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: 43
33
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Originally posted by pmexplorer

For the third time will you actually be answering my question from a previous post about Paul's family and friends anytime soon?

I've already answered that at least 3 times, but I will answer it again, since it takes more time for some to catch on.

Let's see, why wouldn't they speak out? Maybe they were threatened or bribed. Didn't you watch the video w/ Heather Mills or consider how she was treated in the media? They threatened her & pretty much discredited her, I guess in case she did spill the beans. I guess they ended up buying her off.



Excuse me, but that wasn't the question I posed you!
Buying her off? It was a divorce settlement for god's sake.
He's one of the wealthiest men in the world. What did you expect her lawyers to do settle for a bag of beans?

I asked if you can explain,seeing as you have been fully taken in
by this hoax, how this stooge managed to fool his family, friends and colleagues then when he was first 'replaced' and for all the years since
to this day. Are you trying to insinuate that each and every one of them
was got to and paid off? Because if you are that is one of the most
irrational ideas I have ever heard of.
And don't give me that 'but it's the iluminati' nonsense, that you keep using as your safety blanket when you're put on the spot here, I'm sorry but that won't wash unless you have proof to show me.

Also it's not an 'official story' about the Twin Freaks album, it's quite
simply the truth, y'know, what actually happened, or are people trying
to convince me it wasn't a concept album and he didn't collaborate
on it?



"I guess you believe the "official" version of 9/11 & the JFK assassination, too? Why are you on ATS if you just believe official versions of everything?


That's quite a broad and sweeping assumption to make. How clever of you!

What have my personal beliefs got to do with this thread?
Why, would that make my points invalid because of my thoughts
on something completely seperate to the subject matter here?
Explain why believing or not believing in a theory on JFK or 9/11
or having a personal opinion on either would be relevant in regard
to this topic? Is one not allowed to have more than one opinion
or do you just tar anyone who doesn't follow your skewed way of thinking
as the enemy or a 'official story believer''!
That's rather pathetic. ATS is about so much more than just conspiracy theories you know....

"AboveTopSecret.com is the Internet's largest and most popular discussion board community dedicated to the intelligent exchange of ideas and debate on a wide range of "alternative topics" such as conspiracies, UFO's, paranormal, secret societies, political scandals, new world order, terrorism, and dozens of related topics with an impressive demographic mix of members."

www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Notice how the profiles don't match. lol




I like this take on Faul's appearance on the David Letterman show that I just posted:


Originally Posted by hunger
I love the way Iamaphoney slows this stuff down & you can focus on Fauls mannerisms more easily. the nervous laugh, eyes darting to the audience, the guilt written all over the face. He's a blatant liar & he's relieved that Letterman is joking even though it's all the truth...

www.davidicke.com...



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by pmexplorer
 


I said in a previous post there are others who have claimed their loved ones WERE changed - and they're laughed at, or even worse institutionalized for having lost their mind.

It is EASY to hypnotize people into believing anything = that's one point.

It's also easy to brainwash people into believing anything - that's a second point.

The third point is threat of death or worse to you and/or loved ones.

That's how they (Illuminati) get family/friends to play the game. Of course you first have to see that there is an Illuminati playing with/in all this, and your posts seem to suggest otherwise? You said "Illuminati" aren't any excuses for Paul's friends/family to play along - I disagree - that's the only way/reason this would have happened in the FIRST place. It's all about the Illuminati and their control - and if you really open your eyes you will see it's in your face EVERYWHERE.

I don't know if Paul is dead or cloned or alive and well - but I have no doubt the technology and means are there to have done it if "they" wanted to. It's been done before and will be done again -

You think you haven't seen a clone on tv??? I assure you you have - often enough it would curl your toes if you knew.

Again - discussion - is what this forum is for - if you're not open-minded to entertain the possibility he's been replaced, fine, but why are you so set on arguing the impossibility of it without proof to the contrary...? Because it just ain't so - you say - maybe, maybe not.

I would love to see their voices from pre-66 and today analyzed by proper equipment - their signatures would be the same, or not.

All the people in his life since the 60's don't have to be in on anything - Heather Mills would only know Faul/Paul and doesn't have to be convinced of anything - the divorce is the divorce, and I believe what she claims as having the truth hidden away has more to do with their personal problems, not his identity overall - otherwise she'd be taken out or re-programmed if it was important to keep it secret. It all depends on what they (Illuminati) want... or don't you know...?



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Excellent, Kshaund. The Illuminati are a big piece of the puzzle some people are missing.

When you see them juxtaposed this this, the difference is pretty shocking - even for me, & I've seen tons of these comps.



[edit on 17-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   

I said in a previous post there are others who have claimed their loved ones WERE changed - and they're laughed at, or even worse institutionalized for having lost their mind.

Yes, Rosano from SNL is a good example. He's been imprisoned, then he'll be institutionalized. They've made sure no one will believe a word he says. It also serves as an example for anyone else who considers speaking out.

The Illuminati are trying to create a particular Weltanschauung, or world view. Mass deception of the public is a must. Is the lunar landing an example? Would you put it past them to fake it?




posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   

You think you haven't seen a clone on tv??? I assure you you have - often enough it would curl your toes if you knew.

Yes, this should be discussed. Some people are having trouble accepting the fact that even 1 person has been replaced, but let's push forward, anyway. What do you know about this?



[edit on 17-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by faulconandsnowjob
 


No, but I did notice that my questions to you have once again been ignored.

And nobody has bothered to try to debunk my image and measurements of Paulie's head, other then playing empty lip service with no substance or evidence, only illogical personal opinion.

This thread fails...



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wally Hope

And nobody has bothered to try to debunk my image and measurements of Paulie's head..

You've already admitted that you didn't line them up exactly. It seems like you just randomly drew lines all over the pics - maybe in an attempt to obscure their features. lol

[edit on 17-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by kshaund
I said in a previous post there are others who have claimed their loved ones WERE changed - and they're laughed at, or even worse institutionalized for having lost their mind.

It is EASY to hypnotize people into believing anything = that's one point.

It's also easy to brainwash people into believing anything - that's a second point.

The third point is threat of death or worse to you and/or loved ones.

That's how they (Illuminati) get family/friends to play the game.




What they do is they sit you down and say if you say anything about this we are gonna kill you or kill members of your family. But if you follow along with our plan, we will reward you financially or give you a great job/career.

How do you create a slave? First, you beat the hell out of them. Then afterwards you be really nice to them...that way you get their undying loyalty. Paul McCartney and his friends/relatives aren't the first to have this happen to them. It's happened many times before and many times since.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   

How do you create a slave? First, you beat the hell out of them. Then afterwards you be really nice to them...

I posted interviews w/ Svali in which she was talking about how she programmed people. I've also posted some on MK-ULTRA. If you watch "Conpiracy Theory," "Bourne Identity," or "Manchurian Candidate," they're about MK-programmed assassins.

@ 7:50 -









[edit on 17-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   
I questioned the differences in their noses in that picture and don't recall that being discussed yet - and also, if someone is replaced with a clone rather than another body, the measurements would be the same - or almost the same - as I've heard tell every clone has a little something different.

The apparent differences in height also hasn't been answered - and from a few photos there does seem to be a difference. And I say again - this is only for the sake of discussion as I've learned along the way the more I learn the less I know....


Originally posted by Wally Hope
reply to post by faulconandsnowjob
 


No, but I did notice that my questions to you have once again been ignored.

And nobody has bothered to try to debunk my image and measurements of Paulie's head, other then playing empty lip service with no substance or evidence, only illogical personal opinion.

This thread fails...



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Like I said before, I think Faul is a lookalike, & not a clone, but clones are a part of the doubles program. So, I'm going to post some info on them. Thanks for bringing them up, kshaund.

Article published in the journal “Human Molecular Genetics” saying humans could be easier to clone than other mammals:


Humans could be easier to clone than sheep, cattle or mice, according to scientists who have found that a crucial technical hurdle to the procedure does not exist for people. The researchers found that, unlike sheep, cattle, pigs and mice, where cloning results in a high number of foetal deformities and birth defects, humans possess an unusual genetic trait that mostly protects them from this risk. The work centred on a gene for a protein called insulin-like growth factor 2 receptor (IGF2R), which is known to be critical for the growth and normal development of an embryo in a womb. Cloned sheep and cows are known to suffer from "large offspring syndrome", where foetuses grow far bigger than normal, resulting in a high proportion of stillbirths and other developmental abnormalities. Scientists believe that this happens because the IGF2R gene is not functioning. Although sheep, cattle and most other mammals have two copies of this gene, only one of them is switched on. However, in some cloned animals, even this single functioning gene is switched off due to a complicated genetic phenomenon known as imprinting. Duke University researchers have found humans and other primates do not share this imprinting trait with other mammals. In man, both copies of the IGF2R gene are switched on, suggesting that all clones would have at least one functioning gene, therefore making it likely that human cloning would be technically easier and safer. Dr Killian said: "... Since humans are not imprinted at IGF2R, then foetal overgrowth would not be predicted to occur if humans were cloned." Randy Jirtle, another member of the Duke University team, said, "It means that the cloning of humans will be easier – not easy – but easier. The technical issue against it might not even be there. ..." The Duke University study used data from the Human Genome Project to show that imprinting does not affect the IGF2R receptor gene. The American scientists also analysed genetic data from man's nearest relatives, and discovered that this trait is shared by other primates – but not by other mammals.

See article for more:

www.independent.co.uk...


According to Stewart Swerdlow, the 1st cloned human was in Germany in 1927. The 1st in the USA was at MIT in 1967.

Severino Antinori is an Italian gynaecologist claiming to have cloned three babies who are now living in eastern Europe. He said cells from the three fathers, all of whom were sterile, allowed the cloning to be carried out. The women's eggs were impregnated in a laboratory through a method called "nuclear transfer." See article for more:
www.telegraph.co.uk...


[edit on 17-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   
I watched that piece twice and believe he was scratching the side of his mouth, not biting his nails.


Originally posted by pmexplorer

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Try to find evidence of Faul biting his nails. Go on, I dare you. Oh, & Paul did bite his finger-nails - even in interviews.


Oooh a dare! I love dares.

Okay then, here you go, a search that took me all of 60 seconds
brought up this excellent interview with Sir Paul.

Watch out for 6.57 approximately and 7.34 to 7.42 approx.

www.youtube.com...

(Oh and be sure to check out the thumbnail image for that video
when it appears in the search list with the others, a lovely shot of Paul
exactly like the ones you posted as 'proof' in his heyday with the Fab Four with his finger pressed to his mouth)

Next.



[edit on 16-7-2009 by pmexplorer]



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wally Hope

And nobody has bothered to try to debunk my image and measurements of Paulie's head, other then playing empty lip service with no substance or evidence, only illogical personal opinion.

..


Illogical personal opinion? Much like your two dimensional example that was not scientifically applied because even in your own words you said it was an approximation.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by faulconandsnowjob
 


You didn't even look at it did you?

The lines on both faces are the same and they line up with key features.

This will be my last post here because either you're all winding us up, or you're on some other planet.

LOL my method is not scientific? And yours is? I just compared pics, same thing you're all doing, except I went one step further and showed the evidence of both pics being the same face by showing you with my markings which you can both check by doing the same thing.

Did you know a scientific method has to be testable and repeatable? I just showed you how to test and repeat my simple method to compare key facial features. You could even expand on what I did, and improve on it either proving me wrong, or finally seeing I'm right. But you refuse to do that, so I refuse to have anything more to do with this silly thread. Anyone who reads this thread who has any common sense will see I'm right.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   
But by your own words it is an approximation and therefore is not a scientific method, not to mention (ad nauseum) the fact that is is only of two dimensions and forensic analysis of skulls takes a lot more into account than that.

On the surface it looks compelling at first until one realises the lack of scientific rigour in the illustration.

I sway like the wind regarding this theory, but at this stage there are many curious things which I would like to find out more about.
I find the Illuminati connection difficult to accept, but not impossible....that could be put down to my programming.

The nose looks different to me, the eyebrows, chin, ears, mannerisms, backmasking, evocative imagery with lyrical references to death and crashes, mirrors, doubles and magical symbolism.

Something smells.

[edit on 17-7-2009 by aorAki]



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wally Hope
... I went one step further and showed the evidence of both pics being the same face by showing you with my markings which you can both check by doing the same thing.

All you did was put random lines on the faces. You already said you didn't bother to line them up exactly. Your lines didn't "prove" anything.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   
I don't need to draw lines to see that these noses aren't going to match up: I actually did try to line them up as much as possible. I used the guidelines in Photoshop, for ex.



The thing is about matching up Paul's & Faul's faces is that it's impossible. A graphic artist friend of mine tried to match the difft halves together, & came up w/ these:





I've already challenged PIA'ers to try to match the faces together, & so far, no takers



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by pmexplorer

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
Paul's looks changed noticeably from Aug 1966 to Dec 1966.



No they didn't. Only according to 'Paul is dead' believers like yourself
who will go to any means necessary to try and make a believable
story out of this preposterous idea.
The only changes were natural ones, natural again, weight gain/loss,
differences in hair length and style, growth of facial hair, different fashion etc etc just like it was for each other Beatle and young person growing up in the 1960's.
Nothing to see here folks, now please move along.


Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
Don't you think it's odd that he just got worse & worse over time? It is very unusual. Most composers & musicians seem to improve w/ maturity & experience.


Oh come off it, I mean really who are you trying to kid?
Most eh? What are your prime examples?

David Bowie was a massive superstar of the 70's, he wrote
some groundbreaking songs and he released what is regarded
as far from his best or most influential material later in his career.
He then bounced back to form as he entered his 40's/50's much
like Paul McCartney and released some excellent material.
What does that prove eh? The Rolling Stones, namely Mick Jagger would
be another example to counter your pointless notion.


Also can you please refrain from spamming the thread with those
ridiculous Youtube videos which consist of no more than a very poorly
produced and edited montage of Beatles pictures with a voiceover.
They serve no purpose whatsoever except to further ridicule you
and this theory which you so adamantly believe in.


Which post? I hadn't even noticed it. lol


Of course you didn't. @@:
This one....:


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...


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.


[edit on 14-7-2009 by pmexplorer]



LOL at you saying it's the same face when the noses are obviously different.....

I mean it is starring you in the face and you can't see it.......That is not our problem but yours...


Don't just say " Only the faul believers see it" or whatever you said...

Prove that only the" Faul haox believers" see it and then back that statement up with some kind of facts or something..

Stop making your opinion "truth"......



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wally Hope

Originally posted by pmexplorer
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 .


Thanx, and yes you're right as we can see...

To the PID crew...
There is no way they could have found someone who had exactly the same skull size, chance in a trillion. Skin and cartilage can change shape and size over time, but not the skull. Eye colour can change, but not the distance between them. Proved hoax, from the PIND crew...



Noses that are upturned stay upturned throughout life.....

Noses that are hooked stay hooked throughout life......

Yes cartilage can grow , and it does but it does not change the features of a nose so noticably....

And also the upturn to hook nose happened within a year............Would you say that is from aging?

I doubt it but I'd love to see u 2 prove it.




top topics



 
33
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join