Paul McCartney died in 1966 - replaced by Billy Shepherd

page: 147
33
<< 144  145  146    148  149 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dakudo


Please be kind enough to point out the "differences in the nose tip" in this comp I have previously posted (but no PIDDER has been able to rebut):


Sure...look at the nostril width/depth...they are different. Can you not see that?

Also, forget just close-ups....give us the full face (with ears) of both of those photos.

Anok: they may have been 'proven' in your world, but until you bring me a forensic analysis carried out by Forensic Experts like the Italians were (no really, look at their credentials) then your proof is empty....and if it is proof, then why is this still being debated...maybe it has something to do with denial and some perceived slight against Sir Paul, when really the slight was made when he was replaced


[edit on 5-10-2009 by aorAki]




posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki there are differences in the nose tip, the ears and cetera....but you know, I think we're never going to see eye to eye.

There has been a consistent effort to try to debunk this theory and yet they seem to pay no real attention to the obvious differences in their comparisons...preferring to brush them aside in favour of the overall.


That's because you do not understand what you are seeing.

You point out minor discrepancies in our comparisons that you believe prove you POV. But there is a major flaw in your argument. These differences are not consistent.

In one comp, "Faul's" nose is longer. In the fade above, it's shorter. Then the ears are lower. Sometimes they're higher. In some pics they don't stick out as far. In others they do.

Guess what. It's easy to find pre '67 pics of Paul where the same thing happens. A photograph is a 2 dimensional representation of a 3 dimensional world. A human head is somewhat round. The nose and ears stick out from that sphere like little mountains would on a planet. In a 2D representation that will result in certain distortions based on the angle and distance used to take the photo.

From the Book "The Advanced Digital Photographer's Workbook".




Your assertions are a classic example of Occams Razor:



Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor.Conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.




You have pointed out the small inconsistencies in our comparisons that would be present in any group of photos, even from the same photo session with the same camera.

What everone defending pid has failed to do is explain the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence that Paul was replaced.


Logic demands that these are the same man, even though it's not "perfect in every way".

IMO of course.





posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Yes, I do understand Occam's Razor, thanks for your condescension and I do understand the Scientific method and the application of visual details to evaluate differences and similarites and |I also understand that TPTB would like for us all to think like you do because then there would be no resistance, but from what I have observed, read and accumulated it seems to me that something did happen around the end of 1966 and that it was sinister. I can't provide the mechanisms but I can say that the man we know as Sir Paul today is not the same man as the Paul McCartney of pre-1967 (thereabouts).

Have you considered that you may very well not understand what you are seeing? Anyone can cut and paste from photography websites etc and yes, it is true that when regarding optics there will be differences due to various factors, but it is also true that when one factors in /out these factors there are still differences which, it appears, you are in massive denial about no doubt because of some diminished mental faculties (see, I can condescend as well).

What can you explain to me about the discrepancies in height, shoe size etc?
Using Occam's Razor, the shoe size would suggest two different people.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki
Yes, I do understand Occam's Razor, thanks for your condescension and I do understand the Scientific method and the application of visual details to evaluate differences and similarites and |I also understand that TPTB would like for us all to think like you do because then there would be no resistance, but from what I have observed, read and accumulated it seems to me that something did happen around the end of 1966 and that it was sinister. I can't provide the mechanisms but I can say that the man we know as Sir Paul today is not the same man as the Paul McCartney of pre-1967 (thereabouts).

Have you considered that you may very well not understand what you are seeing? Anyone can cut and paste from photography websites etc and yes, it is true that when regarding optics there will be differences due to various factors, but it is also true that when one factors in /out these factors there are still differences which, it appears, you are in massive denial about no doubt because of some diminished mental faculties (see, I can condescend as well).

What can you explain to me about the discrepancies in height, shoe size etc?
Using Occam's Razor, the shoe size would suggest two different people.


I would like to know how you know Paul's shoe sizes.

Anyway, when I got out of college my shoe size was 8 1/2. It is now 9 1/2. I wasn't replaced.

Next. There is no height difference. Paul was always around 5 foot 11. He is a little shorter now due to age. Yes you can show some post 66 photos showing Paul looking taller. But we have presented just as many showing pre 67 Paul looking much taller than the others. Many factors can affect that.

And please, since you are an expert, please tell us exactly which factors affected the pictures presented by Gorn, how you factored them in/out, and point out what differences remain that are not affected by optics.

[edit on 5-10-2009 by edmond dantes]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
And again, as had been mentioned, the one part that makes up the shape of the face that doesn't change is the skull, and guess what? The parts of Maccas faces that are set by the shape of his skull, like eye sockets, have been proven to be exactly the same in the young and old Macca.

If you don't believe me then just re-read through the whole thread.


Forensic scientists proved that there were morphological differences in the mandibular curve, tragus, nasal spine, palate & canines that could not be explained by surgery. Obviously, the man was replaced.

Huge difference in the nasal spines here:



[edit on 5-10-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by faulconandsnowjob
 
Hi everyone. I have been reading these PID dead threads for about a week now. It is an interesting topic.

I find the photo profiles to be compelling. To myself, the younger macca looked a bit like a young sly stallone whereas the older macca doesn't look a bit like sly. The Nov or December 1966 macca looks very different to the August 1966 macca. I wonder what Heather Mills would have to say about PM or FM if she were allowed to?

The only problem I have with the PID theory is that when John Lennon had his last interview back in 1980(Playboy), he was never suggestive that PM was a fake. He was so casual and relaxed in that interview. Even if "How Do You Sleep" was suggestive that PM is a fake, Lennon later claimed(in another interview) that the song was about himself. He even endorsed that silly song "Coming Up" which was released in '79 or '80. The playboy interview is here:
www.whale.to...
I will be getting the audio version soon!

So, I remain on the fence. That's not to say that I don't believe that celebs can be replaced with look alikes or that rock n roll was promoted by some kind of illuminati or similiar with ulterior motives.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by yahpete
The only problem I have with the PID theory is that when John Lennon had his last interview back in 1980(Playboy), he was never suggestive that PM was a fake.


John Lennon did refer to Faul as "Faux Paul," though. That is in the book "Lennon" by Ray Coleman. I didn't understand what that was about back when I read the book, but now I know.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki
Using Occam's Razor, the shoe size would suggest two different people.



...Occam's razor is used to adjudicate between theories that have already passed 'theoretical scrutiny' tests, and which are equally well-supported by the evidence.[35],,,

en.wikipedia.org...-razors


The problem for the PIA'ers is that the evidence doesn't support their position. There are proven physical discrepancies that appeared in a 4 month time period that can't be explained by surgery. Applying simple logic should lead to the conclusion that it's not the same person.

And anyway,


...a simpler but less correct theory should not be preferred over a more complex but more correct one... For instance, classical physics is simpler than more recent theories; nonetheless it should not be preferred over them, because it is demonstrably wrong in certain respects...

Id.



[edit on 5-10-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

[edit on 5-10-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   
PID on Freezone Radio 9/26/09 (part 4)



[edit on 5-10-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob



The recent photo has been vertically stretched, along with a bunch of other photos from the forum where you are a moderator faulcon.




More doctoring from Pid Miss Him Forum H E R E



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by faulconandsnowjob
 


Show me the forensic evidence they're different or shut up.

And no, do not say the Italians because that article does not provide ANY evidence whatsoever for a difference. Please read it again and note where it says their is no conclusive evidence, did you miss that part?

You can believe what you read if it makes you feel special but I prefer to use my own eyes, and trust me as a graphic artist, photographer, and engineering drafter my eyes are good, and I understand the effect light, camera lens size, focal length, film type, processing type, facial expressions, age, and many other points can effect how a photograph can make someone appear. And what's worse all of this has been shown which you continue to ignore. It's like a child who hides his face thinking you can't see them. 'If I ignore the evidence against my delusions then it isn't evidence'...


This thread is simply an insult to our intelligence.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by yahpete
 


'How do You Sleep' was a scathing attack on Paul, the real alive Paul.

Anyone who knows the Beatles history would understand what that song is about, and would understand the whole build up to their breaking up, and how Paul was main reason behind the other three resenting him and his controlling ways. Knowing the Beatles story as it really happened, also makes it obvious how illogical Paul being replaced is. Paul had too much of a central role in what happened after Brian Epstein died for it to be some impostor just starting out in the most radical acting job anyone has ever been asked to play.

There isn't even any doubt, not even the slightest teeniest weeniest amount of a doubt that Paul is not alive and well living in East Sussex. And I'll bet you any amount of cash you want that I'm right.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Show me the forensic evidence they're different or shut up.

Could you be any ruder. I'm going to put you on ignore. The Italian scientists provided all the evidence that is necessary to prove a replacement, namely different nasal spines, traguses, mandibular curves, palates, & canines. If you don't want to accept that there was a replacement, then that is your problem.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   
A little something about the scientists that proved Paul was replaced. This is a machine translation from the Italian, so not the best, but understandable.


...Gabriella Carlesi and Francesco Gavazzeni are an odd pair: she is un'anatomopatologa, he a computer scientist. She is an expert in the recognition craniometrico, he puts the potential of computers available to a discipline born in the mid nineteenth century: the craniometria note. According to Zingarelli, "is the science that deals with the measurement of the skull in relation to anthropology and comparative all'Anatomia. Now, to identify a person has absolute damage the two exams: the fingerprints and the DNA (if the sampling is done properly, which is not always the case). In the absence of fingertips and DNA samples of the methodology used all'antropometria identification and, in particular, to craniometria, based on some specific points. In the face of anyone, unchangeable and codified by the French nell'Ottocento Paul Broca. What are these? In scientific terms we could not define the distance between the pupils, the intersection between the nose and arched sopraccigliari the point where the base of the nose is detached from the upper lip, the shape of the jaw and Regulation, the ear. Then there's the shape of the skull.

In general, however, prefers to speak topographic anatomy, rather than specific points, to "regions", because within a few inches of skin can be more useful to establish similarities and differences. The Anthropometrics and craniometria, as have an nineteenth century are the basis of biometrics, the science used today for personal recognition by the most sophisticated intelligence of the world. Vast database of biometric data of terrorists are quickly and looked cross and, based on algorithms generated by the points of the face, reveal the true identity of people shot from cameras or photographed airports. As a Carlesi and Gavazzeni, meet their responsibilities and, as happens in the show, really see what we humans can not even imagine...

ASK WHO WAS THE "BEATLE"
Fabio Gigante Andriola and Alessandra | 15 July 2009
/mw83db



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 08:44 PM
link   
The Wired article. A closer look.

LINKY LINK



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
A little something about the scientists that proved Paul was replaced. This is a machine translation from the Italian, so not the best, but understandable.


...Gabriella Carlesi and Francesco Gavazzeni are an odd pair: she is un'anatomopatologa, he a computer scientist. She is an expert in the recognition craniometrico, he puts the potential of computers available to a discipline born in the mid nineteenth century: the craniometria note. According to Zingarelli, "is the science that deals with the measurement of the skull in relation to anthropology and comparative all'Anatomia. Now, to identify a person has absolute damage the two exams: the fingerprints and the DNA (if the sampling is done properly, which is not always the case). In the absence of fingertips and DNA samples of the methodology used all'antropometria identification and, in particular, to craniometria, based on some specific points. In the face of anyone, unchangeable and codified by the French nell'Ottocento Paul Broca. What are these? In scientific terms we could not define the distance between the pupils, the intersection between the nose and arched sopraccigliari the point where the base of the nose is detached from the upper lip, the shape of the jaw and Regulation, the ear. Then there's the shape of the skull.

In general, however, prefers to speak topographic anatomy, rather than specific points, to "regions", because within a few inches of skin can be more useful to establish similarities and differences. The Anthropometrics and craniometria, as have an nineteenth century are the basis of biometrics, the science used today for personal recognition by the most sophisticated intelligence of the world. Vast database of biometric data of terrorists are quickly and looked cross and, based on algorithms generated by the points of the face, reveal the true identity of people shot from cameras or photographed airports. As a Carlesi and Gavazzeni, meet their responsibilities and, as happens in the show, really see what we humans can not even imagine...

ASK WHO WAS THE "BEATLE"
Fabio Gigante Andriola and Alessandra | 15 July 2009
/mw83db


They proved NOTHING!

They do not claim that they have proven that Paul was replaced. Please show us a direct quote where they say that they have PROVEN that Paul was replaced.

They used photos from Sun King's PID website. Sun King has been shown to manipulate and flip photos. Measurements on manipulated photos are WORTHLESS.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by faulconandsnowjob
 


Show me the forensic evidence they're different or shut up.

And no, do not say the Italians because that article does not provide ANY evidence whatsoever for a difference. Please read it again and note where it says their is no conclusive evidence, did you miss that part?

You can believe what you read if it makes you feel special but I prefer to use my own eyes, and trust me as a graphic artist, photographer, and engineering drafter my eyes are good, and I understand the effect light, camera lens size, focal length, film type, processing type, facial expressions, age, and many other points can effect how a photograph can make someone appear. And what's worse all of this has been shown which you continue to ignore. It's like a child who hides his face thinking you can't see them. 'If I ignore the evidence against my delusions then it isn't evidence'...


This thread is simply an insult to our intelligence.


MASTERPIECE!

You are so right. Faulcon found some scientists that did some shoddy work on doctored photos from a PID website run by a guy who says "faul" is the clone of a female WWII spy. They don't even say they have proved anything, but Faulcon cries "PROOF" because it supports what she imagines.

Note thought that scientists and engineers have produced evidence that proves many of the other conspiracies that Faulcon believes in to be false. Of course she does not believe those scientists. You see if a scientist says anything against a conspiracy then they are illuminati, or part of the powers that be, or are being threatened with their lives to say what they say. To Faulcon, scientists are only to be believed if they say something that she believes. And even then, the scientists DO NOT SAY THAT THEY HAVE PROVEN PAUL WAS REPLACED.

These pidders take no legal action because they know they will lose.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 11:35 PM
link   
Please allow me to set the record straight. Paul McCartney WAS replaced in 1966, but he was not killed. I know. Because I AM THE REAL PAUL McCARTNEY.
You see, I was on my way to Ringo's house to play him some of my new song when I was involved in a minor fender bender. My mouth hit the steering wheel and the resulting injury left me with a rather bad (and permanent) lisp. Obviously my singing career was over and the scar left pubic appearances out of the question. It was decided by Brian Epstein, the Illuminati, John, George, Linda (even though I hadn't met her yet), Yoko, Alister Crowley, and myself that a look-a-like and sound-a-like replacement was needed. Luckily the British SIS (I think it was MI12, twice as secret as MI6) really liked our records, so they found a guy, brainwashed him into thinking he was me, gave him extensive plastic surgery using techniques unrivaled even in this day and age, and plopped him down in front of a camera. The Illuminati then did their job of threatening everyone close to me with torture and murder if they divulged the secret. Still, John and I had a lot of fun dropping in "clues" in the most obvious places despite the overarching dark hand of a satanic international conspiracy looming over everyone we loved! Even "Faul" would get in on the joke and give a wink and a nudge, but I guess that's when the mind control hypnosis treatments were slipping. Ha! We were such rascals. You see, keeping this incredibly complicated and elaborate ruse going was much easier than just saying "Paul can't sing anymore" and then finding a another band to use to control the fickle teeny-bopper masses. Well, I guess they could have if they wanted to, since they're all powerful. They just weren't in the mood. Maybe they were too busy giving John '___', which of course backfired and liberated him, but not so much that he would reveal that I have a scar and a lisp and am currently hiding above a convenience store in Rhode Island. Then again, they probably knew that would happen since they're, you know, all powerful and whatnot.
Really, I just wanted to write to say that I had NOTHING to do with Wings. That whole mess was Faul's fault.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 12:19 AM
link   
The real Paul is dead.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by faulconandsnowjob
 


If I'm dead, how can I be writing this? I know the Illuminati is all powerful, but they aren't THAT all powerful. And if I were dead, how would I know that Faul clucks like a chicken three times if anyone uses the word "thickness" around him. I think it's part of his SIS/CIA/OTO conditioning. Go ahead and try it out if you ever see one of his performances.
Oh, and can someone tell me where my royalty checks are going? Only a few top Masons know my address and they haven't been forwarding them to me in over 36 years. I heard we just put out a video game. I should get a few quid from that, right?





new topics
top topics
 
33
<< 144  145  146    148  149 >>

log in

join