Paul McCartney died in 1966 - replaced by Billy Shepherd

page: 51
33
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
Notice the lips:




I will agree, this comparison should be thrown out. Better one would be:





Or you can go with More Photos:




Paul Smile:







Faul Smile: These are rare, should be chargeing for them !!




For those with Critical eye the left Canine Tooth 2nd from the first front Reappears again later in years: (Note the image is inversed by whoever created it, so its on the right side. though longer.



Though faul hates smileing and took up the open mouth, no teeth showing laugh. Which is the biggest indicator for me of them all. hell he started it from the get go.



Vs.



or compilation:





[edit on 21-7-2009 by Bldrvgr]




posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Great video, Bldrvgr. It's amazing how much taller Paul suddenly got. lol

What's w/ the ear?



[edit on 21-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 11:11 PM
link   
Obviously not 2 halves of the same face.




posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Bldrvgr
 


Hi, the video is very interesting, but being a long time fan I can say that many of the images where Paul looks much taller than Jane Asher are from 1964 (especially from the "A Hard Day's Night" period), so surely previous to his supposed death, which should have happened in 1966...
By the way, Jane Asher is 5' 5'' tall (about 1.65 cm) (www.fanpix.net...) and being a "petite" woman she probably sometimes wore high-heel shoes... there would be nothing strange about this!
This could explain why in some pics she looks much shorter than Paul and in others not so much...



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Bldrvgr
 


Great Video..after all the pictures of Paul the first picture of Faul is like a slap in the face.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by magnolia_xx

Hi, the video is very interesting, but being a long time fan I can say that many of the images where Paul looks much taller than Jane Asher are from 1964 (especially from the "A Hard Day's Night" period), so surely previous to his supposed death, which should have happened in 1966...


Actually, the pictures where "Paul" seems much taller than Jane suddenly are post 1966.

~ 1964



~ 1967




~ 1968



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   
I see, but this other image is from 1964 and Paul looks quite taller than Jane, just like in the post-1966 pics you showed.

img.photobucket.com...



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   
One of my friends just sent me his observations about this video:




Ok for now I checked the video of Jane Asher and Paul McCartney that you put in the thread and something attracted my attention is the way of which the side of hair separated, if you take a look carefully Paul McCartney always has hair of the left side separated toward the right while Faul the part of hair is the right side toward the left and on some picture it is not too precise we have the impression that it is at the center (correct me if I make mistake)
I'm not an expert but I think it's impossible that the part of the hair change abruptly in one year because myself I have the same side the way my hair is separated as Paul not Faul the left to right and I remember I tried to change the side and I was not able to do it I think it's impossible because since my very young age the part of my hair is on the left. And during the video it seems that it mixed some pics of Faul before 1966 and I recognized Faul not Paul and once again tell me if I make a mistake.


He's right about the hair.







[edit on 22-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Better translation of the Italian WIRED article available:

ASK WHO WAS THE "BEATLE"
/mw83db

Italian article follow-up (original at www.tgcom.mediaset.it...):


Paul McCartney is really dead

This is confirmed by an investigation of "Wired"
It 'one of the best known legends of rock: Paul McCartney died in 1966 and what we know today is merely a double that has changed. A legend who just now seemed to have been dismantled and forgotten. But now two scientists have conducted an investigation for "Wired": The objective was to demonstrate that everything was false but the results were rather surprising ...

/ngp29e




[edit on 22-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   




You can do your own fades here:
celebrity.myheritage.com...



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
Obviously not 2 halves of the same face.



Wally has just posted a comparison which completely refutes that clearly yet you continue regardless. Do you close your eyes and put your hands to your ears
aswell everytime you see a post which says anything contrary to your
twisted theory? Well?

I have never a seen a thread like this before where an alleged story has been refuted time and again and yet the believers continue posting away as if there
was no one else offering an explanation.

You are clearly blinded by all these edited photos and imagery
which others have spent an age collating and photoshopping in order
to try and prove their ridiculous theory is true.

Then you post a pic of Paul with his cheeks puffed out and one with
a normal facial expression and you have the audacity to say 'let's play a game of spot the difference'!!

I mean are you for real? I'm starting to think this is all actually a practical joke and you are the wind up merchant who has cast her net out to try and provoke the likes of me, Wally and the others who know that behind this allegation lies nothing more than an in joke by the Beatles, a 1960's hoax which was taken completely out of context, and you may call me 'green'
for not knowing all there is to know about the elusive 'illuminati' but clearly it is you and others who are the pawns who have actually been taken in by and fooled completely by a very simple game which ended a long time ago.
As I said before, I bet John & George are up there laughing their asses off that in 2009, people are still getting excited about this.

I think it's hilarious if not a little bit sad also.

But anyway keep posting them pics, maybe someday someone
will take you seriously cos I sure as hell don't.

Peace.




[edit on 22-7-2009 by pmexplorer]

[edit on 22-7-2009 by pmexplorer]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   
The better translation of the Italian article proving Paul was replaced can be accessed here:

ASK WHO IS THE "BEATLE"
/mw83db



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by faulconandsnowjob
 


What about the animation?

Typical of you to ignore what you can't explain.

The eyes are exactly the same. YOU CAN"T CHANGE THE EYES.

You want us to explain the ears, yet you refuse to explain why the eyes match exactly. Please don't say plastic surgery, you can't use plastic surgery to change the size and shape of the skull.

That one fact refutes ALL of your silly comparison pics.



[edit on 22-7-2009 by Wally Hope]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wally Hope


The eyes are exactly the same. YOU CAN"T CHANGE THE EYES.


Yes the eyes look the same, but the width of the bridge of the nose changes.

Have you looked at the Italian Wired report or just dismissed it out of hand without reading it?

The picture used for comparison wasn't very good though, seeing as the lips was meant to be the focal point, so I agree with you in that respect.
However, other pictures do appear to show it, and alongside the other 'clues'/'evidence' call it what you will, there starts to mount an interesting story of intrigue.

Yes, it could all have been an elaborate joke if it were not for curious differences in forensic analysis, including nose, ears, teeth, eyebrows, face shape and size, hair parting, voice sonograms (though I would like to see more done, independently) - heck even his fingerprints are said not to match. I'm not sure how to clear that one up.
DNA from his 'brother' Mike crosschecked with Faul's?

This thread has opened up some interesting topics of debate with interesting perspectives so I am at least thankful for that.

It's also shewn me the depth of passion of people both pro and con and that people are fundamentally rude.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki

It's also shewn me the depth of passion of people both pro and con and that people are fundamentally rude.


I would change 'rude' for gullible in that quote.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by pmexplorer

Originally posted by aorAki

It's also shewn me the depth of passion of people both pro and con and that people are fundamentally rude.


I would change 'rude' for gullible in that quote.

Not naming names, but I would say *some people* are both rude & gullible. Who has fallen for a double here? Or do some people really think a person can undergo such drastic changes in such a short space of time? I mean, really. What is more realistic here - that Paul grew taller in his mid-20's, changed his eye color, reconfigured his facial features, changed his personality & musical style, or that someone else is pretending to be him?

I don't know why some people just can't admit they've been taken. I fell for the double for a long time, too. At some point, though, it's time to just face facts. Not everything is what you think it is.

[edit on 22-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by pmexplorer

Originally posted by aorAki

It's also shewn me the depth of passion of people both pro and con and that people are fundamentally rude.


I would change 'rude' for gullible in that quote.


Sure, that fits too



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   




posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Hello everyone and I praise those with good ideas here and those that have maintained their composure. I have to say that this has become a truly fascinating topic. This is much more interesting and intense than I could have imagined when I started this thread.

Keep up the good work everyone!

[edit on 22-7-2009 by Excitable_Boy]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki
including nose, ears, teeth, eyebrows, face shape and size, hair parting, voice sonograms (though I would like to see more done, independently) - heck even his fingerprints are said not to match. I'm not sure how to clear that one up.


I can clear it up, whoever said that is full of it.

Nose changing has been explained. Proves nothing.
Face shape has been explained. Proves nothing.
Hair parting CAN change, I've parted my own hair both left, right, and middle over the years. Proves nothing.
Eyebrows have not changed.
Eye color change has been explained. Hazel to green is common.
He didn't change size, it's all about perspective in the photograph. A photo of two people taken from the left side will make the person on the left appear taller in relation to the person on the right and visa versa.
Voice changing has been explained. Proves nothing.

That Italian research is a joke like the rest of this hoax.

How about explaining how the eyes ARE EXACTLY THE SAME in ALL the Pauls throughout his lifetime? Because you can't?

[edit on 22-7-2009 by Wally Hope]





new topics
 
33
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join