Stand-in Claims

[mj]

Hello Hello People!!

Here's what I don't get ...
Claims that yes, the Beatles did use a stand-in - but only {and i stress} FOR A SHORT TIME ... AND ... FOR A BIT OF FUN ...
Maybe for publicity .... yes, maybe for some fun ... BUT the fact still remains, if the stand-in were to appear only for a short period of time, why then can everyone clearly see with their naked eye that the claimed "stand-in" is the man we all now know as Paul McCartney?? Would he not be known by another name?? Would there not be ANOTHER Paul??

Paul never seemed to change back after the stand-in took his place, so how is the public, in all honesty, meant to believe that he was a temporary stand-in when we can all plainly see that either there was no stand-in alltogether {just a very different Paul} OR a PERMANENT "stand-in" ... the man we all know as billy McCartney.

Also, although there is no real evidence in this - just opinion ... does anyone really think that the REAL Paul would just stand around while some imposter "temporarily" took his place for "fun" and "publicity"?? Surely no-one in their right mind would trade their fame and world-wide acclaim {although only "temporarily"} just for a publicity stunt ... we're talking about the best known band that the world has EVER seen!! - And they were even bigger back then.

Sorry, but I had to get this off my chest.
Why in Pauls name would the Media/The Beatles/Anyone at all claim that there WAS a stand-in, but only temporarily ... it's as plain as day!!
Post 66 Paul, or Faul, our stand-in man, IS our modern day billy - you'd have to be blind not to see it.

Hope you can see where I'm coming from ... does anyone agree with me??

[JamesPaul & Brian]

Mj,
have you see 60IF initial sequence of comparisons?
It's TOTALLY self conclusive!
Today Bill has still the stage name of Paul McCartney.
You know, I'm sorry about....

[FIDllp]

Yes, that is- without a doubt- the question.

The whole idea of replacing Paul- and GETTING AWAY WITH IT for 37 years is what makes no sense to the average person.

There is a site

www.internetgreetings.com/Beatles/more-paul-1.html

This site was made by a woman who LOVES Paul. What's amazing to me, is that it is loaded with pictures of both Paul and Faul- back to back. How does a woman, so taken with Paul/Faul, not see the difference. This is another thing I have had a problem with.

As a man, I can understand my not noticing it until I heard about this site. I always had a general idea about what he looked like, but never paid close attention. A woman, however, studies a man's eyes and everything about them. How come women all over the world didn't notice that the "look" in Paul's eyes is nothing like the look in Faul's? And that the head, chin, mouth- everything is different??

I can now look at any picture of Faul and point him out. Why haven't women noticed? I'd love to hear from women as to what they think....

The bottom line here is that we are looking at more than a publicity stunt. We are faced with one of the most blatant examples of mind control and mass deception we have ever seen- OR- rather, have had photographic evidence of.

Makes you wonder about those claims that we never really went to the moon- that it was all filmed in a studio. Makes you wonder just what else "they" have deceived us with!

In the 60's there was no internet. TV was around, but most were black and white and pictures were smaller and far less clear. It also was a time of innocence and less awareness of what's happening around the world. Today, we see it happen before our eyes- no matter where it is. Then, we had to read about it, and we had to work at getting information.

Today, information is readily available for all who want it....right at our finger tips! Hence, this site.

The fact that the average person has access to the technology to prove conclusively that the photos of Paul do not match up with Faul, is something "they" did not anticipate back in 1966.

To offer more evidence, I have an interesting idea for which I would invite comment from all of you....if we work in reverse, let's say, using Paul's pictures- can we not have a police/forensic computer artist use the "AGE PROGRESSION" technology(the kind used to age missing children and missing persons) to advance one of Paul's real photos to see what he would look like today? I AM SURE THAT PAUL WOULD LOOK NOTHING LIKE FAUL! That might offer some more proof to the nay-sayers.

But a little on the nay-sayers..I believe that the photographic evidence is undeniable. However, I believe that when confronted with such an incredible conspiracy such as this, the average person cannot or doesn't want to face the truth. It is not an easy thing to do. For one thing, it shatters your perception of reality. For most, an established reality framework is necessary to keep one's sanity. If you admit that there are two men, not one, then you have to admit that a conspiracy of ENORMOUS MAGNITUDE was carried out before the public's eye.

Again- what is real? We are told to believe things because we also assume that we are being told the truth. I think we know that Oswald did not act- or at least act alone in the assasination of JFK- yet the Warren Commission made up of people such as Chief Justice Earl Warren of the United States Supreme Court- said he acted alone. We know today, using the evidence, that could be not be so.

So- what are we really to believe? I think the great rulers of this world have manipulated the people for ages. It really isn't that hard to do. It is done continuously everyday of our lives. We can either choose to be a part of it, or to remove ourselves from the world's thinking.

Any thoughts?

[inmylife]

I just want to say one reason you can tell each photo of who you believe to be phony Paul is because there are only a limited supply of what you would accept to be the real Paul. Any that are not early photos are unavoidably predisposed in your mind as NOT being Paul. (Whether you are being as objective as you can) and whether or not you are right. So your ability to decipher the real Paul from the fake the Paul isn't that impressive. If other people don't notice it, it doesn't mean their stupid, does it?

[FIDllp]

Inmylife- I most certainly never inferred that anyone who cannot notice a difference in Paul/Faul photos is "stupid". I would not disrespect anyone's opinion with such a word. What I was trying to get across is that the whole idea of switching Paul is so incredible that to believe it shatters one's entire perception of reality. Part of me doesn't want to believe it; not because I doubt the difference in the photographic evidence, but because admitting to the switch forces me to then admit that a conspiracy of great magnitude has been perpetrated. And if a conspiracy had been perpetrated, then one is forced to act, in good conscience, to expose this falsehood. In the end, short of a confession from Faul McCartney, there is no way to conclusively prove anything. Each must make his own decision based upon the evidence.

Regarding my ability to tell the difference between the two- yes, there is a difference between the amount of pictures- and the evidentiary fact that you can tell the "era" of a picture usually by looking at it. After all, the styles changed profusely between the early 60's and the mid—late 60's. But it can also be argued that the Beatles were such a force in our culture, that they led the way to cultural change and styles. But, I must say that as one spends enough time- even off of this site, you can become quite familiar with Paul and Faul and their individual- yet similar characteristics

I'll be curious to see where this all leads. Eventually, enough people will be talking about this. I know that I have put many people I know onto the site, and they admit that something is afoul. I think that is one thing we can all admit with certainty.

[JamesPaul & Brian]

60IF "The King Is Naked!" meaning.

It's about the self-imposed blindness in human societies, where social rules produce fear, preventing people from expressing their opinions openly, so that they live in apparent happiness without finding a way out of their conflict.
A society forms, of mutual praises and repression. The base for this sentence was Hans Christian Andersen’s story: “The Emperor's New Suit", written in 1837.
It tells the story of a king who was only interested in new clothes.
Then two swindlers came, saying that they could produce such a beautiful and light cloth, of an incalculable value, with the special characteristic that stupid or incompetent people could not see it.
The king, of course, wanted this cloth for a new suit, and he paid a lot of money in order to obtain it.
The swindlers delivered the (fictitious) cloth after several court members had inspected it.
None of them saw the cloth, but all affirmed that it was beautiful (because admitting that they didn't see it, they would have declared themselves stupid or incompetent).
The king could not see it either, but he did not admit this.
The swindlers manufactured a suit with a long tail of cloth; the king undressed and “put on" the new beautiful suit, parading through the streets of the city.
All the people (knowing about the characteristics of the cloth) expressed their admiration and astonishment in front of such a beauty until the moment, when a little child innocently said:

“But the king is naked"!

“Good heavens! listen to the voice of an innocent child,” said the father, and one whispered to the other what the child had said. “But the king is naked”

cried at last the whole people.

[byrdsmaniac]

Above tale known as "The Emporer's New Clothes" in the U.S. for some reason.

[IanSingleton777]

BHLYND-

Good post and welcome here.

You touch upon many of the rhetorical questions we have hit and kicked around already. Glad to see a newbie jump right in with the same thought process.

We have been conditioned since childhood. We are born with mental/psychic abilities and unconventional thought processes, that are systematically repressed and devalued. The term 'Conditioned Response' and all it can imply bears the utmost in investigation!

Better to 'fool the people' with a BIG lie than with a tiny small one! Hence, the JFK/RFK assassinations, Viet Nam. Iraq, Moon landing, etc. On and on, to infinity. Established history is a lie. As George implored on 'Rubber Soul', "Think For Yourself"!

But the internet and information age has caught up to the PID situation. Before NOW, before HERE, you could not access the comparison photos and such. Therefore, without the evidence presented at all, how can you state a case?

But, we've got him now. Our ranks grow and our cyber-voice rings loud and strong. Paul is dead...has been since 1966. Then John. Then George.

When the dust settled, the bullets and knives and cancers hit their marks....only FAUL and YOKO were left standing. And Neil, at Apple. And George Martin, who's probably nervously checking the batteries on his home security system right this very minute!

ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE.
NOTHING IS REAL.

[Perplexed]

There was a filling station chain in several regions of the USA known as "Gulf Oil" back in the 70's and before. Sometime in the 80's, it became "Gulf Oil-BP." This lasted a year or so. Then it became just "BP." (which is of course British Petroleum) .

There was a bank called "1st National Bank of a Certain State." Then they combined the moniker with "Nations Bank." Then they dropped the first designation, leaving it just "Nations Bank."

Identity merger. We are weaned onto new products (Mr. Pibb Extra, new Coke) by fusing two things, then eliminating the first after the second indenification has been assimilated.

We don't often remember the first business after very long, most of us.

[IanSingleton777]

Lest we forget the sage advertisment come-ons:

'NEW AND IMPROVED"

'AS SEEN ON TELEVISION"

and, the biggest kicker (read this FAUL)

'ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES"

[LUCY]

Perplexed said:

There was a filling station chain in several regions of the USA known as "Gulf Oil" back in the 70's and before. Sometime in the 80's, it became "Gulf Oil-BP." This lasted a year or so. Then it became just "BP." (which is of course British Petroleum) .

exactly. Just look at EMI.

[MrMustard]

IanSingleton777 said:

Lest we forget the sage advertisment come-ons:

'NEW AND IMPROVED"

I know this is off-topic but it really annoys me. How can something be "new" and "improved" at the same time? If it's new, then there has never been anything before it. If it's an improvement, then there must have been something before it. Which is it, "new", or "improved?"

And something a little more on the topic......The Truman Show is a perfect example of manipulation, they manipulated Truman his entire life and he didn't know any different, because humans often accept the reality with which they are presented. Luckily, we here at 60IF don't accept our reality, we question it. What happened when Truman questioned his reality? The truth was revealed. It is only a matter of time before Faul is fully revealed for what he really is. Oh, and BTW, if you haven't seen The Truman Show, I suggest you see it, good movie it is! (Makes you a little paranoid though)