Paul McCartney died in 1966 - replaced by Billy Shepherd

page: 145
33
<< 142  143  144    146  147  148 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by pmexplorer

Here's a perfect opportunity for you to illustrate to us these ''subtle differences''.


They have been stated all through this thread.
Eyes:shape/size.
Nose: Shape/size
Chin:Shape/size
Gap between nose and mouth: size
Ears: Shape/size
Forehead: shape/size
Feet: shape/size

They are subtle so you'll need a keen(er) eye.




Originally posted by pmexplorerThe poster above has shown that is the same person.


Nothing of the sort, which is why we are still discussing this. You mean you honestly can't see all the differences?


Originally posted by pmexplorerThe ''TPTB'' whoever they are sure did a great job, they manufactured a lookalike who not only could fool his friends and family but also a multi talented musician who could walk, look and sound the same.


He didn't walk, look, or sound the same....similar, but not the same.
Who said he fooled his friends and family...some he may have, others he may not have needed to.

Would you expect TPTB (at least you're accepting this term now!) to manufacture a poor lookalike?

ow





posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki
They have been stated all through this thread.
Eyes:shape/size.
Nose: Shape/size
Chin:Shape/size
Gap between nose and mouth: size
Ears: Shape/size
Forehead: shape/size
Feet: shape/size

Don't forget morphological differences in the mandibular curve, nasal spine, tragus, palate, & canines!



Who said he fooled his friends and family...some he may have, others he may not have needed to.

I highly doubt he fooled anyone who had known Paul well. He didn't even fool some of the fans who didn't know Paul at all!



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 11:07 PM
link   
Faul's fake nose tip is a different color - lol




posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki

He didn't walk, look, or sound the same....similar, but not the same.
Who said he fooled his friends and family...some he may have, others he may not have needed to.


SO "he" didn't fool his family?



this photo is taken one year after "the replacement" you think took place.

they sure seem to enjoy the dead-Paul-replacements company!!





let me put it like this:








posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki
If you can't see the differences in the pictures you posted, then of course you're going to say that nothing is there....


I can't see any "differences" for the simple reason that they don't exist.


as a riposte I will say that I see differences


Ok, please tell us where they are in the following photos, then:

Eyes



Nose



Mouth/nose/chin



Chin





[edit on 29-9-2009 by Dakudo]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dakudo

Ok, please tell us where they are in the following photos, then:

Eyes



Nose



Mouth/nose/chin



Chin







Excellent post again.

Kudos Dakudo.


The lengths the pid crew go in their futile attempts to give this theory
some credibility are hilarious.

But ''they'' could do anything of course like replacing a dead man with an
identical replacement (Oh the joys of plastic surgery) and they then got away with it by 'downloading Paul's mind' don't you know.


And just so I'm not attacked for the above, those allegations have all been made by 'pid' believers in this thread, it's all there in black and white.

[edit on 29-9-2009 by pmexplorer]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 10:37 PM
link   
If you look at the two photo comparisons of the eyes, the inside corners are totally different ! ! ! One ends squarely, the other in a point!


Originally posted by Dakudo

Originally posted by aorAki
If you can't see the differences in the pictures you posted, then of course you're going to say that nothing is there....


I can't see any "differences" for the simple reason that they don't exist.


as a riposte I will say that I see differences


Ok, please tell us where they are in the following photos, then:

Eyes



Nose



Mouth/nose/chin



Chin





[edit on 29-9-2009 by Dakudo]


[edit on 29-9-2009 by kshaund]



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by kshaund
If you look at the two photo comparisons of the eyes, the inside corners are totally different ! ! ! One ends squarely, the other in a point!

If they had shown that comp in color, one would have seen that the eyes were different colors, too - lol.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by kshaund
If you look at the two photo comparisons of the eyes, the inside corners are totally different ! ! ! One ends squarely, the other in a point!




*SIGH*

Let's have a look at a better quality photo:







See any SQUARE corners? LOL!

Sorry - your claim is false. The inside corners are clearly the same!

Still waiting for a PIDDER to explain where these alleged differences are supposed to be.... Eyes, nose, mouth, chin......

[edit on 30-9-2009 by Dakudo]



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   
That's not the same picture you're now comparing ! Those two you now use to show they're the same look like the exact same picture duplicated and not one of the ones used in the previous post. The ones in the previous post do not have the same eye corners, period, this new one you posted looks like the exact same photo duplicated. If they are different photos, can you please provide the entire photos to show they're not the same photo simply duplicated?


reply to post by Dakudo
 




[edit on 30-9-2009 by kshaund]



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ExperiencedGhost
All I can say is that Paul McCarthy is a satanist too, he doesn't hide it neither.


First, we are speaking about Paul McCartney, not "McCarthy".
Second, your message is off-topic. This thread is about the Paul McCartney's death theory. Please read the title.
Last but not least, you are accusing a musician to be a satanist, therefore a criminal. This is very serious.
If you have proofs please provide them. Otherwise, your accusations are not only ridiculous, but shameful and libellous.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by kshaund
That's not the same picture you're now comparing !




Are you serious?


So what? It's STILL the same man - the alleged double! It's STILL his eyes!

It's just a clearer screen cap - showing that the corners of the eyes are NOT square and thus rebuting the ridiculous claim that the corners of the eyes are different shapes.


Those two you now use to show they're the same look like the exact same picture duplicated and not one of the ones used in the previous post.


Oh, c'mon man! Are you being serious? Of course they are the same picture! I've just circled the corners of the eyes in one to show what I'm refering to.


The ones in the previous post do not have the same eye corners, period,


They may 'appear' not to, in your opinion. That is why I posted a clearer photo which proves that they are the same shape!

Here's another:



The corners are NOT "square" as has been falsely claimed.





Case closed.

The Pidders have so far failed to point out any credible differences in the comps I posted.

Surprise, surprise.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Your response to me saying its not the same picture you're comparing is.... "so what???????????????????????" I say its not the same picture you're comparing and that's a big deal! Not "so what"!


Originally posted by Dakudo

Originally posted by kshaund
That's not the same picture you're now comparing !




Are you serious?


So what? It's STILL the same man - the alleged double! It's STILL his eyes!


[edit on 30-9-2009 by kshaund]



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   
I'm not surprised that they would do a comp w/ the exact same photo. I've caught them doing comps w/ photos of Paul, both from mid-1966 & before to show that he was never replaced in late 1966. It's sort of like how LIFE magazine only showed pictures of "Paul" from 1967 & later to "prove" Paul was "still with us." lol



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by kshaund
Your response to me saying its not the same picture you're comparing is.... "so what???????????????????????" I say its not the same picture you're comparing and that's a big deal! Not "so what"!


Why is it a big deal?????????????


What difference does it make if it's a different photo?


They are STILL the SAME eyes!

The eyes of the so called FAUL!

The eyes which it was claimed have "square" corners.

Only the other - CLEARER - photo proves this claim as FALSE.

Are you suggesting that the shape of Faul's eyes CHANGE in different photos?


Does he shape-shift?

Your point is irrelevant. If Faul's eyes have square corners, as alleged, then they will have square corners in EVERY photo!!!!

Only, they don't!

They are clearly the same shape as they ALWAYS have been.

Here's another comparison proving 'Faul's' eyes are the SAME shape as Paul's:





NO SQUARE CORNERS!

Stop making irrelevant points about the photos not being the same and face the FACT - the eye shape is the same!



[edit on 30-9-2009 by Dakudo]



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
I'm not surprised that they would do a comp w/ the exact same photo.




It wasn't a "comp". Once again you are shown up for making false claims.

Let's look at what I said:


Originally posted by Dakudo

Let's have a look at a better quality photo:





Notice I said "a" photo - NOT photos!



I've caught them doing comps w/ photos of Paul, both from mid-1966 & before to show that he was never replaced in late 1966.


Please post a link to back up this claim. Of course you won't - because it is simply NOT true.

Here is an example of Pidders doctoring photos.

ORIGINAL:



DOCTORED PIDDER PHOTO TO MAKE 'FAUL'S' FACE APPEAR LONGER:



FAKERY:





And here's the link to the PIDDER site with the photo doctoring:

PIDDERS DOCTOR PHOTOS

You can see more examples of PIDDER photo doctoring via this link:

maccafunhouse.proboards.com...

You see, I give proof when I say PIDDERS doctor photos. Notice that Faulcon gives no proof to back up her claim whatsoever.

Go figure....


[edit on 30-9-2009 by Dakudo]



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dakudo

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
I'm not surprised that they would do a comp w/ the exact same photo.




It wasn't a "comp". Once again you are shown up for making false claims.


I've caught them doing comps w/ photos of Paul, both from mid-1966 & before to show that he was never replaced in late 1966.


Please post a link to back up this claim. Of course you won't - because it is simply NOT true.

Here is an example of Pidders doctoring photos.

ORIGINAL:



DOCTORED PIDDER PHOTO TO MAKE 'FAUL'S' FACE APPEAR LONGER:



FAKERY:





And here's the link to the PIDDER site with the photo doctoring:

PIDDER'S DOCTOR PHOTOS

You can see more examples of PIDDER photo doctoring via this link:

maccafunhouse.proboards.com...

You see, I give proof when I say PIDDERS doctor photos. Notice that Faulcon gives no proof to back up her claim whatsoever.

Go figure....



Wow! That is proof that pidders doctor photos to make post '66 Paul look different. I am not surprised. Sun King did the same thing, flipping photos and stretching them. He even had to admit to flipping photos after it was proven.

And, gee, that demonstrates another point. That Wired magazine article proves nothing.

You can see with those photos that the pidders doctored that measurements of photos mean nothing. Naturally, stretching, squashing and squeezing photos will change the measurements. That first photo was stretched, so any measurements on such a manipulated photo would show a difference. The photos used in that article came from Sun King's PID website. That is not even in question. They are exact matches. The same Sun King proven to flip and stretch photos. So any measurements using those photos are WORTHLESS. Making any of the article's conclusions WORTHLESS.

PID is dead.

Even more troubling than this photo doctoring is the mean, belligerent tone of certain pidders recently. One posted today that Paul would die on October 3rd of this year and there is no way it can be stopped. Such threats are disgusting and display an underlying hatred and violence that is very troubling.

[edit on 30-9-2009 by edmond dantes]



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Now it is not enough for some people to falsely accuse Paul McCartney to be an imposter and to falsify photos to "proof" unexisting differences in his face features.
Now they even have the temerity to threaten a person who gave happiness and entertained so many people all around the world with his music.
It is really shocking.

But as it always happens in these cases, they will have to cope with the fact that Paul McCartney will still be happy and in good health on October 4th



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Dakudo
 


The first post with the two different black and white photos clearly shows that the corner of one set of eyes was squarish, the other one pointed. They look very different. I don't know when these photos were taken or what the whole face attached to each photo looks like- that's what I was responding to.

To then use the same photo to show "pointed" doesn't address the questioning of the two photos with different inner eye corners. But it does show lovely green eyes



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by diabolo1
let me put it like this:





Wow. What troopers. Amazing job of hiding unfathomable sorrow.





new topics
top topics
 
33
<< 142  143  144    146  147  148 >>

log in

join