The Beatles Never Existed


A Journey of Multiples

Did James Paul McCartney of Beatles Fame Ever Exist?

Did James Paul McCartney of Beatles Fame Ever Exist?

Postby Silversong » Wed Sep 17, 2014 4:51 am

Posted at CTRN June 29, 2011.

First of all, I'll list the criteria I've accumulated from different message boards that are said to be a prerequisite for the 'real' Paul McCartney:

It is insisted by PIDers that he had:

A swooped, highly-arched right eyebrow
Extended Ears
Chipmunk Cheeks
A deeply-cleft chin
No hair on his chest or legs
Uneven upper lips

Was bald and wore a wig
Was very short, but "looked tall" in shoe lifts
Had no rhythm and couldn't dance
All of his top teeth showed all the way up to the gum when he smiled or sang
Was bald and had to wear a wig. (Only seen that once.)
Was very short. (Only in 1963 and once in a while in the 70s+)

I've since then also come across them posting:
He had very little or no chest hair, but had very hairy hands.
Had Inflammatory Bowel Disease, and that he wore diapers due to "explosive" diarrhea. We're supposed to be able to detect this in the "Help!" movie.
Had Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (because of the picture in Hamburg where he's goofing around and is all sprawled out on a large bench or trunk, or something. See lower left picture.)
Image

I cannot find any one Paul McCartney matching all of the above criteria. It appears we each must come up with what makes the most sense of an incredibly-well-constructed mystery and obvious conspiracy.

I've also seen since I started to compile that list a few years ago, PIDers insist he had both equal and unequal upper lips, as well as both attached and detached earlobes. They argue with each other over this, and don't agree which is which. We've shown Pauls with all of those features, so that has to be evidence and proof of multiples. If pictures are tampered with, no one can even decide how to tamper them to make them all the same. We just don't believe the tampering theory in the majority of cases.

Let's not forget there were Pauls (and Johns) with facial pouches or "bulges" by their mouths, and those without. Can anyone explain what those were about? You can still see one or the other Paul out there today with it sometimes. How would it be there some days but not others?

I also personally observe that he had a tic disorder, both as Paul and Faul, but only sometimes. And it could be manifested differently from time to time. He has different tic movements in one rendition of "Yesterday" than he does in the other (1965 & 1966 - one of which was the time John said "that was just like him").

Tic disorders can be caused by trauma, abuse, mind control, or other factors including genetics.

He'd also have to be bipolar, if there was only one original Paul before 1966, to be both somber and hyper like the different Pauls were. Anyone matching all of the above criteria would probably have to live in an institution, not be a legeneary "god" rock star, and knighted by the Queen.

As far as I'm concerned, it's all a fabrication, and it's to destroy, assimilate and enslave us. Isn't this what we're hearing more and more about our governments doing to us in these current times? That's my opinion after many thousands of hours of research, and I came into this with no bias and no pre-conceived notions. Just memories of their advent in England as I saw it in fan mags, and the bewilderment when the Paul that showed up in America wasn't short like in the magazine pics. The "shoe lift" idea doesn't work, either, because we've shown those pictures, and when the small Paul wore those, he was still shorter than the others, and had very short arms, legs and torso.

Even though I've never seen a picture that shows all these prerequisites, even if there could be one, it doesn't prove whether he was born the normal way, or whether he was 'lab-created'. I don't think there is a bigger debate in the entire world over one person. There are so many conflicting pictures of "Paul", both before and after the alleged PID year of 1966, as well as just about every picture and youtube after 1966 being different. There were so many Pauls, that I have come to the conclusion that none of them is real. If there was a real one out there, why wouldn't he have come forward to tell the world he was being cheated out of his rightful legacy, and we were being defrauded as well? By this I mean, since there were already many Pauls way before 1966 - and the 'real Paul' was supposed to be alive until then - why didn't he speak up?

Yes, there are always the 'threat', 'blackmail', and 'handler' theories, but the other three Beatle members never had as many multiples or replacements in as short a time as did "Paul". They were all replaced BEFORE 1966, yet there is no uproar over that. It's on the album clues, but everyone reads them another way. Why is it all about "Paul"? He has a very fabricated childhood, as do all the Beatles, and all the different sizes, looks and heights of all the Pauls are always shown standing with the same "family" in pictures. They're all shown with "Linda" as their wife, too. They were ALL married to her?? Or how many of 'her' might there have been? This is something I intend to research as time allows.

If there was a historical Paul McCartney, can it be proven in the same way the rest of us can prove our "realness"? There certainly wasn't a "legendary" Paul, sorry to say. It took quite a few different Pauls to gain the fame and acclaim that was brought to this name, so no one single entity earned worldwide notoriety, just as no one group of Beatles did.

Sorry, but no.

If "Faul" had as much surgery as they claim, he would look like a Frankenstein Michael Jackson freak.
Silversong
Banned On The Run
Banned On The Run
 
Posts: 2203
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2014 6:50 am

Re: Did James Paul McCartney of Beatles Fame Ever Exist?

Postby Silversong » Wed Sep 17, 2014 4:53 am

The long fingers of "Faul", which only Paul was supposed to have. Faul had short fingers, right?
Image

That's why the BNE answer to most questions is "Both" and "All of the above". There were Pauls with short as well as long fingers all the way from the beginning to the present day. There were Pauls with attached earlobes and unattached lobes; Pauls with a lower left attached earlobe, and a lower left unattached earlobe (and sometimes literally an unattached ear). And all this with the beakish or upturned noses, a full or partial head of hair (some Pauls seem to have worn a hairpiece), even or uneven upper lip points, ranging in height from around 5'6" to 6' tall.
Silversong
Banned On The Run
Banned On The Run
 
Posts: 2203
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2014 6:50 am

Re: Did James Paul McCartney of Beatles Fame Ever Exist?

Postby Silversong » Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:09 am

From the "Paul Is Dead" Magazine - Lolo might know the year, I'm not sure what - probably 1969ish?

Which Paul would be real? Does anyone see more than one pre-PID Paul here?
Image
Image
^If they singled out the one on the left as the "real" JPM, notice he has attached earlobes, and YES THAT IS IMPORTANT - it's a defining characteristic. They are also more extended than some of the others'. If it doesn't matter that his earlobes change back and forth, then okay maybe he's not a clone, maybe he's "only" a shapeshifter, but which one is worse? What about the others in the picture who have detached lobes?

People want to discount "slight" differences because everything else is so identical, but THAT'S what makes them clones - that 95-99% similarity. It takes the full 100% for each picture of him to be the exact same person! :?
Silversong
Banned On The Run
Banned On The Run
 
Posts: 2203
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2014 6:50 am

Re: Did James Paul McCartney of Beatles Fame Ever Exist?

Postby Silversong » Thu Sep 18, 2014 1:41 am

Yesterday 1965 -– Blackpool Night Out -- When George said "Opportunity Knocks".


A reference to the show can be heard on The Beatles' very first live performance of "Yesterday" at Blackpool Night Out. George Harrison introduces the song, saying "For Paul McCartney of Liverpool, opportunity knocks!". This version appears on Anthology 2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunit ... _TV_series)


Yesterday 1965 – When John says, “Thank you, Paul. That was just like him”. The best info I can find is that this was aired on Ed Sullivan.

The Beatles performed six songs: I Feel Fine, I'm Down, Act Naturally, Ticket To Ride, Yesterday and Help!.

There was a short break after Act Naturally, after which The Beatles returned to perform the remaining three songs with a different stage set. Ticket To Ride included a lengthy introduction during which the cameras panned to each of the group. Paul McCartney sang Yesterday with a pre-recorded string trio backing, after which John Lennon remarked "Thank you Paul, that was just like him". Lennon, meanwhile, forgot some of the lyrics to Help!.

http://www.beatlesbible.com/1965/08/14/ ... ivan-show/

Same year, two totally different Pauls. If they had appeared side-by-side, everyone would’ve seen the huge difference.

The two left columns show the "Opportunity Knocks" Paul, and the two right columns show the "Just like him" Paul.
Image
Image
Silversong
Banned On The Run
Banned On The Run
 
Posts: 2203
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2014 6:50 am

Re: Did James Paul McCartney of Beatles Fame Ever Exist?

Postby Silversong » Wed Nov 12, 2014 12:24 am

It's now time to discuss the possibility of whether the DNA garnered for these Paul multiples possibly came from an original James Paul McCartney or not. I have a strong suspicion it may be true, and if so, what has happened to the original, and when? I recently told one of the forum members that I have to ask myself why I'm so driven and avid about this research, and why it is always on my mind so much? I feel that in some way I’m trying to discover and vindicate whoever the real Paul McCartney was that the world probably has never seen. If there was an original with plans for his life, and possibly talents to go along with those plans, his name has been usurped and sullied in the process of implementing and utilizing the Beatles. This makes it equivalent to a 'false flag' operation in that an innocent person was used for someone else's nefarious purposes.

A lot of times in these cases, the original was abducted in childhood, put into MK-Ultra programs, and as Donald Marshall relates, there are many clones made of these people who are engineered into controlled and handled celebrities. Sometimes the clones are ritually tortured, and other times they are killed. Sometimes also, the originals are killed, especially if they are problematic or are no longer needed.

What is the tie-in to the year 1966, especially since evidence shows multiple Pauls since the Quarrymen in the late 50s? I see that in Numerology, the year of 1966 equals 13, so there is a big red flag that you-know-who is involved in some big way. It's my opinion that the original “Paul is Dead” theory should be searched for much earlier, possibly 1956 or even 1946... A lot of what I’ve read is these celebs are abducted at around 12 years old or even younger, and when they resurface a decade later, they are totally different, and there can be many copies, with possibly and probably the original is gone (killed).

I posted almost a year ago at FFD:
We feel sorry for these synthetic humans because it was a very abusive thing to have put them through what was done to them. We want to see them vindicated, if it is ever possible. We do not judge nor condemn them personally. (Contrary to what some people mistakenly read into our presentation.) When we 'appear' to be criticizing or ridiculing the/ The Beatles, it is not 'them' per se, but their handlers, and what they were making them do.


What are anyone else's thoughts on this?
Silversong
Banned On The Run
Banned On The Run
 
Posts: 2203
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2014 6:50 am

Re: Did James Paul McCartney of Beatles Fame Ever Exist?

Postby bandi » Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:54 pm

Hi Silversong;

I think that from the beginning of their lives the individual band members were many, all cloned from an original. Maybe the 'Glass Onion' they sang about later was a thing they could look into the future with and, let's say that time travel was/is real even back then and before that time period (40's & 50's). A handler team would have known they were going to need multiples to meet future schedules; why not get the clones up and running early, in childhood, so they can gain experience living as a 'one and only', at least in their mind. No one would have told them at a young age that there were multiples of each one, at least I would think they'd keep that from the band.
Once there were multiples made and they were examined and found to be healthy, why would they want the original to stick around ? He'd have to be of super human strength to be able to live his life and not freak out that there are maybe a hundred of him walking around. So, get rid of him as soon as the clones are found to be OK.
That's what I think may have happened.

It's very taxing sometimes to work thru this JPM/Beatles stuff. The reason I say that is because I can think whatever I like but when I hear a song by them, I instantly forget everything I've learned so far and become hypnotized by the music.
Hearing the music elicits in me a waterfall of thoughts, most of which are comforting and warm and cozy thoughts; never, when I am listening to a song by them do I realize how sinister all of this is. And, if I am wrong with what I said above, I still believe that they were used by the PTB but, at a certain point they gave in to the temptation of the almighty dollar and they each stopped giving a hoot about anything other than keeping the $$$$ rolling in and acquiring possessions.

I may be wrong about that too, and that's what is great about this. We can say what we feel and say it for others to hear, then get their feedback and fine tune what we're saying because we've opened up our thoughts to discussing them with others. However embarrassing that is or could be.
That makes me think of a poem by Augy Hayter (he was Omar Ali Shah's deputy before he died in a car crash a few years back) where he speaks about the dervish putting his heart out for all to see. As in why have bad feelings about saying certain things when saying them out loud for others to hear may actually be something that can be useful, if you can get past the fact that you may get embarrassed by what you are thinking and saying. I hope that makes sense.
bandi
BNE Member
BNE Member
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2014 3:52 pm

Re: Did James Paul McCartney of Beatles Fame Ever Exist?

Postby bandi » Thu Nov 13, 2014 8:20 pm

There is a video on you tube called George Harrison-The Quiet One and in the vid there's a friend of George's from The Liverpool Institute High School. The guy's name is Rod Othen and he talks about his knowing George back then. Near the start of the video they show a class pic of all the boys in the school, dated 1956 and you can clearly see a young George among the rest of the boys.

I don't think the pic is dummied up to make it appear that George is in it. I think it's real.

What does this tell me ?
Absolutely nothing, that I could be wrong but I don't think so.
It feels like a real untouched photo. If so, it verifies to some degree that there was a real George at some point in time; just like there was surely the other three lads in original form at one time.

Again though, I could be wrong but I don't think so.

I think they were cloned at some point in time, but I can't pinpoint when. Was it just after high school or before/during school years ? Could it have been while visiting Germany for the first time, after they were probably conditioned at Tavistock ? Maybe while they were at Tavistock ? It would make sense if the cloning took place while they were in Germany. The reason I'm pinpointing the time they were probably cloned is because we've already seen enough photos of them to see more than one of each even back then, in late '59 & '60-'61. I think this would have been the time to do it, especially if the Glass Onion was in use and if Time Travel was going on back then (which I'm sure it was). Having a look at the future would have made their handlers put certain actions into play pretty early, like making a bunch of each lad to train and teach how to play the music they would be given to play.
bandi
BNE Member
BNE Member
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2014 3:52 pm

Re: Did James Paul McCartney of Beatles Fame Ever Exist?

Postby Randyguitar » Sat Nov 15, 2014 6:33 am

bandi wrote:Hi Silversong;

I think that from the beginning of their lives the individual band members were many, all cloned from an original. Maybe the 'Glass Onion' they sang about later was a thing they could look into the future with and, let's say that time travel was/is real even back then and before that time period (40's & 50's). A handler team would have known they were going to need multiples to meet future schedules; why not get the clones up and running early, in childhood, so they can gain experience living as a 'one and only', at least in their mind. No one would have told them at a young age that there were multiples of each one, at least I would think they'd keep that from the band.
Once there were multiples made and they were examined and found to be healthy, why would they want the original to stick around ? He'd have to be of super human strength to be able to live his life and not freak out that there are maybe a hundred of him walking around. So, get rid of him as soon as the clones are found to be OK.
That's what I think may have happened.

It's very taxing sometimes to work thru this JPM/Beatles stuff. The reason I say that is because I can think whatever I like but when I hear a song by them, I instantly forget everything I've learned so far and become hypnotized by the music.
Hearing the music elicits in me a waterfall of thoughts, most of which are comforting and warm and cozy thoughts; never, when I am listening to a song by them do I realize how sinister all of this is. And, if I am wrong with what I said above, I still believe that they were used by the PTB but, at a certain point they gave in to the temptation of the almighty dollar and they each stopped giving a hoot about anything other than keeping the $$$$ rolling in and acquiring possessions.

I may be wrong about that too, and that's what is great about this. We can say what we feel and say it for others to hear, then get their feedback and fine tune what we're saying because we've opened up our thoughts to discussing them with others. However embarrassing that is or could be.
That makes me think of a poem by Augy Hayter (he was Omar Ali Shah's deputy before he died in a car crash a few years back) where he speaks about the dervish putting his heart out for all to see. As in why have bad feelings about saying certain things when saying them out loud for others to hear may actually be something that can be useful, if you can get past the fact that you may get embarrassed by what you are thinking and saying. I hope that makes sense.


I like what Bandi says here, although I refuse to listen to the Beatles music anymore, for the reasons mentioned here. This music should be listened to with caution, or not at all.

I just finished the new PID book that's out called 'An Investigation Into: The Beatles, Paul McCartney: His Alleged Death And Cover-up In Late 1966,' by Michael Wright. I recommend reading the book, but be warned as it's a very frustrating book to read, given the numerous grammatical errors and sentence structure, which seems like it was written by a child who's second language is english.

Anyway, aside from the usual PID theory in the book, it talks a lot about cloning. He believes that Paul was cloned in late 1966, after he was killed in a car accident. But I'm beginning to believe that Wright made be using the PID theory as a cover to get the message out that not only was Paul cloned, but all of them were cloned. I'll blog more on this on the thread highlighting this book.

I agree with Bandi's point that the Beatles were cloned very early in their career, and I believe too that there is evidence that the original Beatles were most likely killed. This may explain the strange events in the last 3 or 4 months of 1966. It's possible that the original Paul wanted out or maybe he went insane, or maybe he threatened to reveal to the world what was going on... It could have been anything. There are many possible scenarios.

But one thing that came out of the book which I found intriguing was the fact that the Beatles were being cloned well into the 1970s and 80s, most noticeably Paul. As an example, there is strong evidence that he was cloned again in 1974, during the recording of 'Band On The Run.'
Randyguitar
 

Re: Did James Paul McCartney of Beatles Fame Ever Exist?

Postby Silversong » Sun May 17, 2015 6:46 am

Bandi found us something very telling in these two videos from 1964, and is asking that we take notice of how different Paul is in both of them.





I would think if the one on the left was facing the camera as directly as the other, his shoulders would not be as broad. To me, they have different head sizes and shapes, too.
Image

And I'm not so sure they have the same type of earlobes.
Image

So close, yet so far away.
Silversong
Banned On The Run
Banned On The Run
 
Posts: 2203
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2014 6:50 am

Re: Did James Paul McCartney of Beatles Fame Ever Exist?

Postby Tink » Sun May 17, 2015 11:35 pm

The voice is different, the eyebrows different, the whole manner and character different, and the second one seems several years older than the first one. And that's coming from someone who's not very good at this comparison science.
Tink
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
 
Posts: 239
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2014 6:46 pm

Next

Return to Paul "Multiples"

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron