It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
All of the picture comps have been chosen b/c they are from the same angle, or as close as possible. The pictures speak for themselves. They're obviously not the same person.
WHY would the Illuminati (or any party) have such an interest?
WR: Yeah, in '53 "Operation Artichoke" used subjects who were suspected of being double agents and individuals of "dubious loyalty" in mind control experiments and that went on for ten years. And years later the Congressional investigation revealed that it was satisfied with six drugs it had developed for use in a variety of operations. So in the same year, 1953, the CIA rented adjacent apartments in Greenwich village where they photographed unsuspecting civilian guinea pigs as they reacted to drugs as they were slipped surreptitiously into their drinks. The agency claimed that only 53 subjects were drugged in this field experiment and in the same year CIA funded National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) grants which found their way to the University of California, Berkeley, where Timothy Leary was hard at work studying how to diagnose personality. There he was introduced to the cryptocracy by his drinking buddy, Frank Baron. In 1954, CIA secret grants flowed to Harvard where Ph.D. Timothy Leary was conducting a study of how to change behavior by giving prisoners '___' in the Concord Corrections Facility. Leary's boss at Harvard was David McClellan Former OSS employee. In 1955 to '59 MKUltra Mind Control Research was conducted at forty-four US colleges and universities in the United States and Canada.
to the guy using the "Angle/Shadow/Haircut" argument.
Such a weak rebuttal and they don't even realise it. You aren't going to find two identical pictures from two different time periods unless set up to do so, the best you can do is greyscale pictures from the front/side perspective.
Surely people can use common sense and differentiate the main focal point, which is the face (or some cases, the height).
Originally posted by templar777
[edit on 3-6-2009 by templar777]
I don't really see why people think this is a "joke."
Obviously, something happened to Paul, b/c he is not to be seen after 1966. What happened to him? Where'd he go?
Also, people are being influenced & manipulated by the use of doubles, & they don't even have a clue about it.
I guess I fail to see the humor in this.
Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by whodunit
Yeah, if we could only go back in time and have Paul pose in the exact same manner with the exact same expression, in the exact same angle in early 1966 and then in early 1967.
Your addition to the thread only seems to be that it is just not good enough. There is no such thing as absolute proof. Within reasonable doubt is the standard.
Maybe you could provide a picture that gives closer angles and expressions that proves the op wrong. At least make a specific comment on features.
Originally posted by poet1b
Definitive proof is not going to be found unless you have some level of authority behind your investigation and the resources to conduct it. Just because you refuse to see what everyone else sees, but can't come to believe it could be pulled off, doesn't mean the evidence isn't there. Most people who have posted here also come to a conclusion that he looks different.
It just gets old hearing someone make the same accusation over and over, especially when they have nothing to back it up on but their opinion, and demand of definitive proof which can not be gotten.
Do you think Oswald acted alone also?
[edit on 5-6-2009 by poet1b]