And directly beneath his PID article is an article on the Presidents being cloned. Some of the foremost researchers go on and on about PID and World leader clones, but can't connect the two dots.
As I've said before: being too big a fan will hinder your research!
This guy's article is basically a regurgitation of PlasticMacca's & SunKing's work. He just copy/ pasted their stuff onto his site.
What infuriates me is that PIDers are always saying, "We just want the truth" and, "Open your eyes, people!". But as far as we can tell here, these leading PIDers are either ignoring the evidence of multiples, or refusing to show it to their followers, or not opening their eyes to it.
The pid clues weren't put in there by John to "get justice for his friend", they were put in there to subliminally plant closure for people for when they start to investigate it. They were already convinced of PID before they started finding these "clues".
Agreeing with the ‘cloning’ (for lack of a better term) theory is not a requirement here. I personally don’t expect anyone to agree with it. But what I would encourage is for readers and members here to consider all of the evidence we have provided for such a claim. And to consider the question of how they could be so similar, yet exhibit subtle differences. In other words; how could they be too different to be the same person every time, yet too similar to be a look-alike even with surgery?
If they are actors with surgery, and they had their eyes reset in their skulls, their teeth replaced (yet with differently angled molars), and their Adam’s apple reduced, yet still remain able to function normally, then it was done with technology that the public is not aware of. Which is all we’re saying in the end. Yes, there are subtle differences between the Pauls, but the similarities are too, too uncanny, and there is no explanation for that available to the public. That is the philosophy here. That, and to be open to any possibility without myopically closing one's self off to certain ones they may or may not like, or think is not possible.
Yes, actors with surgery is the logical immediate answer, but on the same token, it stands to reason that it would be more obvious if that were the case. As it is, they are all 96-99% similar in appearance and personality.
Like we always say, we didn't dream up this theory on a whim, it is the result of 1000s of hours of thorough, unbiased research. We hope it's not true, but as of now it seems it is - and I personally haven't seen a more likely explanation presented.
I would rather this site be known as the 'thorough, unbiased and open-minded forum' than as the 'cloning forum'.
From the preface of Robert Anton Wilson’s book Cosmic Trigger:
My own opinion is that belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence. The more certitude one assumes, the less there is left to think about, and a person sure of everything would never have any need to think about anything and might be considered clinically dead under current medical standards, where the absence of brain activity is taken to mean that life has ended.
The One Paul/One Faul theory does sound like a logical thing, however, when you look at pre-fame Beatles, there are pics of Paul that look alot like the dude they call "Bill/Faul"....and they say it's doctored. Look at a pre fame John and there is one with a straight nose, and then you see "early Beatles" pic and see a different John.
This didn't happen 67, there were different Beatles prefame and throughout. I've watched old black and white performances and noticed at least two John's and maybe three Paul's. And that is before the said death of Paul in Sep '66.
I noticed footage from the 66 tour of a "Faulish" looking Paul coming off a plane. I've seen some interviews with different looking John and Paul's.
So we are not really going to say that "Faul" came on the scene in 1967, because I think he was being interchanged throughout the entire time. This really throws alot of people off, because they are so dead set against anything being different before 1966-67.
But look at early Beatle pictures before fame.... you'll see differences.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests