This puts it all in one place while not bogging down in the details--which anyone can look up again for himself--so as to remind even the long-time PID student how overwhelming and wide-ranging the evidence is.
And yet, the similarities between the two entities is so striking as to DEFY REASON. Therefore the logical explaination to this miraculous phoenix-from-flame transfornation "out of nowhere" is quite obvious and would explain why so many people in their shared sphere seemed to be lacking in grief and remorse. The following is taken from:https://www.genome.gov/25020028/cloning-fact-sheet/#al-9 and would explain that which up til now has remained unexplainable. How? How on earth can they seem so uncannily similar??Because: Do cloned animals always look identical?No. Clones do not always look identical. Although clones share the same genetic material, the environment also plays a big role in how an organism turns out.For example, the first cat to be cloned, named Cc, is a female calico cat that looks very different from her mother. The explanation for the difference is that the color and pattern of the coats of cats cannot be attributed exclusively to genes. A biological phenomenon involving inactivation of the X chromosome (See sex chromosome) in every cell of the female cat (which has two X chromosomes) determines which coat color genes are switched off and which are switched on. The distribution of X inactivation, which seems to occur randomly, determines the appearance of the cat's coat
Further discussion on the epigenetics of cloning including inherent differences in the "replicas". Human clones have often been depicted in movies as nothing but carbon copies of their genetic predecessor with no minds of their own (e.g.,Multiplicity and Star Wars: Attack of the Clones), as products of scientific experiments that have gone horribly wrong, resulting in deformed quasi-humans (Alien Resurrection) or murderous children (Godsend), as persons created simply for spare parts for their respective genetic predecessor (The Island), or as deliberate recreations of famous persons from the past who are expected to act just like their respective predecessor (The Boys from Brazil). Even when depicting nonhuman cloning, films (such as Jurassic Park) tend to portray products of cloning as menacing, modern-day Frankensteinian monsters of sorts, which serve to teach humans a lesson about the dangers of “playing God.”Many other media outlets, although usually shying away from the ominous representation of clones so prevalent in the movies, have usually portrayed clones as, essentially, facsimiles of their genetic predecessor. On the several occasions which Time Magazine has addressed the issue of cloning, the cover illustrates duplicate instances of the same picture. For example, the February 19, 2001 cover shows two mirror image infants staring at each other, the tagline suggesting that cloning may be used by grieving parents who wish to resurrect their dead child. Even a Discovery Channel program, meant to educate its viewers on the nature of cloning, initially portrays a clone as nothing more than a duplicate of the original person. Interestingly enough, however, a few minutes into the program, the narrator, speaking over a picture of two identical cows, says: “But even if a clone person is created, that doesn’t mean it would be an exact copy of the original.” Yet almost immediately afterwards, the same narrator calls a clone “You, version 2.0.”Source:http://www.iep.utm.edu/cloning/#H2
From https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/04/030416085546.htm "The bottom line is this: While clones are genetically identical, physical characteristics such as size, weight and hair type may not be the same because the DNA has been modified during the cloning process in such a way that it affects the activity of certain genes,"
Heres a great example of photo tampering right in our face https://mobile.twitter.com/PaulMcCartney/status/901475657821061125/photo/1
Great exposé! EPH 5:11:DO NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE UNFRUITFUL DEEDS OF DARKNESS, BUT INSTEAD EXPOSE THEM;
Paul offered to write the score for Mark Lane's "Rush To Judgement" 1967 film of the same name as the 1966 book. The resource mentioning that was "Citizen Lane", Lane's 2013 autobiography (book). I'm sure Paul would have financially backed the movie as well, transforming it from what it actually became. As well, it would have opened in theaters everywhere. Aside: YouTube has the full film but at least one copy is mistitled as if it came out when the book did, in 1966.
I personaly that, That is the key to Paul's death. Maybe he got taken out because he got too close to the truth to JFK'S assassination. Just my two cents
very nice presentation. a good introduction to PID
Nice presentation, thank you. You might also include that there is a youtube video called "Shocking Clues" that shows the man we know as Paul being introduced as "William." George hugs him and says "Hello William, Welcome." Then "Paul" looks at the camera worriedly and asks, "Is that thing on?" The photographer shuts off the camera at that point. Second comment: I want to point out that it is impossible for a clone of Paul to have taken his place. In the first place, cloning was impossible in 1966. If Paul were cloned in late 1966, his replacement would be an infant born in 1967. Third, I don't think Paul was murdered, but it is very likely John was, to keep him from spilling the beans with more clues about Paul's death and replacement.
ms foster - this presentation is excellent and overdue. it brings a great deal of coherence and comprehensiveness to the case. bravo
Agreed. I may not agree with everything Tina says. But I enjoy her presentations on her Blog very much. Presentations like this are very good for educating First comers to this conspiracy to learn about the basics facts about this conspiracy.
Tina, could this be another clue left by George in his music video "Ding Dong," in which he repeatedly sings, "Ring out the old, ring in the new, ring out the FALSE, ring in the TRUE." Then, at 2:09 a voice is heard saying, "No more Paul," or "Ed or Paul." What do you (researchers) think? https://youtube.be/SrXswlbWA7Y
Here's what may be another slip of Faul at his St. Petersburg 2004 concert: "Here's a song I recorded in the sixties." He sounds unsure as he says, "I HAVEN'T SUNG THIS BEFORE." Then he catches himself and says,"So this is the first time I'm singing it in Russia."
Another clue that may not have been posted on an earlier blog. Oddly, when I hit "SUBMIT", the browser said it was offline, but ONLY YOUR SITE said "you are not connected to the internet," for about 2 hrs. I was able to go online on other sites. So here's the clue: On the Beatles VEO channel on YouTube, on the Rear Love video at 3:55, see "Paul" playing guitar right handed, apparently in India. This is not a PID site, so no one can say the video is "flipped."
Thank you for your comments. They will appear once they have been approved.