PID programming: And the dangers of a "One Paul/One Faul" theory

PID programming: And the pitfalls of a “one Paul/one Faul” theory.

PIDers always state that the world has been programmed to believe there has only ever been one Paul McCartney. And they are right about that.

However, can PIDers be engaging in their own form of programming? I see it every day. 

As much as I wish PIDers luck in researching this mysterious subject, I do think there lies a danger in two aspects of their research, whether intentional or not.

1. Pin-pointing, w/out grounds, a specific date in which 'the real Paul' left and 'Faul' took over.

2. Having an over-extended emotional attachment; thus creating a bias.

While pin-pointing an exact exit date is a great way to zero in on a missing persons investigation, it has a certain affect, especially when it’s a celebrity with rabid fans and a doppelganger replacement is also involved under mysterious conditions, such as this case.

Show this video to most PIDers and they will tell you it’s Faul. And most PIDers who have been at it long enough will also tell you he is wearing a mask. Some can even trace the mask lines for you. He could very well be wearing a mask here, by the way. But that’s not the point I’m trying to make…
Hey Jude
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEKgYKpEJ3o


(*unsure if there is a scar there or not. Though, evidence of a scar doesn't automatically mean he was made to look like somebody else)
Then show this photo or video to a PIDer and they will tell you it’s Paul. Ask them if the thing bunching up by his mouth means he’s wearing a mask and they will tell you it’s a dimple. It could be a dimple, or it could be a mask. But, still, that’s not the point…
Ed Sullivan Show 1965
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxMlmZqcoN4

^Tell them first that this is a reverse-engineered performance of Faul disguised as Paul, and they will cry “Mask!” from the hilltops. Why the incongruence?...

Show them this photo and they will tell you it is the real Paul McCartney.

Then show them this and they will backtrack, claiming the photo of the younger Paul must have been doctored. Again, what causes this flip-flopping phenomenon?

It comes from pin-pointing a precise exit date. As valid a technique as that is, one should remember the mysterious nature of this case, and that no death, let alone a date of death, has been verified. PID hobbyists visit the prominent PID blogs, read the August 27th-28th 1966 date (to use one popular exit date as an example), and something happens in their mind. 

If you show a PIDer any photo, video or sound recording of Paul McCartney before 8-27-66, it “must be the real Paul McCartney”. Show them any photo, video or almost* any sound recording after 8-27-66, and of course, it “must be Faul”. (*Some PIDers claim Faul used some of Paul’s audio recordings that he left behind).

And if you happen to be able to point anything out that is contrary in any way to their established mindset, they will invariably play the “doctored” card. “Faul is up to his old tricks again!”

The research undergone in this blog suggests that there were not only multiple Pauls from at least as far back as the early-60s, but also multiple Johns, Georges and Ringos. 
And if they were killed and/or replaced, it seems to have happened long before 1966. More like 1956.


What it comes down to is this;
The standard 'one-Paul/one-Faul' paradigm is merely a very small part of the big picture. And it is being stuck in that myoPIA that is preventing the bigger picture from being seen.
This mindset prevents researchers from examining all of the Pauls within each given era to each other.
Not only are there discrepancies within each era, but there are match-ups across both eras.

Most standard PIDers can take pre-67 photos and put them next to post-66 photos and point out differences, but never compare the differences between all of the pre-67 Pauls.
Likewise they miss all the differences between all the post-66 Pauls.
And furthermore fail to acknowledge the uncanny similarities to be found across both eras.

It also blinds them to the PID clues that are present during the Beatlemania era. And the few that they do see, they claim are "just a joke". Just a joke? But the ones after 1966 weren't jokes?
http://thefab4dozen.blogspot.com/2012/04/pre-fall-66-pid-motifs.html


The 'forensic scientists' that wrote the PID article in Wired Magazine in 2009, say the jawlines of these two Pauls match, but did they notice the glaringly different eyebrows?

Are those even the same noses, mouths, ears and chin clefts? And why did they use such a poorly lit photo for their 'sceintific' research?
Sure, the Wired article does an alright job of showing us that there were TWO Pauls, but that is just one small part of a much bigger picture. I would like to see them analyze several photos from the Beatlemania era, comparing them all with each other. And likewise with post-66 photos.
I'd also like to see them explain the uncanny resemblances between them all.

With the comparison of the two '63 Pauls, it almost seems as if the article was staged. "Hey, we're forensic scientists. We're gonna put the two most different Pauls we can find, put them side-by-side and tell you they're the same guy. And you're gonna believe us."
Incidentally, this Wired article came out within 2 days of McCartney's appearance on The Dave Letterman Show, 2009.


If this multiples theory bears out to be true, PID programming - whether intentional or not - has been, and will continue to, hold PID hobbyists, researchers and potentially the whole world from seeing what is right in front of them. Also, being a fan-bopper does wonders to prevent one from even entertaining such a theory, and immediately writing it off as a clownery. Especially if ones campaign includes the idea of them being light beings. Regardless of whether they were or not, if one holds that belief they would be wise to realize the enormous bias it creates in their minds. In a case such as this, it is important to remain as neutral as possible. Remember, idol worship may cause blindness, denial and irritability. 

I was a ginormous Beatles fan for 17 years. I spent almost two years learning how to play every one of their songs on guitar, bass and piano. I thought of them as my personal music teachers. I also admired their work ethic, and their sense of humor. But there came a time when I needed to analyze the facts in front of me. (By the way, I do still think their music was crafted very well, although I now believe they did not write it). 

I still don’t know if there were ever four original Beatles, there may have been. Whether there was or not, something very strange is going on and we’re being lied to. Which makes finding the truth all the more imperative. 

If one wants to believe something strange started happening during the late summer/fall of 1966, that is fine, it sure seems to be the time in which the PID motif was being played out in earnest, and should continued to be looked into. Sure, there were odd-looking Pauls after 1966, but there were also odd-looking Pauls before that, if one looks without prejudice.
I do not want to discredit anyone's research or the practice of finding an precise exit date. Just be aware that there is evidence strongly suggesting that it goes back way farther than that. How far, who knows? And again, be aware that this demarcation point literally causes others to form an arbitrary bias when looking at evidence, hindering their own personal research. And in a case like this - where not only can anyone agree on the same criteria for identifying the real Paul, but without being fed an exit date, can't agree on when he disappeared - it could be best to keep an open mind about when everything may have started to get sketchy.

I continually see PIDers unable to agree on when Paul disappeared. They can't agree if it's 'the real Paul' at the London airport after returning from America, if it's him at the Melody Maker awards, etc.
If it was so cut & dry, these conflicting viewpoints wouldn't and shouldn't arise.

P.S. I could go on for days with examples of Paul vs. Faul scenarios I’ve witnessed in PID forums, but for brevity’s sake I just used these two. Which, by the way, were partially created for this article. Although, the dimple/mask excuse has been used for this particular photo. And the composite/doctoring excuse was used in a very similar situation. If I were to try these exact scenarios out sometime, I guarantee you - based on similar experiences - PIDers would react as I predict. 
Also notice none of the Pauls or "Fauls" in these examples match up exactly with the others. Even the composite is only 98% similar. The tops lips are of different thickness, and the right eye brow swoops are a little different, but that's about it. More evidence for a technology the public is unaware of? They're too different to be the same guy, but too similar to be actor-impostors with surgery.


-
PID clues and the entire PID conspiracy was created by the same people that created The Beatles. It is intended to be the “controlled opposition” with which to explain any noticed differences amongst the Beatles, corralling the suspicious observers into a red herring/false solution. And they knew that the endeared Beatles fans would take care of the rest and defend their crimes, with their excuses of doctoring, lighting/angle etc. The Beatles and the powers behind them did a good job of luring everyone into their car with candy, then brainwashing them to fight the truth once it was discovered. A classic case of Stockholm Syndrome. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

"A paradoxical psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and have positive feelings towards their captors, sometimes to the point of defending them. These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors for an act of kindness."

We here at this blog are making our best efforts at providing ample evidence and proof for multiple Beatles going way back to at least the Hamburg days. And when we present it to PIDers on other forums, they either start babbling or ignore us - all without ever objectively looking at the evidence, being able to provide adequate evidence of their claims, or adequately refuting ours. Either way, they are defending the very crimes that were committed against them.

Multiples were used for a couple of major reasons. One, in order to fulfill their rigorous schedule. And two, to create “cognitive dissonance”. The clones look enough alike to pass as one person, but different enough for us to notice subconsciously. We sense something is wrong, but rarely question it in our conscious minds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

Ironically, it is also interesting that according to PID biased standards and logic, if they are followed thoroughly, there is no actual way to verify the differences between 'Paul' and 'Faul'.

Just one example: according to PIDers... this is the real Paul McCartney - long fingers, smoking left-handed.



Those powers that be really know how to mess with people's minds.

PIDers say 'Faul' has created an image in everyone's minds as to what Paul was like. When in actuality, they have all created their own image of an ideal Paul in their own individual minds, and cast their positive feelings upon him. While also casting all their negativity upon any PFaul after 1966. Just as it was designed.

The Beatles not only had a team of brilliant musicologists writing their music, but also a team of sociologists designing the impact they'd have on the world. People were even being told how to respond to the idea that Paul was gone by the putting forth of the "Paul is dead. Miss him, miss him, miss him” ‘clue’. It's like the chance couldn't be taken that some people might think for themselves and not respond that way automatically.

And again, If one believes a Paul McCartney died in 1966, research away! We here just happen to think if something unsavory happened to Paul and the rest of the Beatles, it was much more like 1956 or even 1946.
And I want to make it clear that I'm not trying to be combatant towards PIDers or PIAers. We're all in this together, we've all been duped by the powers that be, and we all need to work together to untangle this mess.

What this is really about is freeing your mind, lifting the wool off your eyes and seeing what's going on in this world on a grand scale. I’d like to see people question things instead of taking everything at face value.

Question everything, and do your own unbiased, objective research -- to see if what we're saying seems right to you, before you either accept it or dismiss it.

--
I’m realizing that all of this isn’t just about what happened to the Beatles. Under the surface I’m seeing this is a battle for people’s minds. By that I mean: the endeared fans have attributed all of their positive feelings of love, hope and in some cases attraction to Paul and the Beatles. The part inside of these fans that hopes for a better world is deeply tied to the Beatles. I see now, that when we call the Beatles’ integrity and validity into question, it’s not just an affront on the Beatles, it’s also an affront on the deepest parts of the fans themselves. 

It’s not just the loss of Paul that they’re mourning, it’s the perceived loss of hope and the death of a dream of a better world. And their faul-guy “Faul” and the “Featles” is who they have projected all of their negative feelings upon. The PID conspiracy is their mythology, it's their battle of good vs. evil. To them, Faul and the Featles are the reason the world is a miserable place.

Whether you think the Beatles were killed & replaced, not killed or replaced, or that they were a cast of multiples; the fact is, ultimately nothing changed for the better. 
The evidence we have posted strongly suggests that they were most likely a cast of multiples created by an organization that does not have our best interests at heart. And it’s not just the Beatles, we’re seeing it with other celebrities and world leaders. 
Also, the evidence we’ve provided suggests that the change from the ‘good Beatles’ to the 'Featles' was a classic set-up. A “good cop/bad cop” scenario, a "bait and switch". The PID conspiracy was also created by these same people, to be the "controlled opposition" to corral those who are able to spot any differences among the multiples - knowing the endeared fans would take care of the rest with their excuses of photo-tampering etc. 

With this cleverly orchestrated conspiracy, the PIDers will be too busy spinning their wheels trying to investigate a death and replacement, while only concentrating on the similarities in all the Paul photos, and noticing only the differences in the Paul vs. Faul comparisons. When in fact if you take any two photos of any P/Faul from any era, and objectively analyze them without a double standard, you will see they are all 96-99% similar.






Either way, we’re all really on the same side. Whether Paul/the Beatles were replaced or if they were all a set of multiples, it’s going to be traced back to the same criminals. The only real difference between the two camps, besides the premise, seems to be whether or not the Beatles were “light beings”. We seem to have found through much research that they most likely weren’t. But again, either way, to believe they were, (feel free to if you want) is to be extremely biased. And biased research will produce skewed, inaccurate findings. Such an endeared fan would never be able to serve on a jury if this ever went to court. Which actually calls into question the validity of the research of such PIDers and PIAers. As well as their pre-programmed responses to our research (that they haven’t been able to back up).

One could accuse me of being biased, but you’ll have to take my word that, as a former huge fan, I just want to know what happened with the Beatles – whether I like the answer or not.
I am one that does not blindly accept that the world is as it is spoon-fed to us by the media, and I was not surprised when I started researching this and finding that there were multiples of all four Beatles and that they weren’t writing the music. Disappointed and upset, but not surprised, at all. 

One could even accuse us of trying to destroy the image and ‘good name’ of the Beatles. But the BFeatles themselves have already done that. They don’t need anyone’s help. We here wish none of the possible horrifying scenarios were true, and are just posting what we’re seeing. If you can articulately refute it, please do.

Recently, a guest accused me of “wasting my life with this research.” I’d rather “waste” my time researching this than wasting it by blindly, unquestioningly plugging into the mass-media pop-culture cocoon that has been created for us, which I did more or less to some extent up until I started this research - which has been more fulfilling than being an endeared fan ever was, and that’s saying a lot. 

Again, the point of this site is not to bash on the Beatles or their fans. My biggest aim is for me and everyone else to become more aware, observant, objective and realistic towards the culture around us. Question everything and settle only for the truth, whether you like it or not. There’s not even a need to be paranoid or cynical, just be unbiased and empirical.
You don't need to cast all of your positive feelings of love and hope upon an idol, cast it on yourself. Be your own "light being".

From the book:

[regarding the PID conspiracy] The appetite for such hidden meanings was proof of a need for mystery and revelation that modern secularism hadn’t been able to fulfill. Ignorant of the Holy Writ, which could bear deep textual analysis, a generation had trained its spiritual curiosity on pop culture, asking it to offer enlightenment and guidance as well as entertainment. 

from the book:

An even larger question remained though as to why Paul became the subject of this conspiracy. “There was no Beatle whose combination of traits both real and perceived, personal and popular, positioned him better as designated corpse than Paul McCartney,” thought author ofMagic Circles Devin McKinney.
”John was too loud, George too quiet, Ringo too human. Paul was perfect – perfectly beautiful, so beautiful he was unreal enough for it to function as pure myth and magic. Like his generation and its great social experiment, he was an infant in a grown body, both flesh an spirit, an ethereal presence circling the earth in a radiant membrane of evanescent purity. What had once made Paul a god among humans now place him squarely on his back upon the alter of myth.”
Paul was also the cute Beatle. If Lennon represented the pleasure principle of the Beatles, McCartney was the group’s sole source of the possibilities offered by pleasure. He embraced the world around him and didn’t perceive it as suspiciously as Lennon or Harrison. But because of their skepticism, Lennon and Harrison also represented the reality principle of the Bealtes (which is perhaps why they became such likely targets of assassins). Paul had represented the Impossible Dream of what the Beatles could actually be. Unlike Lennon, his music had the expressed purpose of not questioning reality, but making reality somehow bearable, or perhaps a happier burden to carry. So he would never be a target of some deranged fan’s wrath. But when the Beatles’ dream had died after 1966, it made sense to some listeners that the impossible dreamer, Paul, should likely be gone as well. 




From Drawing on the Artist Within by Betty Edwards.
Chapter 16: There is More to Seeing than Meets the Eyeball

Human beings expend great quantities of brainpower on deriving meaning from the constant jumble of incoming sensory data. The mind seems to long for conclusion, for termination, for closure – closure that most often consists of naming and categorizing, of identifying a stimulus. Each of us yearns for the moment of identification, of “Now I see it!”, of the unspoken “Eureka!”. Whether the incoming data are important or trivial. And often closure is accompanied by some sense of relief, the degree depending on how important the identification.
Perhaps partly because of this incessant need to identify events and objects, human perception is not the receptive “Let me just have a look and see what is out there” approach that we assume it to be. The visual information that falls in the retina of the eye is not necessarily what we “see”. Research in perception suggests just the opposite: “Our minds are made up before the fact.” Carolyn M. Bloomer in her 1976 book Principles of Visual Perception states the situation:
“If this view is correct, your mind does not interpret stimuli with anything like an open-minded approach. Instead, you can see things only in relation to categories already established in your mind. Closure does not represent objective knowledge about a stimulus but rather the confirmation of a preexistent idea. It means that on a perceptual level our minds are made up before the fact: we have the closure programmed before the stimulus happens!... The result is that you encounter reality with an enormous number of preconceived notions.”
Obviously, these perceptual hypotheses (“perceptual prejudices” in Bloomer’s term) make life simpler. If everything had to be figured out from scratch, and we paid full attention to each stimulus as if seeing it for the first time, we could never make it through the day.
The problem is that the brain’s preprogramming is so all-encompassing, so ready to “jump the gun”, so bent on avoiding the anxiety of “not-knowing” that it is almost impossible to turn off the program at will in order to “really” see when perception of a different kind is appropriate and useful.



From The Dance of Life by anthropologist Edward T. Hall
On preprogrammed closure.
There is an underlying, hidden level of culture that is highly patterned – a set of unspoken, implicit rules of behavior and thought that controls everything we do. This hidden cultural grammar defines the way in which people view the world… Most of us are either totally unaware or else only peripherally aware of this.
This was brought home to me recently while discussing Japanese cultural differences with a friend, a brilliant man with an unusually fine mind. I realized that not only was I not getting through to him, but nothing of a substantive nature that I had said made sense to him… For him to have understood me would have meant reorganizing his thinking… giving up his intellectual ballast, and few people are willing to risk such a radical move.

-
It seems as though the PID clues weren't put there by John "to get justice for his friend",  but rather, they were put there to subliminally plant closure for people, for when they start to investigate it. They were already convinced of PID before they started finding the messages.
-


Again I will cite from the book Drawing on the Artist Within. I am seeing a lot of parallels in it in regards to research, as it is not only  a book on drawing, but essentially a book on seeing and problem solving.

First a quote in it by James L. Adams:
“In my opinion, the optimal situation in problem-solving is to be able to use a clean-minded approach to a problem, even though your mind is stuffed with information. The more information I have about the problem and previous attempts to solve it, the better I do… However, this abundant information can often prevent you from seeing very elegant solutions.
Learned conventions can be window-less fortresses, which exclude viewing the world in new ways.
The reason for maintaining an open mind, of course, is so that no information derived from seeing what is ‘out there’ will be overlooked, rejected, or revised because of prematurely drawn conclusions.”


The Author, Betty Edwards, then goes on to say:
The paradox we must deal with in the saturation phase of research is as follows: Saturation requires finding out as much as possible about the problem – ideally a thorough research of the chosen subject. At the same time, one must maintain a ‘clean-minded approach to a problem’, a state of mind in which one knows 'nothing'. [Linus: or, to be unbiased!].
One must sift, absorb, arrange, and re-arrange* incoming new information along with previously known ‘old’ information without ever drawing conclusions. One must be alert for misinformation or misinterpretation, yet at the same time be willing to risk taking chances. One must search outside oneself for whatever is related to the first insight, testing confidence in the rightness of the initial question. But at the same time one must acquiesce to being completely sure of the next move, or in fact, the whole process.

*Linus: As I have come to recently see the correlation between Alchemy’s “dissolve and coagulate.” "dissolve the body [Linus: of evidence. Break it down into it’s many parts.]
and coagulate the spirit [Linus: or essence of the mystery. Bring all the examined parts back into the whole.]
Essentially, this is what we did in 2011. We thoroughly, and without bias, analyzed as much evidence as we could find, and compared each exhibit to it’s counterparts within it’s own era, as well as spotting the uncanny similarities that crossed over into each era. Thus we were able to see the essence of what was going on; multiples. Multiples that are too different to be the same people every time, but too similar to be look-alikes, even with surgery.


She then goes on to say, “If the artist – or thinker - plunges in with conceptions, labels, ideas, or conclusions, trouble lies ahead, and the subject or the solution to the problem may remain forever out of reach.”
Linus: this is precisely what I’m getting at when I refer to PID programming.


“For a person gathering information and trying to see the context of a problem, “jumping to conclusions” prematurely can drastically narrow and impoverish the search. New information which perhaps contradicts the premature assumption may be subconsciously rejected.”


Here are some of her student’s drawings. On the left are from week 1 of her drawing class. On the right are from the final week. She continually stresses that she did not teach her students to draw, she taught them to see. To see everything innocently, without preconceptions, and to acknowledge the retinal information that was passing through their eye, and keep it unfiltered and un-simplified as they process it in their minds. While also allowing the free-thinking aspects of the mind (right-brain) to see the information in new ways.


The problem we see with most PIDers, is that they can point out differences between one pre-67 Paul and one post-66 Paul, but never really notice how many differences there are when comparing all the pre-67 Pauls with each other. And likewise with all the post-66 Pauls. Nor do they acknowledge the similarities between the two eras. And we believe the PID paradigm was created with this intent.

I’ve been encouraging others and myself lately to look at this from a fresh perspective every day. Even those of us that are still tying to figure out what is going on, and haven’t cemented on a decision yet still risk settling into tunnel vision from time to time.

I’m not saying we’re smarter or more observant than those that believe the standard PID paradigm, it’s just that our perceptions aren’t cluttered by preconceptions and myopic parameters which were established by messages and other people's conclusions - (and not on any circumstantial evidence (i.e. motive, suspect, body, ID on replacement, etc.)

And no, we’re not trying to discourage people from researching, like we’ve been accused of. Quite the opposite. The central underlying theme of all my work is the encouragement of continued research for everyone. As long as it is thorough and unbiased.