Thursday, April 1, 2010

The bigger they are, the harder they Faul


"I look pretty tall but my heels are high."
~ The Who, from "Substitute"

Paul McCartney may have been smaller than "Faul,"
but his stature as a musician is colossal.

One of the differences between Paul McCartney and Faul that stands out is the difference in height. Paul's "official" height was 5'11":

The Celebrity Heights website lists his height as 5 ft 10 in (178 cm), with a "peak height" of 5 ft 11 in (180 cm). The other Beatles' heights are also given:

John Lennon's height: 5 ft 10 in (178 cm)
George Harrison's height: 5 ft 10 in (178 cm)
Ringo Starr's height: 5 ft 6 in (168 cm), although "there seems to be no reliable figure on Ringo's height." [from Celebrity Heights]

If one compares the heights of the Beatles over the course of their history, one will notice that the relative heights seem to fluctuate. In the beginning, the heights were more even. In the latter years, a great discrepancy between Paul's and Ringo's height becomes apparent. If images do not show in the blogger window, simply click on them to see them full size. 


Muhammad Ali's height was 6 ft 2.5 in (189 cm) [source: Celebrity Heights]


The wax figures of the Beatles made by Madame Tussaud's Wax Museum show the lads' heights. Paul is a bit taller than Ringo, but there does not seem to be a great height disparity. Madame Tussaud's figures are "based on hundreds of precise measurements... [M]ore than 250 precise measurements of the body... with calipers and cloth tape measures." [source: The Unique Art of Wax Figure Making]





At some point, something curious happened. The heights became very uneven. This is most obvious between Paul and Ringo.





















Paul was a little bit taller than his father, but Faul is a great deal taller:







Faul's height seems to vary when compared to Mal Evans:
















Paul's height also seems to vary when compared to Jane Asher:















What is going on here? Faul may be nearly six feet tall, but the real Paul McCartney was not that tall. "Anonymous" has offered his estimations of Paul's and Faul's heights based on the length of the instruments, which are a known quantity. Using the Hofner violin bass (30 inch scale) and other instruments as a yardstick, Anonymous has determined that Paul was actually 5'7" to 5'8," and not 5'11" as we have been taught. Faul is about 2.5 inches taller than Paul. Using Ringo's 20 inch diameter bass drum, Anonymous calculated Paul's height to be approximately 5'7" to 5'8".





After Paul was eliminated, the carefully controlled media distribution concealed the height difference from the public. Faul is most often shown playing piano, sitting down, or with his feet or lower legs obscured, unless there is no instrument in hand. Faul also switched to using an Epiphone, which is about 4 inches bigger, making the size ratio seem consistent.

Anonymous also used the length of Faul's English Horn (Cor Anglais), which he is seen holding on the Sgt. Pepper album (1967). Anonymous used its length (31.14 inches) to calculate the heights.


In addition to using instruments to calculate the heights, Anonymous matched up the shin bones. Using this method, he revealed again that Faul is taller than Paul was. Anonymous has added some of his own comments to these images.

It seems that our efforts to uncover the truth about Paul's replacement have been complicated by out-right photo-tampering. Pictures of Paul and Faul have been altered to conceal the height difference. The Powers that Be are re-writing history.

Anonymous predicted that new full-lenth photos of Faul would appear as a "response" to his efforts, and indeed they did. On March 25, 2010, there were suddenly a new series of Sir Paul pictures from LIFE magazine on Google Search. It seems that the Hofner ratio was modified in those pictures. However, it appears the revisionists mis-calculated the scale and made Faul even smaller than Paul was - a petite 5'3" - 5'4". From Anonymous:
Here is the absolutely corrupt LIFE photo manipulation, the obvious obliteration of truth.
These pix were either posed with a really huge Hofner, or someone has been tweaking reality, The revisionist reality of Big Paul converted to Little Paul, even smaller than the original.
Stinks of some cover-up beyond ego.
LIFE has done some twisting before, as in the Re-born Macca of 1966.
These guitars are all calibrated to be equal in bulk & size on this panel. Paul is not 5ft 3 inches.
Let us not forget LIFE Magazine's role in convincing everyone that "Paul was still with us."

Special thanks to "Anonymous" for his research and images.

____________________________


Tina Foster

Join the discussion: Paul is Dead Miss HIm Forum


The Luciferian Deception

ALIEN INVASION:
Reptilians, Cetaceans and Frequency Wars on Planet Earth


31 comments:

  1. Evidence (Wired Magazine, duly noted on this website) supports that the original Paul McCartney disappeared from public life in late 1966, and was replaced with a double. Once a person becomes aware of this, they quickly revisit the ‘Paul is dead’ rumors. From there, they move into heavy research and find out all kinds of incredible things, unfortunately, no concrete answers to the mystery of Paul McCartney. One would think after almost 50 years, someone would’ve spilled the beans by now. After all, we know more about the Kennedy assassination, but absolutely nothing on Paul McCartney…..and there is a logical reason for that.
    We know Paul was replaced in1966, the question is why? Did he really die all those years ago? We know the Beatles left messages of his ‘death’ on their albums, only to deny the rumor the messages caused, as well as to deny the messages themselves,…. again, why? Because Paul McCartney didn’t really die.
    Paul was seriously injured in a car crash in 1966; it left him with facial lacerations, and minor head trauma. He would not be able to continue with the group as things were, so they hired a double to stand in for him publicly while he continued to work with the band behind the scenes. The ‘clues’ were symbolic of Paul’s ‘death’ to the band; in the regard of his role having changed.
    It’s not sure who the first replacement was, but he didn’t work out so they brought in the man we know as Paul McCartney today. (Dr. Trudy’s study of voice patterns showed three different voices of Paul McCartney. Researchers believe the second replacement is William Campbell, better known as Faul.
    Faul is a Mason. The original Paul McCartney is also thought to be a Mason. There is a picture of the Beatles and a young Paul McCartney in a Masonic pose, thumb under his chin. Reference that with a picture of Michael Richards, aka Kramer, on Seinfeld, in Texe Marrs book Codex Magica, pg, 303.
    continued.

    ReplyDelete
  2. cont. After the Beatles break-up, John Lennon wrote ‘How do you sleep?” a song that is clearly being sung to the real Paul McCartney. After John’s death, Yoko told a reporter that no one had hurt John like Paul McCartney had hurt him. John never cared for Faul enough for Faul to have hurt him. No, it was the real Paul.
    It’s logical that John had fully expected Paul to come back when he recovered from his injuries, (you don’t write scathing lyrics like that to a mentally disabled man, so Paul was still Paul after the accident), but Paul decided he liked his ‘new’ life and since Faul had been accepted by the public, he would remain anonymous. Instead of resuming his partnership with John, he continued to cover and support Faul. That was it for John, he actually was the first to quit the band, but kept it quiet. He eventually left England with Yoko and never looked back, but his hurt would remain with him for the rest of his life.
    There are photos out there that have been confusing to researchers, which ones had been doctored, which ones were originals. But what very few people think about is this: some are of Faul and some are of the real Paul McCartney during the same time frame. Paul is wearing his hair differently in 1968-69. However, after this time frame no other pictures of the original Paul seem to be in circulation. It seems that when the Beatles broke up officially in 1970, Paul was well ensconced in private life and there he would—and still—remain.

    ReplyDelete
  3. cont. The point is, if you don’t take everything into consideration, you miss out on very real, logical conclusions. As long as poor Paul was killed in a car crash, murdered, or kidnapped, he becomes a martyr. He’s on a pedestal, he can be anything you want him to be, except alive. That would just ruin everything.
    The real Paul McCartney could be standing right next to Faul and no one would recognize him because no one would be looking for him. When they see Faul, they see Paul McCartney.
    It explains why everyone went along with it in the early days, almost gleefully, and why no one has come right out and told the truth today. People usually don’t protect a dead man for 50 years, but they will protect a living man.
    It explains why the Beatles continued to deny the clues, why John Lennon said, “Paul McCartney could not die and the whole world not know.” It explains why the album cover on Sgt. Pepper was changed from ‘He die’, to ‘He bie’.
    There’s a lot more to it than this, but mainly, too much time went by to change anything. Faul is still Paul, and Paul is still anonymous. Still behind the scenes.
    Ever notice how, when people discover the truth, they walk away from it. They don’t disclose it. People will protect a living man.

    ReplyDelete
  4. cont. Why all of the Paul is dead stories in London in 1967? Obviously it was noticeable to those in the Beatles circle that Paul had a double. If they tell people Paul is dead, no one goes looking for him. Same principle in 1969, when the PID rumors ignite in America.
    This is too far-fetched! Why all of the elaborate cover-up? How could they get away with it all of these years? Why is it no reporter ever exposed it? This is simply too big to ignore! All of these statements and questions are legitimate, however, when one researches long enough, it becomes obvious that both Paul’s are very much protected. Both are Masons. You can’t expose one without hurting the other. The establishment (Illuminati) owns everything. If they want something to stay hidden, it stays hidden. Furthermore, you have Queen Elizabeth Knighting Faul. Does she know, you might ask? Of course she does. She probably had a private Knighting for the real Paul as well.

    ReplyDelete
  5. cont. from previous multi-posts. The Fool on the Hill video. Look closely at the silouette of 'Paul' in the sunshine. The profile fits the original Paul. Watch and see how they don't show his face in that particular shot.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I completely disagree that Paul was ever seen after 1966, but you're welcome to your opinion.

    Covering up a murder is a very good reason to keep a secret.

    ReplyDelete
  7. In your research, did you not find out about other murders? More information about Pres. Kennedy, who the elite are, the Doris Duke ritual murder, and so on? Fritz Springmeier has spent time in prison for his expose's on such matters. Why didn't John Todd mention it when he was exposing the demonic side of rock-n-roll? He was an insider, yet not a word. They have been exposing very dangerous people and yet no one exposing the murder of a musician? My point is, after almost 50 years, someone would've said something at sometime. They always do. People will only cover a murder for a season. Just think about it from a different perspective. See what you come up with.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Here's a very interesting piece from a 60's Teen Magazine called (cleverly) "The NEW Paul Mccartney". The issue dates from January/February 1967.

    http://www.beatlefans.com/magazines/mag%20teenlife%206702b.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  9. ^ If anyone can't read the article above, it basically just says how "Paul" (Faul) says he's changed since Beatlemania.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Here we have an article by JPM's brother, Michael, from 1965 telling about Paul's past. Very much worth a look and feel free to compare it to Faulster's..ahem..interpretation of events.
    Feel free to copy and paste in order to view.

    http://www.dmbeatles.com/forums/index.php?topic=9157.0

    Be forewarned this article is on a regular Beatles forum (aka non-PID site) so don't be shocked to see pics of Faul under the name of Paul etc.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Another interesting topic on contrasting the two is the extreme differences in modesty.

    A thought-provoking interview taken on August 1, 1966, not very long before his death, includes this line:

    [On talking about the "Revolver" Album]
    Q: "Eleanor Rigby", which is - which I think's brilliant. Isn't it?
    P: Uh, well, I don't think it's brilliant, but it's nice of you to say that, David. And it's still wonderful
    to be here.
    Q: Well, no, no, folks, seriously, it's just the greatest thrill for me to be able to say this. But, er,
    why isn't it brilliant?
    P: Um -
    Q: Well, or why is it only fairly brilliant?
    P: It's not even that - y'know, I'm talking about the arrangement.

    ...
    Compare this to anything ol' Faulie McImposter says about the music he (and his underground writers) produced during his reign.


    There's also a few good videos on youtube that demonstrate Paul's warm personality.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrwyQqM6H4k&feature=PlayList&p=39C3E043BF3C3B88&index=2

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=At9MqsCYdVE&feature=related

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbbOpOpulwM&feature=related

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8t_ymDQ6CPo&feature=related

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2ccTuSefek&feature=related

    That 1965 article in the post above also states a lot of interesting personality traits that one would never hear about Faul.

    ReplyDelete
  12. An interesting quote from Flip magazine dated 1967.

    "We have always tried to move foward - do something new. If we were to appear on stage right now, you would not recognize us. We would have to devise a completely different act which might take months to prepare. The strength of our success lies in doing something which you might not associate with us." -- Faul from early to mid-1967.

    The link for proof:
    http://www.beatlefans.com/magazines/MAG%20FLIP6705B.jpg

    Here's a picture of Sgt. Pepper Era Faul MINUS THE MOUSTACHE

    This is an official magazine from Salut Les Copains. Notice how Bill is the ONLY Beatle to have the facial hair doctored out. I have done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO THIS PHOTO.

    http://www.beatlefans.com/magazines/mag%20copains6708a.jpg


    The entire section of the site for proof: http://www.beatlefans.com/magazines/SALUT%20LES%20COPAINS.htm


    An interesting poem on how Paul has changed since 1966; the poem is dated 1968.

    http://www.beatlefans.com/magazines/mag%2016spec68winterb.jpg

    An anecdote on Paul's personality dated mid-1966:

    http://www.beatlefans.com/magazines/mag%20tigerbeat6610b.jpg

    ----------

    I hope all this helps in the quest to unleash the Truth about Paul! Godspeed to all involved.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hey Plastic Macca :)

    Y'know, if it's not too much to ask, could you help me to explain to my friend the personality differences between Paul and Faul the imposter? One of my friends has recently brought up the subject of how Paul's entire being changed so much after Sgt. Pepper was released and onward (I'm glad people are finally seeing it!). I've showed her the forensic evidence and to say the very least, she was shocked.

    So if you don't mind, telling me your favorite things about Paul and his persona, it would be much appreciated. Details would be nice too. :)

    Keep it up!

    P.S. And for the record, a 1963 account of meeting the Beatles (including JPM). Cut and paste to view.

    http://meetthebeatlesforreal.blogspot.com/2010/03/my-meetles-with-beatles.html

    ReplyDelete
  14. ^ Okay, update from last time. The friend I mentioned in the post above is now 110% sure that Paul has been replaced by an imposter. Her boyfriend and a few of my relatives are actually curious about this replacement now as well and want to know more about it. I'll be sure that they check out the forensics and voiceprints that have been presented.

    P.S. If you don't mind responding to the post above me (about the favorite things about Paul's personality and general being), it would be great as both my friend and my mother (who is a longtime Beatles fan) would greatly appreciate it as they were both wondering how "Paul" became such a jacka$$ 1967 onward. The funny thing is both me, my friends, and my family all love(d) and admire(d) Paul 1963-1966 era, but were completely turned off by "him" after that era both physically and psychologically. As I said, details are great.

    Thanks!!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hi, Anonymous,

    thanks for your comments. I would love to do a blog on Paul's personality vs. Faul's. Paul was such a sweetie - not arrogant or stuck up at all. Faul on the other hand... total dill weed. lol I'll put something together. :-)

    Tina

    ReplyDelete
  16. Plastic Macca,

    I'm sure you may have noticed this as well as I did. But have you noticed that Paul began to look very unwell around 1966? From 1963-1965, he appears to be in good health, but around the beginning of 1966, his weight appears to fluctuate drastically and while one day he'll appear to be fine, a few days later he'll look puffy and maybe even nauseous. It looks almost like a 10 pound difference between a couple of days sometimes. The effects seem to show up mostly in his face, IMO. Several witnesses who travelled with the Beatles around this time say that he had more than a few instances of migraine attacks and abdominal cramping/general upset stomach; Paul even admits this in an August 22, 1966 interview.

    {After being asked about reports on being ill the other day}

    Paul: Yeah, something. You know, I haven't been too well on the tour. I just felt a bit ill, that's all, and I was sick."


    Of course, Faul doesn't seem to have any of these problems.

    What's your opinion of his health in 1966?

    ReplyDelete
  17. ^Any suggestions?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Just realized something with the "Beatle Bill" comment during the recording of "How do you sleep?"

    You know how deniers love to claim that Beatle Bill was really Billy Preston? Yes, I know that he worked with the Beatles for a very short period, but if you look at the Swedish charts Billy Preston only had a number one there in 1980 with "With you I'm born again". Faul's song "Another Day" however was very popular at the time "How do you sleep?" was recorded and was even mentioned in the song. At that time, it was number one in Australia and France (not too sure about Sweden though).

    What do you think?

    ReplyDelete
  19. ^ I highly doubt Billy Preston would have been considered a Beatle. Was Eric Clapton "Beatle Eric" b/c he played on the White Album? I think not.

    Anyway, the song reference is probably to Faul's new band (at the time), Wings (formed late 1971). It might not have really been a #5 in Sweden. I think he was just making the point that Faul wasn't doing so well. At least, not compared to Paul who wrote songs that were #1 hits in UK & USA - one after the other.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I've seen iamaphoney's videos where there appears to be an Italian-accented voice talking over the visuals (I think his name is Emilio Lari) and he was referring to Apple and their corruption. I've noticed people also said he talked about differences in height and shoe size between Paul and Faul.

    Can anyone elaborate (maybe quote) to what exactly he was talking about in terms of Apple corruption and differences between Paul and Faul? I know IAAP likes to edit for creative licensing. Does anyone know more about Emilio Lari and his connections to Paul/Faul?

    And also, I know beLIEvers enjoy calling iamaphoney a liar and a fantasist. Why is this?

    ReplyDelete
  21. It's February 7! The anniversary of Paul's and the Beatles' trip to the U.S. in 1964! In two days it will be the anniversary of their premiere on the Ed Sullivan Show.

    I recommend all faithful JPM lovers to watch The First US Visit including the outtakes! And remember to keep praying for an answer.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anonymous...where did you get that story about Paul surviving the accident and the details thereafter?

    ReplyDelete
  23. In the Faul/Faul photo where two pictures of the same concert are side by side, I believe that the Hofner in the right was photo-shopped in. I can discern the abrupt image halt that isn't in either photo, and the body/sound shell looks either added to or stretched making it appear wider than it actually is.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Paul has stated his height as 5'10.5'' 179 cm. He said he and John were the same height.

    ReplyDelete
  25. There is definately a lot to find out about this subject.
    I love all the points you've made.

    Also visit my webpage; best apartments in atlanta (http://www.apartmentfinder.com/Georgia/Atlanta-Apartments/Boho4w-Apartments)

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anomonous - Paul died in early fall of 66, any elite astrologer worth their salt can tell you this. Live and Let Die cause we are all tired of this Double Fantasy.

    ReplyDelete
  27. He's an alien.

    ReplyDelete
  28. For all its worth Faul has been Paul longer then the real Paul therefore having a much larger platform to fool the masses, there's plenty of documentation of Paul before 1966 but most people take it for granted that age changes a persons physic, it takes hours of viewing in comparing personality traits of Paul vs. Faul, but once you really pay attention you see the big differences, Paul was a humble being easy to like, his body language was subtle and very relaxed, comfortable with who he was, Faul is arrogant and always trying to make a point, his body language is distraught, not comfortable of who he is, don't get me wrong, Faul is very intelligent and has lots of talent enough to fool the whole world of who he is or who he's not.

    We don't know how many of Fauls hits were written by him or ghost writers, he certainly has had the money and power to hired the best, it's rumored that very well known artist have written for him, and not to take way his abilities to change the Beatles, he was a Beatle after all and had a very powerful elite group backing him in the fraud. The Beatles were the first created super group, an experiment on social manipulation by the Tavistock Institute, Beatlemania was created to posses the minds of the youth like in any mind altering satanic ritual, The Beatles were nothing but pawns in the entertainment game and they knew it, perhaps Paul got tired of it and wanted out, like Jim Morrison said... "No one gets out of here alive" Paul had to be eliminated in a ritualistic way, the whole car crash story is bogus, he probably was sacrifice/murder in some satanic ritual, we will never know for now.
    Faul is also a pawn, a continuation of the social experiment, anyone who dares to expose or talks about it gets elimated, just look at some of the people associated with the Beatles how they had inconvenient deaths, Brian Epstein, drug over dose? Mal Evans, killed by police on 5 January 1976? Pete Ham of Bad Finger, committed suicide in 1975? Thomas Evans Jr. also of Bad Finger, on 19 November 1983 Evans was found dead by suicide? Terry Knight who wrote St. Paul, this murder is very weird, Knight was stabbed multiple times by his teen-aged daughter's boyfriend Donald A. Fair in their shared apartment in Temple, Texas, on November 1, 2004 was Knight about to blow the whistle? was Donald A. Fair a MK assassin? John Lennon assassinated not by Mark David Chapman but by professional hit men, what was José Sanjenis Perdomo a Cuban CIA agent doing as a doorman at the Dakota at the time of the Killing? George Harrison was the victim of a vicious attack in his own home by Michael Abram, he was later acquitted on grounds of insanity, having claimed that he was possessed by George Harrison and had been sent by God to kill him, another MK assassin? Harrison survived the attack, but died from lung cancer on November 29th, 2001, aged 58. Was the cancer induced? Hugo Chavez had some theories of how he got the cancer that killed him. I'm sure there's many more that had their untimely deaths who were associated with The Beatles and who knew something most people had no idea of the deceit, manipulation and lies committed by an elite satanic parasitic cabal.

    Faul is just a continuation of the experiment that started with The Beatles, and that has permeated todays music industry by the same cabal, is Madonna really Madonna the satanic priestess? what about lady Gaga? Michael Jackson? Well that's a whole different story but I believe it all ties in with the creation of Faul, if the real truth ever got out the house of cards would come tumbling down, Faul knows it and will take the secret to his grave.

    RIP Paul McCartney, we all love you.

    ReplyDelete
  29. "You declared you would be three inches taller
    You only became what we made you.
    Thought you were chasing a destiny calling
    You only earned what we paid you."
    --Townshend "The Punk and the Godfather"

    ReplyDelete
  30. "We declared you would be much taller than he;
    You only were what we made you.
    You thought you were chasing your destiny calling,
    Not so, you only earned what we paid you.
    Your talent's somnifacient, which results in a coma,
    With you so badly wishing to be that persona.
    You really needed to 'forgetaboutit', yet you wouldn't,
    Until you tried to do what you couldn't.
    The truth is there's only one of him, not two,
    Even if you believe that not, you're not new.
    Since roses are red, and violets are blue,
    Bye-bye, so long, ado-ado to you.
    And, remember: Confession is good for the soul..."
    ~Anonymous~"The Skunk and the Grandfather"
    :)

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for your comments. They will appear once they have been approved.