|
Post by fauxreal on Feb 16, 2008 6:12:01 GMT
Hi All,
I've been following the board for some time, but this is my first post. I appreciate this community and have enjoyed reading all the research and theories.
When I first heard about the true James Paul McCartney being dead, I dove in, looking for evidence. But I have to say that after looking at dozens of pictures and watching several interviews, I realized the truth because of something simple: His eyes. Not simply eye color or the way they're positioned. It's about the "look" in the two men's eyes.
I know it's unscientific, but for me, that was the clincher. James Paul's eyes are so dreamy, while Faux Paul's eyes remind me of steel. That's the main way I can tell the difference.
What convinced you?
|
|
|
Post by Bluemagicwoman on Jul 7, 2008 0:56:29 GMT
Hi, there are so many elements in this story... ...my idea it's still not clear, but I TOTALLY AGREE there is a difference in the eyes, like you said... but I think the "dreamy" one has been a victim...and the steel and cinic eyed one...the same man from the beginning till now... ...for some still unknown reasons sometimes in public they pulled out the "dreamy" victim...
|
|
|
Post by faulconandsnowjob on Aug 5, 2008 5:24:02 GMT
The eyes, definitely. Paul had those to-die-for puppy-dog eyes that Faul just doesn't have. Plus, the look is just completely different. Paul was hot. Faul is not. It's pretty much that simple. In addition, some things kind of always bothered me. Why did Paul suddenly lose his extraordinary good looks w/ Sgt Pepper? Why wasn't he more successful as a solo artist? Now, w/ a different paradigm, so many questions are resolved. Faul hasn't had a very successful solo career (compared to what I think Paul would have had) b/c he's simply not the brilliant genius Paul was. Faul's ok. He can write some pretty decent stuff, but it's just not on the same level as Paul's work. Unfortunately, though, Faul has sullied Paul's legacy (imo). It's a testimony to Paul's popularity & talent that Faul is still adored despite his shortcomings. He's been capitalizing on Paul's genius for a long time - he gets away w/ it b/c of how much people love Paul.
|
|
|
Post by lovelyrita on Aug 6, 2008 15:44:47 GMT
What convinced me was watching pre and post 1966 videos of the band singing together. Before and until 1966 you could see the smiles, the joy in what they were doing, and the occasional laugh, nudge or wink to each other. After 1966 everything turned somber and serious. The smiles faded, the joy gone. It's as if "someone" sapped all of the happiness right out of them. It's sad really.
|
|
|
Post by lovelyrita on Aug 6, 2008 15:47:01 GMT
Oh, and then there's that eye thing too. Paul's were so dream like, like he was always somewhere else, a daydreamer. Faul's have been all business from the start.
|
|
|
Post by yamanaka on Sept 14, 2010 17:45:53 GMT
For me it was my first glance at the Sgt. Pepper cover. My stepbrother handed the LP to me and said it's the Beatles. I focused on the front facing person in blue marching band uniform and declared aloud "that's not Paul".
|
|
|
Post by mistermustard on Oct 13, 2010 3:37:31 GMT
There has been nothing to completely convince me yet. Intrigued? Yes. Convinced? No.
If Paul was killed and replaced how did so many people know all kinds of information and no one ever went public? What is the reason to keep the Beatles going? Some people say that it was the Illuminati (or some other kind of shadowy organization) that kept the Beatles going because of the control they could wield. Now the fundamental problem most people refuse to address is as follows:
Why would they keep the Beatles going and go through all of the trouble of finding a replacement, keeping the band quiet, keeping their entourage quiet, keeping Abbey Road staff quiet, keep all of the "Let it Be" film crew quiet, plus their families, friends & associates while allowing the band to insert clues in the albums? How could an organization with the eye for detail and ability to control allow those clues to be slipped in to reveal the , ahem, "truth"? Why would it be more practical to keep the Beatles going when such a powerful organization could have just as easily manufactured another pop group to take their place?
If you can answer those questions the difference between "dreamy" and "steel" eyes ceases to matter.
|
|
|
Post by dmystified on May 12, 2011 5:51:46 GMT
Wow, I'm surprised to see no answer to this last question. Perhaps no one is seeing it? If the whole world believed the fake Paul was the real one, who's to say all those staff and crew members didn't believe it as well? I believe a lot of people HAVE come forward to say things about this, but the official debunkers have more power because they are from the controlling organizations. It isn't so much a matter of how they could pull this off, as it is how can people not see the evidence that's there? We may never know all the answers to the rest of it. There were still many songs written by Paul that had never been published, so why not continue? (Their reasoning, of course - or perhaps their 'forced' reasoning). The forensic evidence at other sites is conclusive proof that there was a false Paul put in place. That alone does not prove whether the true Paul died or is alive, but it does prove there was a replacement. This site www.erichufschmid.net/TFC/FromOthers/Paul-McCartney-Italian.html provides plenty of evidence for the replacement of Paul with Faul, though unlike its title implies, it does not prove he died. Since it can be scientifically and forensically proven that Faul is a replacement, it doesn't matter 'why' they replaced him or would go to so much trouble to do so and keep everyone quiet, as much as "what happened to Paul"? What about all the many other replaced celebrities as well? When people point out that they are not the authentic and original performer, they are derided and ridiculed as a "conspiracy theorist", but that has no bearing on the truth. A quote from the site: Perhaps it would have been more difficult to explain away how and why he was killed, but the crucial thing to me is that it can be proven the Paul McCartney we've seen performing since 1966 is not the real one.
|
|
|
Post by khamira on May 12, 2011 18:56:20 GMT
Thanks for the link, great reading.
|
|