Friday, October 30, 2009

PIAgents' "fades" are really morphs (Paul is Dead/PID)

People who try to debunk the theory that Paul McCartney is dead & was replaced often use "fades," which are not so much fades as morphs. Morphing technology can turn one image into any other. Faulisdead on Youtube posted this video, which illustrates the point:

Notice how much the ears, nose and other features change - they are pulled and warped. The software works by fading & warping the pictures so they match. The two images are blended together - giving the illusion that Paul & Faul are the same. The morphing also occurs very quickly, which does not give a person the opportunity to identify the differences, such as the difference in nasal spine, tragus, palate, mandibular curve, and canines.

In this morph, it is clear that the facial features of Faul are morphing into Paul.

Real fades do not warp the facial features. The images are faded, but not morphed. For example, this is an image of Paul from the Butcher Album in 1966 faded w/ an image of Faul from Sgt. Pepper (1967):

This fade makes it clear that the features do not match at all. The picture of Faul above also illustrates how images of Paul & Faul have been blended. For example, here is a picture of Paul on the left, Faul in the middle, & a blend of the 2 on the right (also from Sgt. Pepper):

The best method to compare images is side by side, in my opinion, since it gives the eye a chance to register the difference in facial features. If one had not been conditioned into thinking both of these men were "Paul McCartney," it would probably be shocking to think that they are supposed to be the same person.


The Luciferian Deception

Reptilians, Cetaceans and Frequency Wars on Planet Earth


  1. One thing I have not seen discussed on your wonderful site is the Physicality of Paul Vs. Faul. Paul was very still, very 'small' in his gestures & speech, almost apologetic in posture & motion. He comes across in interviews as a thoughtful & subdued man.

    Faul is much more masculine, and much more dynamic in his physical presence. He is prone to spread legs, leaning back, spontaneous motion & 'large' gestures and expressions. Just looking at Paul's 1966 David Frost interview VS. his 1967 LSD interview you can see that these are clearly two different people just by their physical motions & gestures...

    Thank you for your amazing site.

  2. Faul is/was foppish and gay acting. Paul was dignified and masculine. Same can be said of their respective male fans.

    1. Faul was a bit feminine at times, which fits as he is an initiate and likely bisexual. Paul was much more liked by women, he was much better looking as well.


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

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.