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: 36
33
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by suzque66
..or was he a drug user?

Faul did promote the use of '___', which I posted about earlier in the thread.

[edit on 13-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]




posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
Still, he's in pretty bad shape for 72. Maybe it's the result of all the reconstructive surgery he's had.




Yes, the many surgeries he's had certainly makes him look older. Because his physique is fine, he seems to be in pretty good shape there.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
Paul's eyes went from being brown up thru 1966, then they're suddenly green in 1967. They are also not the same shape.





Do those really look like 2 halves of the same face to you? Really?

Also notice how Paul's ears stick out more & at a difft angle than Faul's do.



You are never going to be able to prove that they're the same b/c they're not. Accept it or not, it's the truth.

[edit on 13-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]


Not the same shape my a**!

Oh so I don't get a choice now?


Hahaa, so now it's like the playground in here for you faulcon -, "it's true cos I say it is and no matter how ridiculous my attempts to prove otherwise get I'm sticking to my story as to turn around and admit defeat at this stage
would make me look rather silly'' correct no?

You were called out for using those side by side comparative shots
more than once and by other members yet you persist.
The majority of these shots you have been lifting from various 'paul is dead' conspiracy forums have been mostly manipulated and are indeed bogus.

I bet if I tried not too hard I could post pictures of Elvis, John Lennon, David Bowie or any other prominent star or luminary from years gone and show as many "differences" as you continually try to sell on here.

Sorry but you're not fooling anyone, it's time this charade came to an end.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   
The only thing

that could cause such a difference in eye enlargement

is a thyroid issue., but that is treatable with meds and the eye seeming engorged would be lesser.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   
I find it disingenuous to insist that these are 2 sides of the same face:



But maybe it really is a result of conditioning. Unbiased minds are able to see the difference pretty easily.


sonikdave at www.davidicke.com...:

I have shown my wife faul/paul pictures and she knows nothing about mccartney didn't even recognize him in the pictures, but I asked if it was the same guy with about 5 photos and each time she could distinctively pick out which one was faul and which was paul.



hugolast at www.davidicke.com...:

I asked my girlfriends 12 year old sister if they were the same man and she just laughed and went "no you stupid idiot" and carried on playing with her ipod like i was the fool for saying they were the same - the exact opposite of how we are told things are.....unbiased mind you see...



originally posted by Layla
I just called my four year old over to the computer and brought up these pictures. I also brought up a bunch of pictures of Johnny Depp where even *I* think they look like a different man in each one. She was able to match Johnny to Johnny about 90% of the time, and with the Paul v Faul pics, in every single one she said they were different men...

www.abovetopsecret.com...


But I guess everyone who sees a difference is wrong. lol



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by pmexplorerThe majority of these shots you have been lifting from various 'paul is dead' conspiracy forums have been mostly manipulated and are indeed bogus.



Nobody lifts any photos from the various Paul is Dead forums. I am a member of most or all of those forums and it's accepted that we copy each other's photographs to use as we wish. The manipulated ones are the ones that are used to make Paul look like Faul.




Sorry but you're not fooling anyone, it's time this charade came to an end.



This is not for you to say. It's only a charade in your eyes anyway.

Your posts are getting to the point of harassment.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 08:43 PM
link   

originally posted by pmexplorer
The majority of these shots you have been lifting from various 'paul is dead' conspiracy forums have been mostly manipulated and are indeed bogus.

I've posted doctored official photos & shown how they were tampered with. I've even posted the source I got them from. I've posted screenshots of videos along w/ the videos so you can see for yourself that I didn't manipulate anything. If you are accusing me of tampering w/ pictures, then I think it's up to you to prove that.

FYI, PID'ers like vintage, un-doctored photos b/c they show the differences the best. Videos & screen-shots from videos are also good.

[edit on 13-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Just as I thought, you only see what you want to see, you've got yourself so convinced of this hoax you are being irrational.

Let's put this to rest once and for all...



Excuse my crude image but here's Paul in his extremes, the tilt of his head is a little different, up in the teenage Paul and down a little in the geriatric Paul, but close enough to see the obvious...

Open this in a gfx editor and measure my lines, they are exact in each face. There is no denying it's the same face.

Also note the teenage Paul looks more like the 70's Paul, than he does the mid 60's Paul who was fat from all the high living. All the Beatles got fat and it's why they all turned veggie. John was especially embarrassed by his weight, he called it his 'fat Elvis period'.

[edit on 13-7-2009 by Wally Hope]



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   





posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 12:58 AM
link   
More about the '___' agenda








[edit on 14-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wally Hope
Just as I thought, you only see what you want to see, you've got yourself so convinced of this hoax you are being irrational.

Let's put this to rest once and for all...



There is no denying it's the same face.

Also note the teenage Paul looks more like the 70's Paul, than he does the mid 60's Paul who was fat from all the high living. All the Beatles got fat and it's why they all turned veggie. John was especially embarrassed by his weight, he called it his 'fat Elvis period'.

[edit on 13-7-2009 by Wally Hope]


Care to debunk that one Faulcon?

You're probably wasting your time to be honest Wally, she will just continue to post these pathetic youtube videos and edited photos from various 'paul is dead' sites to try and eek out another page or two
out of this made up nonsense whilst completely ignoring the excellent
and quite simplistic comparison you have made . Not to mention trying to blend in any other conspiracies which might fit and relate such as the '___' one above or anything illuminati related despite there being zero substantial evidence to prove anything or to corroborate this sorry myth.

The youtube video above is something else, you see a young short haired smiling Macca on the cover of the 'Red' abum and then an older long haired non smiling Macca on the 'blue' album and that passes as 'evidence'.
Wait! George suddenly has a full moustache! What's he hiding, eh??





[edit on 14-7-2009 by pmexplorer]



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   
It's the nose that puzzles me.

I look and look at all these pictures. To me, the teeth look the same. The ear lobes aren't a problem to me because Paul has quite a distinctive 'keyhole' shaped ear-holes that always seem to look the same.

The right eyebrow could simply have been raised as a pose for photos - I can raise mine that high.

But I keep coming back to that nose. It just bugs me. Any really good lookalike would have had a nose-job, surely? That must be one of the most common procedures and yet, there it is.

Honestly, that's why I've been playing with the idea of a double standing in for Paul when he didn't feel like making the effort.

Looking at pictures of Paul in the 70s, there seem to be two of him. The Paul with the beard looks genuine to me, I posted a picture of him ages ago.

Anyway, I don't know and I've said before I don't want to try and persuade anyone either way.

I just wonder if it was a scam, back then they didn't have the internet. No-one then could have imagined that so many people would have so much access to so many photographs. I mean, people used to just buy magazines and probably discard them without making comparisons of photos from week to week or month to month.

It's easy to see why a magazine editor would stick a fake moustache on a picture of Paul - just to make it look more recent and save the trouble of buying a new photo.
It's only another step to getting someone to stand in for him - although quite a big step, I admit.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Good lord almighty, I cannot believe this POS theory is still going around. Here is the thing, I have seen it said before, but I will say it again. IF, it is a different paul, they did a damn good job at finding a talented musician to fill his dead shoes. If it werent really paul, why has he continued on all these years playing music? Wouldnt they have given "faul" enough money to comfortably live for the rest of his life? If he were an imposter, it would show through in his music, granted his solo stuff was no where near Beatles music, but it was still good.

This theory does not give credit to the genius that is Paul, the genius that was the Beatles. Say what you want, but alot of the really good songs were written by McCartney. He is, and still is a talented human being, he is an artist, not a charlatan.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by hunhaylou
Good lord almighty, I cannot believe this POS theory is still going around.


That was exactly my initial reaction also, except mine included a couple of expletives!



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   
John & Yoko laugh when they get a letter than says Paul is alive in London.



PID on Ghostly Talk Radio (starts about 1/3 of the way thru)
www.ghostlytalk.com...


[edit on 14-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   

It's easy to see why a magazine editor would stick a fake moustache on a picture of Paul - just to make it look more recent and save the trouble of buying a new photo.
It's only another step to getting someone to stand in for him - although quite a big step, I admit.

Except it was the Beatles' own fan magazine. There were plenty of pictures from 1967 they could have used. The point was to create the illusion that it was the same guy.


^ 1966 photo of Paul being recycled in 1967 w/ a fake mustached drawn onto it.

This thing is never going to make sense as long as one stays in the paradigm that Paul wasn't replaced.


This theory does not give credit to the genius that is Paul, the genius that was the Beatles.

Paul was a brilliant genius. He would never have written "Ever Present Past" & some of the other terrible songs that have been attributed to him.



[edit on 14-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Paul was a brilliant genius. He would never have written "Ever Present Past" & some of the other terrible songs that have been attributed to him.

[edit on 14-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]


Veteran singer in 'making' poor song shocker!!


You'd swear it was a criminal offence or a blatantly obvious sign
because he had the temerity to write something that wasn't a major hit.
What about all of the brilliant songs he has written as a solo artist and with Wings?
Give me a break faulcon. You're not doing yourself any favours
with that nonsense. I imagine you're still reeling from Wally's post above.

[edit on 14-7-2009 by pmexplorer]



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   
How do you explain the extreme differences in the noses as this looks a lot different and far more than normal aging does to a nose... The eyebrows don't look the same and neither does the mouth, especially upper lips even after considering aging (eg loss of collagen in lips so they often shrink with age)?



Originally posted by Wally Hope
Just as I thought, you only see what you want to see, you've got yourself so convinced of this hoax you are being irrational.

Let's put this to rest once and for all...



Excuse my crude image but here's Paul in his extremes, the tilt of his head is a little different, up in the teenage Paul and down a little in the geriatric Paul, but close enough to see the obvious...

Open this in a gfx editor and measure my lines, they are exact in each face. There is no denying it's the same face.

Also note the teenage Paul looks more like the 70's Paul, than he does the mid 60's Paul who was fat from all the high living. All the Beatles got fat and it's why they all turned veggie. John was especially embarrassed by his weight, he called it his 'fat Elvis period'.

[edit on 13-7-2009 by Wally Hope]


[edit on 14-7-2009 by kshaund]



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by kshaund
 


Gravity has its way with all of us eventually. Just ask a sixty year old play boy bunny, what once were beautiful pert breasts, now more resemble oranges in a tube sock. Gravity is natures cruel evil joke.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Just make these minor edits and your good....




Not sure the point though, again its selective pics put together. Which is BS since there should be no apparant differences just because of a timeframe.

[edit on 14-7-2009 by Bldrvgr]



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join