It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Paul McCartney died in 1966 - replaced by Billy Shepherd

page: 25
33
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   
pmexplorer,

I thought much like you did (being oh so careful not to say that I thought exactly like you did) and wondered how this could be.
However, there is tonnes of information out there, from youtube vids compiled by people to websites, books etc. I have looked at but a small portion of what is available (frankly I'm daunted by such a large amount of information both pro and con and trying to work through it all) and must say that (and this I keep reiterating) there seems to be something up.

It would appear that you haven't spent much time looking at the 'evidence' but would rather try to be an instant debunker.




posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Therefore you're trying to tell me this stooge was responsible for writing
the songs after this point.

Some of us think Paul left behind songs & song ideas, he may have even laid down vocal tracks that were later used.


Not only did they find a passable lookalike that managed to convince his bandmates, management, hundreds of family and friends and millions of fans

I don't think he fooled anyone but the majority of the credulous public. But some people figured it out way back in 1969.


but also someone who could work seemlessly with John Lennon and make and perform incredible music.

Actually, there was a lot of tension in the band. Haven't you seen "Let It Be?"



Also, John called him "Faux Paul." I didn't understand why until I figured out Paul had been replaced.


[edit on 5-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Paul McCartney

1960



1963


1964


1965 - Shea Stadium


1966



1967





1968


1969




1972





[edit on 5-7-2009 by pmexplorer]



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Some of us think Paul left behind songs & song ideas, he may have even laid down vocal tracks that were later used.

I don't think he fooled anyone but the majority of the credulous public. But some people figured it out way back in 1969.
Actually, there was a lot of tension in the band. Haven't you seen "Let It Be?"


Please don't patronise me, especially in relation to the Beatles.

Oh and if they figured it out way back in 1969 why hasn't this
ridiculous myth been exposed to the world by now? Especially considering that there is so much 'evidence' out there.

This is nothing more than a conspiracy theory and the worst kind at that, which consists of nothing more than dubious photos and most laughably youtube videos!

See the chronological pictures I posted above, I await the further straw clutching which they will provoke, 'oh look, he's heavier in 1969 than he is in 1966 and his hair is different - well gee whizz it must be a completely different person! - yes that's it.


[edit on 5-7-2009 by pmexplorer]



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Ok, I come into this thread completely neutral, as I had not previously paid attention to this theory. I am in my mid 20's and have not followed The Beatles or Paul.

There is clearly no denying there are drastic differences, but I seem to keep going back and forth on my opinion. The nose is very interesting, as 'Faul' has a hooked nose, and Paul had quite a small up turned nose, if it were the other way around, I would have assumed and concluded that Paul had a nose job as he was unhappy with a hooked nose. I have not heard of anyone opting for a nose job to create a more hooked look.

But for me, the biggest deciding factor will be the teeth. Paul's teeth were extremely distinctive, we really need close up pictures of 'Faul's' teeth... The blocking out the mouth on a previous photo is suspicious but could have been altered by someone wanting to further the conspiracy. Anyone with clear images of Faul's teeth, please post...



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   
More photo-tampering... This is supposed to be Paul from 1969. Doesn't his head look just a little weird?



Paul had a distinctive right eyebrow. It's been changed in the pic on the right.




posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Oh and if they figured it out way back in 1969 why hasn't this ridiculous myth been exposed to the world by now?

Who do you think controls the media? Sorry, but LIFE magazine trotting out someone who claims to be Paul but doesn't look or act like him isn't very convincing to me.





posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by pmexplorer
Please refrain from attempting to attribute other statements to me.



I didn't. I asked you a question. Do you think Paul's solo stuff compares to his Beatles writing?




Correct me if I'm wrong but posters like the on above are trying to prove
that he was replaced circa 1966, the Beatles did not effectively break up
until late 1970 when Macca filed a dissolution suit.
Therefore you're trying to tell me this stooge was responsible for writing
the songs after this point.



Yes, because he did not have the help of the other Beatles, George Martin and any songs already written by Paul before his death.



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   

But for me, the biggest deciding factor will be the teeth.

Ok, but I think teeth are one of the easiest things to change cosmetically w/ veneers or whatever.



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Yes, I think the teeth are easy to duplicate.

If you wanna really analyze for differences, then looking at the skull/head shape would be a good place to start. Also, the ears are important.



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 09:26 PM
link   








Just Wanted to post this here, It's Well deserveing. This is the Real Paul, and one of which things Faul could never get himself to compare with.

I don't blame faul for anything though, He did manage to keep pace and still make the group come out ahead in the end. But its just sad When you see a life like this end, and Especially with little to no recognition. And at worst people trying to fight it for thier own fears.

another person to look at, that may be a huge link would be Sylvie Vartan.. It seems she has gone over drastic changes as well, but far greater in appearance.








[edit on 5-7-2009 by Bldrvgr]

[edit on 5-7-2009 by Bldrvgr]



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 10:03 PM
link   

But its just sad When you see a life like this end, and Especially with little to no recognition...

It's heart-breaking. That is one reason why I fight for the truth about this so much. Paul was such an amazing talent & he's never been properly mourned. I guess this song is maybe the closest thing:



But then again, it's possible that other songs have made veiled references to it.

Bldrvgr, you might be interested in this thread on Sylvie Vartan, if you haven't already seen it: doppels.proboards.com...



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
What if you were told these guys were the same. Would you be able to tell the difference?



From "Le clone de Serge Gainsbourg"
starblogue.sympatico.msn.ca...

The real one is on the left.

[edit on 2-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



Just like Faul.....the nose is different.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by berenike
This page on David Icke's forum includes some comparisons of 'Paul' and 'Faul's hands.

www.davidicke.com...

I've been searching for images like these and couldn't find any so I've had to rely on someone else's finds to do the job i wanted to do.


In those hand pics his thumb is different......



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

No of course he isn't dead and there isn't one shred of solid evidence to suggest he is...


Except that it's a different guy after Aug (or possibly Sept) 1966 & the real Paul is never seen again. So, what happened to him? But like Sedna said, we should focus on whether he was replaced or not. We've already shown that Faul has different color eyes, different eyebrows, different ears, a different nose, a different forehead, a different hair part, different hand-writing, is taller, & possibly has a different sonogram. Plus, there's lots of examples of tampering w/ pics of Paul & Faul. Sorry, but I'm not buying it that it's the same guy.




[edit on 5-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



And once again you post a pic of 2 different people and the NOSES ARE DIFFERENT !

And i'm sure people will still deny it...

I've posted about 5 responses to pictures where i say " The Noses Are Different " and nobody has yet to try and refute that.....It just gets ignored......Hmmmm Wonder Why..



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by pmexplorer

Originally posted by aorAki
The nose is something I keep coming back to. It just changes dramatically from being slightly upturned to a beak.

Abuse us all you want pmexplorer. I would be defensive as well if I found out that one of my idols was really someone else



Excuse me? Show me where I 'abused' anyone.

This whole theory stinks as does the title which in my opinion is disrespectful.
I've been on ats a few years now and this is the first Macca related thread I've seen, yet suddenly we have a whole heap of 'expert's jumping on the bandwagon clutching at straws like youtube videos and supposed evidence showing the merest of differences in his features which could easily have been airbrushed etc.

So are we to believe a stooge continued on writing songs with Paul McCartney's voice and musical talent?

I can't believe I even had to type out that rhetoric.

It's utterly ridiculous and you supposed Beatles fans should be ashamed of yourselves.

Let me guess, next someone will accuse me of being an insider trying
to throw people off the scent, that's usually how these things go on here.




Disinfo agent possible i assume ...I could be wrong though....have been before..

?



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85


I've posted about 5 responses to pictures where i say " The Noses Are Different " and nobody has yet to try and refute that.....It just gets ignored......Hmmmm Wonder Why..


I'm not ignoring it.
....but yes,plenty seem to gloss right over it.

To me, it's one of the most evocative clues.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by pmexplorer
Paul McCartney

1960



1963


1964


1965 - Shea Stadium


1966



1967





1968


1969




1972





[edit on 5-7-2009 by pmexplorer]


The earlobes connect differntly but just by coincidence his hair is longer the next few years after 1966 so we can't do much matching in the photos you posted...



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bldrvgr








Just Wanted to post this here, It's Well deserveing. This is the Real Paul, and one of which things Faul could never get himself to compare with.

I don't blame faul for anything though, He did manage to keep pace and still make the group come out ahead in the end. But its just sad When you see a life like this end, and Especially with little to no recognition. And at worst people trying to fight it for thier own fears.

another person to look at, that may be a huge link would be Sylvie Vartan.. It seems she has gone over drastic changes as well, but far greater in appearance.








[edit on 5-7-2009 by Bldrvgr]

[edit on 5-7-2009 by Bldrvgr]


The 4th picture you posted....He is facing sideways....Look at the slight upturn in his nose.....

Compare that with the Faul with a slight hooked nose......


Nose jobs only go one way....they don't add nose features and cartiledge ...



The nose proves it but nobody wants to hear it......



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85


I've posted about 5 responses to pictures where i say " The Noses Are Different " and nobody has yet to try and refute that.....It just gets ignored......Hmmmm Wonder Why..


I'm not ignoring it.
....but yes,plenty seem to gloss right over it.

To me, it's one of the most evocative clues.


Sorry....I wasn't saying you were ignoring it....Should have stated that...my fault...

I think I was agreeing with you....

Didn't mean to give you that impression.



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join