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: 82
33
<< 79  80  81    83  84  85 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmond dantes

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...


Excellent refutation!

Some people really do need to get their facts right before posting erroneous nonsense.

The facial features match perfectly if you use the CORRECT pics.






posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Maybe "different expressions" gave him a different mouth, eyebrows, & ears, too - lol






posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dakudo
The facial features match perfectly if you use the CORRECT pics.



lol - Yeah, the ones that have been photoshopped & manipulated to align just perfectly.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
I can't imagine why anyone would think Paul's eyes were brown...



Hmmmm....




[edit on 26-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



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

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
Different foreheads


Same foreheads:




Different noses




Same noses:








[edit on 26-8-2009 by Dakudo]

[edit on 26-8-2009 by Dakudo]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   
I'll let people decide for themselves if they buy the "different expressions" explanation for the difference in noses. I think it's a pretty weak rationalization, personally, especially in light of the forensics.



[edit on 26-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   
I think they did the cheek injections (or whatever filler they used) too low for "Fool on the Hill":



Wider mouth that can't be explained by surgery, according to the experts:






posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
I'll let people decide for themselves if they buy the "different expressions" explanation for the difference in noses. I think it's a pretty weak rationalization, personally, especially in light of the forensics.



[edit on 26-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]


The forensic scientists admitted their research was inconclusive. Stop dealing in misinformation and start dealing in FACTS.


But then your argument would be even weaker.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Did the forensic scientists explain why Paul and 'Faul' have the same freckles near their nose?










posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   
And the very same marking on the chins?






posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Dakudo
 




Hey no point in using reason..... the guy (faulconandsnowjob) just keeps rambling on.

He's pretty much single handedly keeping the thread going.

Paul McCartney is the same guy he's always been.

Most people know that.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   
And the very same spots on the neck?







[edit on 26-8-2009 by Dakudo]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup
reply to post by Dakudo
 




Hey no point in using reason..... the guy (faulconandsnowjob) just keeps rambling on.

He's pretty much single handedly keeping the thread going.

Paul McCartney is the same guy he's always been.

Most people know that.



It's actually a girl. And yes, Paul is Paul. Some people are not observant enough to realise that unfortunately.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dakudo
The forensic scientists admitted their research was inconclusive.




It's also inconclusive that he is the same guy.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup
Hey no point in using reason..... the guy (faulconandsnowjob) just keeps rambling on.



Let me correct you, faulcon is a girl. And speaking of, being reasonable would be looking at the information objectively.




He's pretty much single handedly keeping the thread going.



And about 4 or 5 others.




Paul McCartney is the same guy he's always been.



He's the same guy he's been since 1967. Before 1967, he was a different person.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by SednaSon

Originally posted by Dakudo
The forensic scientists admitted their research was inconclusive.




It's also inconclusive that he is the same guy.


In YOUR opinion it's "inconclusive".

To the vast majority of people across the entire world, it's very conclusive that Paul was never replaced.

Unless you provide objective - as opposed to subjective - 'evidence', this situation will happily remain.

[edit on 26-8-2009 by Dakudo]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   




The left is supposedly the "real" Paul, correct? The irises, barely visible btw, are not brown. They are quite green.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by SednaSonAnd speaking of, being reasonable would be looking at the information objectively.


Faulcon doesn't. She ignores every explanation put forward for the alleged differences. For example. She posted a photo comp of Paul and Ringo appearing to be similar heights. Then a photo of 'Faul' and Ringo where 'Faul' appears taller.

Diablo then posted photos where Paul looked just as tall as 'Faul' in comparison to Ringo. Thus demonstrating that Faulcon's 'evidence' was totally flawed due to the fact that the height and angles a photo is taken from can give misleading impressions.

Faulcon just ignored this totally - as she does on the Icke forum where she has already posted this photo numerous times.


He's the same guy he's been since 1967. Before 1967, he was a different person.


In your opinion. Unfortunately, you have not one shred of actual proof for your contention.

Posting numerous bad comps seems to be the only 'evidence' PIDDERS have. That's subjective evidence - and not credible ihn the least.

[edit on 26-8-2009 by Dakudo]

[edit on 26-8-2009 by Dakudo]

[edit on 26-8-2009 by Dakudo]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ethera




The left is supposedly the "real" Paul, correct? The irises, barely visible btw, are not brown. They are quite green.


Paul has hazel eyes. Sometimes they do look a greeny colour depending on the lighting.

For example:





[edit on 26-8-2009 by Dakudo]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Same guy:








 
33
<< 79  80  81    83  84  85 >>

log in

join