|
|
Post by Forever 17 on Aug 25, 2003 6:59:42 GMT
Hi, Just wondering if anyone has ever done a fingerprint comparison on Paul/Faul? Must be plenty of trails on this over the years, no?  |
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Aug 25, 2003 8:27:36 GMT
there was a discussion about this on the old message board. Supposedly when Faul was arrested (for possession) in Japan in the 80's, his fingerprints did not match the ones on file for "Paul McCartney". I read a news report on it as well, but haven't been able to backtrack and find it again  |
|
|
|
Post by Forever 17 on Aug 25, 2003 18:47:40 GMT
Oh, how interesting. The most viable legal proof of authenticity, and nothing ever came of it.... that Faul didn't have the same fingerprints as Paul?
Not too surprising. We are never told the truth in this world.
|
|
|
|
Post by mike on Aug 26, 2003 6:50:39 GMT
If someone had a link to that, it would convince a lot of skeptics, like me for example.
|
|
|
|
Post by beldabeast on Sept 3, 2003 15:36:50 GMT
there was a discussion about this on the old message board. Supposedly when Faul was arrested (for possession) in Japan in the 80's, his fingerprints did not match the ones on file for "Paul McCartney". I read a news report on it as well, but haven't been able to backtrack and find it again Also consider why Paul would go back to Japan after their wretched tour experience there ! |
|
|
|
Post by Forever 17 on Sept 3, 2003 18:01:27 GMT
I just posted this yesterday on another thread, but this seems an even better place for it....
Why don't they do a fingerprint comparison right now, and settle the whole matter once and for all? Why all the continued debates and arguing?
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnJakeUp on Sept 5, 2003 3:07:15 GMT
I just posted this yesterday on another thread, but this seems an even better place for it.... Why don't they do a fingerprint comparison right now, and settle the whole matter once and for all? Why all the continued debates and arguing? Cuz some people think this is so ridiculous that they wouldn't want to waste their time. Hey, I think Bush was replaced in 2000. I want a comparison right now so I'll stop talking about it. See how little sense that makes? |
|
|
|
Post by Forever 17 on Sept 5, 2003 3:19:09 GMT
There is no widespread or decades-long controversy over Bush, though. This is much different.
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnJakeUp on Sept 5, 2003 20:00:17 GMT
Um, not really. To many people it's just something ridiculous that has sprung up, so why waste people's times? The controversy was started by, IMO, paranoid people, especially since they think that everyone who SUPPOSEDLY dies (Doris Day, Reagan) has to be replaced by a look-alike.
|
|
|
|
Post by Forever 17 on Sept 5, 2003 20:27:09 GMT
Can you explain why JFK and Marilyn Monroe were not replaced? I'm sure most of us could do that.
|
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Sept 6, 2003 4:22:07 GMT
The JFK "King-Kill" ceremony was mass trauma mind-control programming on the American people - killing him was more useful than replacing him.
If you study the details of McCartney's death, you will see the same technique was carried out on Lennon vis-a-vis the murder and method of discovery.
|
|
