce is suddenly being played by Serena at 1:18 and at the very moment she says the word "SUBSTITUTE"! And the role of Beyonce' is played by Ciara at 1:59That's all too crazy, but watch for yourself. Beyonce' becomes Serena Williams for a quick second at 1:18 and she becomes Ciara for a quick few seconds at 1:59 |
|
|
|
Post by NothingIsReal1985 on Sept 16, 2013 14:46:36 GMT -5
That was a large pot of tea! I.m.o Jimmy Nichol was better looking and indisputably a better drummer/musician than Ringo and with his beatle haircut looked just the part and I think could have been told this was a "dress rehearsal"...George threatened to pull out of the tour but had to be persuaded by Brian and George Martin "not to let the fans down"....Jimmy became a "hermit" in later years. Very strange for a session drummer used to playing on other people's records and who also stood in for Dave Clark (of Dave Clark 5)when he was ill on tour also....Whatever, if you look at the photos the face is "different" from the mid sixties up to present day.  I'm guessing that you're LadyMoonlight from the 60if boards. You made similar statements over there -- such as the "Ringo" of today not looking like the Ringo of early Beatlemania & that Jimmy Nicol was better-looking than Ringo, not to mention being a better drummer than he was -- as over here. [Click on the above image to enlarge.] I also understand that George was worried/concerned about his friend (Ringo), missed him and wanted him back. I thought it was sweet and funny when "Ringo" said -- I read it in both one of those magazines dedicated totally to The Beatles, articles, large pictures, quotes, photo captions, etc. and heard him say it in an interview -- "I thought they didn't love me no more/anymore". Lol.  You were right... J.N. assimilated pretty nicely with The Beatles. I say if Ringo were to bite the dust which he likely did some time in his mid-20's, like the rest of the Fab Four likely did, then Jimmy Nichols would have been a good replacement for him discounting all doubles, multiples, imposter replacements, etc. But I couldn't agree more about Fingo Farr "Ringo". He's always worn a beard, and hasn't been clean-shaven since... well, ca. 1967. I also looks as if -- judging by the photos I've seen of him back in '66, which I'll post later, along with other explanations on to back up my claims -- that an impostor was standing in for him then (1966). On top of that he wears sunglasses all the time, which not only do I find odd , but conspicuously suspicious...  |
|
|
|
Post by NothingIsReal1985 on Sept 16, 2013 15:04:19 GMT -5
The "John Lennon" on the right in the top image is (obviously) the same one in the image below it. They're also wearing the same sunglasses. But I can't say/promise that he (in both the top & bottom pictures) is the same one as the REAL John Lennon, the one on the left in the top photo [taken in '65 when The Beatles were knighted at Buckingham Palace in London, England]. And what's that thing near the front base of his neck? Also, what's up with the pit stains, too? Poor Julian, he looks so lost & miserable [not to mention his eyes are dead (like a part of him had died, which it most likely did years ago) and his expression is blank], but everyone else looks happy and relaxed. I would, too if I had to pretend that some clown guy -- who was a practical stranger -- was my father, let alone that same man be someone he's apparently NOT, trying to take his place. So much for a kid to go through when he's yet so young. ********************************************************************************** Notice with the person on the right the bottom teeth are showing. However, with the photo on the left of the true John he is smiling with his upper teeth showing but no bottom teeth visible. I would say also that the eyebrows became thicker after 1967. This is reminiscent of Ralph Ellis who though looking a lot like John and similar physique had thicker eyebrows. He also was from Liverpool hence had the same accent. It seems I learn more new stuff from you. Thanks a lot. The beautiful thing about life is that it's a progressive revelation; so I guess the guy that cussed me out earlier on this page was right in that respect about me. I want you to know that I do NOT know it all, but (we) learn more going away from here than when (we) first came in, no matter where it is. We just have to open our minds and be willing to learn the TRUTH, no matter how unpleasant -- and contrary to our commonly long-held beliefs -- it can sometimes be. Praise God; He's the fountain of ALL knowledge (He knows everything there is to know in the universe, and nothing is hidden from His All-Seeing Eye), and there is NO way I could have known all the things I've found out over the past few/several weeks without His intervention. But through it all I -- being of sound mind, lol -- have one thing to say; and it's that I will NEVER look at The Beatles AND The Featles the same... EVER again. But moving on... you took the words RIGHT outta my mouth/read my mind (LOL) concerning the teeth on both young men; Fohn Fennon, one of two or three doubles, impostor-replacements, multiples, etc. lower teeth show more than his top teeth, but John Lennon's upper teeth -- whether singing, talking or smiling -- show more than his lower teeth. But it's the OTHER way around for "John Lennon" Fohn Fennon. The nose which looks like it's been cut on via a rhinoplasty, which is a lot more popular now, but less so 40 years ago is a bit narrower than John Lennon's was. But I didn't know that R.E. was Liverpudlian; if that's so, then he didn't have to put any effort in making his accent -- and possibly voice -- sound more like the REAL John's. There's a few vids and things I'd like to show you (later on) that proves that it's not as hard to impostor-replace someone as people like to think. I also know by personal encounters -- and folks on the telly -- with others, so I have an idea about how this sort of strange thing goes. |
|
|
|
Post by NothingIsReal1985 on Sept 16, 2013 15:18:01 GMT -5
And as far as JL is concerned - can you spot the differences? - not too hard with a keen eye. I don't think the images are of the REAL John Lennon at all. Whether they're the same person, I don't quite know. I (personally) believe that John Lennon had more than one stand-in, if my gut's telling me right. Anyone who can't tell the difference is either blind, in denial or has bad vision. |
|
|
|
Post by NothingIsReal1985 on Sept 16, 2013 15:20:07 GMT -5
You only have to compare the photos to see these are different people about (see source, John Lennon's Official Double, Page 3) It's here. Thanks for putting those images of John together. Also notice that the eyes are a bit different. At first glance these two fellas look the same; but look closer and you can see that not only are the nose(s) different, the lips are (slightly) different, so are the profile(s) [and their bone structure which does NOT change in that short of an amount of time, 3 years]. John has more of a boyish pout, The real John's eyes are more Asian/Oriental & has more bags under them and his profile contours are more akin to those of the art from the Grecian-Roman era, whereas 1968 "John's" is not. And although John has more meat on his bones (heh-heh) he has a lengthier chin. These images are clearly NOT of the same fellas. Click on the below images to enlarge. The differences between JPM & Faul can clearly be seen. 1.  2.  3.  4.  5.  6.  7.  8.  9.  10.  |
|
|
|
Post by NothingIsReal1985 on Sept 16, 2013 15:43:24 GMT -5
I think John's identity was taken over by an impersonator and John may have not wanted to go along with various things so a double was used. The real John's chin does not recede as much as the double. So far, we have JPM being replaced completely by 1966; John's double being used from 1966 onward to ? and Ringo being replaced circa 1964/65..... That lack of a chin in the middle picture is (clearly, in image #7) NOT due to weight-loss, for the 1967 "John Lennon" was significantly thinner -- and a bit different-looking, dressing and acting -- than the Beatlemania [and earlier] John Lennon. Something totally and utterly STINKS under the sink.  Notice that John Lennon NEVER posed nude (does Two Virgins, among other things, ring a bell?); sure, he was half-naked (or mostly naked) on the beach, at pools, etc., but never naked, which made him more interesting and sexy because [when it came to his body] he left something to the imagination, adding to his mystery. He was also an alpha male, one who didn't get HENPECKED by his own wife, nor let women push him around, to the best of my knowledge. Instead (if anything), Cynthia was ROOSTER-PECKED by John, if anything (lol). In that regard, John -- unlike the later thinner, more effeminate, uglier, more liberal, lesser version of him -- would less likely to be friendly to & promote the Women's Liberal (Feminist) agenda which would come later on, among others which has brought The West [as well as the rest of the world] to the point it's at today.
Fohn Fennon would also marry a tomboyish, ugly, baby-murdering, much older, controlling, obsessed, feminist, whorishly-dressed, Satan-worshiping, vindictive, annoying Japanese woman (whose son, Sean is of questionable paternity, IMO), whereas John Lennon married an attractive, feminine, submissive, slightly older [by 1 year] lady that was the same race and place he was from [Liverpool, England] and they ACTUALLY had a son together.
Like Beyoncé, Yoko likely faked her pregnancy & childbirth, too, because there's many holes in the story leading up to it.
1.
2.
3.
4.  (In the right photo in image #2, 3 and the one on the right in image #4 are of the same person, b/c I can see that pointy chin, thinner lips and lower teeth naturally showing in #2 & #4.)
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
|
|
|
|
Post by NothingIsReal1985 on Sept 16, 2013 16:01:56 GMT -5
You're right, because while looking at this video I noticed that at one point Beyonce is being played by tennis champion Serena Williams, and at another point in the video she is being played by r&b singer Ciara. It's very strange, but I'm absolutely certain this is the case. Beyonce is suddenly being played by Serena at 1:18 and at the very moment she says the word "SUBSTITUTE"! And the role of Beyonce' is played by Ciara at 1:59That's all too crazy, but watch for yourself. Beyonce' becomes Serena Williams for a quick second at 1:18and she becomes Ciara for a quick few seconds at 1:59 Either they're portraying shapeshifting, or they're somehow sending us some warped, subliminal, hidden-in-plain-sight message that only our subconscious minds can pick up. And yes, I saw a photo of both Jay-Z & Joseph Gordon-Levitt from long ago that look almost identical to them. Both scary AND creepy (at the same time).  I believe (on everything I have) that the women above are Illuminati puppets. You don't get big in Hollyweird/Trashy Tinseltown without selling your soul (and many times body) to/making a deal with Satan/the Devil. It is even said that Ciara is a hermaphrodite; if not her [whom I read somewhere as getting pregnant by Curtis "50 Cent" Jackson & having a subsequent abortion] then most likely her double [who is, without question, mind-controlled too, like some sort of robot, thus in a way promoting the agenda of trans-humanism, wherein humans & machines combine], which she likely has. On top of that if that's true (the double part), then I believe the hermaphrodite rumors. Many things can go wrong with clones anyhow, including the intersex and not aging as well like Madonna, and others. The same is also said of fembot Beyoncé (which -- besides the many abortions she's had à la Marilyn Monroe [another Monarch & Beta slave], not to mention her womb being all banged up from years of being a sex slave -- explains her not being able to have children and faking her pregnancy) and Lady GaGa, who has (also) been very likely impostor-replaced [early on], IMO. She looks like a man in drag, anyhow, having that unisex, androgynous look that TBTB just love and have wet-dreams about. Don't understand why everyone makes such a big deal over someone as unattractive, boring/uninteresting, average, untalented & manly-jawed as HER. She's one of those so-called "stars/celebrities" that I wish would GO AWAY. |
|
|
|
Post by cherilyn7 on Sept 19, 2013 18:44:57 GMT -5
That was a large pot of tea! I.m.o Jimmy Nichol was better looking and indisputably a better drummer/musician than Ringo and with his beatle haircut looked just the part and I think could have been told this was a "dress rehearsal"...George threatened to pull out of the tour but had to be persuaded by Brian and George Martin "not to let the fans down"....Jimmy became a "hermit" in later years. Very strange for a session drummer used to playing on other people's records and who also stood in for Dave Clark (of Dave Clark 5)when he was ill on tour also....Whatever, if you look at the photos the face is "different" from the mid sixties up to present day. We are all on a journey here: see how Jimmy Nichol looks and acts as part of the group? Thanks for that picture NothingisReal1985; I'm convinced there was a plan to replace Ringo but the problem with Jimmy: he did not look like Ringo and also if George was putting his foot down it could have been easier to say ok Ringo stays then replace him anyway with a lookalike who then grew a moustache. Also, as you pointed out, Ringo has been seen since the 'seventies with a beard (to disguise weak chin) and dark shades. The lips are thinner than the original Ringo and other differences, together with his divorce from Maureen and subsequent marriage to actress Barbara. |
|
|
|
Post by cherilyn7 on Sept 19, 2013 18:58:15 GMT -5
View Attachment But I couldn't agree more about Fingo Farr "Ringo". He's always worn a beard, and hasn't been clean-shaven since... well, ca. 1967. I also looks as if -- judging by the photos I've seen of him back in '66, which I'll post later, along with other explanations on to back up my claims -- that an impostor was standing in for him then (1966). On top of that he wears sunglasses all the time, which not only do I find odd , but conspicuously suspicious... It was often said (by the other Beatles) that Ringo had a good future in "acting". I wonder why Ringo was taken from Rory Storm and the Hurricanes who were visually very good/exciting/great stage costumes and the group was not signed up by Brian Epstein when building his "stable" of acts? How did Brian Epsten decide who was "in" and who was "out"? Apparently Ringo was not first choice either, the job was offered to the drummer with the Big Three who turned it down out of loyalty to Pete Best. The Big Three were apparently one of the top draws in Liverpool but faded into obscurity. It did not go on "popularity". If it had, Pete Best would not have been sacked. Jimmy Nichol said though he hoped Ringo would get better soon, he had hoped he would be kept on. What gave him that idea? |
|
|
|
Post by cherilyn7 on Sept 19, 2013 19:21:08 GMT -5
I think John's identity was taken over by an impersonator and John may have not wanted to go along with various things so a double was used. The real John's chin does not recede as much as the double. So far, we have JPM being replaced completely by 1966; John's double being used from 1966 onward to ? and Ringo being replaced circa 1964/65..... That lack of a chin in the middle picture is (clearly, in image #7) NOT due to weight-loss, for the 1967 "John Lennon" was significantly thinner -- and a bit different-looking, dressing and acting -- than the Beatlemania [and earlier] John Lennon. Something totally and utterly STINKS under the sink. 1. 2. 3. [/span] 4. (In the right photo in image #2, 3 and the one on the right in image #4 are of the same person, b/c I can see that pointy chin, thinner lips and lower teeth naturally showing in #2 & #4.)
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
It has been said that John's nose became more "beaky" due to drug use. Notice from 1967 he had a moustache and the "granny glasses" appeared after the filming of "How I Won the War" in late 1966. |
|
|
|
Post by ticket2ride on Sept 19, 2013 22:25:02 GMT -5
Personally I do not give credence to the Lennon was replaced theory. He was into acid and other drugs and trippers do not tend to eat much unlike stoners who get the munchies more regularly.
John and George both took LSD far more than the other two and I think the lifestyle shows on their prematurely aged faces ~ and George always looked rather old even when he was only 21.
Admittedly Paul, John and George looked more like men in their 30s after 1966~67 but in the case of John and George it seems their lifestyle of little sleep, speed when they were teenagers to keep them playing endlessly in Hamburg, poor diet in Germany and then on the road etc etc plus the later experimentation with heavy drugs made them look older. In Paul`s case there are other factors that seem to come into play but I think the very unhealthy lifestyles of the Beatles prematurely aged two of them. Ringo always looked a bit old anyway and those kinds of people don`t tend to look much older as they do age.
|
|
So much for a kid to go through when he's yet so young. 
