PID - Motivations for the Murder of Paul McCartney

Shiny new version:

I've been told that Paul was not replaced by a double, but they did something on him. The Faul is actually the real Paul but he was all messed in 1967. What I mena is he was like posessed or something by alien/demonic forces. Maybe he joinded a cult in 1967 like the Illuminati/Masonry. That changed his outlook on life.

reply to post by imnessie


imnessie, do you have any details or detailed speculation that you heard? What about the other members of the band? Why would they go along with this situation of "messing" or joining a cult? Who are "they" that did the messing with him, anything heard or can you speculate? I find your post very interesting.

How would possession morph his facial features & make him grow 2 inches, plus change his voiceprints?

Originally posted by someotherguy
How would possession morph his facial features & make him grow 2 inches

LOL. His facial features were never, er, 'morphed'.





50% overlay:



If you can't see that is the same guy then you obviously are suffereing from face blindness.

Someotherguy has already proven that she can't see any differences between Paul and her imaginary guy 'Faul', yet still persists in her tomfoolery.

*SIGH*

Originally posted by someotherguy
& make him grow 2 inches

Er, okaaaaaay....

Well, I never said that's the ultimate truth. After all everything on here is still theory. Wearing higher shoes may increase your height. I'm not sure about his physical body and face. However, I'm sure his view on life and his principles in life changed completely. Why? I don't know but they DID change. How could a person with a cool, easy-going personality morph into a stuck-up person, who pretends to be oh so hippy and caring of nature. The hippy Paul (a.k.a) Faul really seemed fake. He started dressing as a hippy but that seems like being only a pose. The pre-1967 Paul seems more easy-going and balanced, without being stuck-up or smething. He was just a nice guy with charisma and talents fro music. And don't say it's because of fame - fame doesn't change people in sveral months, fame gives you gradual change. He changed completely over a month or so in 1967. Such a complete change of personality usually takes at least two-three years.

Originally posted by imnessie
Well, I never said that's the ultimate truth. After all everything on here is still theory. Wearing higher shoes may increase your height. I'm not sure about his physical body and face. However, I'm sure his view on life and his principles in life changed completely. Why? I don't know but they DID change. How could a person with a cool, easy-going personality morph into a stuck-up person, who pretends to be oh so hippy and caring of nature. The hippy Paul (a.k.a) Faul really seemed fake. He started dressing as a hippy but that seems like being only a pose. The pre-1967 Paul seems more easy-going and balanced, without being stuck-up or smething. He was just a nice guy with charisma and talents fro music. And don't say it's because of fame - fame doesn't change people in sveral months, fame gives you gradual change. He changed completely over a month or so in 1967. Such a complete change of personality usually takes at least two-three years.

He didn't change imo. Yeah he started dressing 'hippie' well guess what, everyone did in 1967. What is your evidence for this drastic change in a couple of months? Were you there?

So dressing in suits wasn't a pose? That was the biggest pose, only done to sell records.

The reason he might seem to have changed is due to their earlier career being so controlled by their manager, once Epstein died there was no one to dictate the Beatles 'image', so they were free to dress as they pleased, that's why the suits soon disappeared in 67.

Paul was always a control freak, once Brian died Paul tried to take control, which the other 3 resented and was the reason for the hostility after the split (listen to 'How do you Sleep' by John). He wanted his father-in-law as manager, he took all the 'A' sides of singles, spent more time in the studio on his own songs, Pepper was all Paul with a bit of filler stuff from John. Paul was not the first to leave the group, he only left after John said he was leaving and was talked out of it by Paul. Paul wanted to be the one to break up the group, his final act of control.

Would they let an impostor break up the group, or even have any control?

*Note to someotherguy*

Your guy 'Faul' is the one on the right.

Originally posted by imnessie
However, I'm sure his view on life and his principles in life changed completely. Why? I don't know but they DID change.

You don't know that - you weren't there. Only Paul's personal friends and work mates would know if his "principles in life changed completely".

I wish people who don't actually know Paul would stop spouting off ill-informed opinion of his personality and as if it were from personal experience.

Originally posted by Wally Hope
So dressing in suits wasn't a pose? That was the biggest pose, only done to sell records.

The reason he might seem to have changed is due to their earlier career being so controlled by their manager, once Epstein died there was no one to dictate the Beatles 'image', so they were free to dress as they pleased, that's why the suits soon disappeared in 67.

I've seen many pidders reference the '64-'66 period photos as "The Real Paul". The fact is that this period of time represents the boys being the least like their real selves. Every aspect of their image was controlled by B.E.

This concept, along with any others that support PIA will be ignored, not debunked by pidders.

People with face blindness and wild imaginations will say these are different men.



Ho, ho, ho!

Originally posted by seaofgreen

Some people like faulcon/someotherguy have spent literally *years* trying to gain support for a conspiracy theory that simply ignores evidence to the contrary:

On the left: Paul; on the right: "in *1967*... the world's worst double" - LOL.

Sea of Green,

Please, we are not here discussing who is a good double, even though you apparently are making the point that FAUL is actually a very good double, using falsified pictures for this purpose. We are here to discuss who killed Paul and if you can't figure out the topic yet after 50 pages of postings then you need some special help.


REMINDER:

This thread is ONLY to discuss who killed Paul. If you have no other information that declaring that you can't accept this as a fact, then go ELSEWHERE to cry about this issue. Here we are only concerned with discovering WHO killed Paul and why and when this crime was committed. And we intend to pursue this to our last breath, and bring to justice those behind such a heinous crime.


GS

Same dude.

Originally posted by imnessie
Well, I never said that's the ultimate truth. After all everything on here is still theory. Wearing higher shoes may increase your height. I'm not sure about his physical body and face. However, I'm sure his view on life and his principles in life changed completely. Why? I don't know but they DID change. How could a person with a cool, easy-going personality morph into a stuck-up person, who pretends to be oh so hippy and caring of nature. The hippy Paul (a.k.a) Faul really seemed fake. He started dressing as a hippy but that seems like being only a pose. The pre-1967 Paul seems more easy-going and balanced, without being stuck-up or smething. He was just a nice guy with charisma and talents fro music. And don't say it's because of fame - fame doesn't change people in sveral months, fame gives you gradual change. He changed completely over a month or so in 1967. Such a complete change of personality usually takes at least two-three years.

Hi Imnessie,


While I can only respect your position wondering how one can explain the mysterious and uncharacteristic sudden personality shift between a candid spontaneous and sincere Paul with a cynical pretentious and affected Faul in a one month period during the late sixties, I must also call your attention that this thread is NOT to discuss whether Paul was Possessed but is based upon the CONCLUSION that Paul was Assassinated and that we must discover where, when, how and why.


Of course I will be more than happy to discuss with you your most valid concerns about your perception that the individual presented to us as Paul since that time period in the late sixties was POSSESSED in another thread elsewhere in ATS or another forum of your choice. Those of us who are sincerely investigating what happened are doing so after considerable attention paid to a great number of scientific analyses of FAUL's physical differences ranging from skull shape, bone structure and voice spectrum which CANNOT even be modified through surgical intervention, bringing us to the conclusion that Paul was ASSASSINATED.


Thanks for voicing your opinions and see you in the other threads, meanwhile we shall continue with our investigation into Paul's murder.


GS

Originally posted by Getsmart

..... you apparently are making the point that FAUL is actually a very good double, using falsified pictures for this purpose.

LOL!

So amusing to see the PIDers are still using transparent lies to hide the truth that Paul was never replaced.

Really, who do you think you are kidding with your doctored photo bull crap?

Readers - Please note:

Posters who make false claims cannot be trusted.

I would appreciate an intelligent person explaining why a thread which has a title which is self explicit, Murder Motivations, and which starts in its very first post stating that this is a place to only discuss that subject, WHY Paul was Killed, is visited in so frantic a manner by multiple flashing avatars trashing the discussion, denying the very rationale of the thread, deriding those who post constructively and trying to create bad blood in this topic?!?


Thanks for any who can explain this. Also, the absence of Moderator discipline when there is a total disregard for the thread topic is alarming in a highly visible and reputed discussion forum such as Above Top Secret. I hope this is strictly due to negligence rather than dereliction of duty.


GETSMART

Originally posted by Getsmart

I would appreciate an intelligent person explaining why a thread which has a title which is self explicit, Murder Motivations, and which starts in its very first post stating that this is a place to only discuss that subject, WHY Paul was Killed, is visited in so frantic a manner by multiple flashing avatars trashing the discussion, denying the very rationale of the thread, deriding those who post constructively and trying to create bad blood in this topic?!?


Thanks for any who can explain this. Also, the absence of Moderator discipline when there is a total disregard for the thread topic is alarming in a highly visible and reputed discussion forum such as Above Top Secret. I hope this is strictly due to negligence rather than dereliction of duty.


GETSMART

15f.) Relevant Content: You will not Post messages that are clearly outside of the stated topic of any forums or disrupt a forum by deliberately posting repeated irrelevant messages or copies of identical messages (also known as "flooding").

16d.) Forum Gangs: You will not engaged in an organized collaboration with other members to disrupt thread topics or interrupt the flow of normal collaborative discussion. Doing so will result in removal of your Post(s) and immediate termination of your account.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


It's odd. ? Usually the moderators are bang on with disruption, yet this is allowed time and again on this thread.

Originally posted by Getsmart

I would appreciate an intelligent person explaining why a thread which has a title which is self explicit, Murder Motivations, and which starts in its very first post stating that this is a place to only discuss that subject, WHY Paul was Killed, is visited in so frantic a manner by multiple flashing avatars trashing the discussion, denying the very rationale of the thread, deriding those who post constructively and trying to create bad blood in this topic?!?

Because Paul was never killed? Before you can even attempt to find motivations for a murder you first have to prove the murder took place.

I don't think there is anything in the rules that says you can dictate what people post in a public forum, the only people that can do that are the moderators. You don't own this thread, it's not here for a private conversation between you and your mates. People can post whatever reply they want as long as it's within the T&C.

Who's frantic? Pages and pages of the same doctored pics, wild assumptions and misinterpretations of facts. This is also not the first thread on this and it's the same posters with different names, faulconsnowjob.

The whole thing is a con job.