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: 81
33
<< 78  79  80    82  83  84 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 09:51 PM
link   
I seem to remember a video of Paul's or maybe the movie 'Give my Regards to Broadstreet" where the door man welcomes him as MR. Campbell or Mr. Shears.

Anyone know or can find this? I'm not having much luck on youtube.

Edit; okay I finally found it.
It was 'William" not Mr. Campbell.

'William'

[edit on 25-8-2009 by MadameGuillotine]




posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 11:20 PM
link   
Why would MI-6 and CIA be involved? They would have to be in order for a double of that quality to step right in. The coverup would necessitate intel agencies.

For example, LIFE magazine was controlled by CIA and was used extensively to support the Warren Commission findings that "lone nut" Oswald shot JFK all by himself.

The British royal family would have also known the real story and contributed to the coverup by knighting New Paul. Giving him "Sir" status gives him amazing credibility.

What intrigues me is how the clues planted by the Beatles seem to have been sanctioned and even encouraged, with New Paul contributing many of them. Seems almost like an intel sponsored social experiment. A lot of work went into planting all the clues so much so that it's as if that was one of the main missions. I wonder if the Beatles with New Paul were all working together with several intel agents or assets to create songs and album art designed to test some aspects of the social fabric of modern society. Seems that one or more secret society in London with occult rituals similar to Bohemian Grove would have played a role in the switch and the coverup, as well.

There certainly are some dark secrets in all of this. On one of the C2C shows, Gary Patterson is interviewed by George Noory on the PID topic and Patterson says he was offered an original invoice for extensive body repairs on Paul McCartney's white Aston Martin dated sometime in 1966 from a body shop in England. These were repairs consistent with a serious crash. He doesn't say what month in 1966 the invoice was dated, but you would be hard pressed to find any mention of a car crash involving Paul's Aston Martin in any of the "official" biographies or the autobiography. Thought that was interesting. Patterson didn't say whether he bought the document or not.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 11:42 PM
link   



For example, LIFE magazine was controlled by CIA and was used extensively to support the Warren Commission findings that "lone nut" Oswald shot JFK all by himself.



Hmmm, and after the PID 'rumour' 'broke' in 1969 LIFE magazine ran an article abourt Paul being alive. I wonder if that fits in with the CIA scenario?



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by pmexplorer

Originally posted by aorAki

..... 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.


Are you kidding??? Of course you do! You're here, aren't you?!?



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.



pm, you've offered nothing in all these pages - how could the person who started this thread be accused of trolling?!?
Did you ever answer my questions a while back, about all the threads you started here that you seem to have lost interest in since this one started? Hmm... me again thinks he doth protest WAY too much.

Perhaps reminding others of the 'ignore' button would be useful. I do read this thread with interest (just don't have anything to add to the conversation) - but some of these post are really irritating when they end up badgering. I find it ultimately happens in most threads where people try to actually have some quality time with others of like mind. It's like trying to have a nice time with some friends and there's a letch always butting into the conversation just enough so everyone gets distracted by nonsense over and over again that has no relevance on the topic at hand, which you also seem to forget - it shouldn't be personal - don't know why it bothers you sooooo much that people even talk about this... especially on a conspiracy forum of all places. Hope you don't work for a police force or anything else with authority of judging people.




posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by MadameGuillotine

It was 'William" not Mr. Campbell.


There's also a Christmas special from the early '70's where Faul seems to be welcomed as "Billy." @ 1:25






[edit on 26-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by switching yard
What intrigues me is how the clues planted by the Beatles seem to have been sanctioned and even encouraged, with New Paul contributing many of them. Seems almost like an intel sponsored social experiment.

Yeah, like how they zoomed in on Faul's *green* eyes in SFF - almost daring people to notice those weren't Paul's brown/hazel eyes.





Seems that one or more secret society in London with occult rituals similar to Bohemian Grove would have played a role in the switch and the coverup, as well.





On one of the C2C shows, Gary Patterson is interviewed by George Noory on the PID topic...


Thanks! I'll have to listen to that.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki
Hmmm, and after the PID 'rumour' 'broke' in 1969 LIFE magazine ran an article abourt Paul being alive. I wonder if that fits in with the CIA scenario?


I know CIA agents will sit down & fabricate news stories, then publish them in "respectable" newspapers/magazines as though they were real news. That's been documented.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Originally posted by MadameGuillotine

You know the nose does look quite different.




Faulcon, how can you compare two photos with so different expressions? It is obvious that if anybody has the expression of the 2nd one, the nose will look longer. Just go in front of a mirror and try.
BTW the 2 images are 40 years apart. Nose grow as we get older. Everybody know this, it is a fact.
Please, if you want to compare Paul/Faul noses, pick up better photos.
For example, 1965 and 1967, to avoid any doubt about the exact period they were taken. And it should be easy for you to find photos with the SAME expressions. Thanks.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by kshaund
how could the person who started this thread be accused of trolling?!?

Sadly, I cannot take credit for starting this thread. Excitable Boy gets credit for that :-)


It's like trying to have a nice time with some friends and there's a letch always butting into the conversation...


lol - that is exactly right.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by magnolia_xx
Faulcon, how can you compare two photos with so different expressions?

The expression doesn't change the shape of the nose.


It is obvious that if anybody has the expression of the 2nd one, the nose will look longer.

It's actually not just a matter of appearance. Forensics have shown different measurements. I realize some people don't put a lot of stock in "science" w/ their fancy "measurements" & "analyses," but I do




... And more, always under the mustache of the McCartney Sgt Pepper's, maybe it was trying to hide something else: what the experts call it the nose-spinal or sottonasale. This is the point between the two nostrils where the nose begins to fall off the face: "This is also in this case a distinctive feature that medicine can not alter surgery. It can change the shape of the nose but not the nose-cord, "says Gabriella Carlesi. "And McCartney from the first group of photos and the second point that clearly varies...

ASK WHO WAS THE "BEATLE"
/mw83db



BTW the 2 images are 40 years apart.

The nose is different no matter how many years apart.







But Faul's nose here



looks like this one to me:






[edit on 26-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

The expression doesn't change the shape of the nose.


Sorry, I cannot agree with you.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Originally posted by switching yard
What intrigues me is how the clues planted by the Beatles seem to have been sanctioned and even encouraged, with New Paul contributing many of them. Seems almost like an intel sponsored social experiment.

Yeah, like how they zoomed in on Faul's *green* eyes in SFF - almost daring people to notice those weren't Paul's brown/hazel eyes.





Seems that one or more secret society in London with occult rituals similar to Bohemian Grove would have played a role in the switch and the coverup, as well.





On one of the C2C shows, Gary Patterson is interviewed by George Noory on the PID topic...


Thanks! I'll have to listen to that.


Excuse me Faulcon, I previously asked this to you but I did not get any reply: why in the 2nd pic of "Faul" 's supposedly green eyes the hair and the beard look greenish too? Is it because Faul is a reptilian or because the colors are not OK so the whole photo has a green tinge?
Thanks.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 08:55 AM
link   
www.turnmeondeadman.net...


^ Note the cartoon image of Faul (Bill/William) -

Bills left hand (right as we`re viewing the image) looks like a body under a hill/mound - two legs, two arms and the hand is shaped like a body.



[edit on 26-8-2009 by Uncle Benny]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by magnolia_xx

Sorry, I cannot agree with you.


Of course you can`t, and you`ll be back no doubt (again and again) to try and debunk the great "hoax."



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Any photos of Paul and Faul showing their not so pearly whites?



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Sure. As long as I go on seeing the same photos posted 1 thousand times, hilarious comparisons between pics shot with different lights and expressions, or green eyes matching with green hair
, I will go on saying PID proofs are farcical. Only people with a boring life, looking for cheap thrills, can go on asserting something so ludicrous.
When I joined this group I was quite impressed by Wired forensic analysis and by all the comparisons and considerations.
In a few days, with great relief, I was able to understand that PID probably is the most hilarious hoax I ever heard of, even because the Gavazzeni/Carlessi analysis was done on photos from PID websites, this is why I don't consider it reliable.
Obviously PIDers cannot accept to seriously answer some questions. They just deny facts. Some of them go on repeating "Paul McCartney was replaced... Paul McCartney was replaced... Paul McCartney was replaced... ". That's how they fill in their lives. I think most of them are in good faith, and that it is very sad.
And if I say "I cannot agree with you" it is just because I am trying to be polite. Otherwise, I can clearly say that I think PID is rubbish.
Better this way? LOL

PS Stop teasing people with your silly accuses of being paid agents or similar follies. BTW, while you try to bespatter PIAers you are only discreting yourself and other PIDers.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Originally posted by edmond dantes



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




That is that same erroneous card that shows that Paul's eyes are brown, when Paul McCartney said himself in 1965 that they are hazel. So that card can be ruled out as a reliable source.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
The expression doesn't change the shape of the nose.



False.

That is easily proven wrong. Try it in a mirror. Have you ever heard the expression "flaring your nostrils?"

But don't take my word for it. Let us see what people with great attention to detail for such things say.

Here is a page dealing with animation of the nose. The person talks about how difficult the nose is due to deformation with differing expressions.

www.silo3d.com...

Here is a page teaching artists how to draw a nose.




I believe this one was wearing a large hat that might have shaded the front of his nose, or it would have been more highlighted at the exact front. The sketch cuts off like the brim of a hat crosses the man's head but hasn't been drawn yet. In the full sketch, the man's lips are curled up and he's shouting in rage, it's very emotional. So look at what the other muscles of the face do to the line under and around the nose, to the shadows around the nose. Emotion and expression can even change the shape of the nose itself -- have you seen someone flare his nostrils?


www.ehow.com...



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmond dantes

That is that same erroneous card that shows that Paul's eyes are brown





posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Different foreheads





Different noses




new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 78  79  80    82  83  84 >>

log in

join