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: 59
33
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by magnolia_xx
In the last pics you posted, I see hazel/green eyes in both the pics.

Paul's eyes are hazel/brown & Faul's are green. Those are not the same color. You should really try to look at the colors w/ more discernment.


Paul is much taller than Ringo.

Not always, he wasn't.






Then you get this big height difference:




By the way, in the last one you can see that Paul's chin is identical to the supposed fake's chin.

Unless you are a forensic scientist & you've done a biometrical analysis, I don't think you can claim that they're "identical." The most you can say is that they appear identical in your opinion, which is that of a layman, not an expert.


Unless Paul's chin was transplanted on Bill Campbell's face - along with his eyelids, his nose, his lips et cetera, and oh, don't forget the vocal cords, I dare to say that Faul is a mere fabrication, and Paul is much alive.

I think you very conveniently forget that it's already been proven that the facial features don't match up by forensic science. But anyway, plastic surgery was no doubt used to improve the double's likeness. I've already shown how plastic surgery has been used since the 1940's for that purpose.


[edit on 1-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]




posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   
OK Faulcon,
you are totally right, Paul is dead and Faul is singing in place of him.
And Ringo is very tall, a huge guy, you know. The tallest among the Fab Four.
I think your opinions cannot be changed whatever happens, actually everything you see is plots and fakes and murders. Oh, and reptilians, and people trying to control the whole earth and its inhabitants by the murder of a young singer in 1966 (why not the whole group? They could have been more patient and kill them in a bus crash during the Magical Mystery Tour, in 1967).
Surely if you happened to meet Sir Paul McCartney telling you he is alive you would try and remove his fake ears. Or you would run away before he stares at you with his evil green/hazel/blue eyes and takes control of you before you even realize.
So, I have got anything else to say.
My opinion is that if a lawyer believes in reptilians there's much to worry about.
By the way, a physician (me) does not believe in anything like that. I believe in what I see (or I think to see. It's OK for me, then).
All the blind people here are happy for not sharing your hilarious opinions.
Have a great evening.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by magnolia_xx
 


I would agree with you, but there appears, to me, to be something amiss.
I'm not active in using photos/sonograms/ etc but I am interested in this.
Yes, there is the possibility that it may turn oput to be a foolish prank, but there is also the possibility that something more sinister is at foot....but hey you have to right not to subscribe to this theory, just as I have the right to look into this further.

Perhaps we can try to cut out all the weasel words when posting as they do nothing but obfuscate the real issue, which is: Is Paul McCartney dead and was he replaced by a double?
Calling someone an idiot (or calling the theory idiotic) etc does nothing for either side of the argument.

I know, this theory sounds nuts, right?
Strange things can and do occur.
Until I have satisfactory explanations for discrepancies and clues, I will be comfortably sitting on the fence, slightly to the PID side.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by magnolia_xx
OK Faulcon,
you are totally right, Paul is dead and Faul is singing in place of him.
And Ringo is very tall, a huge guy, you know. The tallest among the Fab Four.

I have photographic proof to support my theory. What do you have? Nothing but your opinion, which is based on what you've been told. I hate to tell you this, but not everything you're told is actually the truth. You should look up the Gulf of Tonkin incident, for one example.


I think your opinions cannot be changed whatever happens, actually everything you see is plots and fakes and murders.

My opinion is based on facts, not on preconceived notions. I don't think your opinion would ever change, no matter what the evidence showed. Would you even believe Paul was replaced if "he" came out & admitted it?


Surely if you happened to meet Sir Paul McCartney telling you he is alive

Obviously, SIR Paul is alive. That's not the point. The point is that he's not the original mop-top Paul.


My opinion is that if a lawyer believes in reptilians there's much to worry about.

Do you believe in angels, demons, souls, or God? Do you believe that the only life forms in this multi-dimensional universe are here on earth in 3rd dimension? Quite a box-thinker, aren't you? Anyway, I realize you have to try to discredit me in any way you can, but whatever I believe regarding spiritual matters doesn't change the fact that Paul & Faul have difft colored eyes, one was taller, & the facial features don't match up.


By the way, a physician (me) does not believe in anything like that. I believe in what I see (or I think to see. It's OK for me, then).

I'm sorry, but I do not think you have a good eye for detail. You seem to see only what you believe you are going to see, not what is actually there.


All the blind people here are happy for not sharing your hilarious opinions.

Actually, the people who can see the differences are not the "blind" ones. The ones who miss all the details, like different noses, ears, eyebrows, eyecolor, height, etc, are the blind ones.


[edit on 1-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
[
Do you believe in angels, demons, souls, or God?
[edit on 1-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]


I don't, personally....but that has no relevance to this subject as far as I can see. It's just the naysayers trying to find a chink in your armour



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 02:56 AM
link   
The fact is that the facial features don't match up, the eye color isn't the same, & there's a height discrepancy, among other things.

The faces simply don't match up.





posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 03:18 AM
link   
faulconandsnowjob, has it been proved that people can't grow a couple of inches in their early 20s?

And how do you and the scientists explain that afterwards, it looks like we have the real Paul back again?

E.g. here:



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 06:15 AM
link   
To me, this early Paul

could easily have grown up to look like this:



But, here is Paul or Faul in India - and Faulcon pointed out that (in the PID version of events) it was Faul not Paul who went there:



It's pictures of this version of Faul/Paul that make me think she's got a point.

Where we part company is that I think the real Paul was/is still alive and that a double was used in his place on some occasions.

Another point she makes that rings true for me is about Paul having the 'It' factor and Faul lacking it.




[edit on 2-8-2009 by berenike]



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by faulconandsnowjob
 


faulconandsnowjob, with the unusual expression on the face of your 1966 Paul photo above, it's hardly surprising it doesn't match up. Also, photos marked 1966 & 1967 could be as little as 1 day apart or as much as 2 years apart i.e. a very significant period of time in which the amount and distribution of body-fat could change (think about it, even a month's significant if you go on a crash diet, and who's to say Paul didn't diet?).

Every pair of pictures will fail to match up to some degree, but with similar camera angles, facial expressions, lighting, etc., there are plenty of examples that do match up very well -- see here. I think the examples at the bottom of the page are pretty convincing matches.

reply to post by berenike
 


berenike, I think Paul just managed to hold on to his boyish looks a bit longer than most; by the end of '66 though, these had pretty much faded and the growing of a moustache and general lack of shaving thereafter just emphasized this.

Edit: Hey, just noticed Paul's eyes in your pics looking distinctly brown...


[edit on 2-8-2009 by seaofgreen]



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by seaofgreen

berenike, I think Paul just managed to hold on to his boyish looks a bit longer than most; by the end of '66 though, these had pretty much faded and the growing of a moustache and general lack of shaving thereafter just emphasized this.

Edit: Hey, just noticed Paul's eyes in your pics looking distinctly brown...


[edit on 2-8-2009 by seaofgreen]


I think the bearded Paul's eyes look brown, but then the whole picture looks to have a brownish tint to it.

The Faul/Paul in India - well, I think they look blueish.


I actually looked for Paul in India pics because Faulcon pointed out that the Indian trip happened after Paul was supposed to have been replaced. I wanted to see for myself and the best close-up I could find was the one I posted. And he looks as if he could be the 'double'.

I've posted quite a bit about the eye colour, but I wouldn't trust photos to prove it either way. I can't even be sure that the colours I see on my computer screen exactly match what others see on theirs.

I never have any problem with seeing Paul in the more hairy and bearded pictures. It's the sour looking bloke with the bouffant that I get suspicious of.

I love David Bowie, and I don't think anyone has changed their look as often as he has, and yet it always looks like him. The 'vibe' is the same.

I know it's subjective, but the more I look at some of the so-called Faul photos the more I wonder how Paul could have turned out like that. The picture I posted with the full beard just looks 'right', to me. He seems cheerier, so that's why I believe there might be two of him.

I enjoyed the site you linked to - I think they did a better job on over-laying the photos.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Well, I happen to know for a fact Paul is dead, but it's not something I can prove, so I just try to show he was replaced. I don't really care if people believe me or not about his being dead. It's enough for me if they can see a double was used, b/c then they'll start getting an idea for how much mindf***ing goes on.

Anyway, here's the deal about the eyes. They weren't the same color - & it changed from 1966 to 1967.

Notice how this says BROWN eyes:



This isn't brown (not even hazel). This pic is from 1967.




If you watch the video for SFF, you can see Faul making big eyes at the camera. He's daring people to notice. They're basically telling people that Paul was replaced. They're kind of making fun of people, thinking they won't catch on to the replacement.



Can you see the green?




[edit on 2-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Yes, the eyes don't look brown, but greenish, and the hair and the beard have a greenish tinge, too... is this what a reptilian is supposed to look like?

Here are a couple of lovely videos, the first was seen some pages ago, the second was recently made:
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

Enjoy.

[edit on 2-8-2009 by magnolia_xx]



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   
One says brown eyes, one says hazel eyes. Either way, they weren't *green.*










Faul doesn't even bother to hide it a lot of times now, b/c they know most people will never put it together that Paul was replaced.




posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by berenike


Another point she makes that rings true for me is about Paul having the 'It' factor and Faul lacking it.


lol... yeah, Faul is kind of creepy, imo. Maybe it's just that I'm picking up on his fakeness - that he's trying to be someone he's not. It's just hard to imagine girls going nuts over him.




Yes, that's supposed to be Paul in the 2nd pic. I think their deciding to stop touring in 1966 was probably a good idea. It would give Faul more time to get the look & act down.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by seaofgreen
faulconandsnowjob, has it been proved that people can't grow a couple of inches in their early 20s?

And how do you and the scientists explain that afterwards, it looks like we have the real Paul back again?

E.g. here:


To me, it looks like the first picture has been 'stretched' to accommodate Faul's longer face.


Originally posted by berenike


But, here is Paul or Faul in India - and Faulcon pointed out that (in the PID version of events) it was Faul not Paul who went there:



It's pictures of this version of Faul/Paul that make me think she's got a point.
[edit on 2-8-2009 by berenike]



Is it possible that I can see scars on his chin, slightly covered by stubble?
There seem to be some definite lines which could be surgical scars?

I've been wrong before.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki

Originally posted by seaofgreen
E.g. here:


To me, it looks like the first picture has been 'stretched' to accommodate Faul's longer face.



Good eye. The face has been stretched. There are many instances of photo-tampering.




With stretching, he looks more like Faul:



These comps are more accurate representations:






[edit on 2-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki

Is it possible that I can see scars on his chin, slightly covered by stubble?
There seem to be some definite lines which could be surgical scars?


Scars from plastic surgery to improve the likeness...



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by berenike
To me, this early Paul
could easily have grown up to look like this:



I think the beard may make the face seem rounder, a trick they used on "Let It Be." All the pics were compressed top to bottom to create an illusion...



In reality, his face is not round (1966 v 1967):




[edit on 2-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 10:58 PM
link   


Paul 1965 (Help!) vs. Nov 1966 (Kenya trip w/ Mal Evans)




Some strange circumstances w/ Mal Evans. He was the one who died in bizarre circumstances in 1976. Mal Evans was shot and killed by the police on 5 January 1976. Before his death Evans was working on a book of memoirs called “Living The Beatles' Legend,” which he was supposed to deliver to publishers 12 January 1976... On the night of Evans' death, his collaborator on his book, John Hoernie, said Evans told him to make sure that he finished "Living The Beatles' Legend." Evans' ashes were lost in the postal system... A suitcase that Evans was carrying at the time of his death, which was supposed to contain unreleased recordings, photos and other memorabilia, was also lost during the investigation. Portions of the book have been published, but not all.


[edit on 2-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 11:51 PM
link   
This is a comp of Paul 1965/1967. The videos they were taken from are below.







[edit on 2-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



new topics




 
33
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join