|
Post by Renee on Aug 8, 2003 2:26:56 GMT
I'm not desperate to believe a damn thing. Why be desperate when I know it is the same individual? I'm already confident. You simply cannot pull some guy out of obscurity and have him successfully manage to mimic a pop culture icon for thirty-some odd years, without a MAJORITY of our population finding out pretty darn quick! (And I'm not factoring in the stoners who sat around all day smoking the Columbian reds and "discovering" clues.) If Paul McCartney really had died back in '66, there is NO WAY the world press would just stand by and play dumb, morning papers recalled or not! The Beatles were megastars... You mean to tell me, whilst keeping a straight face, that John Lennon, George Harrison, Ringo Starr and their management, were naive enough to consider getting away with such a stunt? It's an insult to their intelligence and OURS. As for 60IF - don't trust every so-called factual documentation you read on the internet unless you yourself can examine its sources, origins and overall credibility.
Oh yes, and to answer your question before you ask it... I HAVE read all of 60IF.
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Aug 8, 2003 2:57:08 GMT
You simply cannot pull some guy out of obscurity and have him successfully manage to mimic a pop culture icon for thirty-some odd years, without a MAJORITY of our population finding out pretty darn quick! . . . If Paul McCartney really had died back in '66, there is NO WAY the world press would just stand by and play dumb
Riiiiiiiiiight.
And who killed Kennedy again?
John Lennon, George Harrison, Ringo Starr and their management, were naive enough to consider getting away with such a stunt
Lennon, Harrison and Starr were not the masterminds here. Their handlers were pretty sure the vast majority of the populace was naive enough that they could get away with it -- and they were reasonably accurate in their estimation.
As for 60IF - don't trust every so-called factual documentation you read on the internet
The forensic evidence is conclusive regardless of the ultimate provenance of the alleged document.
|
|
|
Post by Renee on Aug 8, 2003 3:10:23 GMT
His name was Lee Harvey Oswald. In my writing I also referred to their management, not only the Beatles themselves. Finally, you cannot honestly believe people are total pinheads or pushovers like that, can you? That's a very arrogant attitude. "99.9% believe McCartney is still kicking, but a small enlightened group, including my remarkably intelligent self, are not fooled!" I have an aunt who acts in this manner.....she's schizoid, by the way.
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Aug 8, 2003 3:35:41 GMT
His name was Lee Harvey Oswald.
Well, point proven. A lot fewer people buy that line of BS today than Faul as Paul, but a substantial number are still taken in after 40 years.
In my writing I also referred to their management, not only the Beatles themselves.
And by "masterminds" I did not mean their producer and PR people. This obviously went up to the highest levels of British intelligence and the cryptocracy.
"99.9% believe McCartney is still kicking, but a small enlightened group, including my remarkably intelligent self, are not fooled!"
Millions had at least guessed at it by 1969.
|
|
|
Post by Renee on Aug 8, 2003 5:17:48 GMT
You can spew all the silly conspiracy crap you want. It's not true. McCartney is still alive and doing what he does best - making music. I'm just sorry that there are people out there who want to believe in morbid unjust things. Millions of stoners and attention-seeking adolescent kids looking for a thrill, ISN'T figuring anything out.
Well, point proven. A lot fewer people buy that line of BS today than Faul as Paul...
Oh, really? Then I guess every bit of what I and many others have ever learned in history class is wrong. I suppose you have the answers to it all then, eh?
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Aug 8, 2003 6:07:03 GMT
Yes. Government schools (and most private schools using the government textbooks) have been a major tool for delivering propaganda and dumbing down the populace. That is correct.
And I don't pretend to have all the answers. But I'm not blind to the questions.
|
|
|
Post by Renee on Aug 8, 2003 7:21:44 GMT
It must be a very sad thing going through life distrusting and alienating huge segments of society. I have faith in our government, number one. Number two, we're talking about McCartney - a real living person. The Kennedy thing has been dragged through so much dirt throughout the years, it's almost impossible to get to the bottom of it now. As if anybody gives a flying f*ck anymore.
P.I.D. is easier to discredit because it's just a worn out urban myth. 60IF is an unexpected by-product of an old hoax, probably created by people hoping to showcase the next big internet scam.
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Aug 8, 2003 7:30:41 GMT
I have faith in our government,
A sure indication you live in la-la land.
The Kennedy thing has been dragged through so much dirt [sic]throughout the years, it's almost impossible to get to the bottom of it now.
A few minutes ago, you had the (A1-certified governtment-approved) answer, now it's "impossible" to figure out. This is classic Orwellian doublethink, a textbook symptom of rationalization.
P.I.D. is easier to discredit
As I already pointed out, the forensic evidence is conclusive regardless of the ultimate provenance of the alleged document. I have yet to read a coherent argument from anyone on this board refuting the clear visual evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Renee on Aug 8, 2003 7:49:59 GMT
I don't live in a dream world. Maybe I'm not quite as bitter or paranoid as you sound.
I didn't do a double take. I explained how I personally felt (that is to say, Oswald was responsible for Kennedy's murder). Then I explained why I accept this answer because no others which I've heard in the past make better sense. Even if a re-evaluation came up, it would be tough to prove otherwise esp. when so many people (like myself) take the Oswald explanation as truth.
The "forensic evidence" is laughable. If they are so confident in their proof, I dare them to make it public on a grand scale. An obscure internet site doesn't cut it.
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Aug 8, 2003 9:52:26 GMT
Name: David Wilmont, M.D. Date1/13/01 7:18:21 AM Email: painmanagement@doctor.com Subject: McCARTNEY'S DISEASE ...AND DEATH
The LIVING Paul McCartney suffered from severe symptoms of Irritable Bowell Syndrome. This causes cramping so intense as to require narcotic analgesics (codeine, oxycodone, morphine) to relieve intractable pain in the patient. McCartney's malady was so bad that occasionally, he could not eat. Another result of IBS is Explosive Diarrhea. Young McCartney changed underware constantly he would soil them so often. Not so with Mr. Campbell. Severe IBS sufferers are uniformly habituated to opioids to help control their condition. McCartney WAS. Today's "McCartney" is not. James Paul McCartney has truly passed on. There is no cure for IBS. He IS dead.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Aug 8, 2003 12:10:26 GMT
;D YES Sun King THAT's my James Paul. Look at that mouth of imperfect teeth. He might've not had perfect teeth, but he was perfect in every other way ;D At least to me he was... I'm sorry Mrs. Redford & Alex. I understand that you don't feel that we have the credentials to pull this off. You're very right. Do you have any idea how HARD it is to get someone with those credentials to LOOK at this evidence ( no matter how compelling it might be ) & actually make a judge ment on it ?? In our FAVOR ? ? We're a small group of people going up against Govt. Intelligence agencies & one of the richest men in the world. Only someone with the money, clout & connections that Faul has, could so blatantly alter still photos, film & anything else that he can get his hands on. Just to make young Paul look like young Faul. It makes me SICK when I put on a video & see that it's been gumped. You say you know about The Beatles. That you know about Paul McCartney Rent the movie Help !!! ( a vhs copy from 1987 or earlier ). Then rent the DVD of A Hard Day's Night. You will see that Paul looks very different from one to the other. That's because A Hard Day's Night was done in black & white. This makes it easier for them to alter his appearence. I'll admit that in some cases it might be subtle. I have a hard time seeing it sometimes because I too have been brainwashed ( in my mind ) with the image of Faul as Paul McCartney. I have a small video clip of Paul in a Shakespearean sketch that he did with the other Beatles in 1964. The 1st time I watched it, I cried my eyes out because I realized that everything Uberkinder & Sun King has been saying is true. That boy I was looking at. That Paul McCartney looked NOTHING like the Paul on the cover of Sgt. Pepper. His was not the face of the Paul McCartney I grew up with. We're only talking about a difference of 3 years here, folks. NOBODY changes SOOOOO drastically in 3 years. It CANNOT be attributed to weight gain or loss. There's a big difference in head shape, face shape, ear shape, eye distance, & that smile... OH, THAT SMILE !!! He smiles it during the Another Girl musical number in Help !!! The smile that makes his cheeks puff up like a chipmunk. The smile that allows you to see his imperfect teeth... Another question. WHY would he have extensive reconstruction of his mouth He obviously had no problem with how his teeth looked, or he wouldn't smile as wide as he did. All the time. Before 1967... Another very important point. You keep alluding that Paul might have had plastic surgery. Lets just say, ( for arguments sake ) that he had been in a terrible accident & needed extensive facial reconstruction. This takes time folks. It's done in multiple operations. Nowhere have I ever seen photos of Paul where he looked so messed up that he'd need that kind of reconstruction. It's just not a long enough period in his life ( from 1966-1967 ) for this to take place. When you have that kind of surgery, it's done in stages because of the healing process. We're talking about a 9 mos. period here. I'm not in the medical profession. Can anyone reading this, tell me if this is possible If 9 mos. is enough time for someone to safely have extensive facial reconstruction ( including moving the orbits of the eyes closer together ), the ears made smaller, the nose made thinner, the chin reshaped, etc... My guess is, he would've been really screwed up for a significantly longer period of time then that. His hand shape is different also & Paul was hairier then Faul is. As far as anyone giving me the argument that he might've done it to make himself better looking ( like waxing the hair on the back of his hands ). My question is WHY Girls were lining up around the block just to get a look at him. He could've had as many women ( girls ) as he wanted, at any time of the day or night. He was already involved in a serious relationship with Jane Asher at the time. He had absolutely NO reason to want to change his appearance. As a great fan of his at the time, I have to say. He looked perfect to me, just the way he was... Well, this is probably going to get me flamed. I don't give a rats ass about that. I loved that man. He was my 1st love. I knew the minute I saw that Shakespearean sketch, WHY I had lost interest in Paul by the time he made the white album. It wasn't the music. It was the man. He wasn't the SAME MAN !!! You can change someone's appearance, but you can't change their soul. Go back to Uberkinder's site & look at the facial comparisons. Pick any page that shows you Paul on one side & Faul on the other. Look into their eyes. The eyes are the window to the soul. You'll find two different men looking back at you... Love to all... Chris
|
|
|
Post by Uberkinder on Aug 8, 2003 16:36:03 GMT
All this back and forth is ignoring some obvious provable facts; "Paul McCartney's" eyes and ears are consistently closer together after 1966. We have already ruled out photographic distortion or inadequate angles by a number of means which I continue having to explain endlessly to unobservant people. You can even see with your naked eyes, his eye/ear spacing and eyelid length remains consistantly wider before 1966, abruptly changes in December 1966, and stays that way to this day, despite obvious cosmetic surgical changes. That's impossible, period.
So it doesn't matter HOW they pulled this off or how unlikely it "feels" to you; THEY DID. I could go on to list dozens of other fundamental biological changes between the two faces, but there's no need. HIS EYES ARE CLOSER TOGETHER. After you've proven this, that's the end of the discussion; ask your doctor if it is possible for a person's head to get thinner and his eyes to get closer together. This has never happened, it is biologically impossible, even for a growing child. The skull never, ever, ever loses significant width, it can only get WIDER as one grows, not thinner.
If you continue to disbelieve after these points have been proven, then you aren't interested in the truth; only what version of reality makes you feel safe or comfortable.
Again, it's not a question of HOW they pulled this off, or how they kept everybody quiet, or how he impersonates him so well, or even WHY they did it to begin with; HIS EYES ARE CLOSER TOGETHER, so they DID. It's no longer a question. The only thing left is to find the most logical reasons why.
Whether or not the 60IF document will eventually be proven authentic doesn't even enter into it.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Aug 8, 2003 18:19:27 GMT
Very well spoken, Andrew. I know that I tend to get emotional about this. To me, it has become personal. I look at Paul's face & I can't stand that he's being denied. That he's being systematically erased from history. It's not right. It's wrong. All we want to do is find out the TRUTH !!! Love to all... Chris
|
|
|
Post by Renee on Aug 8, 2003 20:52:30 GMT
I think you guys should maybe get together and form your own band using your love of P.I.D. as a central theme.
|
|
|
Post by newave on Aug 8, 2003 22:54:01 GMT
How do we know that those pictures weren't tampered with on the site? And going up against Government Officials? Please...
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Aug 8, 2003 23:18:15 GMT
Okay. I have one thing to say. I just ordered ( through e-bay ) two teen magazines from 1965, to see for myself if Paul INDEED looked like Sun King & Andrew say... I have such faith in these two people, that I have NO DOUBT in my mind that they're telling the truth. I actually ordered the magazines for another reason. However, due to the things that are being said on this Forum, I will be happy to scan any photos of Paul in these magazines & post them for everyone to see. They're old & yellowed & were in someone's attic for who knows how long. I suppose you're going to say that I, a mother of 4, with VERY limited income ( my youngest child is disabled & we're forced to live on one income ) have the means to falsify these magazines once they're in my possession. Just to justify my POV. I can't even tell you how INSANE that sounds.. I have part of the Shakespearean sketch from the Beatles on BBC in 1964. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has it. Paul in that sketch looks NOTHING like Paul McCartney from Sgt. Pepper onwards... NOTHING... I think that you people are only here to harrass us... This is a pretty mean thing to do. I know that the Paul in the photos in those 1965 teen mags is going to have the same beautiful face as Paul in my 1987 version of HELP !!! Enuf said... Chris
|
|
|
Post by Renee on Aug 8, 2003 23:43:56 GMT
But - how can I HATE when I am so full of LOVE?
|
|
|
Post by newave on Aug 8, 2003 23:47:41 GMT
I have not come here to harass anyone. I came here to get some light on this subject. But please, scan those pictures, they would be very interesting to see!
|
|
|
Post by Renee on Aug 8, 2003 23:49:50 GMT
Yeah, from a historical point.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Aug 9, 2003 0:11:26 GMT
It would give me the greatest joy to share these photos. One magazine is a pin-up magazine of the Beatles from 1965. I honestly have no idea what I'm going to get... Love to all... Chris
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Aug 9, 2003 0:54:06 GMT
Chris, I have (three!) vintage teen mags on the way, too. I'll post my scans when they get here. (I sent Uberkinder one of Brian from a 60's mag a few weeks ago.)
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Aug 9, 2003 1:06:32 GMT
Sounds great xtp !!! I can't wait to see !!! Lotsa luv to all... Chris - I just watched MMT for the 1st time. All I can say is EEEEEWWWWWW !!!!
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Aug 9, 2003 11:21:19 GMT
I have not come here to harass anyone. I came here to get some light on this subject. But please, scan those pictures, they would be very interesting to see! I know you (Mrs. Redford & Alex) are new to the forum and topics. During the "old" forum I showed TONS of evidences not belonging to "60IF" or "Uberkinder site". I got a 1975 book about the Beatles. I've ALREADY scan & published the photos inside on that page: space.virgilio.it/james_paul_mccartney@virgilio.it/direct_evidences.htmlIt's a little bit "heavy" to load. Please "refresh" the browser MANY times to see ALL the pictures. Two examples: I have not to tell who is James Paul and who is Faul. A "naked eye" can easly see it.
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Aug 9, 2003 12:15:22 GMT
How do we know that those pictures weren't tampered with on the site? And going up against Government Officials? Please... The "60IF" photos are referred ALL to "official" documents. Please try to get an original "Yesterday and Today" (butcher version) album and a Stg. Pepper CD booklet published in 1987 (for the 20th anniversary). That's enough to check goodness of "60IF" evidences. But if you DO NOT want to do that... ...shhhhht..silent please!
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Aug 9, 2003 12:24:18 GMT
Thank you Sun King... It is hard to keep saying the same things over & over again. I don't know how you do it... Love to all... Chris
|
|