Paul McCartney died in 1966 - replaced by Billy Shepherd

Originally posted by aorAki
That may be so, but that photo is not good for that comparison. Until 'we' can come up with concrete, tangible and junior-school level, then we can't expect the PIAers to jump ship

My experience in this is that if you don't 'get it' right away or fairly soon, then you probably won't ever get it.

[edit on 17-8-2009 by SednaSon]

Originally posted by SednaSon


My experience in this is that if you don't 'get it' right away or fairly soon, then you probably won't ever get it.

[edit on 17-8-2009 by SednaSon]

lol that's what my fiance said to me!

The majority of people I have shown (this theory to) are in agreement with me that something smells.

Originally posted by aorAki

The majority of people I have shown (this theory to) are in agreement with me that something smells.

That is really great that people are catching on

A few interesting webpages...


homepages.tesco.net...

homepages.tesco.net...

www.museumofhoaxes.com...


Love, Magnolia

Originally posted by aorAki
I am amazed at the 'vehemence' of some of the replies, especially the PIAers. Why such aggression?

That`s an important observation aorAki! Keep your eyes peeled while you read this thread - You will notice much unusual resistance to the whole area.

www.youtube.com...



[edit on 18-8-2009 by Uncle Benny]

top from Paul



bottom from Faul

Originally posted by aorAki
It seems to be human nature, but I am amazed at the 'vehemence' of some of the replies, especially the PIAers. Why such aggression?

Ahem *COUGH*

Originally posted by Uncle Benny
Another empty post from the angry little man!

By the way I take exception to this made up nonsense tag
of ''PIA'ers''.

Paul McCartney lives and breathes and still performs, I like to talk about FACTS and this is a FACT which you Paul is dead believers simply cannot
refute.

Just because the ones on here with a bit of common sense who aren't swayed by youtube montages and conspiracy theorist rhetoric and propaganda refuse to be taken in by this nonsense you continue to repeat yourselves and bleat on about the italian investigation which was undermined many pages back and continue to repetitively post the same
pictures again and again and again and again. The latest claim is Paul's forehead is smaller than his replacement's..what proof is shown? A picture comparison which has in one picture Paul with a big mop for a fringe where you can't even see his forehead and the other where his hair is combed back.
You couldn't make it up!

It goes from one extreme absurdity to the next as faulcon copy and pastes from her beloved david icke forum onto here and the likes of my 'little friend' uncle benny lap it up despite offering nothing other than 'gee great job' posts and making sure to star them asap.

(I thought plagiarism was frowned upon on ATS)



[edit on 18-8-2009 by pmexplorer]

reply to post by faulconandsnowjob


The signatures do look different but look at the content of the letters. Look at the word "for" as an example. They look identical.


It seems someone as famous as McCartney would have had his sig in stone by then but maybe he didn't like it and changed the style. Or maybe it's a different dude but the contents appear to be the same handwriting. To my untrained eye at least.

Originally posted by pmexplorer

Originally posted by aorAki
It seems to be human nature, but I am amazed at the 'vehemence' of some of the replies, especially the PIAers. Why such aggression?

Ahem *COUGH*

Originally posted by Uncle Benny
Another empty post from the angry little man!

By the way I take exception to this made up nonsense tag
of ''PIA'ers''.

Paul McCartney lives and breathes and still performs, I like to talk about FACTS and this is a FACT which you Paul is dead believers simply cannot
refute.

Just because the ones on here with a bit of common sense who aren't swayed by youtube montages and conspiracy theorist rhetoric and propaganda refuse to be taken in by this nonsense you continue to repeat yourselves and bleat on about the italian investigation which was undermined many pages back and continue to repetitively post the same
pictures again and again and again and again. The latest claim is Paul's forehead is smaller than his replacement's..what proof is shown? A picture comparison which has in one picture Paul with a big mop for a fringe where you can't even see his forehead and the other where his hair is combed back.
You couldn't make it up!

It goes from one extreme absurdity to the next as faulcon copy and pastes from her beloved david icke forum onto here and the likes of my 'little friend' uncle benny lap it up despite offering nothing other than 'gee great job' posts and making sure to star them asap.

(I thought plagiarism was frowned upon on ATS)



[edit on 18-8-2009 by pmexplorer]

Yes, the comparison of Paul's forehead in the 2 photos was hilarious
By the way, the Italian article on "Wired" clearly reports that the findings from the anthropometric analysis cannot lead to 100% sure conclusions without further exams:
"«C'è da dire che l'analisi antropometrica va, necessariamente, corredata da esami di altro tipo per formulare una perizia certa al 100 per cento»."
And the most interesting thing is that many PIDers seem not to realize that the comparison in "Wired" was made not between photos taken for example in early 1966 and late 1966, but between photos taken in the early Sixties and in the Seventies (living in Italy, I actually have the magazine so I can clearly look at the pics, not so for those who only could read an approximative translation of the online article). They actually compared his face when he was about 22 to his face when he was in his thirties. This guy had changed from a young boy to a grown up man... no wonder that his jaw line slightly changed, the skull changes as it grows.

And now I am waiting for all Faulcon's photos. Once again.
I begin to enjoy them

Originally posted by pmexplorer
Paul McCartney lives and breathes and still performs, I like to talk about FACTS and this is a FACT which you Paul is dead believers simply cannot
refute.

Firstly, I`m not here to refute your perceived notion of what a FACT is. We can all... "talk about facts." What is apparent is that the majority of people BELIEVE Paul McCartney is alive and well. This is a misconception myself and others are here to draw attention to. If you can PROVE McCartney is alive and well then be my guest. The reality is that the man who claims to be Paul McCartney today is quite simply, NOT HIM!

Just because the ones on here with a bit of common sense who aren't swayed by youtube montages and conspiracy theorist rhetoric and propaganda refuse to be taken in by this nonsense you continue to repeat yourselves and bleat on about the italian investigation which was undermined many pages back and continue to repetitively post the same
pictures again and again and again and again.

I`m not here to twist peoples` arms into believing something they don`t want to believe. Everyone is free to do and think as they wish don`t you think? My reason for being here is to make people aware of certain information - They can then examine it with an independent mind, toss it aside, laugh at it... I don`t care! So long as the information gets out then I`m content. If you think it`s an absurd "theory" then I suggest you move on. I for one am not responsible for what others think and neither are you!

It goes from one extreme absurdity to the next as faulcon copy and pastes from her beloved david icke forum onto here and the likes of my 'little friend' uncle benny lap it up despite offering nothing other than 'gee great job' posts and making sure to star them asap.

If I agree with what`s being said I will sometimes "star" someones post. From reading the thread I agree with much of what Faulcon has written.

I`ve also given you a star for your last post as it`s the first time you`ve tried to converse without attacking me (if you remember you made an insulting attack on my first post).

However, if you`re here primarily to win stars and look good then you`re in the wrong thread my friend. This isn`t a popularity contest as you can gather, but a serious topic which should be let see the light of day. It is for others to make up their own minds on what is put forward!

(I thought plagiarism was frowned upon on ATS)

How is it plagarism if it`s her own information? - It doesn`t matter if it has been up on a hundred other forums. God you`d think you didn`t want people to see it or something!





[edit on 18-8-2009 by Uncle Benny]

Plagiarism? lol Everything I post that isn't original is cited to. I guess it's my academic & legal background coming through.

And you talk about facts? Here are some facts:

Paul's eye color is different from Faul's
Paul's hand-writing is different from Faul's
Paul's facial features are different from Faul's
Faul is taller than Paul was

PIA'ers claim they've somehow "debunked" the biometrical analysis conducted by the Italian forensic scientists. How so? Unless you have your own forensic team coming up with a different conclusion after conducting a biometrical analysis, I'd say it's just wishful thinking that it's been debunked. I don't think some guy on the internet claiming they "look" the same is very persuasive compared to experts in craniometry, etc.

[edit on 18-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
Plagiarism? lol Everything I post that isn't original is cited to. I guess it's my academic & legal background coming through.

Nice self congratulatory post there.

Faulcon I have already seen instances where you have lifted quotes and 'evidence' by other posters on your beloved PiD forums on here so spare me the explanation.

If this Italian investigation is so thorough and final then why aren't they
making mainstream headlines, surely a find of this magnitude would
be public knowledge at this stage no?

Firstly how can you compare something or make an analysis when
you cannot prove the existence of this 'Faul' individual?

The onus is on you Mr. Benny, faulcon and the rest of your posse
to come up with the concrete proof.

The thread was started with the allegation that Paul McCartney
died was it not? and by a ''PID'' believer.

*Paul's eye color is different from Faul's

Different? (No it isn't and this has been discussed ad infinitum on here)

**Paul's hand-writing is different from Faul's

(No it isn't once again you are selectively posting the most
significant irregularities (of which there really are none) in your desperate quest to fool people.

***Paul's facial features are different from Faul's:

Only according to you and your inconclusive photographic comparisons
which have been highlighted here again and again for their absurdity.

***Faul is taller than Paul

a) There is NO Faul and therefore no comparison can be made b) this is another point (height) which has been discussed ad nauseaum on here and refuted yet you blindly continue as if you were the only one posting.

Do you cover your ears and go 'la la la la la' when you are reading
through non ''pid'' replies?

Also, fao uncle benny, I am still awaiting an apology for your rant where
you insinuated that I was apparently lying about where I was from,
when you so 'cleverly' retorted when I posted about Paul's accent being
Scouse remember so don't go trying to gain the moral high ground
and accuse me of insulting you.
My aim isn't to insult anybody, I can appreciate differences of opinion
but I find it hard to see how people can have blind faith in ridiculous (in my opinion) theories like this one.
And as you can see I am not alone in my thoughts (thank god).


[edit on 18-8-2009 by pmexplorer]

[edit on 18-8-2009 by pmexplorer]

Originally posted by pmexplorer
Firstly how can you compare something or make an analysis when
you cannot prove the existence of this 'Faul' individual?

Remember - It is you (and a few like-minds) who have repeatedly stated that we cannot prove Fauls existence. Lets keep things simple and in perspective!

Also it`s important to ask... Who holds the standard of proof? - If you`re inferring a court of law, then we`ll leave it to a court of law. As you can see there is no court in session here, this is simply a thread on a conspiracy forum.

The onus is on you Mr. Benny, faulcon and the rest of your posse
to come up with the concrete proof.

A flawed attempt here at defining a false standard, which must be met according to whom... You?? There is no "onus" on anyone here!

*Paul's eye color is different from Faul's
Different? (No it isn't and this has been discussed ad infinitum on here)
**Paul's hand-writing is different from Faul's
(No it isn't once again you are selectively posting the most
significant irregularities (of which there really are none) in your desperate quest to fool people.
***Paul's facial features are different from Faul's:
Only according to you and your inconclusive photographic comparisons
which have been highlighted here again and again for their absurdity.
***Faul is taller than Paul
a) There is NO Faul and therefore no comparison can be made b) this is another point (height) which has been discussed ad nauseaum on here and refuted yet you blindly continue as if you were the only one posting.

Says YOU.....

And who made you "judge and jury" of "evidence" put forward??

Also, fao uncle benny, I am still awaiting an apology for your rant where
you insinuated that I was apparently lying about where I was from,
when you so 'cleverly' retorted when I posted about Paul's accent being
Scouse remember so don't go trying to gain the moral high ground
and accuse me of insulting you.

Go back and read page 64, and grow up like a good man - In your attack on my first post it`s plain to see you became confused.

I know you`re not a Liverpudlian, as any Scouser would have known that was not a Scouse accent in the video - And there`s no need to apologise, I`ll get over it somehow lol.

My aim isn't to insult anybody, I can appreciate differences of opinion
...but I find it hard to see...

I`m beginning to realise your predicament - Take some time out and chill old bean!





[edit on 18-8-2009 by Uncle Benny]

Good job pmexplorer though I get the feeling your banging your head against a fairly solid wall of ignorance.

Um, dudes, don't you reckon that Paul's family and friends might have noticed something?

And his voice has remained consistent during his entire career not to mention his song writing abilities.

The Paul McCartney of the Beatles is the same Paul of Wings. Just listen to the music. Very difficult to fake musicality like that.

Oh yeah, and the guys who started the hoax admitted it was a hoax. Go look it up. It was a joke that was never meant to be taken seriously. Really simple stuff.

Get a grip.

Originally posted by mrwiffler
Um, dudes, don't you reckon that Paul's family and friends might have noticed something?
And his voice has remained consistent during his entire career not to mention his song writing abilities.
The Paul McCartney of the Beatles is the same Paul of Wings. Just listen to the music. Very difficult to fake musicality like that.
Oh yeah, and the guys who started the hoax admitted it was a hoax. Go look it up. It was a joke that was never meant to be taken seriously. Really simple stuff.

Do yourself a favour and carry out a little bit of proper research before you post. It`ll save you making statements as above which have been covered countless times on numerous forums and threads.

EB, here i am on the 69th page because im disturbed, lol, more so than ever.

I havent read the entire thread, i'm sure its a great one, but can you narrow it down and tell me what percentage of people really think the real Paul is dead?

Originally posted by mrwiffler
Good job pmexplorer though I get the feeling your banging your head against a fairly solid wall of ignorance.

Yes, he is, b/c we know Paul was replaced. We are posting here to make other people aware of this.

Um, dudes, don't you reckon that Paul's family and friends might have noticed something?

Not all of us are "dudes." But yes, of course, they noticed.

And his voice has remained consistent during his entire career not to mention his song writing abilities.

Oh... now there we disagree. I don't think highly of "Paul's" solo work at all.

The Paul McCartney of the Beatles is the same Paul of Wings. Just listen to the music. Very difficult to fake musicality like that.

Yes, do listen. Compare "Eleanor Rigby," "For No One," etc to stuff like "My Love."

Oh yeah, and the guys who started the hoax admitted it was a hoax. Go look it up.

I don't think you have a good grasp of how PID got started. It actually started in 1967 in England when people noticed that "Paul" in the "Strawberry Fields" video looked different. In 1969, PID became a topic after a guy named "Tom" called into Russ Gibb's Detroit radio show saying Paul was dead.

Originally posted by dgtempe
EB, here i am on the 69th page because im disturbed, lol, more so than ever.

I havent read the entire thread, i'm sure its a great one, but can you narrow it down and tell me what percentage of people really think the real Paul is dead?

I know Paul is dead, but I have no idea what percentage of people think that. Most people buy the official stories of the JFK assassination & 9/11, so I don't really worry too much about what other people think :-P

I would say less people believe that Paul is dead compared to say 9/11. Why?

a) Because of the Paul is dead "hoax" of 1969. After that mainstream media hysteria, no-one wanted to believe it, or even look into it, after that for fear of ridicule.

b) Because people get attached to their celebrity heroes and it becomes hard to admit that they have flaws, especially something as massive as being an impostor.



[edit on 18-8-2009 by SednaSon]

Plus, people think that the 1969 LIFE magazine article somehow "proved" Paul wasn't dead, when all it did was prove the guy pretending to be Paul wasn't dead.

Oh, & it's really disturbing to think that people are killed & replaced.

[edit on 19-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]