|
Post by gm1276 on Aug 16, 2003 22:12:29 GMT
First of all, this is my first post on this forum, I've been lurking for a week or two now. I am currently verry intrigued by this whole 60if document thing, and the facial comparisons, etc etc. But, as a skeptic, I do have just a few questions.
1. From what I have read, the supposed "faul" became infautated with Paul and continued his impersonation after the breakup. Now, the original plan was to keep him until they could breakup or until they finished recording Paul's logged work. However, to me it seems as though one of the remaining members, either jointly or by their own choice, could have had "faul" killed for jeopardizing the whole coverup. Certainly the capability to do so was there for any of the remaining beatles.
2. Why replace Epstein? Also, I've heard things thrown round about him being murdered as opposed to a suicide death. It seems that it was quite a waste to replace him if he was to die the next year. By the same token, they could not really lose anything by admitting his murder, even if they covered it up as a natural death/suicide.
3. Who could possibly, as of now, be controlling "Faul" as to not fading out of the public eye or admitting the scandal? Surely he is the one who wanted it to go on, not the record execs?
4. Why would George have had 60IF published the way it was? With the problems the internet causes with hoaxes etc. and considering that it was to be released after George died, there could have not been ANY reprocussions on him if the document was released officially, or through the media, etc. etc.
5. How could Paul's real family been payed off not only by the beatles (semi believable) but by "Faul" to not reveal this? Surely if I was Paul's father, I would have broken the news when "Faul" tried to take credit for previous work, and refused to honor the stipulation that he fade out of public eye after the breakup.
6. Why are theories of government conspiracies being brought up? How could any government be involved in this?
7. Could someone please elaborate on the "mysterious deaths" surrounding the Faul/Paul thing in the 70's or earlier/later?
8. Why don't you guys just go public with this? Surely many people who could play big roles in verifying this information would help the cause if it meant debunking or confirming a 35+ year old hoax that will not go away until it is either proven or completely disproven.
|
|
|
Post by pennylane on Aug 16, 2003 22:36:38 GMT
Welcome gm1276 ;D Unfortunatly our resident experts are not around to answer your questions. In the mean time i will try to do what i can to answer your questions. the first one about why didn't one of the others have Faul killed? I don't think that any of the beatles were capable of doing such a thing, they were forced into the coverup to keep the beatles going and when the beatles split Faul carried on the charade, probably with the back up of the money grubbing record exec's who could only focus on the money to be made. I think at this point the other beatles felt it was either out of there hands or thought that he would fall on his face and the world would know... Epstein: i personally still have many questions about this myself. the story as it is right now doesn't make sense to me. My theory is that he didn't die at the same time as paul but lived with the memory for over a year and then commited suicide because of guilt. I think Faul wanted to go on and now it may be that he is so emerced in the fantasy that he believes that he really is James Paul, after 35 years i'm sure he has managed to merge the two personalities into the one. The 60IF document was introduced to us through our dear friend Sun King and the only person on this forum qualified to answer anything about it. I have no doubt about its existance or its authenticity..(sp) These are just my thoughts and may not be the thoughts of others on the board but i hope they help if just a little...
|
|
Matt
Contributor
Posts: 99
|
Post by Matt on Aug 16, 2003 22:43:52 GMT
Welcome gm 1276.
I'll offer my thoughts where I can.
question #4: I suppose that IF the document is genuine, then George, IF he were the author, would want it published in a way that woudn't be easily traceable to him. True, he's dead and gone, but there's his family to consider. It has been supposed that this "conspiracy" is maintained by threat of death. Also it mightn't have been accepted by the mainstream media, or heavily censored at any rate. The thinking goes that the media is manipulated by forces that have a stake in keeping this a secret.
question # 6: The idea is that the Beatles were being used in a sense by higher agencies pushing an agenda of social engineering and mind control via drugs, mainly L.S.D. There's some threads further back that explore these ideas.
That's all I can offer. I'm pretty new myself, still trying to get my head around it all. I'm sure others will fill you in on the rest of your questions. Anyway, good luck!
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Aug 17, 2003 12:52:53 GMT
8. Why don't you guys just go public with this? Surely many people who could play big roles in verifying this information would help the cause if it meant debunking or confirming a 35+ year old hoax that will not go away until it is either proven or completely disproven. [glow=red,2,300]COMING SOON![/glow] For the other answers please use "search" engine. All about in this forum. gm1276: [glow=red,2,300]WELCOME![/glow]
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Aug 17, 2003 21:39:51 GMT
1. The 3 Beatles may have thought that Faul would fade away after the band broke up but Faul and/or his handlers had other ideas.
2. According to the 60IF story, Epstein was kidnapped with Paul and died in the incident. Maybe they just replaced him so as not to raise too many questions about how he died? Maybe he was killed because he was a force pushing the Beatles to establish their own identities apart from the record company (EMI, which appears to be a British military intellgience front)
3. a) The cryptocracy, the people responsible for the switch in teh first place. b)Faul likes the fame and wealth
4. Going to a a major publisher would have brought a mind-controlled assassin on Harrison's ass a good five years earlier than it ultimately did. Whoever he worked with in collecting and secreting the info surely would have faced similar problems approaching a major publisher.
5. The McCartneys had no desire to meet the fate of Tara Browne.
6. How could any government NOT be involved in a cover-up of this scope. The Faul rpelacement was part of the cryptocracy's push to mind-control the populace. As much as I respect Lennon, I don't think he would have been able to find a replacement Faul, find classsified surgical technigues, and travel the globe assassinating people who threatened to talk.
7. People who posed a threat to the cover-up were killed. Tara Browne, John Lennon, etc.
8. This forum, and both Sun King and Uberkinder's websites are all public.
Hope this helps.
|
|
|
Post by Beatlestobattle on Aug 19, 2003 2:17:04 GMT
These answers are partly bull, partly the wheels creaking in the minds of conspiracy theorists. Take it with a grain of salt and remain open-minded on the matter.
|
|
|
Post by Uberkinder on Aug 19, 2003 2:35:17 GMT
WHAT!!!? ;D You're not open minded on the matter at all! You are going to completely insane lengths to deny the obvious, insisting that people's eyes can move closer together; THEY CAN'T! That is not open for debate, that's a biological fact. There is no natural biological process that would move someone's eyes closer together, and no one in the history of plastic surgery has ever had their skull broken and their eyes moved closer together. No one has even TRIED this; what the hell would be the purpouse? Even if this were THEORETICALLY possible, which is doubtful, the eyes are centered by a gyroscope in the brain; if the eyes were moved closer together they would not simply re-adjust to the new position, they would be crossed and lazy for a long time and possibly never correct to the new position. If you were trying to prove PHOTOGRAPHICALLY that his eyes are NOT closer together, then that would be reasonable, but to insist that a person's eyes (AND EARS!) can move closer together is ABSOLUTELY INSANE! If you want to keep debating this, then you have to prove that the photos are distorted or from inadequate angles; those are the only two possible explanations. Someone's skull completely changing size and shape is NOT a possible explanation, so you need to get off of this point; it's only making you look foolish.
|
|
|
Post by Beatlestobattle on Aug 19, 2003 2:43:59 GMT
Excuse me, Andrew...open your mind and you'll see that I AM open-minded.
I am NOT going to completely insane lengths, it appears every conspiracy theorist IS going to them to get the "evidence" to fit together when it's like a puzzle piece that doesn't fit at all.
Actually, people's eyes CAN move closer together if they thin out and also have plastic surgery on the side.
Why prove that the photos are distorted when someone's skull changing size and shape HAS been proven to happen?
|
|
|
Post by Uberkinder on Aug 19, 2003 4:03:05 GMT
Hon', I'm not an idiot. Your eyes are set in circular sockets inside your skull that are the same size as your eyes, they can not be pushed around by the superficial change in fat in your cheeks. This is irrelevant because PAUL'S EYES HAVE A WIDER DIAMETER. If you hadn't noticed, Paul's eye-sockets were significantly wider than Faul's. I suppose now you will tell me that eyes GROW in an adult human being.
No, not even growing children's heads can change shape like this. If his head got taller and WIDER, you might be able to convince me he has a hormonal disorder (even these people stop growing in their 20s) but his skull gets taller and THINNER. You do not lose width in your skull, ever. It can only get wider, and it stops growing in the late teens-early twenties.
If you are going to make strange assertion like this that ignore all biological information available, you need to tell me WHO'S eyes have gotten closer together and WHO's head has dramatically changed shape. If you are going to say "Paul!", that is clearly specious and circular reasoning.
|
|
|
Post by Darkhorse on Oct 28, 2003 0:53:25 GMT
Sun King, I hate to ask again, but can you do a facial comparison of Keith Richards now and 30 yeards ago? Or maybe someone else can? I'm sure you will find, AB, that the eyes, mouth, chin and ears all match up eventhough the face has changed. No matter of aging, weight loss or weight gain, drug use, etc. can change this very fact.
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Oct 28, 2003 2:19:19 GMT
An actress/singer I have not seen since 1990 recently appeared in a very humorous Ebay commercial on national TV. (Where she does a full out Broadway number with a dancing chorus in her living room for her husband.) I have never seen her on TV before: I haven't seen her in the flesh for 13 years, although prior to that I saw her for a week or two once a year for 8 years. I saw her in 3 dimensions until 1990.
13 years pass.
The commercial airs. After, maybe 4 seconds, I jump up from the couch and scream, It's Ms. So and So!" The TV expresses in only two dimensions. I immerdiately called TWO different mutual friends of hers. It indeed, was who I thought it was.
So, 13 years and a change of dimensions, not to mention being slightly older, and having a DIFFERENT HAIR STYLE-did not prevent me from knowing EXACTLY who she was.
But I guess I should have doubted myself because I didn't have forensic proof.
|
|
|
Post by yellowmatter on Oct 30, 2003 17:41:04 GMT
Ok, i have a question for you all in reference to uberkinder's website and all those who look to the animations as hard evidence that pre 66 and post 66 paul are not the same person.
How can we be sure that the different photos that are superimposed upon each other are taken a) with the same lens and b) with the subject (paul) the same distance away from the camera each time.
I don't mean to offend anyone here, especially uberkinder but i am a little confused on this matter.
I have seen many instances of dialogue on this site whereby one person claims that Paul never died and was never replaced for the other person to retort something along the lines of : "someone's eyes cannot move closer together - your skull does not change shape" etc. - you've all seen these exchanges.
But how do we know that?
Without measuring Paul and Faul's heads with calipers (which lets face it is an impossibility) and comparing them in real life (yes i know this can't be done, im talking hypothetically) one cannot be sure of his dimensions changing.
When putting forward arguments like the one above (ie. "his skull changes shape") we cannot be certain of the truth in them. Yes the photos show a bizarre change in dimensions between the two pictures however these could just as easily be caused by slightly concave or slightly convex lenses being used for the shot (Sgt Peppers would have needed a wide angle lens for example).
When comparing the butcher album paul with the sgt pepper album paul we can not be certain that there was equal distance between him and the camera in each shot. Most likely, there wasn't because lets face it, why would there be?
What i'm trying to say is that i do not believe we can use these photographic animations as "proof" that he died.
Alas it is a shame if this is the hardest evidence that exists.
We also do not KNOW that his head has changed in dimensions and that is an undeniable fact.
Any thoughts on this?
|
|
|
Post by Curious on Oct 31, 2003 14:02:53 GMT
Once a person hits adulthood and their bone structure has fully developed, it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for the head to "morph" in such a manner. Sun King is the expert on this - he can give a much fuller explanation than I can!
|
|
|
Post by yellowmatter on Oct 31, 2003 17:23:57 GMT
Yes but the point is that we do not KNOW if his bone structure has changed. That was my original point.
I do accept that your skull shape is fixed for life from the age of 18 or so onwards but everyone here is saying how the pictures "prove" he was replaced.
They indicate something yes but must not be taken as hard proof. Cameras can lie sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by Darkhorse on Oct 31, 2003 18:25:06 GMT
...yes all of the later Beatles pictures of 'Paul' show him with a morphed head for no apparent reason.
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Oct 31, 2003 19:09:26 GMT
They indicate something yes but must not be taken as hard proof. Cameras can lie sometimes. here we go again ..... please read and research this forum before writing something like that..."blaming the camera" has been talked to death...what it comes down to is, pre-66 Paul pix match each other; post-66 Faul pix match each other, but Paul and Faul pix do not match each other. This has not been a problem we have found with anyone else...not the other Beatles, not celebrities with lots of plastic surgery....it's not a matter of "a few photos", it is consistant.
|
|
|
Post by yellowmatter on Oct 31, 2003 20:25:19 GMT
Ok point taken, just want to be certain of some points before i believe in them. Thanks for clarifying things
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Nov 2, 2003 18:05:06 GMT
here we go again ..... please read and research this forum before writing something like that..."blaming the camera" has been talked to death...what it comes down to is, pre-66 Paul pix match each other; post-66 Faul pix match each other, but Paul and Faul pix do not match each other. This has not been a problem we have found with anyone else...not the other Beatles, not celebrities with lots of plastic surgery....it's not a matter of "a few photos", it is consistant. Perfect, Princess!
|
|