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: 40
33
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Well, so far my main theory on why you guys do not respond well to logic and reason, and see past this fantasy, is you either have an unfortunate lack of comprehension skills, and you really didn't understand what I said, per my quote.

I think you just can't argue w/ the law on this, Wally, so you have to resort to insults. I understand exactly what you said. I think you kind of shot yourself in the foot on that one. lol


Or maybe it means he's just getting aangry (sic) over all the people who keep trying to say he isn't who he thinks he is?

If you'll notice, the date of the article was 2005. That was before there was much renewed attention to PID.

Interesting that you say "he isn't who he thinks he is" instead of "he isn't who he says he is."


you guys do not respond well to logic and reason

I don't see how it's "logical" or "reasonable" to believe that someone can change his eye color, transform his face, & grow 2 inches in their mid 20's. Do you know of anyone besides Paul who has managed such a remarkable feat? B/c I don't.


[edit on 16-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]




posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
I think you just can't argue w/ the law on this, Wally, so you have to resort to insults. That is so transparent. I understand exactly what you said. I think you kind of shot yourself in the foot on that one. lol


Hey it was a genuine question, really. You DID miss-quote me, so either you did that unintentionally because you didn't understand what I said, or you miss-quoted me on purpose to continue your wild spin. I think I know the answer but I didn't say because that would have been an insult rather than an inquiry into your psyche in my attempt to understand this phenomena that I have set myself to study these last few days. So run on sentence and believe what you will...



If you'll notice, the date of the article was 2005. That was before there was much attention to PID.


And how does that make any difference? Please explain, or take way the shot to my foot and take one to your own x2.

[edit on 16-7-2009 by Wally Hope]



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 01:22 AM
link   
I didn't misquote you. You said the voice had changed b/c of the intervening 10 yrs.


Originally posted by Wally Hope
Of course it's not the same voice!

It's a voice that has had ten years of maturity and practice, and a billion songs sung, between your two takes there my dear...


I pointed out that the US legal system considers a voice to be an "immutable characteristic," and therefore, not subject to change. You said it wasn't the same voice. Therefore, it's not the same person. That's where you shot yourself in the foot. We're not talking about some kid going thru puberty. He was in his mid-20's.


And how does that make any difference? Please explain


You said:


Or maybe it means he's just getting aangry over all the people who keep trying to say he isn't who he thinks he is?

Since the article came out in 2005 before PID received much renewed attention, this argument doesn't work to explain his macabre paintings, b/c there weren't all these people saying "he isn't who he thinks he is."


but I didn't say because that would have been an insult

Right. B/c you would never do that. lol


[edit on 16-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
I don't see how it's "logical" or "reasonable" to believe that someone can change his eye color, transform his face, grow 2 inches in their mid 20's. Do you know of anyone besides Paul who has managed such a remarkable feat? B/c I don't.


Oh yeah sorry, cause none of those things are true?

Because you have no evidence that any of it's true?

What do you want me to say? You just ignore anything that contradicts your fantasy.

I showed you a teenage Paul, and Paul as he is now, their skulls match exactly, the phat lady has sung!

Now you prove me wrong (that the skulls are not the same pls, not silly eye color stuff).

Now how do you explain the exact same skull size when half of your evidence lays on pictures that have Pauls face stretched?

That is why you need to use a little logic and good reasoning. It's a fun story, but that's all it is, blown out of proportion. Just because some people on the net believe it's true it don't make it so, not a logical move no matter how much you want to believe.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Oh yeah sorry, cause none of those things are true?

Except that we've shown that they are. All of them.


Because you have no evidence that any of it's true?

Go back & read what I posted on the law. Photographs are evidence, or do I have to re-post the laws w/ "photographs" bolded this time?

How do you explain the different faces, different heights, & different eye color? You can't. You don't even try. But you admitted the voices are different. Gotcha. lol

If you want to argue w/ me about what constitutes evidence, you better start citing to some law, b/c your opinion doesn't really carry a lot of weight.

[edit on 16-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
I pointed out that the US legal system considers a voice to be an "immutable characteristic," and therefore, not subject to change.


But that's just ridiculous. Singers train their voices, underlying characteristics stay the same but that doesn't mean the sound of the voice stays the same. People can, and do, change their voices.


Since the article came out in 2005 before PID received much renewed attention, this argument doesn't work to explain his macabre paintings, b/c there weren't all these people saying "he isn't who he thinks he is."


LOL but it's only you making the claim that there wasn't much interest in 2005, I would call that BIG BS lady, see I told you I knew things...

You think you're some kind of expert on PID? You're some kind of PID guru who should never be questioned? Oh great PID guru we stand before you in humble apology for having the audacity to question you. The PID hoax has been popular for a lot longer 4 yrs ago.



Right. B/c you would never do that. lol


Only when a thread has gone 40 pages pretending it's groundhog day...
You were a brick wall covered in Macca pics for about 39 of those pages, I thought you had us all on ignore. This thread should be saved as an archive for Paul McCartney pics. See, I new it would be good for something...

[edit on 16-7-2009 by Wally Hope] Typos

[edit on 16-7-2009 by Wally Hope]



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Except that we've shown that they are. All of them.


No you haven't. Not even close.


Go back & read what I posted on the law. Photographs are evidence, or do I have to re-post the laws w/ "photographs" bolded this time?


This is you not comprehending what you read. Yes photo's can be used for evidence, but only if what is in that pic points to anything relevant. Simply saying it's evidence because it's a photograph is ludicrous. Your interpretation of said photographs is completely different to mine, what makes you the expert? You seem to keep skipping over talking about my graphic, so what's up with that?


How do you explain the different faces, different heights, & different eye color? You can't. You don't even try. But you admitted the voices are different. Gotcha. lol


Just go back to page one of your thread and read everything that is posted, including the stuff you keep dismissing out of hand without any thought, and you find those answers more than once. You know the stuff you KEEP IGNORING.


If you want to argue w/ me about what constitutes evidence, you better start citing to some law, b/c your opinion doesn't really carry a lot of weight.


I don't really care what you think about my opinion, sorry if it upsets you. Now please look at the graphic I made for you, and tell me how that could happen if it was not the same person?

Here's another idea, why don't you email Paul, or Faul if you'd prefer, and ask him what colour his eyes are? He reads all his emails. Can you say hazel?

[edit on 16-7-2009 by Wally Hope]



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wally Hope

I showed you a teenage Paul, and Paul as he is now, their skulls match exactly




Originally posted by Wally Hope

Now you prove me wrong (that the skulls are not the same pls, not silly eye color stuff).


It wasn't their skulls you measured, fully. At least that's what I interpreted it to be.
Surely skull measurements remove the hair, are front and side as well as top and bottom, circumference etc....then it is possible for some features to match, but not others...you only shewed one angle, a two dimensional section; even then there were discrepancies.

It's not proof, but you haven't proved yourself correct yet.



Originally posted by Wally Hope

Here's another idea, why don't you email Paul, or Faul if you'd prefer, and ask him what colour his eyes are? He reads all his emails. Can you say hazel?

[edit on 16-7-2009 by Wally Hope]



How do YOU know that?


[edit on 16-7-2009 by aorAki]

[edit on 16-7-2009 by aorAki]



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 04:50 AM
link   
Paul must be laughing his head off about people wasting their time discussing a non-existing conspiracy such as this one.

I'd rather spend more time figuring out Tavistock, or figuring out what the Illuminati does to the most famous artists on the planet. How they manipulate them, if at all.

Apart from that...I think Faul and Paul look EXACTLY alike. No need to compare.

When artists die, they don't get replaced, so why should Paul McCartney?



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
Glazier also says:


"Whoever this person is, he can certainly play well. But I still think there's something missing. Is that voice singing 'Yesterday' the same voice that sang it in 1965? You decide."

If someone is going to spend so much time & energy on PID, he obviously thinks there's something to it. I can understand why he doesn't want to just come out & say that's not Paul.



berenike: I was looking at this from a different angle.

If Glazier has been researching for so many years and says that he doesn't know if Paul is dead, how can any of us be so sure? Either way.

I found this quote of Glazier's in the same article rather ambiguous:

Having visited Israel eight times, and being instrumental in the establishment of the John Lennon Peace Forest in the Galilee, Glazier is overjoyed that a Beatle is finally appearing in Israel. "Finally, the people of Israel will get to see the person who is allegedly Paul. And make sure you write 'he said that with a smile,'" said Glazier.

Why would he want people to know he said it with a smile?



[edit on 16-7-2009 by berenike]



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Wally Hope
 


I think the point here is that the sound of voices can change to our ears, but their actual signature doesn't change over a lifetime - so yes, singing from the 20s and then from the 60s can sound different to us, but the actual vibration that registers is immutable and doesn't change throughout life.

So this begs the question - has anyone tested Pauls voice from the 60s to a later Paul's voice to see if the signature is the same? Would need the technological equipment to record and compare the signatures - no matter how similar one can sound to another to our ears, their signature vibrations should reveal individuality every time.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 09:26 AM
link   
When you start looking at Tavistock and Illuminati you do find exactly this kind of thing (was Paul replaced?) because they created the rock and roll history up to their gory little eyeballs on purpose...


Originally posted by MightyAl
Paul must be laughing his head off about people wasting their time discussing a non-existing conspiracy such as this one.

I'd rather spend more time figuring out Tavistock, or figuring out what the Illuminati does to the most famous artists on the planet. How they manipulate them, if at all.

Apart from that...I think Faul and Paul look EXACTLY alike. No need to compare.

When artists die, they don't get replaced, so why should Paul McCartney?



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   
I still consider this to be one of my favourite conspiracy theories.

That's all really.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki
It wasn't their skulls you measured, fully.


Yes it was. I lined up the eye balls with the edges of his eye sockets, the bottom of the chin, the part where the bone of the nose would be, even his hair line hasn't changed. The horizontal lines on the eyes match in both horiz, vert and the angle of the droop of his eyes, which is his most noticeable feature over the years that didn't change. Take a good stare at his eyes in any pic, then look at his eyes in another pic, if you don't see they are same then it's a perception issue not a conspiracy.

Yes my lines are approximate, but please do me a favour and try what I did with some other people, and try to get them to match as much as mine did. Line up one or two features, I started with the eyes, in one direction and then if the head lines up in the opposite direction then you have a match (unless the pic has been re-sized in only one direction, as in stretched, a common effect in the 60's psychedelic era btw). The two pics I used were good untouched pics which I re-sized the old Paul with proportions restrained to match the young Paul pic. If they are not the same person they will not match, simple really. No two human heads are the same.

I know it's hard to take that a simple test can destroy a story that's been around so long...

[edit on 16-7-2009 by Wally Hope]



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Here is a picture of Paul (or Faul) and Jane Asher showing that 'Faul' is considerably taller than her. More so than Paul was:



And here is a picture of them, taken on the same day - where the difference in height is about the same as between Paul and Jane:



They can be found on this site, originally suggested by pmexplorer:

www.paulisnotdead.com...

I thought it might be helpful to put them here.






[edit on 16-7-2009 by berenike]



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by berenike
 


Perception, look at the first pic Jane is sort of bending at the knees, in the second pic she is standing very upright.

Those pics show nothing, they'd be laughed out of court if used as evidence.

[edit on 16-7-2009 by Wally Hope]



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Wally Hope
 


Wally Hope - "Perception, look at the first pic Jane is sort of bending at the knees, in the second pic she is standing very upright.

Those pics show nothing, they'd be laughed out of court if used as evidence."

berenike - My point was to prove that the height difference was only a matter of perception, the position of the photographer and the posture of the two people. Bear in mind we can't see their feet either.

I wouldn't dream of submitting any of this as evidence to a court - I've said ages ago no-one will prove anything with a few photographs.

I presented this to dispute it's relevance to the PID argument, not as a support for it.

I'm sort of on the fence and would like to see credible evidence from both sides. I'm being as unbiased a I can be and people can argue their case without having to worry about me flaming them. I'm just interested in the debate. Occasionally, I like to throw something in myself. (That's not meant to be as arrogant as it sounds)



[edit on 16-7-2009 by berenike]



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Here is an early picture of Paul where his nose has that 'beaky' look:



To me, it seems feasible that this Paul could grow up to look like this:



But these are only two of many photographs.


[edit on 16-7-2009 by berenike]



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Has anyone ever seen this picture of Faul with his rubber nose collection.





posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by kshaund
 


I mentioned this a few times about 30 or so pages back. It was followed by several posts of multiple pics with no response. Since there are still vinyl copies prior to '66 available for comparison there is no reason that a charge that the original was dubbed could be leveled. This is probably the principle reason the subject is ignored. The signature could be somewhat different over time as a person matures, but recordings in '66 compared to recordings in '67 would not have changed significantly.




top topics



 
33
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join