an open mind

[tarff26]

hi everyone. new member here

i don't mean to sound cheeky at all, but do you actually believe in the 'Faul' stuff, or is this something of a wind-up?

again i stress i am not meaning to sound disrespectful. I've been reading this forum for a wee while now and have thoroughly enjoyed what most of you have to say, but i'm still rather confused (even after reading the FAQ's). Some think Paul (and Brian) dies in the U.S, some think France, some UK. Is there a generally accepted version of what happened (Georges version?) or is it simply a case that you all believe Paul dies in 65/66 but the how, where and why is still up for discussion?

i come here with an open mind but a raised eyebrow. im genuinely interested and curious about this but it all just seems so BIG to be true

cheers

Dave

[romanruins]

tarff, if I might make a suggestion, the best use of you time might be to go to Essentials, and check out the Subject "Reference Documentation",and don't leave out looking at Eye Color comparisons.

Its now likely there was more than one accident/incident Paul was involved in. There is photographic proof the original Paul was alive till mid August 1966 on Tour.

Cheers

[The Fab Faul™]

SK = Obviously winding us up. Pearl? I don't think so.

Everyone else = Believes he was replaced...

Except me.

You're welcome.

[romanruins]

Thanks for that PT; its Life changing. We can tell, Life's a smug mug for you.

[tarff26]

thanks romanruins

i've already looked at the 'Essential' section and i can't see that it proves anything, although some people have very active imaginations

i've looked at all the pictures, the 'new' ears, the eye colour, the nose.......it just looks like the same guy to me.

the more far-out the rumours (paul being replaced by a woman??) the less credence is given to the whole thing.

[Sun King™]

Feb 16, 2009 11:47:49 GMT tarff26 said:

thanks romanruins


the more far-out the rumours (paul being replaced by a woman??) the less credence is given to the whole thing.

Why?

www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/11/sexchange.athlete/index.html
www.lauras-playground.com/ftm_jake2.htm

[romanruins]

Feb 16, 2009 11:47:49 GMT tarff26 said:

thanks romanruins

i've already looked at the 'Essential' section and i can't see that it proves anything, although some people have very active imaginations

i've looked at all the pictures, the 'new' ears, the eye colour, the nose.......it just looks like the same guy to me.

the more far-out the rumours (paul being replaced by a woman??) the less credence is given to the whole thing.

To Each His or Her Own! Altough "the eye colour"? How about the first entry at the subject: Eyes Again!
______________________________________________________________________


Yeah I know it's been mentioned before but I've been puzzling over this photo??...




Years and years of plastic surgery down the toilet when you forget to put your contacts in!

i15.photobucke

[tarff26]

Sun King - i am aware that sex changes have happened in the past, and some to a staggeringly 'accurate' standard

but i'm not so sure that in the 1960's - or even now - it would be possible to change not only a persons appearance but also their sex in such a short time, and to so closely resemble someone whom almost the entire world recognised

i am willing to listen to many arguments on this subject but like i said i think the slightly more far-out ones cheapen it somewhat

[The Fab Faul™]

Feb 17, 2009 2:13:25 GMT romanruins said:

Feb 16, 2009 11:47:49 GMT tarff26 said:

thanks romanruins

i've already looked at the 'Essential' section and i can't see that it proves anything, although some people have very active imaginations

i've looked at all the pictures, the 'new' ears, the eye colour, the nose.......it just looks like the same guy to me.

the more far-out the rumours (paul being replaced by a woman??) the less credence is given to the whole thing.

To Each His or Her Own! Altough "the eye colour"? How about the first entry at the subject: Eyes Again!
______________________________________________________________________


Yeah I know it's been mentioned before but I've been puzzling over this photo??...




Years and years of plastic surgery down the toilet when you forget to put your contacts in!

i15.photobucke

That photo is taken in very light conditions, Macca appears to be squinting! The other pic on that thread (Pre-66) was taken at night. A post at NIR shows Paul before '66, in similar lighting, and hey presto! Green eyes!

Everything on here can be debunked. But I am prepared to live and let live.

[Sun King™]

Feb 22, 2009 23:47:42 GMT tarff26 said:

Sun King - i am aware that sex changes have happened in the past, and some to a staggeringly 'accurate' standard

but i'm not so sure that in the 1960's - or even now - it would be possible to change not only a persons appearance but also their sex in such a short time, and to so closely resemble someone whom almost the entire world recognised

i am willing to listen to many arguments on this subject but like i said i think the slightly more far-out ones cheapen it somewhat

See:

www.gizmag.com/ct-dose-reduction-technology-uses-military-technology/10472/picture/59053/

Since the military technology is strategic it is 30 years ahead the "commericial" one.

[tarff26]

Feb 24, 2009 10:16:21 GMT Sun King™ said:

See:

www.gizmag.com/ct-dose-reduction-technology-uses-military-technology/10472/picture/59053/

Since the military technology is strategic it is 30 years ahead the "commericial" one.

even if that is the case that only takes us back to the very late 1970's - more than a decade AFTER you suggest any 'switch' took place

[romanruins]

Feb 23, 2009 17:57:11 GMT The Fab Faul™ said:

Feb 17, 2009 2:13:25 GMT romanruins said:

To Each His or Her Own! Altough "the eye colour"? How about the first entry at the subject: Eyes Again!
______________________________________________________________________


Yeah I know it's been mentioned before but I've been puzzling over this photo??...




Years and years of plastic surgery down the toilet when you forget to put your contacts in!

i15.photobucke

That photo is taken in very light conditions, Macca appears to be squinting! The other pic on that thread (Pre-66) was taken at night. A post at NIR shows Paul before '66, in similar lighting, and hey presto! Green eyes!

Everything on here can be debunked. But I am prepared to live and let live.

1.) You lie alot traff26; an illustration of that is your first post on this thread where you start off "hi everyone. new member here" but your Author Box says you took your I-D in September of 2006. You are not "opened minded" but retreat to the same thought without refuting the evidence. "Paul" has the emboss the the white sweater photo thats there. People don't come here to convince you of anything. For all that you contributed here take a flying leap!

2.) JS2 Webster's 2 University Dictionary [Squinting] 1.To look with partly closed eyes. 2. To look to the side. Macca/Faul is not squinting nor "appears to be" in the picture we are referencing!

3.) JS2 How do you Know when the "pre 66" picture was taken at the first post of the Eyes Again Subject thread? Why couldn't the picture be taken in a studio? Gene Genie offers other pictures in the next post there which THINKING People can look at. In the "pre 66" photo intense artificial light is being directed straight at his face which refutes your "night time" discrediting of the effect on the color of the eyes. You can't accurately make observations of a photograph at a public form!

4.) What/ where is NIR? Like I care, and it makes a difference.

5.) By your last sentence JS2 YOU are saying that YOUR Paul had green eyes some times, and brown eyes sometimes. That along with just about all of your couple sentence posts, and a minutes thought that you've written at this Board makes you stupid, and juvenile. You can't critique a photograph in a non- idiotic way, and are just posting as an act, and trying to force responds to you.

6.) traff26 & JS2 Your posts are a fair indication of what you think of people in general, how you operate, and how useful truth is to you. Do you have another option other than being "prepared to live and let live"? The reason I am writing this is you traff26 are keeping "Your" Thread new by turning it over with dishonest, insipid posts that people new here should ignore, and look at the evidence subject topics, and make up there minds!

[tarff26]

romanruins - there really was no need for that outburst. the fact it came completely out of the blue when before i had assumed you were trying to help me makes it even more disturbing

i have not lied once. i did indeed join in 2006 (something i had forgotten about btw) but when i rediscovered this board i wanted to contribute for the first time and tried to register. my email address was obviously still registered from the first time i was here, but my first EVER post here was the OP in this thread. Please dont try to make me out be disingenuous because it simply isn't true

as for my 'dishonest, insipid' posts. where are these exactly? my OP simply asked general questions about the whole 'faul' theory which and kindly pointed me in the right direction to the answers. Now after another 2 posts (in which i HAVE contributed to the discussion and have not simply been 'bumping' my post as you think) you have turned very hostile. Why?

I am interested in this subject but, like i said, I am very new to it. I don't believe some of the more radical theories being put forward and have discussed that in this very thread, but i AM open minded. Your scatter-gun attack on me and JS2 hasnt helped in the slightest.

I dont expect an apology from you, even though you have been less than honest with your description of me and my contributions, but I'd ask you to be a little less aggressive in the future.

cheers

[The Fab Faul™]

"You are not opened minded"

So, to believe something other than what is presented here means you are closed-minded? What about an open minded person who has different beliefs?

"Macca/Faul is not squinting nor "appears to be" in the picture we are referencing!"

I guess I worded it incorrectly. You can tell anyway, by the way he's got his hand up, and the light in general, that it is bright. The most commonly compared picture to this one (Here and other places), was fairly obviously taken in a very dark place.


"and how useful truth is to you."

...When SK shows anything remotely truthful-looking/unrefutable, then maybe I'll consider it. But the truth at the moment seems to be the most logical answer. And NIR is a more active, friendlier and accepting forum than this place. Nothing Is Real is the full name, or Invanddis.

[romanruins]

Feb 27, 2009 10:41:00 GMT @Tarff26 said:

romanruins - there really was no need for that outburst. the fact it came completely out of the blue when before i had assumed you were trying to help me makes it even more disturbing

i have not lied once. i did indeed join in 2006 (something i had forgotten about btw) but when i rediscovered this board i wanted to contribute for the first time and tried to register. my email address was obviously still registered from the first time i was here, but my first EVER post here was the OP in this thread. Please dont try to make me out be disingenuous because it simply isn't true

as for my 'dishonest, insipid' posts. where are these exactly? my OP simply asked general questions about the whole 'faul' theory which and kindly pointed me in the right direction to the answers. Now after another 2 posts (in which i HAVE contributed to the discussion and have not simply been 'bumping' my post as you think) you have turned very hostile. Why?

I am interested in this subject but, like i said, I am very new to it. I don't believe some of the more radical theories being put forward and have discussed that in this very thread, but i AM open minded. Your scatter-gun attack on me and JS2 hasnt helped in the slightest.

I dont expect an apology from you, even though you have been less than honest with your description of me and my contributions, but I'd ask you to be a little less aggressive in the future.

cheers

_________________________________________________________________

tarff26 "as for my 'dishonest insipid' posts, where are these exactly"

1.)"I have not lied once" O-Post "I don't mean to sound cheeky at all, but do you actually. . . etc." and so forth.

2.)"I've been reading this forum for a wee (little) while now" O-Post
a."I have already looked at the "Essential" section and can't see that it proves anything. . . " from Your 2nd Post

3.) Maybe You tarff26 should be attemping to convince us of your "beliefs."

tarff, thousands of people have looked at this site without starting a Thread on their opinion of the site, and asking to be helped/convinced about the replacement. You bait the hook by asking to have the Generalities explained to You and then make general, rude, dismissive, few sentence Posts that you don't see it. In the one specific attack you've made here " Sun King I am aware sex changes have happened in the past,". . . etc. That isn't what he presented! Look at the picture of Faul in White! Look at Alice! Thats not submitting evidence of a sex change! Either you know what you are writing about, and the material or you don't.

This isn't a Legal Proceeding, any type of Proceeding or Tribunal, and if it were You traff26, JS2, or PeoplesCommittee wouldn't be able to lead it.

I've never been one to encourage arrogance and stupidity!

[tarff26]

Mar 5, 2009 8:36:32 GMT romanruins said:

[_________________________________________________________________

tarff26 "as for my 'dishonest insipid' posts, where are these exactly"

1.)"I have not lied once" O-Post "I don't mean to sound cheeky at all, but do you actually. . . etc." and so forth.

2.)"I've been reading this forum for a wee (little) while now" O-Post
a."I have already looked at the "Essential" section and can't see that it proves anything. . . " from Your 2nd Post

3.) Maybe You tarff26 should be attemping to convince us of your "beliefs."

tarff, thousands of people have looked at this site without starting a Thread on their opinion of the site, and asking to be helped/convinced about the replacement. You bait the hook by asking to have the Generalities explained to You and then make general, rude, dismissive, few sentence Posts that you don't see it. In the one specific attack you've made here " Sun King I am aware sex changes have happened in the past,". . . etc. That isn't what he presented! Look at the picture of Faul in White! Look at Alice! Thats not submitting evidence of a sex change! Either you know what you are writing about, and the material or you don't.

This isn't a Legal Proceeding, any type of Proceeding or Tribunal, and if it were You traff26, JS2, or PeoplesCommittee wouldn't be able to lead it.

I've never been one to encourage arrogance and stupidity!

i'm sorry that you haven't been able to understand my previous posts, romanruins, but that still doesnt excuse your previous abusive post

you've accused me of being dishonest but have provided no evidence of this. you have misunderstood the word 'wee' and twisted it to suit your own ends

and probably worst of all you have accused me of 'baiting' when all i did was ask a perfectly innocent question regarding the origin of the PiD rumours and whether or not there was a generally accepted version of events (something i have not been able to find in this jumble of a board)

is this how all new members are treated? anyone from the 'outside' wishing to be intiated is barracked and intimidated until they leave? anyone not 'in' is immediately under scrutiny and accused of being less than genuine

Having read plenty of other posts i know that you, romanruins, are not typical of the majority of posters on this board. Therefore I would ask you not to bother responding to this thread anymore and leave it to those willing to help rather than babble about 'legal proceedings'

thanks

[Lic.Teish]

[img src="[/img]"][img src="[/img]"][/img]