Was Faul an actual clone?

[privyprincess]

It just dawned on me that Faul could have been an actual clone of Paul's.

I mean, who's to say that the technology wasn't around in the 60s to create a human clone?

They don't admit to human cloning now, so you know they surely wouldn't have admitted it to it then.


Knowing that Tavistock and the BRF had a hand in the Beatles becoming who they were, it makes it all the more plausible that Faul was simply a rapidly aged clone of Paul rather than a look alike who was given PS to look more like Paul.


What do you think?

[ramone]

Maybe, who knows.
The thing is - Faul really isn't a twin of Paul. Sometimes he looks pretty close and other times - not as much.
Plus you would think Faul would be almost the same height but he's clearly much taller.

[joseph]

Faul cannot be a clone of Paul because they would have had to have cloned Paul in the 40s and DNA wasn't discovered until the 50s and you're still four decades away from cloning an animal.

What is going through your mind when you say "an actual clone?" I know what an actual clone is because I studied biological sciences (ecology) at university. I've still got my lab coat in the wardrobe, I could clone you now. The trouble is, I couldn't make that clone the same age as you, and the same stage of development as you.

A biological clone has the same DNA in every one of its cell nuclei. There are trillions of cells in the human body. You just can't replace the DNA in trillions of cells. Homo sapien has a determination growth and development. Cell multiplication is actually governed by that DNA molecule and the molecules it creates. You can't hypercharge the growth of an animal in a "cloning vat" (ugh)

What I would have to do to clone you is take a cell from your body, remove the DNA from the cell nucleus, get an embryo at it's first stage of fertilisation, remove the DNA from that cell and replace it with your. The rest of the proces is the same as in vitro fertilisation. The embryo is placed in a female womb and it grows like a normal fetus. When it's born do a DNA test and it will have the same DNA test result as you.

Now if I wanted to replace you with your clone I'd have a difficult job, because your clone is a baby. I don't think I'd get away with it.

The actual science of cloning does not prevent the people in charge of imposter replacements and all the shenanigans in the media that distract from it, from getting their people to paint images of cloning vats and writing bs stories about clones. Biological cloning is not like cloning credit card. It's not like taking a piece of plastic and putting the relevant data on it of the card you want to clone... but replacing someone with an imposter is like cloning a credit card.

You take another human being and you slap on the relevant data. Then you've got full spectrum dominance of the mainstream media, the alternative media, the Internet, the conspiracy theory framework. All that and more to either accept the imposter as the original or make them think that something else has happened.

[ekauqodielak]

Dec 17, 2023 1:16:46 GMT -5 privyprincess said:

It just dawned on me that Faul could have been an actual clone of Paul's.

I mean, who's to say that the technology wasn't around in the 60s to create a human clone?

They don't admit to human cloning now, so you know they surely wouldn't have admitted it to it then.


Knowing that Tavistock and the BRF had a hand in the Beatles becoming who they were, it makes it all the more plausible that Faul was simply a rapidly aged clone of Paul rather than a look alike who was given PS to look more like Paul.


What do you think?

I don't believe there are any functional clones.

[privyprincess]

Dec 20, 2023 20:01:15 GMT -5 joseph said:

Faul cannot be a clone of Paul because they would have had to have cloned Paul in the 40s and DNA wasn't discovered until the 50s and you're still four decades away from cloning an animal.

What is going through your mind when you say "an actual clone?" I know what an actual clone is because I studied biological sciences (ecology) at university. I've still got my lab coat in the wardrobe, I could clone you now. The trouble is, I couldn't make that clone the same age as you, and the same stage of development as you.

A biological clone has the same DNA in every one of its cell nuclei. There are trillions of cells in the human body. You just can't replace the DNA in trillions of cells. Homo sapien has a determination growth and development. Cell multiplication is actually governed by that DNA molecule and the molecules it creates. You can't hypercharge the growth of an animal in a "cloning vat" (ugh)

What I would have to do to clone you is take a cell from your body, remove the DNA from the cell nucleus, get an embryo at it's first stage of fertilisation, remove the DNA from that cell and replace it with your. The rest of the proces is the same as in vitro fertilisation. The embryo is placed in a female womb and it grows like a normal fetus. When it's born do a DNA test and it will have the same DNA test result as you.

Now if I wanted to replace you with your clone I'd have a difficult job, because your clone is a baby. I don't think I'd get away with it.

The actual science of cloning does not prevent the people in charge of imposter replacements and all the shenanigans in the media that distract from it, from getting their people to paint images of cloning vats and writing bs stories about clones. Biological cloning is not like cloning credit card. It's not like taking a piece of plastic and putting the relevant data on it of the card you want to clone... but replacing someone with an imposter is like cloning a credit card.

You take another human being and you slap on the relevant data. Then you've got full spectrum dominance of the mainstream media, the alternative media, the Internet, the conspiracy theory framework. All that and more to either accept the imposter as the original or make them think that something else has happened.

You can rapidly age a clone. The technology has been there to do so.

The only problem.is that their telomeres are already halfed, which means by the time you get them.out on the market, they've already started aging like crap.

Clones are typically reupped on a quarterly basis.

[joseph]

A human clone is just another human. If you can rapidly age a clone you can rapidly age a human.