Your theory about what happened to Paul

[NothingIsReal1985]

Sept 21, 2013 20:04:21 GMT -5 cherilyn7 said:

ticket2ride you need to do your homework. Everything changed with John too after 1966. People don't change looks and personality in such a short time.

I strongly agree; just read the above post.

[NothingIsReal1985]

Sept 21, 2013 20:13:17 GMT -5 cherilyn7 said:

Sorry you've been ill NothingisReal1985; great research with those pics. Can you compare any circa 1962 as that was a time when there appears to be 2 people as Paul.

Thanks, Cherilyn. I appreciate it. Aunt Flo has gone back home now (LOL) and I'm feeling much better now.  I've been gone a while, but I'm fine now and ready to continue my exposé(s) [delivering & serving more steamy, piping-hot tasty iced tea, Lol] concerning the replacement of not just JPM, but John, George & Ringo as well. I'll be over here more often, if my personal life doesn't interfere too much. The things I've posted in this thread so far are only the tip of the iceberg. You haven't even heard the HALF. 

I ALWAYS knew something was off with The Featles The Beatles post '66, but didn't know what it was (besides the obvious external changes) until recently. Moreover, just when I thought I knew it all I go over to the Fab Four (Dozen) boards and discover some things that changed my views some more concerning the cloning &/or impostor replacement(s) even further. This stuff not only involves The Beatles themselves, but the people within their circle. If you wanna know more right away, then go over to the boards to find out -- with an open mind, of course -- what I'm talking about. But if you'd rather be kept on the edge of your seat(s) and would better understand things (mainly, the truth) if they unfolded slowly, then stay tuned to/on this thread.

This things I found out over on said board were quite shocking, but at the same time weren't. At first finding out about JPM's demise some time between August and November of '66 and spilling my findings (as well as seeing what others thought, whether here or on TKIN & Doppels board) here was all there was to it; but it's now snowballed (for me) into not just being about him [being impostor-replaced and/or cloned, etc.] particularly, but about the rest of The Beatles and others close to them (like their wives), as well as other stars/celebrities. But more on that later.

I found the above image over at DeviantArt. It pretty mocks/takes pot shots at the PID rumour or "theory" more like TRUTH that's been going around for a while now. Sad, really.  I just don't understand how anyone could take lightly the fact that there was a cold-blooded murder and subsequent (criminal) cover-up [and impostor-replacement] concerning JPM all those years ago. Faul must have some sort of spell on the masses concerning his TRUE identity, let alone what REALLY happened to Paul back in '66. This drawing -- as well as all of the clues included in Featle Beatle songs, album covers/art, photo-shoots/sessions, etc. from '67 & later, in addition to everything else [whether images, ideas, ideals, symbolism, worldview(s), etc.] you see in the Illuminati-controlled mainstream mass media -- demonstrates how much our culture worships, glorifies & glamorizes DEATH.


Lucy... I should have KNOWN that that was what the drawing of Paul lying dead in a coffin/casket meant. That's a good one.

[NothingIsReal1985]

Sept 24, 2013 20:09:55 GMT -5 lucy said:

He (JPM, of course) was asked that same question by Dusty Springfield back in 1963. Here it is:

[cherilyn7]

I find that image very disturbing, but thankyou NothingisReal1985 for posting it. Re replacements of the other Beatles; I have looked at Paul (I only discovered this stuff last year) then I started to see something not right about John (who was my favourite until he went off with Yoko (did anyone still find him attractive after that?)and I also felt there was something "suspicious" about Richard Starkey aka Ringo, Fingo, Blingo whatever. Thankyou for those pics of Ringo...when was he last seen without those shades and beard? There was tv advertisement on British tv circa 2012 showing Ringo riding in back seat of a limo and saying, "Would I be where I am today if I was still called Richard Starkey?" good question. I haven't really looked at George so far, however, I do feel there is something potentially linked up with his good friend, Eric Clapton, however that is another story.

[cherilyn7]

Sept 25, 2013 14:44:16 GMT -5 NothingIsReal1985 said:

Sept 19, 2013 18:44:57 GMT -5 cherilyn7 said:

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.

I guess we see differently on who's cuter; I think Ringo is, though. Have a bit of a weakness for him. All of The Beatles had great smiles, but he had the prettiest, straight pearly-white teeth (in spite of him being a smoker). I also loved his huge, pretty, expressive droopy blue eyes and strong Jewish features. But after '66 he -- along with the rest of The Featles The Beatles -- just wasn't cute anymore.

And I agree... the lips ARE thinner. Someone could interject and say, "Well, it's due to age; there's less collagen in the lips, as well as the skin, so that's why they're thinner." But the truth is that they've been that way since the '70s and he was still fairly young then (in his 30's). But back in the '60s Ringo has had full, thick, crusty, bee-stung kissable lips. Also notice his (left) eyebrow, and how they're filled in in the before photos:
BEFORE (1963 and 1964, in "A Hard Day's Night"):



AFTER:




[I[

"The fact that these "masters" always have a fetish for sunglasses is what gives it away. It's like they want to observe the people around them without anyone knowing what or who they are observing." -Tobin

"The sunglasses symbolize the fact that they are looking inside themselves, its the power of consciousness that shapes the world we live in." -Bryan

"Its also to hide the reptilian EYES..." -Anonymous

Now I know why -- at least part of the reason -- he does this. Found it out last night on said site. 

As for Maureen... couldn't STAND her. Would rather elaborate later on; just ain't up to it now. But all I'll say is both her and Yoko would make the ideal roommates.

Yes, NothingisReal1985, I think we will have to agree to differ on whether Jimmy Nichol or Ringo was "cuter" ...the fact is I believe it all points to an attempt to replace Ringo at that time, 1964...even Ringo seemed worried, saying he "didn't think they loved me any more". Re Maureen, I was shocked to read in Pattie Boyd's book "Wonderful Tonight" that George and Maureen had an affair; George apparently revealing this to Ringo at a New Year's Eve party at Ringo's house, with Ringo running out into the garden saying, "Nothing is real!" Maureen used to wait up for Ringo when he returned from touring or recording in the early hours and cook him a Sunday roast: she was so devoted to her husband. If George wanted an affair, why pick Maureen? When Jimmy Nichol was brought in to stand in for the "sick Ringo" on tour, George threatened to walk out due to loyalty to his friend. This does not make sense. George would not be disloyal to accept a "stand in drummer" for ten days (but not a problem to have a tryst with his wife).

[cherilyn7]

Sept 24, 2013 17:19:35 GMT -5 vOOdOOgurU said:

Sept 24, 2013 17:10:02 GMT -5 cherilyn7 said:

Did Paul McCartney attend his friend Tara Browne's funeral? Though only a few months earlier he had attended Tara's 21st birthday party in Luggala, Ireland. However, it seems that with all this facial hair becoming proliferous on the Beatles; and various comings and goings plus relationship changes starting in this period too; also John started wearing the granny glasses after playing the bespectacled Private Gripweed in "How I Won The War" (apparently not widely distributed). If you study the pictures of the time, it certainly appears we are looking at different individuals from pre 1966.

Haven't found a single thing stating any Beatle attended Browne's funeral, let alone McCartney.

That is most odd considering the people who attended Tara's 21st birthday party.
I also agree, that George Martin was doing the composing of those musical scores and putting it out under the name of Paul McCartney. Those kind of "instrumental soundtracks" never sold well anyway. It also diversified Paul/Faul as a bona fide multi faceted musician moving away from the left handed bass player image. I think that as well as George Martin having a big input/composing music etc that there were other people writing a good deal of that Lennon/McCartney material as well as Mal Evans input; people like Donovan I feel may have "ghostwritten" songs (he went to Rishikesh too so was in that inner circle: fading from the music scene at the height of his popularity having written "Jennifer Juniper" for Pattie Harrison's sister Jenny Boyd); I ask the question, was he on the payroll?
You mention about the members of Wings not getting paid. There was a story by Denny Laine in a British Sunday paper saying that he was paid £50 per week. Denny Laine had also sold the copyright of his best song, "Go Now" which was a number one hit for the Moody Blues when he was lead singer in 1964. He sold the copyright to skiffle singer, Lonnie Donegan when the group were broke for £50. Denny's ex wife Jo Jo (the Jo Jo in "Get Back") died in 1994 after falling down the stairs. As for Jimmy McCullough, he had been working with Steve Marriott in a Small Faces revival before he was found dead in his flat.

[NothingIsReal1985]

Sept 25, 2013 15:52:10 GMT -5 cherilyn7 said:

I find that image very disturbing, but thankyou NothingisReal1985 for posting it. Re replacements of the other Beatles; I have looked at Paul (I only discovered this stuff last year) then I started to see something not right about John (who was my favourite until he went off with Yoko (did anyone still find him attractive after that?)

If that image is too disturbing for you (or anyone else) then I'll be glad to take it down. Luckily it's just a drawing and NOT an actual photo... at least I HOPE not (but I still believe that JPM is deceased, though).

Although I love all of The Beatles equally (and also find them equally attractive and thought their different looks, shapes & personalities melded together pretty well, as if they were soul-mates, lol), John Lennon was my main squeeze. Loved his square jaw, firm, pert backside, peaches 'n cream complexion, whereas Fohn Fennon(s) had a more strawberries 'n cream one, but more on the complexion comparisons later beautiful, shapely, toned arms & legs that didn't have much hair on them, distinctive nose, slightly crooked teeth, doll-like mouth, gummy smile, bushy eyebrows, eyes that seemed to switch between hazel & brown, slightly prominent cheekbones, curvy overall figure, large manly hands (that someone said were very soft), thin lips (that weren't too thin like Fohn Fennon's were, Lol), hair, etc. To me he was perfect... at least physically. He had -- like what I read in a book years ago -- what I like to call "medical textbook anatomy".

I am also struck by how Asian/Oriental he looks [which is a good thing, I might add]. It wouldn't surprise me the least if he & Yoko were some kind of distant cousins. 

Although Fohn Fennon(s) "John Lennon(s)" looked somewhat cute in SOME post-'66 pictures and those are in the minority, being few & far in between overall he was no longer gorgeous [nor curvaceous, clean-cut, had good hair, well-dressed, slightly stocky, fit and muscular] post-'66. Even when John Lennon -- as well as the rest of The Beatles -- forged ahead with their ridiculously funny disguises [in Help! in 1965 in the airport] to the 1969's Abbey Road look he was cute. (He looked like either a homeless man, pioneer mountain man (from that rather stupid, popular, overrated show here in The States, Duck Dynasty) or and [old] Jewish rabbi, Lol; so did JPM, George & Ringo). I do, however thought that was simultaneously creepy and subliminally foreshadowed something rather sinister. YOU do the math on that. If you don't get it, then I'll be glad to explain it.

Moving on... I can understand that everyone has different tastes and all, but IMO they'd have to be absolutely insane to find "John(s)" attractive after 1966. Never did like that beatnik, hippie, bum-like, just-rolled-outta-bed-and-ain't-had-a-bath/shower-in-a-long-time look. It makes absolutely NO sense that people don't put any effort -- especially today -- into looking decent before leaving the house. People don't even know how to dress to go out in public anymore, unfortunately.

[NothingIsReal1985]

Sept 25, 2013 15:52:10 GMT -5 cherilyn7 said:

...and I also felt there was something "suspicious" about Richard Starkey aka Ringo, Fingo, Blingo whatever. Thank you for those pics of Ringo...when was he last seen without those shades and beard? There was tv advertisement on British tv circa 2012 showing Ringo riding in back seat of a limo and saying, "Would I be where I am today if I was still called Richard Starkey?" good question. I haven't really looked at George so far, however, I do feel there is something potentially linked up with his good friend, Eric Clapton, however that is another story.

... or Dingo. Those nicknames gave me a chuckle, lol.

I can't think of the last time he's been w/o shades. The reason I don't always take my sunglasses off when I go inside a building is b/c I hate germs and stuff and don't like to touch my shades on my face after touching other nasty surfaces that many others have touched before me, especially if that place doesn't have a public restroom to wash up in or (if it does) if the restroom's not clean enough. It's uncomfortable keeping them on indoors (not to mention that I can't see as well b/c it's not as brightly lit inside) and I almost feel as though I'm being rude for not taking them off. So it's a bit awkward.

As for Ringo posing that hypothetical question... it reeks of something subliminal, something more sinister, if you get my drift; all you have to do is read between the lines as to what he's REALLY likely to be saying, to what he actually means by that.

I'm just grabbing straws here, but Faul getting away from the "image" of a left-handed bass-player is also points to Faul not only being an impostor-replacement for JPM, but that he's also actually born right-handed, but had to switch to the left in order to (spend the rest of his life to) impersonate Paul. Getting away from one of Paul's trademark/signature traits would make the sheeple masses less likely to tell the difference between Faul & Paul.

As for George... I have some things to share concerning him (his buddy Eric Clapton, as well as the others), but I'll get to that another time. I also have many more pictures in my hard drive that are evidence of cloning or replacements (especially in regards to JPM and the others), in addition to the supernatural & occultic side of Faul replacing JPM. Just like saving the best for last, is all. Peace.

[ticket2ride]

Sept 25, 2013 14:34:47 GMT -5 NothingIsReal1985 said:

Sept 22, 2013 5:26:09 GMT -5 ticket2ride said:

You`re welcome to your opinion but I`ve done enough homework on the Beatles and other musical artists to conclude that while the doppelganger/replacement/clone theories are interesting, few of the famous people cited as having been replaced have actually been replaced. Once people go down the track of pursuing this as hard, undeniable truth, then the lists get longer and the assertions get more insistent while in fact there is little in hard proof except for photos in most cases.

The internet has a way of running with ideas and promoting them as undeniable truth. I do not believe for one minute that artists such as Christine Aguilera, Britney Spears, Beyonce, Jay Z etc were replaced. The insistence on that idea as fact fails to accept that these people were never anything but manufactured celebrities as in Aguilera, Britney and Beyonce. They didn`t have to be replaced because they were never original artists with ideas that challenged any norms. They were manufactured singers who had their songs ghostwritten and still mostly do, and promoted tired old ideas of so called sexiness and simply rehashed the idea that women have to flash just about everything if they want to make popular music.

Jay Z was never a force for good who was supposedly replaced. He has always been a selfish scumbag who has a talent for parasitising others` experiences and resources and using them up to make his way through the music biz. After screwing over those who got  him into the music biz, he proceeded to latch onto talent such as Kanye  West to make him relevant these days. His prominence now is easy to understand ~ just do some research on how the monopolisation of the music industry has reached its peak over the past 7 yrs or so. New talent only gets accepted if they are prepared to be yes men and women, in some cases in a variation on the old Hollywood casting couch. New talent also gets signed and forced to sit out while jaded and increasingly unoriginal established artists like Beyonce and Jay Z monopolize because they have no true competition.

Aguilera, Britney, Miley Cyrus et al do reflect the nastiness of the Disney machine. They were all child stars there and research does indicate there is an ugly programming of celebrities that goes on in the entertainment industry. John Lennon took acid continuously over a period of years and then took heroin with Yoko. There are credible witnesses to the fact that both were hooked on it together. She wasn't a Svengali keeping a John double hooked while she was clean.

If you go to this two blogs (The Judiciary Report and Aisha, as well as Google and other search engines) you won't have to search far and wide to find out that Jay-Z & his phony-as-a-$3-bill wife, Beyoncé have been sued for copyright infringement and racketeering so many times it's not even funny. The Jamaican lady [Aisha, who owns the TJR and "Aisha" blogs] knows by personal experience that the aforementioned sickos, Jay-Z & Beyoncé  -- along with Madonna's tired, old, wrinkled, wannabe-young, untalented, sneaky, sleazy nasty @$$ and Rihanna (I have WAY more talent in my pinkie toenail tahn she does her entire body, BTW) -- are VERY much capable of doing mess like this. These people have spent their whole careers not only being fake, looking fake, getting plastic/cosmetic surgery [which makes people look WORSE rather than better, BTW], doing foul things & stepping on others (like others have got NO kind of feelings) to get to the top, being manufactured so-called "artists" [and I use that term VERY lightly] and doing the Illuminati's bidding, but also copying (and pasting to themselves, lol) the work, images, fashion, hairstyles/hairdos, outfits, symbols, ideals, beliefs and ideas that does NOT belong to them, but to others and passing them off as being their own (Faul, anyone?), the originators be damned. 

The last time I checked that's stealing and that's just down, out & right WRONG. The Bible says (as one of the Ten Commandments) "Thou shalt not steal". 'Nuff said.

But of course, with them being Freemasons (since the females can't be Masons, they're a part of the Eastern Star division of this sick, demonic, satanic cult), not to mention being deeply into the occult and having a large amount of clout (money & power) and favour with the Illuminati elite/international banking cartel, they've manage to get protection from any kind of prosecution, reprisal and public backlash for their thievery of the other original artists -- the ones who were TRUE artists, mind them -- material(s). If they face any humiliation for slipping up -- however & whatever THAT is -- it's only brief or it's quickly stamped out by the mainstream mass media. Furthermore being publicly humiliating is just another step up higher up in the level of initiation in Freemasonry [like what happened several years ago at the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards in regards to Taylor Swift, Beyoncé , Kanye West & Lady GaGa.

It looks as though Satan/the Devil and his crowd awards those handsomely (with the shallow things of this transient, sin-cursed world) that agree to do his/their bidding. But under ONE condition; you have to sell your soul, being indebted to him/them, and remember that the Devil always (comes back) to collect his debts. When you dance to the music, you must pay the piper afterwards. Do the crime, then you must do the time. But here's the Catch-22; he/they NEVER reveals what awaits those who serve him after this life is over (or after they die), though. 

Oh, and BTW... Yoko let it slip that Fohn Fennon "John Lennon" had several doubles, and I must admit that it doesn't sound that far-fetched to me. Matter of fact, it makes perfect sense, already knowing about not only JPM's demise back in '66, but of the rest of the Fab Four around that same time. Not only that folks can't agree on how Fohn Fennon "John Lennon" met back in October of '66, when Yoko Ono is still very much alive and can confirm &/or deny what the actual account was. There's a lot of holes in that story, as well as many others.

Thanks Nothing Is Real, yes I know there is the possibility that the other Beatles had doubles as some information indicates this, not only Paul whether he died or not. I tend to believe the real Lennon died as he posed a serious threat in terms of what he and Yoko were capable of doing to generate mass disobediance to US Govt policies. Can you imagine if they (or Martin Luther King/Malcolm X for that matter) had been around with the Occupy Movement?

Those people could have done some serious moving and shaking politically and really opposed Obama and his continuation of George Bush's policies - thse same on key points, just more supposed credibiliy because he is not Bush and there are different personnel in the present govt. How much Obama could do to change anything is highly questionable anyway - when you get elected the first time you are part of the machine and if you want to go further then you will compromise yourself.

I'm a fan of the Judiciary Report, Destinys Rehab and Sandra Rose as well as some other sites. These people are doing something extraordinary brave given the amount of pressure exerted on them in the realities of monopolies and the amalgamation of music companies with motion picture companies with all sorts of other big biz interests.

The Jay Z pic is interesting but the one on the left as you know is that of the Jay Z in his 20s without benefit of plastic surgery on his lower lip and not wearing makeup like the Jay Z of now. jay Z has also become noticeably more effete, a lot of people have commented on that, seems there could be truth to those rumours of his being into men. Whatever but when you marry for business, don't expect respect from everybody.

It's a sad thing that most of the public has been duped into thinking Jay Z is what hiphop is about when in fact he represents what it is not about and was not about even when it went mainstream. It went mainstream and was diluted in the important aspects and ramped up in the hood violence aspects but I am sure you're not surprised when we know who runs the labels and who forces the good artists to sit on the shelf while the tired old thieves of others' ideas keep getting pushed.

[beacon]

Sept 25, 2013 16:58:50 GMT -5 cherilyn7 said:

Sept 24, 2013 17:19:35 GMT -5 vOOdOOgurU said:

Haven't found a single thing stating any Beatle attended Browne's funeral, let alone McCartney.

That is most odd considering the people who attended Tara's 21st birthday party.
I also agree, that George Martin was doing the composing of those musical scores and putting it out under the name of Paul McCartney. Those kind of "instrumental soundtracks" never sold well anyway. It also diversified Paul/Faul as a bona fide multi faceted musician moving away from the left handed bass player image. I think that as well as George Martin having a big input/composing music etc that there were other people writing a good deal of that Lennon/McCartney material as well as Mal Evans input; people like Donovan I feel may have "ghostwritten" songs (he went to Rishikesh too so was in that inner circle: fading from the music scene at the height of his popularity having written "Jennifer Juniper" for Pattie Harrison's sister Jenny Boyd); I ask the question, was he on the payroll?
You mention about the members of Wings not getting paid. There was a story by Denny Laine in a British Sunday paper saying that he was paid £50 per week. Denny Laine had also sold the copyright of his best song, "Go Now" which was a number one hit for the Moody Blues when he was lead singer in 1964. He sold the copyright to skiffle singer, Lonnie Donegan when the group were broke for £50. Denny's ex wife Jo Jo (the Jo Jo in "Get Back") died in 1994 after falling down the stairs. As for Jimmy McCullough, he had been working with Steve Marriott in a Small Faces revival before he was found dead in his flat.

Personally, I am not surprised that none of the Beatles attended Tara Browne's funeral. None of them attended Brian Epstein's!

This obituary says it was a family affair.



Tara is buried at the family estate at Lugalla in Ireland where there is a memorial for him. Maybe Paul secretly visited at some point?




I found this comment recently - the bottom one - which is probably fake, but made me wonder. Anonymous unfortunately.



P.S. Jojo was a man who thought he was a loner, But he knew it couldn't last, Jojo left his home in Tucson, Arizona, For some California grass

Most likely refers to Linda McCartney's first husband Joseph Melville See who committed suicide. Never seen a photo of the guy though!

[linus]

And for those keeping track at home, McCartney did not attend Ringo's wedding to Maureen. And Starr & Lennon did not attend George's wedding to Patti.

The reasons given are due to being on vacation.



And regarding the line "he blew his mind out in a car". There was an interesting discussion recently on that here:
invanddis.proboards.com/thread/7288/sgt-pepper-drum

[cherilyn7]

Brian Epstein was best man at John and Cynthia's wedding in 1962: he was also George and Pattie's best man in 1966: all three asked Brian's permission to marry. John and Cynthia were at Ringo and Maureen's but not the other two...
Ringo seems to go to weddings.....he was at George and Olivia's and Paul and Heather and Paul and Nancy and Paul and Linda went to Ringo's to Barbara.

[cherilyn7]

Sept 25, 2013 14:48:59 GMT -5 NothingIsReal1985 said:

Sept 19, 2013 22:25:02 GMT -5 ticket2ride said:

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.
Not everyone agrees with my assessment of John's '66 replacement (à la JPM, George & Ringo), and that's okay; I accept that others won't see eye-to-eye with my (world)views concerning this and I won't force my beliefs on others. That wouldn't pan out, anyhow. But all I know is that The Beatles just were never the same (in many ways) by the end of '66 going into '67 and so on. To me their marked change in appearance just can NOT be explained away as being due to drugs, alcohol, lack of sleep, poor diet & nutrition, weight gain &/or loss, aging (whether it's a natural process or premature), being sex slaves/toys for dirty, fat, ugly, old gross men, and other (unhealthy lifestyles) ways people live life on the fast lane. That said, it just seems like folks making excuses for their tremendous change(s) [post '66] are just grasping at straws and in denial as to the possibilities concerning the demise (of ALL of the original members of The Beatles) by the end of '66, unfortunately.

NothingisReal1985, I agree with you that it isn't just the drugs, lack of sleep,etc that would cause people to change so much in physical appearance. Especally people with the wealth and being able to take a holiday when they like, no expense spared! How does ticket2ride explain the discrepancies in height? Also, clean shaven then within a few months beards and moustaches (some of these looked fake I think Paul/Faul's bushy black beard was fake)...if someone has scars on chin/lower face you can't just grow a beard and it will be covered up as where the scar tissue is the follicles will be missing, leaving patches in the stubble growth. There are photos circa 1970 with Paul in the light pink suit and George in striped orange trousers: to me, on close inspection, these pictures are of four imposters. (I'm not able to put the photo on thread, maybe someone can do that for comparison, please?)

[cherilyn7]

I can't think of the last time he's been w/o shades.
As for Ringo posing that hypothetical question... it reeks of something subliminal, something more sinister, if you get my drift; all you have to do is read between the lines as to what he's REALLY likely to be saying, to what he actually means by that.

I'm just grabbing straws here, but Faul getting away from the "image" of a left-handed bass-player is also points to Faul not only being an impostor-replacement for JPM, but that he's also actually born right-handed, but had to switch to the left in order to (spend the rest of his life to) impersonate Paul. Getting away from one of Paul's trademark/signature traits would make the sheeple masses less likely to tell the difference between Faul & Paul.

As for George... I have some things to share concerning him (his buddy Eric Clapton, as well as the others), but I'll get to that another time. I also have many more pictures in my hard drive that are evidence of cloning or replacements (especially in regards to JPM and the others), in addition to the supernatural & occultic side of Faul replacing JPM. Just like saving the best for last, is all. Peace. [/quote]
***********************************************************************************************************
Yes looking at the close up of Ringo/Dingo with shades you can see his eyes and they are more "wide open" than when young. Well eyes don't become more "open"; the eyelids droop more so that must be caused by surgery, however, those eyes look "haunted".

You are right what you say about how John had a good physique and a lovely smile; a very attractive man: how could he become so different after 1968? Yes, people can re-invent themselves but he became unattractive and then after being, instead of admired, ridiculed then becoming a virtual hermit in his Dakota home. (Oddly, Brian Epstein took a trip to New York in 1963 with Billy J Kramer. This is how Billy's name was picked out of the New York phone book and his backing group being named The Dakotas...)

[cherilyn7]

Another thing I have noticed; how many photos of The Beatles have Paul with bare feet, holding a cigarette or wearing different clothes to the other three. I think on many of those publicity photos, the person "being Paul" is wearing a Beatle wig. In stage appearances, you can tell when it is the "real Paul" not one of the others; I won't even call them doubles as they are not but try to look the part. I know VoodooGuru believes there was no "real Paul", but there was a person born as James Paul McCartney in 1942 and when you see the magic you can see who is who. Doubles or replacements just don't have the "essence" of the original. It is like some people just have "it" like Jim Morrison, others can try to imitate but he didn't even have to try!

I think something that gives it away is that JPM would never have had his wife in the band (especially if she could not sing or play an instrument). Why would he want to? Why would she want to? There was something odd about Wings to say the least. I would say, at a guess, there have been as many as 8 people playing Paul as major impersonators. Don't forget, when Billy whoever/Phil Ackrill took over in 1966/67 ( I think 2 simultaneously did the role while one had surgery): JPM was 24 in 1966 but the Billy character was about 31 that's why Paul did not look "cute" any more he had suddenly aged about 7 years. If Jensen Rufe is correct and Bill died in 1977 then the other one took over (Phil Akrill?) Is this why Denny Laine was invited to join Wings as they had been friends from the old days?

You said NothingisReal1985 that Yoko admitted that John had doubles; that would not have been difficult. When John started wearing the NHS type glasses, it became a fashion and guys did copy him and there were people around who "looked like John Lennon"....

[superman]

Sept 27, 2013 19:17:25 GMT -5 cherilyn7 said:

If Jensen Rufe is correct and Bill died in 1977 then the other one took over (Phil Akrill?)

I think the "Bill" who replaced one of the Pauls after 66 is the same guy we see now MOST OF THE TIME. But during his time as a Beatle there appears to have been temporary stand-ins, but eventually the regular Faul would return. Not sure why this was done ... probably a mindscrew thing just to mess with people's heads. Even recent photo ops you can tell that that the current Paul has an old haggardly double that he uses now and then. But when it comes to interviews and so on its that same guy from way back in 67. My opinion anyway.

I don't even think the Paul most consider to be the original is the true Paul. I think TheGoldenAgent (or was that Grandfather Aleister?)was probably correct when he asserted that James Paul McCartney died when he was just 17. You know what I mean?

[ticket2ride]

There are photos of Paul around the time they started to make it, looking like a gumby and similar to this childhood photo although the face is thinner in keeping with the adult he became. The shape of his face in those photos is like that of the original photo taken on the balcony of the EMI building. At that stage some of his photos made him look rather dumpy and certainly not the hearthrob of later. Typically people go through those kinds of facial changes at a young age, especially going from boys to men.

The reference to somebody saying Paul died at 17 is an example of the usual problems of trying to get real information as opposed to assertions which comprise too much of the Paul is Dead, Paul died at 17, Paul died at 24 etc claims. I'm open to the theory as truth but there has to be better evidence and even better hearsay - if the comments are coming directly from people we know were close to Paul then I am prepared to believe it.

But the anonymity of the internet and the 'I heard this but I am not telling you who I am or showing you any evidence I knew Paul and his family or grew up in Liverpool' or whatever can't expect serious attention except by those who believe in this religiously as fact without being able to produce a single contact who is credible. I'm prepared to believe Paul died at 17 if something credible can be produced in the way of people or information but all the assertions are just what seems flakey about the PID case.

It seems there are people on here who do have genuine information and I am guessing are older than some others which puts them in the position to have heard genuine information. While my opinion about Neil Aspinall posting here is that he enjoyed stirring the pot in his old age, it seems that the fact he chose this forum means there are credible posters on here. They need to post more often.

In a thread I started I asked for the Apple Scruffs to make themselves known and tell us what they think. There are PID arguers who probably don't even know what I am talking about. I got one response from Jake who posted an interesting picture of Paul McCartney's changed face but the fact is one real person who used to hang around Paul McCartney's home in London with the other Scruffs and can give us a firsthand account is far more credible than a photo which may or may not be doctored.

[Deleted]

Sept 28, 2013 21:30:44 GMT -5 ticket2ride said:

In a thread I started I asked for the Apple Scruffs to make themselves known and tell us what they think. There are PID arguers who probably don't even know what I am talking about. 

www.goodreads.com/book/show/2507664.Waiting_For_The_Beatles

[cherilyn7]

Sept 28, 2013 19:59:17 GMT -5 superman said:

Sept 27, 2013 19:17:25 GMT -5 cherilyn7 said:

If Jensen Rufe is correct and Bill died in 1977 then the other one took over (Phil Akrill?)

I think the "Bill" who replaced one of the Pauls after 66 is the same guy we see now MOST OF THE TIME. But during his time as a Beatle there appears to have been temporary stand-ins, but eventually the regular Faul would return. Not sure why this was done ... probably a mindscrew thing just to mess with people's heads. Even recent photo ops you can tell that that the current Paul has an old haggardly double that he uses now and then. But when it comes to interviews and so on its that same guy from way back in 67. My opinion anyway.

I don't even think the Paul most consider to be the original is the true Paul. I think TheGoldenAgent (or was that Grandfather Aleister?)was probably correct when he asserted that James Paul McCartney died when he was just 17. You know what I mean?

************************************************************************************************************
I find the photo above shows a startling resemblance with John Halliday the "Custodian of Forthlin Road"! The shape of the face and features are virtually identical.

There is certainly a discrepancy in photos circa 1962 and the "cute" Paul of 1963 then there seems a different person in 1965 culminating in end of 1966 a moustached Faul (I feel at this time 2 individuals, one probably undergoing surgery also practicing left hand bass being naturally right handed). The clothes changed again with Wings (braces and tartan shirt and mullet hairstyle)....This person may have disappeared circa 1977 and another 2 individuals took over the role. This is how it is starting to look.

[Deleted]

Sept 28, 2013 19:59:17 GMT -5 superman said:

[cherilyn7]

knowthe411
For Sale




Posts: 124
"There are two Paul McCartney's" - Phoney Prophecy Nov 24, 2009 at 9:05am Quote
Select PostDeselect PostLink to PostReport PostMemberSend MessageGive GiftBack to Top.
.Post by knowthe411 on Nov 24, 2009 at 9:05amI don't agree with the "Paul doubled for John" theory at all. Each of the four had their doubles. The real Paul has had two main doubles, so there are 3 Pauls with apparently a couple of others who fill in = so 5 Pauls in all, plus Cecile Pearl Witherington who just died at age 93 - so 6.

John Lennon, the real one, also had one guy as a double. This is the thin guy who kept losing weight (because Yoko Ono had him on heroin). He's the one who lived in NY and he's the one who was shot. The real John Lennon is in Toronto.
************************************************************************************************************* I thought the above was very interesting and this links in what myself and NothingisReal1985 have been saying.
*************************************************************************************************************
I take it Lucy that you are pointing out the resemblance between Paul's mother, Mary and Nancy Shevell?

[cherilyn7]

However, I don't agree with the part about Pearl Witherington: how could a lady of 90 pose as a male guitar player? Or have I missed something?

[NothingIsReal1985]

Sept 25, 2013 21:35:24 GMT -5 ticket2ride said:

Thanks Nothing Is Real, yes I know there is the possibility that the other Beatles had doubles as some information indicates this, not only Paul whether he died or not. I tend to believe the real Lennon died as he posed a serious threat in terms of what he and Yoko were capable of doing to generate mass disobedience to US gov't policies. Can you imagine if they (or Martin Luther King/Malcolm X for that matter) had been around with the Occupy Movement?

Those people could have done some serious moving and shaking politically and really opposed Obama and his continuation of George Bush's policies -- these same on key points, just more supposed credibility because he is not Bush and there are different personnel in the present gov't. How much Obama could do to change anything is highly questionable anyway -- when you get elected the first time you are part of the machine and if you want to go further then you will compromise yourself.

Sincerest apologies for being away for so long; my Internet's been out for the past 5 days (my mum's pretty irresponsible with money, so that's why the digital cable & World Wide Web got cut off) and I thought I'd go nuts being w/o it. That said, it's good to be back; I've had the time of my life exposing these phony celebs for who they really are.

We'll agree to disagree about when Lennon died. But all I'll say is that much of what the media pumps out -- especially in regards to history and its famous figures -- is inaccurate, told and slanted/bias the way THEY want the dumbed-down, brainwashed sheeple masses (who can't think for themselves anyway and think that whatever the Illuminati-controlled mainstream mass media spews out must be the gospel truth) to believe. Like Joseph Goebbels said:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” -Joseph Goebbels (a German politician and Nazi Reich Minister of Propaganda, 1933-1945)

You got your (and mines, too) answer as to why Malcolm X & Martin Luther King, Jr. were eliminated back in the '60s.

Even from day one I always knew there was something sinister about Barack Obama (who was really born in the Philippines and his real name is Barry Soetero [sp?]). Those of us in the know could read between the lines as to what Obama and his handlers meant by the term "Change". No one gets elected the U.S. President (or the president, prime minister or any other leader of any other nation in this world) unless he is a 33rd° Freemason; it's been that way from day one (from our first pres, George Washington).

[NothingIsReal1985]

Sept 25, 2013 21:35:24 GMT -5 ticket2ride said:

I'm a fan of the Judiciary Report, Destiny's Rehab and Sandra Rose as well as some other sites. These people are doing something extraordinary brave given the amount of pressure exerted on them in the realities of monopolies and the amalgamation of music companies with motion picture companies with all sorts of other big biz interests.

The Jay-Z pic is interesting but the one on the left as you know is that of the Jay-Z in his 20's without benefit of plastic surgery on his lower lip and not wearing makeup like the Jay Z of now. Jay-Z has also become noticeably more effeminate, a lot of people have commented on that, seems there could be truth to those rumours of his being into men. Whatever but when you marry for business, don't expect respect from everybody.

It's a sad thing that most of the public has been duped into thinking Jay-Z is what hip-hop is about when in fact he represents what it is not about and was not about even when it went mainstream. It went mainstream and was diluted in the important aspects and ramped up in the hood violence aspects but I am sure you're not surprised when we know who runs the labels and who forces the good artists to sit on the shelf while the tired old thieves of others' ideas keep getting pushed.

Strange that I brought those sites/blogs, b/c you happen to know about them. [Another good one is Diary of a Hollywood Street King; there's a lot of tea over there, especially in the comments section.] But unfortunately all Aisha seems to post about these days is (mostly) Chris Brown (and Black/Vietnamese main squeeze gf Karrueche Tran) and his jump-off-piece-of-tail Rihanna, Justin Bieber and his gf Selena Gómez who he's shacking up with, Drake, and other uninteresting, non-talented, overrated, boring, unattractive celebs, so I seldom go over there now.

Yeah, b/c Aisha often complains about Madonna and her handlers and others from that horrible Kabbalah cult stalking and harassing her because she dares to expose them for who they really are. She even had lyrics (that she herself wrote) copied, changed a bit and given to other artists to record [like manufactured so-called recording "artists" like Beyoncé, Rihanna, American Idol vets Kelly Clarkson and Carrie Underwood] to either be hit songs (or singles) &/or be on their albums, and without her (Aisha's) permission. And unfortunately these people happen to avoid any kind of criminal prosecution for copyright infringement, drug & human trafficking, hacking, stalking, harassment, racketeering, Ponzi schemes, etc.

It appears that Jigga the bitch-ass nigga has either been replaced or had plastic/cosmetic surgery to downplay his camel-like features (lol). He also looks like he's bleached his skin like a dark-skinned woman wanting to be lighter would do. As far as him being bi-sexual... and it could be just hood gossip that I know for sure. I even heard that Camel & Kanye West had a fling at one time. I also heard (thru the grapevine) that Camel-face went the typical "casting couch" route got gang-banged in order for him to get a record deal, not unlike many others before & after him. You couldn't make this stuff up if you tried. 

Since Hova is sold out to TPTB the aforementioned have rewarded him handsomely by making it so that he is promoted constantly, being in the general public's faces constantly (a la the Kartrashians [Lol]) via the mainstream mass media. As a result the Illuminati give him -- as well as the gullible masses that think rainbows and pots of gold come out of his ass -- an inflated sense of important. They make Jigga out to be ALL of this and that, when he's NOTHING as far as I'm concerned. Every damn time I turn around many of these so-called "stars" or celebs are frequently being shoved down our [collective] throats, whether we like/want it or not. THAT'S how I know the mass mainstream media is strongly (and closely) controlled by the global banking cartel, who's main aim is depopulation and bringing about the New World Order, to sum things up.

Many times when Illumanati magazines like Forbes and Parade (as well as these silly, idiotic celebrity news outlets) announce/tell what these celebs/stars are worth, they're either:

1) lying and/or exaggerating in order to either impress and/or make us common-folk green with envy at how much these people earn in one year and/or,

2) merely giving their GROSS worth (total salary earned), as opposed to their NET worth, which is no doubt MUCH less than the GROSS amount the mainstream mass media brags about constantly. 

Because think about it; the GROSS (total) money these stars/celebrities get... well, there's NO way on this earth that they can keep all of it for themselves. Many times it's (and that includes the houses, cars, private jets, flats/apartments, penthouses, and other costly properties, etc.) either borrowed. Moreover, ALL of that money (let's say, i.e., $100 million, usually MOST of the royalties and other monies earned from making & selling films, fragrances, records and other kinds of merchandise) is spread around/taken out for taxes -- if they're not guilty of tax evasion -- and to pay off their handlers management, entourage, personal assistants, record companies & their executives and other staff, agents, promoters, representatives, writers, producers, directors, composers, bands, orchestras, recording [or movie &/or television] studios and the time in which they are rented, stage hands, drivers, maids, nannies (if there's children involved) and many others [including staff I haven't mentioned] involved in the creation of records, movies, television shows, touring, etc. By the time all of the money from the GROSS pay is taken out what these stars/celebs earn, then the NET worth [what's left over after what I've just mentioned] or pay is likely MUCH less than what the GROSS pay was in the first place.

That said, this goes to show that this (stars/celebs GROSS worth, as opposed to their NET worth) is one of MANY things that the general public has been duped about for a long time.

[NothingIsReal1985]

cherilyn,

Since I've just had a family conflict which ended w/ me in tears and just down right angry, marginalized & frustrated [on top of the fact that I'm hungry and it's gotten too dark and late for me to go out and get something to eat] I can't quite concentrate enough to share my thoughts concerning our current topic. I'll have to come back later when I've calmed down, had a decent meal and have a clear enough mind to continue this conversation. But in the meantime I'll post more images further proving this replacement business. 

Furthermore, sincerest apologies for being M.I.A./MIA (missing in action) for so long; my Internet's been out for the past 5 days (my mum's pretty irresponsible with money, so that's why the digital cable & World Wide Web got cut off) and I thought I'd go nuts being w/o it. That said, it's good to be back; I've had the time of my life exposing these phony celebs for who they really are.  BBL (be back later). Peace.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
The above photo is one example of the many pics of JPM that have been tampered with just so JPM's face is more elongated, like Faul's (Bill's). But I'll go into that later on, since it's pretty hard for me. It's just so messed up how far these people -- whoever they are -- will go just to keep this stinking hot mess [concerning Paul's murder and subsequent permanent replacement(s)] in the dark. It's so jacked up that I just won't get into it now. It's just terrible how they not only doctor Paul's photos to look more like the Faul(s), which is UGLIER like the Faul(s) and Fauls' Faul's images to look more like JPM's, which are PRETTIER. I don't know about anyone else, but hogwash & claptrap like this totally & utterly REEKS of desperation. I don't know who these IDIOTS think they're foolin', but they ain't foolin' ME. *MAJOR eye-roll*

10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.