PID - Motivations for the Murder of Paul McCartney

Originally posted by squirelnutz
I'm only on page 2, but i had to ask:

Is Paul the only suspected celebrity to be killed and then replaced?

Someone earlier said that Faul would have to be one of the best imposters in the world; but what if there's more, and Faul is in fact one of the worst, because, i mean we ARE posting about it lol



Sorry, OP, I'm not trying to derail the thread, just curious

Hi Squirelnutz,


Asking if replacing other celebrities is a pattern of occurrence is definitely not derailing this thread, insofar as it gives background to evaluate possibilities regarding Paul's replacement. So this could be useful should you find things which are relevant to who may be behind Paul's elimination and Faul's substitution.


If you are really wondering then you can take a gander here. Some posts there are compelling, others are probably less founded. Pick yours.


LINK: Celebrity Doppelgangers


GS

A personal observation. The POLLUTION level has gotten to Alert Levels the past few pages. Trying to read this thread to learn something pertinent or find relevance to this topic has become increasingly difficult as it is soiled by trivial diatribe from a small group of acolytes.


I couldn't care less whether they are motivated by a misplaced ego identification with Sir Faul, because they are feature blind or are hired truth blockers. What matters is that they are openly sabotaging the purpose of this thread, and at the same time in direct violation of ATS guidelines hijacking this thread to confer about their own private convictions which offer no constructive input to this Murder Investigation.


Marco Torres exposes such behavior in his 8 point analysis of disinformation operatives.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist

1. Avoidance
They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.


2. Selectivity
They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.


3. Coincidental
They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.


4. Teamwork
They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.


5. Anti-conspiratorial
They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain. Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.


6. Artificial Emotions
An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal.

But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation.

You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.


7. Inconsistent
There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within.

I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.


8. Time Constant
There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation:

ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT - FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth.

When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR - there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to 'get permission' or instruction from a formal chain of command.

In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay - the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.

Remarkably, even media and law enforcement have NOT BEEN TRAINED to deal with these issues. For the most part, only the players themselves understand the rules of the game.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

We cannot help but notice that the last sentence in this analysis points to the lack of training of those working in Media and Law Enforcement. We can add to this list the glaring fact that Discussion Forum Moderators would do well to post such a list of known organized DISINFORMATION behavior patterns to ALERT their Members. ATS... is anyone home?


GS

Originally posted by Getsmart
Avoidance
They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

If you actually read through this post folks you will notice that the only people who avoid references, or credentials, are the PIDers. They imply that things happened that didn't. They claim authority on the Beatles and everything that happened to them. They claim to be experts in analysis. They refuse to discus the facts that contradict their claim head on.

Selectivity
They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.

They refuse to reply to any questions and only make silly posts lying about ATS members, accusing them of being agents. Like anyone would pay people to follows PIDers around to stop any PID discussions, paranoid a little?

Coincidental
They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.

No sudden surfacing here, been on ATS awhile now, and I'm not about to vanish.

Teamwork
They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

Oh yes this thread is full of that, as well as it...

Anti-conspiratorial
They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain. Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.

I have no disdain for 'conspiracy theorists', and I don't believe anyone in this thread has made a claim like this.

Artificial Emotions
An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal.

Well there is no overwhelming criticism in this thread is there? Nothing to persevere and not persist over is there?
There is no condemning evidence is there? Only a lot of misrepresentations and delusions.

But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style...

And you can point out where that has happened in this thread?

Inconsistent
There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within.

We've all been pretty consistent, Macca did not die and you are misrepresenting facts and trying to make people believe altered pictures are real. You are the scammer not us, we are just pointing out the truth.

I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.

Huh, and that happened in this thread?

BTW I thought the thread topic was PM, why do you insist on trying derail this thread with off-topic rants about ATS members? Maybe I should be the one contacting the Mods? I don't appreciate being called an agent constantly. You seem to have a habit of accusing people of things with no evidence to support it. I bet you're the sort that constantly spies on the neighbours to see if they're doing something wrong...

'truth' comes in many guises,and then there is "Truth".

Whether or not one agrees with this thread is irrelevant, but the constant bantering like kids in a schoolyard does seem like an ill-fitting hat and the claims by both sides can be viewed as extraordinary depending on which side of the fence one sits.
For myself, I find the proposition possible, but only after I began to suspend my belief which was built on decades of recurring themes and memes.
It has been shown elsewhere that there were impostors, doubles and doppelgangers who from time to time have filled in for 'famous' people, i.e. Monty's double; so it is not that much of a stretch to think that it occurs with figureheads of Popular Culture.
Now, sure, there is conjecture and supposition and some very 'way out' ideas around this topic, just as there are intriguing events, mystery, and curiousities. However, I, for one, do enjoy reading about this and am interested in the POSSIBILITY. At times, I may even add something that could be of value, or may be nothing.
There is proof of operations such as MKUltra. This is just one, and there is the possibility that there were/are more that we don't even pay mind to, or are purposefully blocked from knowing about. This is, in part, why I like this thread. whether it is correct or not is inconsequential TO ME, as I have found out many interesting things about this culture that I inhabit and which inhabits me.
I find the distractions by detractors inhibiting and while I think they may well be entitled to their opinion, do they constantly have to reiterate it in a thread that is counter to their beliefs? Yes, I expect crying about the right to freedom of expression and that the 'great' Sir Paul has been slighted. It is curious though, one must note, that besides implying it isn't true, he has never charged anyone with libel over these claims.
That, in itself, is food for thought.

Originally posted by aorAki
It has been shown elsewhere that there were impostors, doubles and doppelgangers who from time to time have filled in for 'famous' people, i.e. Monty's double; so it is not that much of a stretch to think that it occurs with figureheads of Popular Culture.

Yes it is a stretch.

There is a huge difference between a stand-in double, that is only used for a brief time to fool people for a brief time, and replacing someone completely.

The stand in doesn't have to fool anyone but the general public, not friends and relatives close to them.

Show me anywhere a stand-in had fooled anyone anywhere, other than the public in short TV clips or press photo's. Stand-ins don't have to live the life of the person they are standing in for, they don't have to know anything about the person.

Monty's double had to fool the Germans, he didn't fool anyone who knew the real Monty. Not even close to Macca being replaced at the height of his fame with the eyes of the world watching his every move.

Huge fail in logic mate...

Originally posted by Getsmart
A personal observation. The POLLUTION level has gotten to Alert Levels the past few pages. Trying to read this thread to learn something pertinent or find relevance to this topic has become increasingly difficult as it is soiled by trivial diatribe from a small group of acolytes.


I couldn't care less whether they are motivated by a misplaced ego identification with Sir Faul, because they are feature blind or are hired truth blockers. What matters is that they are openly sabotaging the purpose of this thread, and at the same time in direct violation of ATS guidelines hijacking this thread to confer about their own private convictions which offer no constructive input to this Murder Investigation.


Marco Torres exposes such behavior in his 8 point analysis of disinformation operatives.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist

1. Avoidance
They never actually........

Yawn, yet another getsmart rant that is completely OFF TOPIC. Ironic, or what?

You're acting like a big baby. Get over yourself.

Originally posted by Getsmart
1. Avoidance
Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other.

LOL! Everything you PIDers have claimed in this thread about Paul/'Faul' has been 'implied'!

No facts to back your claims up. No documentation. No testimonies. No proof. No credible evidence.

ZILCH!

You're having a laugh, mate. You really are. Take a look at yourself before copy and pasting your drivel.

Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

How so? Back that statement up. Of course, you won't will you? Because you can't. Your talking drivel again. Nobody here who has disagreed with your cock-eyed 'evidence' has tried to 'imply' any "authority and expert knowledge in the matter".

We are just normal people who have enough sense to see that all this Paul is dead crap is exactly that - crap. And we are fully within ATS rules to say so. We have highlighted all the various flaws and gaping holes in your claims and all you can do is constantly jump up and down throwing a tantrum, laughably accusing us of being agents, whining to the Mods and accusing us of derailing the thread - which is exactly what you are doing in the above post.

You can scream, cry and stamp your little feet all you want. We are within the ATS rules to post about Paul McCartney in the PEOPLE forum. FACT.

Originally posted by Getsmart

edit on 12-12-2010 by Getsmart because: this thread must at last receive some proper moderation in alignment with ATS rules.

You need to actually read the rules mate.

Originally posted by Wally Hope

Originally posted by aorAki
It has been shown elsewhere that there were impostors, doubles and doppelgangers who from time to time have filled in for 'famous' people, i.e. Monty's double; so it is not that much of a stretch to think that it occurs with figureheads of Popular Culture.

Yes it is a stretch.

There is a huge difference between a stand-in double, that is only used for a brief time to fool people for a brief time, and replacing someone completely.

The stand in doesn't have to fool anyone but the general public, not friends and relatives close to them.

Show me anywhere a stand-in had fooled anyone anywhere, other than the public in short TV clips or press photo's. Stand-ins don't have to live the life of the person they are standing in for, they don't have to know anything about the person.

Monty's double had to fool the Germans, he didn't fool anyone who knew the real Monty. Not even close to Macca being replaced at the height of his fame with the eyes of the world watching his every move.

Huge fail in logic mate...

Agreed. Added to this, Paul was one of the most recognisable faces in the world. Yet nobody noticed he looked 'different'. Nobody noticed he talked 'different'. Nobody noticed he acted 'different'. This, despite constantly being in the papers, being photographed, being interviewed, recording songs, performing.

Boy - that's some double! And in this time the Beatles recorded some of their best ever work.

Boy - that's some double!

Just ask yourself: What's the chance that there was an identical lookalike, who could speak and sing exactly like Paul? Who could play left hand bass exactly like Paul and write iconic songs that would still be played over 40 years later?

And this double just happens to be completely unknown - despite looking exactly like Paul McCartney - with no friends or relatives who would spill the beans after his 'switch'?

C'mon - what's the chance of this?

3 years after he was 'replaced', and ONLY because some student phoned a radio station to say that there was a backwards message on a Beatles song which said "Turn me on, deadman", did people start talking about the rumour.

Originally posted by Wally Hope

Originally posted by aorAki
It has been shown elsewhere that there were impostors, doubles and doppelgangers who from time to time have filled in for 'famous' people, i.e. Monty's double; so it is not that much of a stretch to think that it occurs with figureheads of Popular Culture.

Yes it is a stretch.

There is a huge difference between a stand-in double, that is only used for a brief time to fool people for a brief time, and replacing someone completely.

The stand in doesn't have to fool anyone but the general public, not friends and relatives close to them.

Show me anywhere a stand-in had fooled anyone anywhere, other than the public in short TV clips or press photo's. Stand-ins don't have to live the life of the person they are standing in for, they don't have to know anything about the person.

Monty's double had to fool the Germans, he didn't fool anyone who knew the real Monty. Not even close to Macca being replaced at the height of his fame with the eyes of the world watching his every move.

Huge fail in logic mate...

edit on 12-12-2010 by Wally Hope because: (no reason given)

Brilliant! This is absolutely correct.

The fake Monty was only to briefly fool the Germans into thinking that Monty was some place that he really wasn't. It was to fool people who did not really know Monty, and to do so from a distance. The double didn't need to fool Churchill, or Monty's family, staff or friends. He would not have been able to do so. Also, Monty's double didn't have to learn to play bass left handed, or learn to play the piano, and he didn't have to learn how to sing like the member of the most popular band in the world - all while constantly being filmed, photographed and recorded. There is a gigantic difference between the two situations.

Originally posted by Dakudo

Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

How so? Back that statement up. Of course, you won't will you? Because you can't. Your talking drivel again. Nobody here who has disagreed with your cock-eyed 'evidence' has tried to 'imply' any "authority and expert knowledge in the matter".

We are just normal people who have enough sense to see that all this Paul is dead crap is exactly that - crap. And we are fully within ATS rules to say so. We have highlighted all the various flaws and gaping holes in your claims and all you can do is constantly jump up and down throwing a tantrum, laughably accusing us of being agents, whining to the Mods and accusing us of derailing the thread - which is exactly what you are doing in the above post.

You can scream, cry and stamp your little feet all you want. We are within the ATS rules to post about Paul McCartney in the PEOPLE forum. FACT.

Doesn't this just cry out hypocricy? We have been very open about our backgrounds, and we have never claimed, or implied authority or expert knowledge. It is the PIDers here and elsewhere that thrust authority and expert knowledge upon us. It is they that proclaim we are experienced agents of the CIA, MI5, MI6, MI7½ or some such foolishness. It is they who claim or imply that we are trained disinformation agents, with expertise in photo doctoring and plastic surgery.

It's not like we make claims that because we have a law degree of some sort, or can translate German that we are some how now forensic experts or research experts.

Originally posted by edmond dantes
Doesn't this just cry out hypocricy? We have been very open about our backgrounds, and we have never claimed, or implied authority or expert knowledge. It is the PIDers here and elsewhere that thrust authority and expert knowledge upon us. It is they that proclaim we are experienced agents of the CIA, MI5, MI6, MI7½ or some such foolishness. It is they who claim or imply that we are trained disinformation agents, with expertise in photo doctoring and plastic surgery.

It's not like we make claims that because we have a law degree of some sort, or can translate German that we are some how now forensic experts or research experts.

And what "authority and expert knowledge" does getsmart have to substantiate his lunatic claims that we are paid "agents"?

Er, none.

Take a look at this video of, er, 'Faul' in a Liverpool pub in 1973. The people you see with him are friends and relatives.

According to getsmart and co. - ALL the people you see in this film have:

1. No idea that it's an imposter - including his own father.

2. Or been payed off to keep quiet that it's not him - including his own father.

3. Are double's posing as a relative.

4. Have been threatened to keep their mouth's shut.

With that in mind, watch the video:



C'mon people - let's get real here.

reply to post by Dakudo


That's a great vid, obviously fake though lol.

I met Gerry Marsden many years ago and all we talked about was the Beatles, I never even asked him about the Pacemakers. He's a nice guy and told us stories of sharing clothes and girls in the early days.

Originally posted by Wally Hope
reply to post by Dakudo

 

That's a great vid, obviously fake though lol.

I met Gerry Marsden many years ago

Are you sure it wasn't 'Ferry' Marsden?

Thanks for posting the video of "Paul" in the pub.

He looks like an impostor who is very nervous. Doesn't really say much and what he does say could easily be faked.

Somebody calls him "Billy" then he says "Joe, you promised!" --- something wrong?

That video is more on the PID side of the argument, don't you think?

What a phony.

Originally posted by switching yard
Thanks for posting the video of "Paul" in the pub.

He looks like an impostor who is very nervous. Doesn't really say much and what he does say could easily be faked.

Somebody calls him "Billy" then he says "Joe, you promised!" --- something wrong?

That video is more on the PID side of the argument, don't you think?

What a phony.

LOL no one called him Billy, I wondered how soon someone would try to make that claim. Watch it again, and pay attention to who they were talking to this time, I'll give you a clue, it wasn't the Walrus.

Nervous? He is the center of attention in a pub in Liverpool, that would make me nervous and I'm not world famous.

What you can't fake is a pub full of relatives, and close friends, not noticing Paul is not the same Paul they've always known.

Again you're basing your beliefs on false logic, and a lack of attention to detail.

Originally posted by Dakudo
Are you sure it wasn't 'Ferry' Marsden?

Yeah could be now I think about it, I'd swear he said he was from Riverpool.

Originally posted by switching yard
Thanks for posting the video of "Paul" in the pub.

He looks like an impostor who is very nervous. Doesn't really say much and what he does say could easily be faked.

Somebody calls him "Billy" then he says "Joe, you promised!" --- something wrong?

That video is more on the PID side of the argument, don't you think?

What a phony.

Oh come on! You've got to be kidding. There is a time count on the video. Where exactly do you hear someone call him Billy? The place is crowded with dozens of people all talking and yelling. I hear NO ONE calling him Billy right before he says "Joe, you promised." In fact, Joe says, "I'm not going to kiss you," (at 2:05) and Paul responds "Aww, Joe, you promised!" It's right there on the tape. To take that little jocular comment, and post that Paul is saying it in response to someone calling him Billy seems more than a bit disingenuous or delusional.

I do hear someone earlier (at 1:34) yell out, "Hello, Milly." But that is understandable since there is a lady named Mildred right there.

Things I noticed.

There are a number of middle aged and elderly family members and friends that come and hug, kiss and otherwise greet Paul. He is relaxed and comfortable with these people. These are people who knew Paul his whole life and they look happy to see him and are quite relaxed with him. In no way do they look stand-offish or nervous to be around him. They certainly don't act like this man is an imposter who was responsible for the murder and replacement of their relative/friend.

Paul's Dad. He is smiling, relaxed and yucking it up with his son. Here, I do speak with some expertise and authority. I am the father of two sons. If there were a person who was responsible for the murder of my son, and had taken over his life as his replacement, I would not be sitting there smiling and laughing with that person pretending to get along. No way, no how. No matter what threats anyone made against me. In truth, I would probably blow his ass away first chance I got, and I wouldn't give a rat's ass what they did to me. And I think I would feel the same if it was my nephew or cousin.

Many people in this world act according to principle regardless of any risk to themselves. These PIDers would have you believe that all of these people are in on the PID plot, along with hundreds of others, including the other Beatles and their friends and family, and not one of them would have the guts to stand up and expose it. BS.

What if they all spoke out? Does anyone think that the PTB could go ahead and waste all of Paul's family and friends along with the other three Beatles and their families, and no one in the world would notice or think something was suspicious? Give me a break.

Originally posted by switching yard
Thanks for posting the video of "Paul" in the pub.

He looks like an impostor who is very nervous.

Exactly how does he look nervous? What does he do that conveys this? If you are claiming this, then back it up with something more substantial. Bland, vague statements that he "looks nervous" just won't do.

Somebody calls him "Billy" then he says "Joe, you promised!" --- something wrong?

Unfortunately, this statement is a prime example of how you PIDers distort reality and truth in order to fit them in with your false beliefs.

Let's look at FACTS, here:

The ONLY time you can hear anyone saying something that could be 'Billy" is at 1.36, when you hear: "Hello Milly/Billy". It sounds like Milly to me, but the audio is not crystal clear so lets allow the possibility that it is Billy.

Firstly, it is clear in the video that the voice does not belong to Mildred - who Paul is talking to - or the other lady in the background, behind her. The owner of the voice does not appear on screen.

Therefore it is proven that your claim that: "Somebody calls him "Billy" is not supported by the evidence. The voice's owner cannot be seen. Therefore it is not possible to determine who the person was actually addressing. It is a crowded pub and the microphone has picked up an annonymous voice talking to someone.

The second FACT - which rebuts your claim completely - is that the voice continues to say: You gonna sit 'ere?"

So the FULL quote is:

"Hello Milly/Billy, you gonna sit 'ere?".

As Paul was seated at this time - the voice was clearly not addressing him.

Your claim that:

Somebody calls him "Billy" then he says "Joe, you promised!" --- something wrong?

is clearly not true. Immediately before Paul says "Aw, Joe - you promised" are the words from Joe who says: "Im not gonna kiss you" - NOT "Somebody calls him "Billy" as you falsely claim.

Thank you, switching yard, for a classic example of the kind of erroneous claims PIDers make that are not based on truth and reality.

Here we can see that your wild imagination and biased evaluations have short-circuited your rational thinking process and observational skills in order to concoct a claim that does not fit the FACTS that are on display.

What a phony.

The only thing that has been proven "phony" is your ridiculous claim.

Thanks for posting the long version of the video of "Paul" in the pub in Liverpool.

"Paul" looks very nervous throughout the entire video. He is not seen reminiscing about old times with anyone. He is cordial to all, but remains aloof. Everyone seems to get drunk, which is not surprising. Controller Linda is jolly on the spot to help deflect any questions that might "embarrass" the person posing as "Paul." At one point, it looks like they both bow out of a conversation just starting, to go to the loo.

An impostor can get drunk and sing "You Are My Sunshine" and the crowd will just think "that's our boy, look he sings."

Your video clip of "Paul" in the pub proves nothing on the PIA side, but looks disturbing to PID theorists. These events on film are staged events. There's nothing in the video that proves he is the original Paul.

Look, friends and family can suspect something but keep it to themselves. If Paul's father sees that an impostor is playing the role of his son, he's not going to call the cops. He's going to think, as other relatives do, that this is government sanctioned, which means that it's a deadly serious situation. Extended family and friends who haven't seen him for years are going to presume it's the same person they knew years ago. He's got most of them fooled and the others who aren't fooled are quite aware that they are in a dangerous situation.

The video actually supports the PID side. It does not look like anyone is having fun there. It looks like a lot of people are quite nervous and reticent. I would love to know how many of the people in the video are wondering in their minds what the heck is going on. I would bet that many of them suspect something is terribly wrong.

Originally posted by switching yard
"Paul" looks very nervous throughout the entire video. He is not seen reminiscing about old times with anyone. He is cordial to all, but remains aloof. Everyone seems to get drunk, which is not surprising. Controller Linda is jolly on the spot to help deflect any questions that might "embarrass" the person posing as "Paul." At one point, it looks like they both bow out of a conversation just starting, to go to the loo.

He does not look nervous at all. He looks like a guy at a big party trying to talk to as many as he can. It's like being the groom at a big wedding reception. "Controller Linda"? LOL Why not CFO, or Executive Vice President?

An impostor can get drunk and sing "You Are My Sunshine" and the crowd will just think "that's our boy, look he sings."

Song written by a former governor of Louisiana.

If Paul's father sees that an impostor is playing the role of his son, he's not going to call the cops. He's going to think, as other relatives do, that this is government sanctioned, which means that it's a deadly serious situation.

Total, complete and absolute BS. I would be raising holy hell to everyone I could find, and so would every father that I know in that situation. Again, I wouldn't give a rat's ass if the government, or military or the Lion's club of Pigeon Forge Tennessee was involved. I would find out what happened to my son.

Extended family and friends who haven't seen him for years are going to presume it's the same person they knew years ago. He's got most of them fooled and the others who aren't fooled are quite aware that they are in a dangerous situation.

BS. This is in the early 70's. It hadn't been THAT long since they have seen him. Maybe a few years at most for some. For most in there less time than that.

There's nothing in the video that proves he is the original Paul.

Ah, but we don't have to prove he is the original Paul. He is the original Paul. It is the PID people that are making accusations of murder and fraud against Paul and others. The burden of proof is on you. If I got on here and accused you of embezzling $1,000,000 from an old widow, it would not be up to you to prove that you didn't do it, it would be up to me to prove you did.

I note that you still have not pointed out the specific part in the video where someone calls Paul "Billy" or addressed the fact that you totally misrepresented what happened between Joe and Paul. That just totally blew your credibility regarding either your observation and analytical skills, or your honesty.