I'm Paul McCartney

[Soothsayer]

cosmiclove said:

soothsayer said:

Can you prove he submitted false DNA samples? No, you can't. It's pure speculation on your part. Unless you have proof, it's just your word against his.



For goodness sakes, if you want to investigate him, then fine. But don't waste your precious years hating the man. Life's too short.

Regarding the DNA question, it is common belief that Faul more than likely, submitted HIS OWN DNA to the courts in the paternity cases, obviously knowing that the result would be Negative, as HE wasn't JPM.. so unless you're suggesting that he somehow obtained a DNA sample from the original Paul McCartney, (who was the alleged parent in question), & submitted that to the courts on each occasion, then it stands to reason that the samples submitted would be false.
I hope that's clearer for you now.


And, just to clarify, I do NOT hate Bill, I just get sick to death of all the Faul-Fawners coming onto a PID/PWR site & laying it on about what a marvellous job he's done over the years, continuing the role of the original JPM with such "dignity" & talent..,

The original JPM was not some fictitional character out of a book, he should not have become a starring role up for grabs, for a 'successful' candidate to distort & improvise as he saw fit.

Whoever took on the role of the original JPM should at least have had the decency to stick to the script. (The Original script).
It's one thing to become a look-a-like or double for someone, & another to eradicate their whole personality, substituting that person's style, opinions, & feelings for your own, (which is exactly what's happened if you think about it)
the LSD interview was just 1 example of that., I would also suggest that it's not very 'dignified' to cash in on someone else's work, (call me old fashioned).

Regarding Faul's musical offerings, you are quite correct in stating that his music is a matter of taste, as of course all music is, but I do wonder, if some plain old fruit n' veg salesman, or perhaps sheepfarmer, by the name of Bill, with ginger receding hair, who was not especially pleasant on the eye, (you know how fickle the record buying public can be ), had released such 'hits' as 'The frog chorus' & 'Ebony & Ivory'..,
would he have enjoyed the same chart success & popularity as he has done? .,
Now that's a tricky one, & surely the question on everyone's lips..

[Soothsayer]

author=cosmiclove board=document thread=1200405460 post=1201367609

You obviously hate the man and have nothing good to say about him. I think you have issues with him that go beyond the norm. To me you appear to be a very bitter and angry person. Faul is not evil, he's just a performer who did what he had to do

For you to make assumptions about the sort of person I am by reading one of my posts is both inappropriate & unacceptable.
My post refers to various cited issues & incidents concerning the man that this thread is about.
No, I am not a bitter or angry person, I am quite grateful & content with my lot in life, thank you very much, but I do take exception to a stranger insinuating that I must be a negative individual, because I do not happen to concur with their opinion.

Pause for 1 moment, & think how stupid it is to attack someone personally, because they don't happen to share your viewpoint.. it would be like me saying to you;

'You appear to be a talentless twat with too much time on your hands & your head in the clouds..,"
on the basis that your opinion is opposing to mine, I am unable to find any constructive input from you, & I deem you not to be in possession of the full facts..

You see how unfounded that would be?

Of course, I wouldn't say that to you in a million years, 'cause it would be just plain rude & inappropriate.

Also, on a more serious note; Please be aware, that I have never,
at any time, said that 'Faul is evil',. those are your words, not mine, perhaps you should be careful what you suggest about your friend, we don't want people to get the wrong idea now..

[Cosmic Love]

soothsayer said:

author=cosmiclove board=document thread=1200405460 post=1201367609

You obviously hate the man and have nothing good to say about him. I think you have issues with him that go beyond the norm. To me you appear to be a very bitter and angry person. Faul is not evil, he's just a performer who did what he had to do

For you to make assumptions about the sort of person I am by reading one of my posts is both inappropriate & unacceptable.
My post refers to various cited issues & incidents concerning the man that this thread is about.
No, I am not a bitter or angry person, I am quite grateful & content with my lot in life, thank you very much, but I do take exception to a stranger insinuating that I must be a negative individual, because I do not happen to concur with their opinion.

Pause for 1 moment, & think how stupid it is to attack someone personally, because they don't happen to share your viewpoint.. it would be like me saying to you;

'You appear to be a talentless twat with too much time on your hands & your head in the clouds..,"
on the basis that your opinion is opposing to mine, I am unable to find any constructive input from you, & I deem you not to be in possession of the full facts..

You see how unfounded that would be?

Of course, I wouldn't say that to you in a million years, 'cause it would be just plain rude & inappropriate.

Also, on a more serious note; Please be aware, that I have never,
at any time, said that 'Faul is evil',. those are your words, not mine, perhaps you should be careful what you suggest about your friend, we don't want people to get the wrong idea now..

I apologize if I've offended you. Of course I don't know you personally, and if you say you're not bitter or angry, I'll take your word for it. However, I do take exception to your assumptions towards Sir Faul. You also don't know him and yet you assume you can make judgements regarding his character and person. I have met the man and I don't believe he has done anything but his personal best in his recording career. To judge him based on what the real Paul might or might not have done is unfair to Faul. He's far more talented than you're giving him credit for. People in the music business (Myself included) have nothing but respect and admiration for Faul. I think I can speak clearly on this since I know a little bit about who is respected in this business and who isn't. Most artists would give an arm and a leg to have even a small portion of Faul's talent, skill and musical ability. It isn't just everyday people that you see on forums such as this who admire him. It's people from all walks of life.

I'll tell you something else. It's true that many fans would be shocked and disappointed to learn the truth about Faul. However, he has his defenders and I can assure you that literally hundreds of artists, producers and record executives would leap to Faul's defence if he were to out himself so to speak.

You make speculative assumptions about Faul and you feel that he's done something wrong because he took over Paul's place and made music that Paul never would've. I can tell you that Faul has his detracters, but most people happen to hold him in high regard. Faul has influenced endless artists in their pursuit for musical greatness and achievement in the world of recording. The fact that he did not perform or record in the Beatles early years aside, some of the Beatles greatest influence came from Sgt Peppers onward. Not all of it, but enough to make Faul's contributions valid. And if, as Sunking has suggested, Faul replaced Paul as early as 1965, you can include Rubber Soul and Revolver to the mix.


Again, I am sorry if I offended you. I was trying to make a point. It's easy to judge people and make assumtions when you don't really know them, isn't it? I think I'm more qualified than you to judge Faul's influence in the world of music. I see and speak with many artists who credit Faul as being a magor influence in their lives. So regardless of what you may think of him, he has had a magor influence on many successful artists and musicians. Studio musicians especially look up to him.

Like it or not, Faul is legendary. The fact that he took on the role of Paul doesn't make him a fraud or a phony. He just did what was asked of him and he's done it very well. If you think you know of somebody who could do better... please let me know.

One more thing. I do defend Faul because he has had a magor influence on myself and my career. I've even performed one of his songs live in concert (Dear Prudence). I don't think any less of him for portraying Paul or that he came out with "Frog's Chorus". So it wasn't his best work. I'll agree to that. But for all the great records he's made and the tremendous tours he's put on, he should be allowed a low point or two. It doesn't mean that all of his catalougue should be outright dismissed.

I wish you could look past the admittedly complex fact that he is Faul and not Paul, and give this man the credit he deserves. Many people would still support him even if they knew the truth. I do. And I don't hold it against him one bit. That's my personal opinion and it may not be yours. However, like it or not, the man is considered to be a legend. I think he deserves all the credit that he can get.

[Soothsayer]

cosmiclove said:

I apologize if I've offended you. Of course I don't know you personally, and if you say you're not bitter or angry, I'll take your word for it. However, I do take exception to your assumptions towards Sir Faul. You also don't know him and yet you assume you can make judgements regarding his character and person
You make speculative assumptions about Faul and you feel that he's done something wrong because he took over Paul's place and made music that Paul never would've.

Cosmic Love, your apology is very gracious & gratefully received.
I do not want to argue the toss on this matter any further, because with respect, it concerns an age old battle of opinion, that has surfaced way too many times, in various guises on this forum, & has essentially contributed nothing to the valuable research done here.

I will simply state that; the fact that Bill replaced Paul & produced his own style of music using JPM's identity, (regardless of anyone's opinion about the material produced), is not the main issue in question, that myself & many others find the most objectionable.


The very public role that Faul voluntarily assumed, & the exceptional circumstances surrounding that role, would be enough for any member of the general public to form an opinion of him, be it a harsh one or otherwise..
The conduct/actions/opinions of such a person of huge celebrity status, will always be open to scrutiny, as will material referred to, & produced by them.

As you are doubtless aware, the media is a vehicle for vast amounts of false information, deliberate or otherwise., outsiders have to dig deep to find their version of the truth.,
the question is, when does the unfavourable opinion of a subject become a "speculative assumption" or" judgement"?

[Cosmic Love]

I understand. The true story of Faul is a complex one. I can understand how it is that people can see him differently as far as what his legacy truly means. I just choose to see him in a positive light.

As for the mainstream media, I don't trust it. I'm pretty cynical when it comes to that. I prefer to look online to far-reaching sources. The mainstream media reports what the mega-conglomerates that own them tell them to report. The Associated Press is the worst, I think. Local and regional papers and online newswires report what the AP says without really looking into the sources.

I prefer to find the news that fits in places where the "bought out" media doesn't go.

[Perplexed]

cosmiclove said:

soothsayer said:

For you to make assumptions about the sort of person I am by reading one of my posts is both inappropriate & unacceptable.
My post refers to various cited issues & incidents concerning the man that this thread is about.
No, I am not a bitter or angry person, I am quite grateful & content with my lot in life, thank you very much, but I do take exception to a stranger insinuating that I must be a negative individual, because I do not happen to concur with their opinion.

Pause for 1 moment, & think how stupid it is to attack someone personally, because they don't happen to share your viewpoint.. it would be like me saying to you;

'You appear to be a talentless twat with too much time on your hands & your head in the clouds..,"
on the basis that your opinion is opposing to mine, I am unable to find any constructive input from you, & I deem you not to be in possession of the full facts..

You see how unfounded that would be?

Of course, I wouldn't say that to you in a million years, 'cause it would be just plain rude & inappropriate.

Also, on a more serious note; Please be aware, that I have never,
at any time, said that 'Faul is evil',. those are your words, not mine, perhaps you should be careful what you suggest about your friend, we don't want people to get the wrong idea now..

I apologize if I've offended you. Of course I don't know you personally, and if you say you're not bitter or angry, I'll take your word for it. However, I do take exception to your assumptions towards Sir Faul. You also don't know him and yet you assume you can make judgements regarding his character and person. I have met the man and I don't believe he has done anything but his personal best in his recording career. To judge him based on what the real Paul might or might not have done is unfair to Faul. He's far more talented than you're giving him credit for. People in the music business (Myself included) have nothing but respect and admiration for Faul. I think I can speak clearly on this since I know a little bit about who is respected in this business and who isn't. Most artists would give an arm and a leg to have even a small portion of Faul's talent, skill and musical ability. It isn't just everyday people that you see on forums such as this who admire him. It's people from all walks of life.

I'll tell you something else. It's true that many fans would be shocked and disappointed to learn the truth about Faul. However, he has his defenders and I can assure you that literally hundreds of artists, producers and record executives would leap to Faul's defence if he were to out himself so to speak.

You make speculative assumptions about Faul and you feel that he's done something wrong because he took over Paul's place and made music that Paul never would've. I can tell you that Faul has his detracters, but most people happen to hold him in high regard. Faul has influenced endless artists in their pursuit for musical greatness and achievement in the world of recording. The fact that he did not perform or record in the Beatles early years aside, some of the Beatles greatest influence came from Sgt Peppers onward. Not all of it, but enough to make Faul's contributions valid. And if, as Sunking has suggested, Faul replaced Paul as early as 1965, you can include Rubber Soul and Revolver to the mix.


Again, I am sorry if I offended you. I was trying to make a point. It's easy to judge people and make assumtions when you don't really know them, isn't it? I think I'm more qualified than you to judge Faul's influence in the world of music. I see and speak with many artists who credit Faul as being a magor influence in their lives. So regardless of what you may think of him, he has had a magor influence on many successful artists and musicians. Studio musicians especially look up to him.

Like it or not, Faul is legendary. The fact that he took on the role of Paul doesn't make him a fraud or a phony. He just did what was asked of him and he's done it very well. If you think you know of somebody who could do better... please let me know.

One more thing. I do defend Faul because he has had a magor influence on myself and my career. I've even performed one of his songs live in concert (Dear Prudence). I don't think any less of him for portraying Paul or that he came out with "Frog's Chorus". So it wasn't his best work. I'll agree to that. But for all the great records he's made and the tremendous tours he's put on, he should be allowed a low point or two. It doesn't mean that all of his catalougue should be outright dismissed.

I wish you could look past the admittedly complex fact that he is Faul and not Paul, and give this man the credit he deserves. Many people would still support him even if they knew the truth. I do. And I don't hold it against him one bit. That's my personal opinion and it may not be yours. However, like it or not, the man is considered to be a legend. I think he deserves all the credit that he can get.

Serp Haul (spelled this way to avoid the "Billy" code) is unquestionably a legend, a musician of great accomplishments, an influential producer and artist, a phenomenal voice and instrumentalist, a veteran song writer, a visionary, and a man of largesse.
Kind, patient, hard-working, dedicated, committed, and honest.

I finally got just one friend of mine to see the difference, and after listening to a lot of musical examples, my friend, who is an accomplished musician exclaimed, "Well, this
"William" or whoever of yours is actually much more talented than this Paul guy."

Billy rocks, my friends, he's a very capable musician.

[Soothsayer]

Ok., well lets see, you describe Sir Faul as; "hardworking" and "a capable musician", perfectly agreed, "dedicated & committed", agreed again, my only question would be, to what?,..
"kind & patient," don`t know him personally, so can`t comment there..,& "honest" , well, in the interest of diplomacy, i will decline to comment here, but i think some may find that 1 a bit of a stretch.. Ringo, John, George, Erica, Bettina, Philip, Michelle, Michael(?), & Heather?, a few names that may perhaps disagree..

[Perplexed]

Honest? Given that if he signed a "no disclosure" document, and then people who are "in the know" have some sort of sense of how heavy that is, and that severe consequences could result, plus it is in effect giving one's word to never welch on the agreement, then continuing to be "Paul" and speaking and acting consistent with all that entails is understood to be appropriate. He is an actor on a stage, a stage without wings or an escape door. He can never come out of character or break the fourth wall. Only by unintelligible clues (to most people), joking around, writing it into obscure lyrics, and possibly even joining a popular on line website about this topic where he can observe and even participate sub rosa from the shadows, can he take off the greasepaint and
rags of persona for even a moment and take a breather.

Now, if you are trying to imply to me that you heard something back then or think that he HAD a window of opportunity to fold the cards, tell all, and resume his life as Bill Shepherd, then elaborate.

If there was a "way back home", maybe he just missed the exit and wants to make a u-turn back to that lucky clover leaf of fate that would take him OFF the interstate highway of performing as McCartney.

But who could grant permission now?

The fans probably would and god knows we PIDders (you know, I COINED that term and I find it so bizarre to see it around the net etc. It's weird to realize that I am such a social spaz and notably unpopular, and yet, I leave little bits out of my addled brain around for others to trip upon. Insane. Well, it gives me a chuckle and GOd knows I need a few.)

Anyway, back to answering you----he probably is mostly patient and nice. Even a virtual saint can, now and then, erupt into a Mount Vesuvius and turn vitriolic on a bad day---we're all only human------how do we judge frustration and anger when we ALL HAVE IT SOMETIMES!

And he put up with Heather a long time.

Sorry, I root for her and hope she makes a life and I am glad she danced on national TV etc., but she is really being outlandish toward Macca--no matter who he is----and he's done well to keep low key about all her interviews and claims.

But dedicated? Yes, to keep to one path for so long. God how difficult. Especially sinece, and I am of a mind lately just to say all bets are off, and I bet you all they replaced ALL the Beatles in September of 1966----they ALL look too old and too different-----and I don't care except that we're arguing over the smaller picture, but the big picture is that
all of life is becoming a fantasy, a TV special, a PR campaign, and who cares if they replaced anyone, the big weird thing is, why not just tell everybody?

I have no doubt whatsoever that we have in the West, as fine a government, as fine a intelligence services, as fine higher education, as fine science, as there has ever been in the world since the whole she-bang began. And with all that ability and quality of skill, our world should be the best run world in the ,,,,,er,world, and there should be no wars or famines, only prosperity, happiness, justice, equality, and opportunity for ALL.

Why is it there should be any hidden agendas, any secret plots, plans, conspiracies, when we've got the knowledge and the man power to make it all work, all around the globe.

So, that some alphabet soup agency is obligated by the very heights of world power to spend money and man hours on maintaining secrets is a thing I find hard to grasp.

The fact that none of these secrets "outs" itself seems to be more about "nobody is looking or cares" than it is about not having enough tech to conceal it. The tech exists, and it is working, but, if anyone looked hard enough, they might see thru whatever they were looking into. Sun King did, though it did nothing to show PWR to the world.

Because the world WON'T look at it. However effective or revelatory any of SK's comparison's or other things might have been, or might have become, it's all not going to be looked at with any serious interest by anyone of any importance. That's just the way the it is.

So, all this to say that bill is set for life and so the family, and all the Beatle family; everything is the way it is going to remain and what we do here is a little bit arcane in that it bodes back to a short time in 1969-1970, when "Paul is Dead" figured on the world stage, etc. Now it is another memory of the 60's; like Patti Hearst, Woodstock, and
the hula-hoop. It's a sound bite from forty years ago. That's all it can ever be in today's world.

As far as William being patient, and kind, etc., well, I imagine he does pretty well given how strange his life may feel at times, and given how weird some people might act towards him, star struck people, etc., he does well to ignore it and move on. Also, he feels perhaps required to carry the Paul torch historically for the benefit of the Beatle family; and he owes something perhaps, of course he gave everything, too, so, it's not an easy thing to evaluate.

I said it, that he must be mice and patient, because so many have depicted him in unfavorable ways and I think unfairly so. If they can rail him unjustifiably for things they no nothing about, why can't I give him the benefit of the doubt as evidence that I don't really know anything about it all either--but that I am the type to defer to a more positive note about people.

Can anyone here establish that he is impatient and unkind?

That's all I am saying. You may can prove he had a bad day or two, but not show a pattern of flagrant ugliness to his fellow man. That's all I am saying.

But I said earlier maybe they replaced them all?
Oh, I don't know. Sometimes it feels that way. Who knows.

Of course, that makes the whole equation different.

Perhaps the hardest face to replicate was Paul's with it's slightly cro-magnun bone structure, thick, wide nose, low cranial roof, and unique dimplings.

Maybe John and George and Ringo were more generic, less marked, easier to find substitute for, I don't know.

I doubt it though. Logistics of replacing four people is impossible. Could not really be done.

But, if they did, that's a lot to keep quiet about for all four of them.

In any event, ALL that we know about any of these people is from what we are shown in the PR record. That is it. We don't know them personally, and we do not have the right to know them personally. That is common sense.

So, for me, in my unknowing ignorance, whoever the Beatles are or aren't, the current McCartney is a kind, patient man, who works hard, and who has a lot of talents, because that's what I perceive of him out of the PR record. I also perceive him to be a well prepared replacement--not a evil hearted wicked witch of the west schnook-meister that some posters here have decried him as.


Thank you for listening. As LEAST I didn't sing.

[Sun King™]

mac said:

I'd forgotten about you lot because I've been really busy for a while now. When I remembered this morning, I also remembered that I meant to let you in on my "secret" ages ago. You see, I toyed with you when I realised you were serious about this; serious despite the fact that a blind man can see what none of you are prepared to believe.

The bottom line (and I know you'll find this so hard to believe because I know what it's like to invest time in something you believe in and then have it taken away) is that I am, like it or not, Paul McCartney. I tried to give clues as I went along, but hardly anyone noticed, even though I made it clear who I was in my profile. I think someone once "wondered aloud" if there was a connection between Maacc and Macca...

What you all choose to do now is entirely up to you. I'm not going to sue, hassle or threaten you. Feel free to carry on posting clues, changing the back story to match the latest whims of sunking or whoever and you can discard everything I've said. As I said, it's up to you. Nothing changes the fact that I'm (still) alive, and have most definitely always been the same person. To quote myself (Ever Present Past) and the dig I had at the whole Paul is Dead thing on Memory Almost Full:

The things I think I did
I do, I think I did
The things I think I did
When I was a kid...

Bye now.

PS Buy Memory Almost Full.

Hello, I am Bill .... (with my fake ear ...)

[blujayway]

Hello, I am... wishing i had known that before I had completely embarrassed myself-

[rbrnmw]

I don't mean to ruffle feathers here but, What about the Mccartney family His Father and Brother surely they couldn't be fooled by an imposter Everyone has little ticks that are like fingerprints I have 5 Children and I would know my child from another person as well as my sister or brother. Also if you see picture of Teenage Stella McCartney she bears a striking resemblance to pre 66 Paul McCartney and while on the topic of children of Beatles Dhani Harrison looks uncannily like Young George I am going to have to say that it is not true about anyone associated with the beatles. There is no way logically to look at it and not see that this is a big Hoax that started as a semi joke and got carried away and blown out of proportion, Please don't torture yourselves thinking Paul McCartney is dead enjoy him and his Music which is quite good I must say. People change as they grow older including looks so of course A spm song written in 1966 is going to be different than a 2008 song And a Paul McCartney of 1966 is going to look younger than a 1970 McCartney I thought this was hilarious at first but now I just feel sad that some people believe he is dead. Enjoy him why we still have him Peace and Love

Robin

[rbrnmw]

him why we still

oops While

[Sun King™]

rbrnmw said:

People change as they grow older including looks so of course A spm song written in 1966 is going to be different than a 2008 song And a Paul McCartney of 1966 is going to look younger than a 1970 McCartney I thought this was hilarious at first but now I just feel sad that some people believe he is dead. Enjoy him why we still have him Peace and Love

Robin

Science tells the opposite. After the age of 18 noone changes his/her skull structure.

Your made up world is full of lies. That fake ear is an EVIDENT example.
I love the truth.

Sorry

[Soothsayer]

Well, the ear & now of it is; , that the plastercine lughole in ?, proudly sported by Faul on that fateful day, has cost him some serious credibility points.

Why the need for the pantomine prop, one wonders?, couldn't he just grow another one?

[paulfaul]

i just wonder what sort of group is protecting faul? i mean heather could of spilled the beans but she said that she won't say anything (because obviously she would get bumped off) so who is protecting faul??

[Soothsayer]

paulfaul said:

i just wonder what sort of group is protecting faul? i mean heather could of spilled the beans but she said that she won't say anything (because obviously she would get bumped off) so who is protecting faul??

With all due respect, you don't know who TPTB are, who may or may not decide to protect Faul, (they're a fickle lot..,) & you've never heard of Aleister Crowley.,
Do you know anything about fishing at all?

[paulfaul]

i only know the basics im afriad. I only know JPM was replaced and about the clues and such but not all this aleister crowley or any of this other deep stuff. I didn't know it went this deep i only thought JPM was replaced and there were some clues and thats it.

[Paul Bearer]

I think you're correct paulfaul. Far to much has been seen into other things and it's become over-complicated. Pity the poor potential newcomer who will be turned off by all the twists and turns. A nice simple story would be better.

[paulfaul]

nice to see you back paul bearer!! Exactly i mean where does aleister crowley fit in?? why do things have to be so complicated. Maybe just maybe we are all wrong and he never was replaced. I don't wanna sound negative but i do have some doubts in my mind. I know a lot of the PID pics used for eveidence are doctored in some way and i know that JPM and Faul's hands match up. I really want to know if plastic surgery was that good in the 60's?? Could they even pull that off today?? Im losing my mind here lol.