Paul McCartney

[sherlok]

Nov 24, 2008 9:52:21 GMT -5 davestewart said:

The above image puts to rest all these silly rumours. Paul in school, and Paul in 2002. End.

Uh, I don't think so. ;D

[faulconandsnowjob]

The above image puts to rest all these silly rumours. Paul in school, and Paul in 2002. End.

LOL!

[lostworld]

Nov 23, 2008 20:22:40 GMT -5 davestewart said:

So I see you've made absolutely no effort to address the fact that the laugh is the same and they look the same from the Hamburg pic and the fashion show pic.

Dave Stewart,
I don´t know if you, for your own amusement, just want to mess with the good people here who takes this all very seriously or if you´re actually being serious.

I´m all for debate and having different opinions though.

My "speciality" isn´t Paul but other replaced celebs but since you don´t believe that Paul was replaced, who is the no.1 name in these discussions, you certainly don´t believe in that either.
Neither do you believe that people are already being cloned, mindcontrolled and killed off just to serve those in power´s evil agenda.

Since I´m not a Paul-expert I can even go so far that I agree with you that in some pics I´m confused with how alike Faul and Paul can look sometimes. Those pics are rare exceptions though.

But that´s why I also can understand why the sheeple can get fooled, they don´t see it cause they don´t look for it.
They assume - just like you seem to do - that everything is as it´s presented to us. That is very dangerous and also sad I think.

Open your eyes Dave Stewart. Maybe something in you is on the right way since you find sites like these. Let´s hope.

C´mon - being a sheeple is not cool!


I like to sign off by passing the question back to you: why do you make absolutely no effort to address this fact:

There was no reason for Paul to wear brown eye contacts back then (where contacts even in use then?).
And there is certainly no reason for Faul to wear blue ones today, so logicly this must be his real eyecolour
that he just forgot to hide this particular day.

And btw - just because you have the same laugh as someone doesn´t mean that you ARE that person. Many people have the same laugh as their father, sister, or as some celebrity - just something in their appearance that you recognize.
There are also many good impersonators - both official and unoffical ones - that easily can fool you. Especially they fool people like you DS...

Also,
If not being told and trained to think that both these guys are Paul McCartney - would you have believed it? Be honest now...

[faulconandsnowjob]

"where contacts even in use then?"

Color-tinted contacts were not available to the general public until the early '80's (Cibavision?), I believe. However, the state of technology is generally at least 20 yrs ahead of what is available commercially. Either there was a brown-eyed Faul, or the current Faul wore brown contacts back then.

"There are also many good impersonators - both official and unoffical ones - that easily can fool you."

Oh, definitely. A professional would attempt to master everything - signature, mannerisms, accent, even playing left-handed. Bill has just gotten lazy b/c he knows no one will catch on. Maybe he actually wants people to catch on, so he lets things slip.

Anyway, it would be nice for Dave Stewart to address the different eye color & the different profiles. Faul's is obviously much weaker than Paul's. Look at the chin.

And in other news... PID made 14th greatest "conspiracy theory" of all time:

14. PAUL IS DEAD
“Paul is dead” is an urban legend alleging that Paul McCartney died in a car crash 1966 and was replaced by a look-alike and sound-alike. "Evidence" for McCartney’s death consists of “clues” found among the Beatles’ many recordings. Hundreds have been cited at various times by various people. They include statements allegedly heard when a song is played backwards, symbolism found in obscure lyrics, and ambiguous imagery on album covers. A few of them are well known, such as the fact that McCartney is the only barefooted Beatle and is out of step with the others on the cover of Abbey Road, pictured.

From hhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/3483477/The-30-greatest-conspiracy-theories-part-1.html

I love how it doesn't mention how Faul doesn't look like Paul as a "clue." Also amusing is that most of those "conspiracy theories" are actually true!

[lostworld]

Color-tinted contacts were not available to the general public until the early '80's (Cibavision?), I believe.
True Faulcon, it´s me that is tired... I was thinking of regular ones, but even those weren´t launched until sometime in the mid 60' s approx.

However, the state of technology is generally at least 20 yrs ahead of what is available commercially. Either there was a brown-eyed Faul, or the current Faul wore brown contacts back then.
Right. Either way they had no reason to put brown contacts in the real Paul (if he for any reason had been blue/green eyed as "Paul" is today ). I hope I make sense, I just twist it around a bit...
So it´s true what you say here:
Bill has just gotten lazy b/c he knows no one will catch on.

Anyway, it would be nice for Dave Stewart to address the different eye color & the different profiles. Faul's is obviously much weaker than Paul's. Look at the chin.
Yeah, I´ve seen that too. Especially in some angles Paul's chin is very prominent.

Looking forward to Dave´s answer! If he has one.

[beatlies]

Nov 24, 2008 16:45:46 GMT -5 lostworld said:

Color-tinted contacts were not available to the general public until the early '80's (Cibavision?), I believe.
True Faulcon, it´s me that is tired... I was thinking of regular ones, but even those weren´t launched until sometime in the mid 60' s approx.

However, the state of technology is generally at least 20 yrs ahead of what is available commercially. Either there was a brown-eyed Faul, or the current Faul wore brown contacts back then.
Right. Either way they had no reason to put brown contacts in the real Paul (if he for any reason had been blue/green eyed as "Paul" is today ). I hope I make sense, I just twist it around a bit...
So it´s true what you say here:
Bill has just gotten lazy b/c he knows no one will catch on.

Anyway, it would be nice for Dave Stewart to address the different eye color & the different profiles. Faul's is obviously much weaker than Paul's. Look at the chin.
Yeah, I´ve seen that too. Especially in some angles Paul's chin is very prominent.

Looking forward to Dave´s answer! If he has one.

Contact lenses were used by people in the general public by the 1950s. The first hard lens form public use was developed in 1949. John Lennon was continually wearing hard contact lenses by the time the Beatles became famous in 1963.

I have no doubt that spy agencies were issuing their agents "cosmetic" contact lenses solely for changing their eye color by the 1950s. Changing Faul's eye color in 1966/1967 would have been no problem, but maybe uncomfortable at times for her/him.

Non-prescription c.l.s just for changing eye color did not become available to the public until the 1980s.

[lostworld]

Thanks Beatlies. My mistake, though I looked it up.
So they where in use already in the 50' s...

[davestewart]

For the record, I AM being serious. Secondly, I'm perfectly open minded, but at the same time don't assume that just because the majority believe something, that thing is untrue. The majority believe 2+2 = 4, that does not mean they are sheep, it also does not mean they are wrong.

Of course neither should one assume the majority always to be correct.

It's not about how many people think that the Paul McCartney is Dead theories are true or who do not believe, it's about the actual theories themselves. So don't try and call me a sheep just because I'm playing this one straight and not alligning myself to every crazy theory that comes my way.

I posted the image of young Paul and old Paul, from his school class and 2002, which I continue to say is easily the same person. All one person had to say was "Uh I don't think so!" No one else had anything to say on these photos, I wonder? Maybe, in fact, definately because they show the same man and therefore disprove their theory.

Regarding Paul's eyes, they were hazel, they are hazel. The picture you've posted of old Paul in the pink shirt has something off with the lighting.

Brown:



Alternatively it may be that Paul wears blue eye contacts now and again, if indeed you actually have definitive evidence of any blue in his eyes.

In answer to your question, would I believe it was the same man? Yes I would because age can change people in many ways, his facial features are the same, you're just relying on angles and colour distortion. What a load of absolute crazy nonsense.

I can't believe I'm even wasting my time with all this, I'm just as bad as you lot. Paul McCartney is alive and is the same man he was in 1962.

[faulconandsnowjob]

"I posted the image of young Paul and old Paul, from his school class and 2002, which I continue to say is easily the same person. All one person had to say was "Uh I don't think so!" No one else had anything to say on these photos, I wonder? Maybe, in fact, definately (sic) because they show the same man and therefore disprove their theory."

Probably b/c none of us agree that they're the same person. I posted a bunch of pictures to show the differences. Did you not see them?

"Regarding Paul's eyes, they were hazel, they are hazel."

Paul's eyes were brown:






Faul's eyes were hazel:





"I would because age can change people in many ways, his facial features are the same, you're just relying on angles and colour distortion."

And then you said: "The picture you've posted of old Paul in the pink shirt has something off with the lighting." Who is relying on color distortion now?

Paul's looks changed drastically from 1966 to 1967 (& definitely not for the better). Paul circa 1966:




Faul circa 1967:




Not sure what the ages are here, but they are both relatively young:



You seriously think this is the same guy? LOL



"Paul McCartney is alive and is the same man he was in 1962."

Believe whatever you want, but that is, sadly, not the case.

[davestewart]

Thank you Faulconandsnowjob for your reply. Regarding my images of school pupil Paul and old Paul, no one has yet to confront the fact that anyone can see it's the same person. Let me ask you, if you were shown those two images, would you say they were the same person or not?

Now regarding the eyes. The majority of photographs of Paul before 1966 are in black and white, plus the colouring was more glossy back then so the eyes may seem browner than they actually were. On the otherhand, if you go to google images you can find plenty of recent examples of post-1966 Paul with eyes that are brown NOT hazel. I do see what you mean about them looker lighter, maybe he is wearing contact lenses that might give them that glistening look.

Regarding this image:



I believe you might have shot yourself in the foot by posting this, because it looks more like 'Faul' than it does Paul. The long face and pointy chin, you stick a moustache on that and it's Paul from Sgt. Pepper, NOT your so called real JPM. Ahh but the eyes, they're brown!

Would I believe that old Paul and young Paul are the same person, well that photo where they are walking side by side is misleading. First of all, young Paul is walking behind old Paul. Secondly, young Paul is sucking on his tongue bringing his cheeks in. Thirdly, you're measuring the width of Old Macca's face and saying how can it be the same guy, but that's what wrinkles and age do to you, they bloat you. Seen John Travolta recently?

If you're going to do anything else, do this, watch the first video here and then the second one.

PAUL 1964: uk.youtube.com/watch?v=tNYVxqJ83W8

PAUL 1979-80: uk.youtube.com/watch?v=CksGt26bu1s

And you're saying that's not the same guy? This Faul must be the best actor ever, to convince every single person right down to the mens' room attendant at Abbey Road, the local Liverpool people he drank with for a documentary in the 1970s, the rest of us the apparently 'sheep' public. Look at ther videos and see that the expressions and looks are the same, you simply DON'T GET acting that good.

I recommend you guys take a step back from your theory and say to yourself 'am I sane?'

[lostworld]

For the record, I AM being serious. Secondly, I'm perfectly open minded, but at the same time don't assume that just because the majority believe something, that thing is untrue. The majority believe 2+2 = 4, that does not mean they are sheep, it also does not mean they are wrong.

Of course neither should one assume the majority always to be correct.

I´m glad that you´re serious.
And I agree that 2+2=4

And no, the majority isn´t always correct... far from it.

But I don´t agree with you being open minded since you so firmly say that "this is the way it is - the end". etc


It's not about how many people think that the Paul McCartney is Dead theories are true or who do not believe, it's about the actual theories themselves. So don't try and call me a sheep just because I'm playing this one straight and not alligning myself to every crazy theory that comes my way.

Believe me, I don´t believe in everything that´s coming my way either. Actually, I sift out a lot. If it´s something you´re very passionate about or interested in I think it´s extra important to have a critical eye and not get carried away.
Only the pieces that fit into the puzzle stays. And the replacement/mind control agenda is def one of them!
Sadly, you have already decided that this is one of the crazy theories. Once again, you don´t have an open mind...

For me PID is just one piece of the bigger picture. My search for the truth has now lead me to this. Like I´ve told the others here before it started with my interest in aliens and UFO´s, that lead me to ancient civilisations and ancient anomalies - that just don't fit the accepted view of history or archeology. That lead me to Sitchin and the sumerians, the forbidden knowledge (man´s creation), the protectors of this knowledge and their agenda - the NWO. I don´t know if you are a searcher in all of these things too, or how you ended up here, but for me it didn´t even start out as a search for the truth, just a genuin interest. Then one thing has lead to another and it´s both terrifying and satisfying when the pieces match the puzzle. I go by facts I can´t deny + my instinct, what makes sense to me.

And that feeling is very strong, since the world as it is now makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever with all evil, pain, bad people getting all they want etc. Something is def very wrong...

I posted the image of young Paul and old Paul, from his school class and 2002, which I continue to say is easily the same person. All one person had to say was "Uh I don't think so!" No one else had anything to say on these photos, I wonder? Maybe, in fact, definately because they show the same man and therefore disprove their theory.

I don´t know if you got so upset by me calling you a sheep that you didn´t read my post thoroughly. I DID have something to say about your photos and your comments about them. This is what I wrote:

I´m all for debate and having different opinions though.

Since I´m not a Paul-expert I can even go so far that I agree with you that in some pics I´m confused with how alike Faul and Paul can look sometimes. Those pics are rare exceptions though.

And btw - just because you have the same laugh as someone doesn´t mean that you ARE that person. Many people have the same laugh as their father, sister, or as some celebrity - just something in their appearance that you recognize.
There are also many good impersonators - both official and unoffical ones - that easily can fool you.

So don´t say that no one else had anything to say.
And I wish you had answered my comment regarding imposters and how you can have the same laugh as your brother etc.


Regarding Paul's eyes, they were hazel, they are hazel. The picture you've posted of old Paul in the pink shirt has something off with the lighting.

I have to agree with Faulcon here.
Here Dave YOU are the one who´s relying on angles and colour distortion! Old "Paul" is in daylight. As we all know, the daylight is very revealing...

Alternatively it may be that Paul wears blue eye contacts now and again, if indeed you actually have definitive evidence of any blue in his eyes.

Why would he though?
Instead, he would be very careful to keep them brown since Paul had brown eyes.


Your pic, where you say his eyes are brown.



I wouldn´t call this brown. Actually, I think he has a lot of green in his eyes and, depending on the light (here the light is a factor), green eyes can be tricky to hide even with coloured contacts cause the green tends to shine through.

Look at these pics for instance that Faulcon posted. The one on the left is a picture taken outside and the one on the right is not.
In the one on the left the eyes are much more green and in the pic on the right the iris is not the same and you see a much deeper brownish colour. I would say that in the pic on the right the brown contacts Faul is wearing are doing their job.




In answer to your question, would I believe it was the same man? Yes I would because age can change people in many ways, his facial features are the same, you're just relying on angles and colour distortion. What a load of absolute crazy nonsense.

I can't believe I'm even wasting my time with all this, I'm just as bad as you lot. Paul McCartney is alive and is the same man he was in 1962.

Thanks for answering.
But once again Dave - is this how you are being open minded?
And I don´t agree with you that his facial features are the same.


Now we´re just talking about physical appearance but one of the most striking things for me is how different Faul's personality is compared to Paul's. Paul had charm, humour, intelligens and were much more humble and polite than Faul. You can also see in interviews how their mannerisms and body language are totally different. Maybe this is easier to sense as a woman - but I´m attracted to Paul but not to Faul. And that have nothing to do with who was the original. I just go by how I perceive the person.

I also don´t agree that age changes your facial structures like that. Maybe if you are very ill and on heavy medicin/drugs etc.
Not otherwise.

Earlobes often sag and ‘grow’ longer by age, the tip of the nose can drop down a bit and the lips often get thinner.
But you still see that the person is the same, the basic core is always the same! With Paul/Faul the difference is too big to just blame on aging.

I would like to end this by giving you a perfect example of what I just talked about.
Paul Newman (R.I.P.). A man who aged gracefully and kept his good looks to the end. You can easily see that this is the same man even with many years apart and despite different angles and light. Even when he´s in his eighties and marked by cancer (last pic on the right) :

[davestewart]

I am willing to admit that Paul McCartney pre-1966 is much better looking and more charming than after 1966. But I put this down to money, fame, and drugs. If you look at his interviews these days he's very modest, and I don't agree with you that he's changed his mannerisms.

Look at the two interviews I posted, it's the same guy. He's humble etc in the 1979-80 interview as well.

And this page of pics will sort this all out as well: s208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/?start=all

And look everyone, it's both Pauls! Here to tell you that they're the same guy!

[artemis]

Dave... Drop dead, honey. Or u need eye drops or glasses or else. Ure not even scratchin the surface of this PAUL MCCARTNEY matter. Update ur info on the whole BEATLES story to understand this whole MCCARTNEY scam. Or u can keep repeating like a parrot that its the same guy.

[hotman637]

John Revolta was replaced too!!!

[faulconandsnowjob]

Thank you Faulconandsnowjob for your reply.

Sure, I'm always happy to talk about Paul. This thread has really been expanded b/c of you, so thanks.

Regarding my images of school pupil Paul and old Paul, no one has yet to confront the fact that anyone can see it's the same person.

Yes, we have, & we don't think it's the same person.

Let me ask you, if you were shown those two images, would you say they were the same person or not?

No

Now regarding the eyes. The majority of photographs of Paul before 1966 are in black and white, plus the colouring was more glossy back then so the eyes may seem browner than they actually were.

That's why I posted color photos showing Paul's brown eyes & Faul's green/hazel eyes.

On the otherhand, if you go to google images you can find plenty of recent examples of post-1966 Paul with eyes that are brown NOT hazel.

Sure, b/c he's wearing brown contacts, most likely. Sometimes he does, sometimes he doesn't. He knows most people won't notice.

I believe you might have shot yourself in the foot by posting this, because it looks more like 'Faul' than it does Paul. The long face and pointy chin, you stick a moustache on that and it's Paul from Sgt. Pepper, NOT your so called real JPM. Ahh but the eyes, they're brown!

LOL. Ok. No one is saying Faul doesn't look like Paul. That is the point of a double, after all. ;D But that is a photo of JPM on the right (top).




Would I believe that old Paul and young Paul are the same person, well that photo where they are walking side by side is misleading. First of all, young Paul is walking behind old Paul. Secondly, young Paul is sucking on his tongue bringing his cheeks in. Thirdly, you're measuring the width of Old Macca's face and saying how can it be the same guy, but that's what wrinkles and age do to you, they bloat you.

Well, I apologize for the inadequacy of the picture, but it was a photo on "Paul McCartney's" official site that somebody grabbed. It is odd that they would use a picture that highlights the differences... Anyway, you use pictures of "Paul" from when he was 20 & compare them to now to show it's the same guy. Then when there's a picture of Paul from when he was 24 compared to now, you complain that age is to blame for the differences. Ok, that's why I posted pictures of Paul circa 1966 & Faul circa 1967. People do not normally change that drastically in 1 year.

This Faul must be the best actor ever, to convince every single person right down to the mens' room attendant at Abbey Road, the local Liverpool people he drank with for a documentary in the 1970s, the rest of us the apparently 'sheep' public.

LOL! He's good, but he's not that good. He didn't convince everyone. People in England noticed "Paul" on the Strawberry Fields/Penny Lane videos wasn't Paul, so a "rumor" went around in 1967 that Paul had died in a car crash. In 1969, people noticed in USA that "Paul" wasn't Paul, which turned into an even bigger rumor. PID has never gone away (recently listed as #14 conspiracy theory of all time), & more & more people are noticing now b/c of the Internet.

Look at ther videos and see that the expressions and looks are the same, you simply DON'T GET acting that good.

Those are actually great videos you posted to show the difference. The lower-half of Faul's face is much larger than Paul's. Paul v. Faul:

Beatles 1966 Last interview (Paul)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1CidMWUfbw

Faul McCartney: ITN Interview - LSD and Journalism 19.06.67
www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC4lumYPQD8