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: 52
33
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wally Hope


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


|That doesn't clear up a thing, me ol' flower


Originally posted by Wally Hope 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.


Just because you say it hasn't changed and that it is final doesn't mean it is.
We're obviously seeing different things here and I have the luxury of coming from a position where I knew a bit of The/the Beatles music but wasn't overly enamoured by it. To me, Ringo was a git, George was aloof, John was angry and bitter and Paul was a goof. I much preferred the New Wave and such but that's of no matter other than a semblance of a back story. Thus, I am not 'emotionally involved' in this discussion about a repalcement and am just trying to use my own eyes, ears, cognitive and deductory skills (which I do have as well, another back story) and skills of pattern recognition (visual: it's important for my work which is a bit like forensics...well, it is forensics: Paleontology) and have noticed discrepancies and have noticed that these discrepancies occur after a certain time.

I have looked at both PID and PIA forums and yet I still come back here and have my say because I am caught on a feeling that something is up.

Yes, there is a lot of nonsense and obfuscation on the PID forums , but it pays not to jump straight in at page twenty as you might have missed something crucial on page five....similar to the PIA forums and frankly they are full of anger and condescencion and use examples (as PIAers do too) that are complete flops as far as comparisons go.


Originally posted by Wally Hope Italian research is a joke like the rest of this hoax.


What makes you say that?
Did you read what I posted earlier about the background of one of the researchers?
She has some very solid work behind her and I doubt if she would want to ruin her career on something as ridiculous (isn't it?!?) as PID which is why they set out to debunk the 'rumour'.
So, did you actually read it?
Have you actually spent hours and hours poring over PID/PIA threads as I have or do you give up quickly and resort to kneejerk ad hominisms?


Originally posted by Wally Hope 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]


How about explaining why they are different and why the bridge changes width etc?
Oh, you can't. (See it's easy for me to resort to petty childisms).

Personally I don't think that you have really looked all that hard at any of the 'evidence' provided because your mind is made up and that's that.

It's not that simple for some of us. Maybe we perceive things better (at least certainly differently).
Much as you would like it, this isn't going to go away as easily as you would appear to like it to.
Please continue to post, but do try to be civil, o.k. boyo?
Ka kite ano.




posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   

I think it's hilarious you two are so angry about what people discuss - neither of you have provided anything towards refuting anything except your say so - you've demanded answers yet haven't answered those that were asked of you - you've been insulting rather than contributing anything and I really can't understand why you bother at all???

Methinks you two doth protest too much....


Either that, or you're the type of people that believe mainstream media and what they tell you in church too, which is exactly why all these things work so well for the masses most of the time.

Wag the Dog - that entire movie is exactly what we're talking about here really, we only see what they want us to see and hear only what they want us to hear. If you haven't seen it, highly recommended...



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 12:20 AM
link   
So they used magical-cloning-plastic-surgery to make Fauls eyes look like Pauls?

Did they just forget to do his eye brows, his nose, and his ears?

What part of the face would be easier to change do you think?

Use a bit of logic guys at least. This is not my opinion it's fact. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if that opinion is based on faulty logic then it's worthless.

(I'm not being rude btw I'm being truthfully blunt, it should only bother those that are not really confident in their opinions.)



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by kshaund

I think it's hilarious you two are so angry about what people discuss - neither of you have provided anything towards refuting anything except your say so - you've demanded answers yet haven't answered those that were asked of you - you've been insulting rather than contributing anything and I really can't understand why you bother at all???

Methinks you two doth protest too much....


Either that, or you're the type of people that believe mainstream media and what they tell you in church too, which is exactly why all these things work so well for the masses most of the time.

Wag the Dog - that entire movie is exactly what we're talking about here really, we only see what they want us to see and hear only what they want us to hear. If you haven't seen it, highly recommended...


You've left the "two" you are addressing ambiguous enough that I'll jump in here.

Wally posted this but his contribution has been brushed off:


Originally posted by Wally Hope
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]


I posted this:



Originally posted by elfie
reply to post by faulconandsnowjob
 


Yeah, thanks. If you click on the spectrograph it takes you to another board.
It doesn't even mention the software being used.

As far as standards go, nothing that I have been able to locate so far supports a one word analysis.

expertpages.com...

www.forensictapeanalysisinc.com...



I did read the article from Wired IT. It was very interesting that in using comparative analysis on images of photos the scientists found discrepancies.
None of the data is included in the article; it is a report about the data. We have no idea which photos were selected for the comparisons except for the tiny one used along with the title.

The article ends with a quote from the scientists saying that none of research conducted is 100% and that other means would be necessary to draw a conclusion.

It's been a week and the article still has not been picked up by Wired. Maybe they're saving it for a print edition first. I guess we'll see in a few more weeks.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 12:50 AM
link   
Just a quick note--we refer to the program that gives a visual representation of a sound as a spectrograph rather than a sonogram, even though literally it could be thought of as such and the term sonogram (generally used medically) for the images that can be developed by an instrument using sound waves to produce a picture.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 01:08 AM
link   
Yes, but if the eyes were exactly the same there wouldn't be the 'flicker of adjustment' that you see on that comparison.
I see it, at least.
The eyes, to me,are very similar.

Facts always appear to be subject to change, or fine-tuning, as our knowledge grows.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Excitable_Boy
...This is much more interesting and intense than I could have imagined when I started this thread...

The PID story seems to be a topic in Italy, but I'm not holding my breath that it'll show up in English anytime soon.

Should anyone feel so inclined, write WIRED magazine & tell them you'd like to see the article, "Chiedi Chi Era Quel 'Beatle,'" (at www.wired.it...«beatle»-.aspx) appear in English.

WIRED's contact info: www.wired.com...




[edit on 23-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Methinks you two doth protest too much....

Yes... That's what I've been thinking, too.


Wag the Dog - that entire movie is exactly what we're talking about here really, we only see what they want us to see and hear only what they want us to hear...

Thanks for reminding me about that movie. I watched it when it 1st came out, but I think I missed a lot back then. I need to re-watch w/ more educated eyes.

But anyway, "we only see what they want us to see and hear only what they want us to hear" is key. This thing w/ Paul is one big deception. It's just an illusion. One reason I think this "conspiracy theory" is so important is b/c it could open eyes to the illusion creation. If people don't know this stuff goes on, they won't be looking for it. It's harder to pull the wool over the sheep's eyes when the sheep are aware of what's going on...


[edit on 23-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 01:29 AM
link   
This was posted by karol2020 at
www.davidicke.com...


Do you know the site My heritage? www.myheritage.com.br...
So I did a test to see the result, and I put many, many photos of Paul mccartney pre and post 67, in the celebrity collage, and find it a bit intersting cause the maximum result was 80% (and some gave very low like 65%). So I test many other celebrities like Mel gibson, tom cruise, natalie portman, viggo mortensen... (just one photo of each) and the results were minimun 85 and many of them very high 90, 95%. I´m not saying this proof anything, but is interesting...


Yes, very interesting that Paul & Faul were a 65-80% match. Anybody want to confirm or refute these results?



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
Yes, very interesting that Paul & Faul were a 65-80% match. Anybody want to confirm or refute these results?


Yes that's a useful comparison isn't it.


Black and white photos with 60's era equipment versus modern day digital
colour photo technology.
I see you time and again overlaying one photo of Paul over another all the time trying to show 'differences'. It's utterly ridiculous as I showed on the previous page when you tried to note how his lips looked different when it was plain to see that in one he was puffing out his cheeks which inverts the lips naturally and in one he wasn't!!
I cannot get over the nerve you have to try and pass this off as evidence of something.

Firstly the pictures are from all kinds of angles, taken in completely varying conditions and lighting, some are outdoor, some are on stage, some are airbrushed magazine / newspaper and album/record covers, some are stills from television and movies.
Secondly like every person of their age in the 60's and every other generation for that matter they followed trends and even set their own of course. They were influenced by their time in Berlin and Europe and later by their early trips to to the states, both musically and stylistically as has been very well documented of course.
The photos of course show all kinds of facial expression from smiling to elation to concentration, blank stares etc etc etc etc.
Paul and everyone else's hair changed constantly as did his clothes, he grew a moustache, he naturally changed physically as he got older as we all do. He did not change his nose, his eye colour or anything else for that matter.
I suggest you read Hunter Davies authorised biography (the only authorised biography) The Beatles for a unique insight into each member of the
band and what made them tick.
Oh wait maybe he was 'in on it' too.


Paul McCartney has said about the rumor: "Anyway all of the things that have been, that have made these rumors, to my mind have very ordinary, logical explanations. To the people’s minds who prefer to think of them as rumors, then I am not going to interfere, I am not going to spoil that fantasy. You can think of it like that if you like. However, if the end result, the conclusion you reach is that I am dead, then you are wrong, because I am very much alive, I am alive and living in Scotland.”

It's okay I've posted your reply to save you time Faulcon:

"oh well he would say that wouldn't he''

Paul was involved in a documented moped crash in the christmas of
1965 when he chipped a front tooth which can be seen in one of the stills from the 'Rain' video : www.ready-steady-go.org.uk...

In an interview with the NME (New Musical Express) he explained:

""Fans," he said simply, almost thinking aloud. "Funny really. Some of them have a go at me and John and George and Ringo. They say we don't make enough personal appearances. If only they'd realize... They think we've just been loafing about the past few months. Don't they realize we've been working on our next album since April? It's a long time."

"I suppose there's some that won't like it, but if we tried to please everyone we'd never get started. As it is, we try to be as varied as possible. On the next LP there's a track with Ringo doing a childrens song, and another with electronic sounds."

He started to finger his lip, almost without thinking, and I asked him about the reports that he'd broken a tooth.

"You're right," he admitted candidly. "I did it not long ago when I came off a moped. Now I've had it capped... Look."

I looked but I couldn't see anything. A perfect mend. Only a small scar remains on his lip as a souvenir."

"It was quite a serious accident at the time. It probably sounds daft, having a serious accident on a motorized bicycle, but I came off it hard and I got knocked about a bit. My head and lip were cut and I broke the tooth."

I was only doing about 30 at the time, but it was dark and I hit a stone and went flyin' through the air. It was my fault... it was a nice night and I was looking at the moon."

He sipped his tea and reached for a cigarette.

"What about all this 'Didn't Paul McCartney look ill on TV,' then?" he went on, referring to Mama Cass' remarks in NME's 'America Calling' last week. "I havent been ill. Apart from the accident, I'm dead fit. I know what it was though. When we filmed those TV clips for 'Paperback Writer' I'd only just bashed my tooth, and we'd been working a bit hard on the LP and I hadn't had much sleep. We haven't had much time for anything but the LP. I mean, 14 songs - all got to be written and recorded till you're satisfied with them. It's hard work, man."

[edit on 23-7-2009 by pmexplorer]



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 10:18 AM
link   
In the video for "Strawberry Fields Forever," it shows Faul 3 times when John sings "nothing is real."

@ 1:08, 1:54, & 2:40



Coincidence?



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by aorAki
 


That would be due to the facial expression. You can't expect a perfect comparison when facial expression is different on the photographs. There are going to be subtle differences as his face is puffed out in one pic making the eyes slightly different, but there is not enough difference to be another person.

You would need the same exact angle of the face on two photo's, which would very hard to find.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wally Hope
reply to post by aorAki
 


That would be due to the facial expression. You can't expect a perfect comparison when facial expression is different on the photographs. There are going to be subtle differences as his face is puffed out in one pic making the eyes slightly different, but there is not enough difference to be another person.

You would need the same exact angle of the face on two photo's, which would very hard to find.


Yes, I actually agree with you and PM about the use of photos with different angles and expressions being compared. That does appear dubious to me.
I still don't know,. but I like to follow this thread because something keeps me at it, is it my innate (not inane lol) curiousity, or is it because I have a sense of something bigger?
I certainly haven't spent nearly as much time on this as some people(years) and I don't really have the wherewithal or time to be able to run comparisons etc etc so my 'knowledge' of this is essentially second hand, or from photos etc.
If it is 'just for shots and giggles' then it is a very well-concieved and elaborate hoax, but still, for me, at this time, there is enough doubt for me to continue 'investigating' this.

'Researchers' on both sides of the argument have done themselves no favours by using doctored/ out of context material as evidence.

However, I love this topic, at the least it's good fun, and at the most it is a frightening example of the capabilities of the Powers that Be.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
In the video for "Strawberry Fields Forever," it shows Faul 3 times when John sings "nothing is real."

@ 1:08, 1:54, & 2:40



Coincidence?





Also, at 1:35, John, George and Ringo are down by the piano? and "Paul" is up in the tree signifying that Paul is up in the heavens while the other 3 are down on earth.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by SednaSon



Coincidence?



Also, at 1:35, John, George and Ringo are down by the piano? and "Paul" is up in the tree signifying that Paul is up in the heavens while the other 3 are down on earth.


Oh for the love of god.


[edit on 23-7-2009 by pmexplorer]



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   
This may come as a shock to some people, but things are not always what they seem. Just b/c someone says he is a particular person, doesn't necessarily mean that he is. Just b/c you see something in the papers or in the news, doesn't mean that that thing happened the way they describe, or that it even happened at all. I recommend this book for more insight into the deceptions that go on:

Inside the CIA: Revealing the Secrets of the World's Most Powerful Spy Agency
by Ronald Kessler
www.amazon.com...=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1248387117&sr=8-3

[edit on 23-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 10:59 PM
link   

The SOE [British Special Operations Executive] used a range of disguise techniques. ... For more radical disguises, some agents even underwent plastic surgery to change their appearance.

www.bbc.co.uk...




www.bbc.co.uk...



[edit on 24-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   
The guy who made this comp was wondering just where the 65-80% match was. lol




posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 01:16 AM
link   
Nose, eyes and jawline are all different.



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 11:49 AM
link   
What is up w/ this sideburn?




[edit on 24-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]







 
33
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join