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: 79
33
<< 76  77  78    80  81  82 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmond dantes


McCartney was actually the tallest (closer to 6'), followed by Harrison (5'11") and Lennon (5'10-1/2"). Starr's actual height was closer to 5'7".


wiki.answers.com...



But you have to ask which Paul they're referring to... Original Paul was said to have been 5'11":





posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Originally posted by Uncle Benny
Paul McCartney was no where near 5' 11 in height - He was 5' 9 1/2 tops! He wore lifts in his shoes to make him appear taller

I know some people think that about the lifts, but I don't. I don't see how he would have fit 2 inch lifts in his shoes. But yeah, Faul is around 2 - 2 1/2 inches taller than Paul.


A typical faulcon response.

Your so called 'proof' is shown up by other users as being completely fabricated, and what do you do?
Post more pictures and deny it as if there was never any other evidence
used to show that it is in fact the contrary.


And you expect your opinion to be respected and taken seriously!

You can't prove the existence of this 'Faul' person yet as soon as your precious photos are shown up for what they are, you immediately try and save face by claiming things like 'well Faul was taller / had a bigger forehead / nose / ears' etc etc.

It really is tiresome.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by pmexplorer
Your so called 'proof' is shown up by other users as being completely fabricated,


How were those pictures shown to be "completely fabricated"? I think you just don't like them b/c they show a rather large height discrepancy between Paul & Faul.


You can't prove the existence of this 'Faul' person

Au contraire. In fact, it's been proven. Just look at the forensic report.


had a bigger forehead


Faul does have a bigger forehead than Paul did.




[edit on 25-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob


How were those pictures shown to be "completely fabricated"? I think you just don't like them b/c they show a rather large height discrepancy between Paul & Faul.


Your theory is fabricated. The height difference is a non starter as diabolo
has clearly presented above. You are as ever just seeing it how you want to see it and not how it really is.


Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
Au contraire. In fact, it's been proven. Just look at the forensic report.


Lol. Is this the infamous italian report by the journos with zero
scientific credibility? That report that hasn't received ANY mainstream media attention?



Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
Faul did have a bigger forehead.


Okay so to prove this you post a picture of Paul mcCartney with a big mop top fringe covering his forehead from the mid 60's and then use the other in which he has his fringe swept back exposing his forehead to prove this point!

Edit: You don't have to be an expert to see the pic on the right above has been stretched to some extent also.

I mean come on faulcon how stupid do you think people browsing this thread really are? If that is the best you can do and let me state that this is certainly not the first time you have made such a ridiculous claim backed up by equally laughable 'evidence'.

Your report card today reads 'must try harder, much harder!".

Or as the hip youngsters say on the interweb, EPIC FAIL



[edit on 25-8-2009 by pmexplorer]



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by pmexplorer
Your theory is fabricated.

My "theory" is fabricated? It's been proven Paul was replaced.


The height difference is a non starter as diabolo
has clearly presented above.

the height difference is clear to see


Is this the infamous italian report by the journos with zero
scientific credibility?

And you, not an expert in any scientific field, are somehow qualified to make that judgment? I realize you have to try to discredit the report, but come on. lol


...Gabriella Carlesi and Francesco Gavazzeni are an odd pair: she is un'anatomopatologa, he a computer scientist. She is an expert in the recognition craniometrico, he puts the potential of computers available to a discipline born in the mid nineteenth century: the craniometria note. According to Zingarelli, "is the science that deals with the measurement of the skull in relation to anthropology and comparative all'Anatomia. Now, to identify a person has absolute damage the two exams: the fingerprints and the DNA (if the sampling is done properly, which is not always the case). In the absence of fingertips and DNA samples of the methodology used all'antropometria identification and, in particular, to craniometria, based on some specific points. In the face of anyone, unchangeable and codified by the French nell'Ottocento Paul Broca. What are these? In scientific terms we could not define the distance between the pupils, the intersection between the nose and arched sopraccigliari the point where the base of the nose is detached from the upper lip, the shape of the jaw and Regulation, the ear. Then there's the shape of the skull...

ASK WHO WAS THE "BEATLE"
/mw83db



That report that hasn't received ANY mainstream media attention?

And you're surprised by this?



Okay so to prove this you post a picture of Paul mcCartney with a big mop top fringe covering his forehead from the mid 60's and then use the other in which he has his fringe swept back exposing his forehead to prove this point!

I posted that picture b/c it showed how Faul has a larger forehead.


Edit: You don't have to be an expert to see the pic on the right above has been stretched to some extent also.

No, it wasn't. Faul really does have a massive forehead.


I mean come on faulcon how stupid do you think people browsing this thread really are? If that is the best you can do and let me state that this is certainly not the first time you have made such a ridiculous claim backed up by equally laughable 'evidence'.

Go back & review the definition of "evidence."



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by diabolo1
You do realize that there are more photos of Paul being a lot taller then Ringo then your one where it APPEARS they are the same height??



Oh dear lord give me patience -

Paul was taller than Ringo, Faul is taller than Ringo - Faul is taller than Paul - confusing you is it?

There is noboby on this thread disputing that Paul was not taller than Ringo, capice...?



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
My "theory" is fabricated? It's been proven Paul was replaced.


Oh has it now? Really! So what are we doing here on page 78 or whatever it is. Because I sure as heck haven't seen as concrete proof of this ridiculous claim. Care to post this evidence so i can peruse it and make my own mind up please? And if this is going to consist of more of the pictures you;ve posted at least a dozen times now please don't waste your breath.


Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
the height difference is clear to see


Yes Paul is taller than Ringo. AND? What of it?
Your claim above was immediately debunked by diabolo
and it has been throughly examined earlier in this thread but yet again
you resort to your repetitive nature and bring up the same old nonsense again and again as if it was some great new find or something.



And you, not an expert in any scientific field, are somehow qualified to make that judgment? I realize you have to try to discredit the report, but come on. lol


Oh so you know what I have and haven't studied now do you faulcon?
Quite a claim considering you don't know me from Adam but I shouldn't be surprised that you would be sure of something you don't really know anything about, after all you've made a name or yourself on here for that same attribute.


Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

...Gabriella Carlesi and Francesco Gavazzeni are an odd pair: she is un'anatomopatologa, he a computer scientist. She is an expert in the recognition craniometrico, he puts the potential of computers available to a discipline born in the mid nineteenth century: the craniometria note.


He can put the potential of computers available to a discipline born in the mid 19th century all he likes, it doesn't make him credible. I never stated that I doubted their academic qualifications.
There are professors out there who believe the world isn't round, again I ask you, if this study is so factual and bullet proof why hasn't it been received by a wider audience. Let me guess, the dark forces have threatened their children perhaps?



Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
That report that hasn't received ANY mainstream media attention?

And you're surprised by this?


I'm not surprised in the slightest. Why would I be? That article is nothing more than a bit of harmless fun. I'm surprised that you have made it your holy grail, that you keep going lying on for support when times get tough.
And your way of answering a question with a question says it all really.


Okay so to prove this (height issue) you post a picture of Paul mcCartney with a big mop top fringe covering his forehead from the mid 60's and then use the other in which he has his fringe swept back exposing his forehead to prove this point!
I posted that picture b/c it showed how Faul has a larger forehead.


Edit: You don't have to be an expert to see the pic on the right above has been stretched to some extent also.


No, it wasn't. Faul really does have a massive forehead.


Yet you clearly dismiss what I have just posted above as if it is not even there, do I have to spell it out for you?
You posted a picture of Paul with a huge fringe on one side and one where he has no fringe at all which exposes his forehead on the other!

You don't happen to think that it might be quite likely that it would appear he has a large forehead when on one it is compeltely covered and the next completely exposed!!!

And as I have stated above, that picture has clearly been stretched for that purpose. And I would presume lifted from one of your favourite "pid'' forums yet again.

Give up while you're behind faulcon, it's not funny or clever.


[edit on 25-8-2009 by pmexplorer]



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Where your theory falls apart is the CIA MI6 stuff.

WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY?

Why would they care about the Beatles?

Research where the replacement came from.

I guess thats only if you want irrefutable evidence.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob


Okay then faulcon let's have it?

What are the supposed discrepancies with this one eh?

Oh dear.


Let me guess Paul has a bigger forehead right? Oh darn, wait it's just his hair covering it again, dammit!!

Oh look George has too maybe he was killed and replaced by a body double too?

Don't like the look of them sideburns John, definitely something up there too?

I reckon they're fakes, that's right i do, no one could be that naturally hairy could they? Hmmmm........


[edit on 25-8-2009 by pmexplorer]



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Benny
Paul was taller than Ringo, Faul is taller than Ringo - Faul is taller than Paul - confusing you is it?




LOL.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by pmexplorer

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob


Okay then faulcon let's have it?

What are the supposed discrepancies with this one eh?



Faul's head is larger compared to George's than Paul's is...which is what we've been saying all along.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by pmexplorer
Because I sure as heck haven't seen as concrete proof of this ridiculous claim. Care to post this evidence so i can peruse it and make my own mind up please? And if this is going to consist of more of the pictures you;ve posted at least a dozen times now please don't waste your breath.

I think you just don't have a good handle on what evidence is.




Yes Paul is taller than Ringo. AND? What of it?

And Faul is taller than Paul. People don't generally grow 2 1/2 inches in their mid-20's. Do you see how a difference in height supports the theory that Paul was replaced, or do I need to walk you thru it more slowly?


Your claim above was immediately debunked by diabolo

It hasn't been "debunked."



Oh so you know what I have and haven't studied now do you faulcon?

I would be pretty shocked if you had a scientific background, b/c you don't seem to understand the forensic science at all.


I never stated that I doubted their academic qualifications.

They're the experts, & yet they're not "credible?" I think they just came to a conclusion you don't like.


that you keep going lying on for support when times get tough

Of curse, I'm going to use forensic evidence to support my position. Why wouldn't I?



You posted a picture of Paul with a huge fringe on one side and one where he has no fringe at all which exposes his forehead on the other!

I posted a picture where the difference in forehead size was plain to see.


And as I have stated above, that picture has clearly been stretched for that purpose.

It hasn't been stretched. Pictures of Faul aren't stretched. Pics of Paul are stretched to make him look more like Faul.


[edit on 25-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by brocket99
Where your theory falls apart is the CIA MI6 stuff.
...
Why would they care about the Beatles?

Are you kidding?


I guess thats only if you want irrefutable evidence.

It's not necessary to determine where the replacement came from to prove Paul was replaced. That's not the purpose of this thread, & may not even be possible.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by pmexplorer


Lol. Is this the infamous italian report by the journos with zero
scientific credibility? That report that hasn't received ANY mainstream media attention?
]


A) Big fella, just because it hasn't received any mainstream attention doesn't mean diddly squat.

B) Big fella, those forensic experts have much better credentials than you (from what I have read of yours) or I or probably anyone who has posted in this thread who isn't a forensic specialist.
I take it that you didn't look at my post which gave some background on the chief investigator, even though it was during the debate about the forensics, or that you have ignored it.

Zero scientific credibility?
Balls, inspector!
It appears that now you are just trolling as you never have anything to offer other than either badmouth people or give big ups to your mateys who agree with you (you see, I can say the same tired stuff that you do....how's it look from where you are?).

Perhaps the reason it hasn't received any mainstream attention is because it is ridiculous, too too ridiculous to even contemplate am I right?
Gee, could that be by design?

I seriously can't understand how you can't notice the differences. I guess there's a mental block that just won't allow you to?

Finally, big Fella, keep on posting, it gives me a reason to come back here



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by brocket99
Why would they care about the Beatles?

Research where the replacement came from.

I guess thats only if you want irrefutable evidence.



There are those in the intelligence sector who... "want to keep your mind right," for want of a better phrase.

The Beatles were a global phenomenon - they influenced millions of young minds - Now who would be interested in influencing the Beatles eh...? I`ll let you think about that one.



"The Sgt. Pepper album... compresses the evolutionary development of musicology and much of the history of Eastern and Western sound in a new tympanic complexity. Then add psychedelic drugs. Millions of kids turned-on pharmacologically, listening to stoned-out electronic music designed specifically for the suggestible, psychedelecized nervous system by stoned-out, long-haired minstrels. This... is the most powerful brainwashing device our planet has ever known.Indeed, if you were an observer from a more highly evolved planet wondering how to change human psychology and human cultural development (in other words if you were a divine messenger), would you not inevitably combine electrical energies from outside with biochemical catalysts inside to accomplish your mutation?"


^ Dr. Timothy Leary from his, "Thank God For the Beatles" essay.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Originally posted by pmexplorer
Because I sure as heck haven't seen as concrete proof of this ridiculous claim. Care to post this evidence so i can peruse it and make my own mind up please? And if this is going to consist of more of the pictures you;ve posted at least a dozen times now please don't waste your breath.

I think you just don't have a good handle on what evidence is.




Yes Paul is taller than Ringo. AND? What of it?

And Faul is taller than Paul. People don't generally grow 2 1/2 inches in their mid-20's.



You posted a picture of Paul with a huge fringe on one side and one where he has no fringe at all which exposes his forehead on the other!

I posted a picture where the difference in forehead size was plain to see.


And as I have stated above, that picture has clearly been stretched for that purpose.

It hasn't been stretched. Pictures of Faul aren't stretched. Pics of Paul are stretched to make him look more like Faul.


[edit on 25-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



Can't be bothered quoting/unquoting every part.

Please don't try to patronise me like your mate uncle benny has recently.
Your idea of evidence is clearly flawed.
I asked you a direct question two posts above that you completely ignored as you seemingly do not have an answer which says it all really.

The 'forehead size was plain for all to see' - Yes it was because of the pictures you picked out, for the THIRD time, one where Paul has a huge fringe and one where he doesn't. Post a picture of someone with a beard and someone without and you can claim they have a big chin aswell.

You cannot prove Paul's heights from your photos. And there is no 'faul' except for in your head of course.
Diabolo has proven above that the different photographic perspectives
and image capturing can be extremely deceptive and your reliance on photos which have already been discussed and explained smacks of desperation.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by pmexplorer
Your idea of evidence is clearly flawed.

What is your idea of evidence? B/c I've given my idea of evidence based on law. What is yours based on?


The 'forehead size was plain for all to see'

You can see that Paul's forehead was smaller than Faul's even w/ the hair over it. It's really not that hard.


You cannot prove Paul's heights from your photos.

Yes, you can. You can use Ringo's or Paul's dad, as a point of reference to compare height.


And there is no 'faul' except for in your head of course.

Actually, Faul was in the Beatles for a while.


Diabolo has proven above that the different photographic perspectives
and image capturing can be extremely deceptive

He hasn't "proven" anything. All he's done is post a bunch of pictures. The ones I posted are from straight on & show feet.

[edit on 25-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki

A) Big fella just because it hasn't received any mainstream attention doesn't mean diddly squat.

B) Big fella those forensic experts have much better credentials than you (from what I have read of yours) or I or probably anyone who has posted in this thread who isn't a forensic specialist.
I take it that you didn't look at my post which gave some background on the chief investigator, even though it was during the debate about the forensics, or that you have ignored it.

Zero scientific credibility?
Balls, inspector!
It appears that now you are just trolling as you never have anything to offer other than either badmouth people or give big ups to your mateys who agree with you (you see, I can say the same tired stuff that you do....how's it look from where you are?).

Perhaps the reason it hasn't received any mainstream attention is because it is ridiculous, too too ridiculous to even contemplate am I right?
Gee, could that be by design?

I seriously can't understand how you can't notice the differences. I guess there's a mental block that just won't allow you to?

Finally, big Fella keep on posting, it gives me a reason to come back here



Keep your petty little comments to yourself please!

It looks fine from where I am,don't worry. I don't spend my days on ''pid'' forums with other believers (matey) manipulating images and creating fancy youtube videos to try and establish this fantasy / myth as something
other than the hoax it was in the 1960's.

The only people with a mental block here are the ones who believe that
Paul McCartney is dead. Too ridiculous to even contemplate?
Yes that certainly sounds about right. When the man is alive and well and performing to this day. If he had passed away recently I might understand it, as you can see with the Michael Jackson case at the moment it's all speculation over his death etc.

And how dare you accuse me of trolling when your dear beloved faulcon can get away with posting the same old photo analysis time and time again without fail and without repercussion.

I ask you.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki

A) Big fella, just because it hasn't received any mainstream attention doesn't mean diddly squat.

B) Big fella, those forensic experts have much better credentials than you (from what I have read of yours) or I or probably anyone who has posted in this thread who isn't a forensic specialist.
I take it that you didn't look at my post which gave some background on the chief investigator, even though it was during the debate about the forensics, or that you have ignored it.

Zero scientific credibility?
Balls, inspector!
It appears that now you are just trolling as you never have anything to offer other than either badmouth people or give big ups to your mateys who agree with you (you see, I can say the same tired stuff that you do....how's it look from where you are?).

Perhaps the reason it hasn't received any mainstream attention is because it is ridiculous, too too ridiculous to even contemplate am I right?
Gee, could that be by design?

I seriously can't understand how you can't notice the differences. I guess there's a mental block that just won't allow you to?

Finally, big Fella, keep on posting, it gives me a reason to come back here



Nicely and sincerely put aorAki


This pmexplorer sure loves "his" Faul!




top topics



 
33
<< 76  77  78    80  81  82 >>

log in

join