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: 90
33
<< 87  88  89    91  92  93 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki

Originally posted by Dakudo


I don't think a lay person's opinion - such as yours - is very credible regarding an absolute decision one way or the other.


Especially the very SAME lay person who was earlier claiming that Paul never even had freckles!


Now you're just being a prick


Quit the insults, ok?


and ignoring the fact that Faulcon is more knowledgeable about the law than you (from present evidence).


She claims to be. Anybody can claim to be anything on the internet.


So, Dakudo, why do you care so much about this that you are trying (not very successfully in my 'lay' opinion) to debunk this theory?


Whether you care or not is irrelevant.


Those freckles, at even a glance, don't match...different angles and distances but hey, I'm just a lay person so I mustn't have any clue about how anything operates or must not be able to have any attention to detail


Many people will disagree. So where does that leave you? It's all just opinions.


(rofl, if only you knew, but I'm not going to tell you my profession because you'll just make snide comments about it


Don't judge me by your own standards. And lay off the insults - I've already told you that. I have not insulted anyone here.


and try to turn it into a weapon for your argument). the noses do look different at times and as for those comparisons you made, they look o.k. at a glance until you actually see that there are features which don't match:


In your opinion. Where's the scientific proof?


chin, eyes, ears, nose, mouth....very subtle changes, but the bridge of the nose and the top of the eye socket change markedly...or do you choose to ignore that too.


See above.


So, we have physical changes which is what people are focussing on, but there are also the backmasking and clues embedded in albums, subliminal recurring themes and cetera.


Yeah - the best way to keep a secret is to put clues all over albumn covers and songs.

Okaaaay....


Where there' smoke there's fire (I thought you'd appreciate the tired old cliche).


Not really.




posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Originally posted by Dakudo
Maybe I should remind YOU that Paul STILL uses his passport photo to establish his identity as PAUL McCARTNEY.

B/c if they were going to install Faul as "Paul McCartney," they wouldn't have bothered to change the passport photo? lol


In 1966 - when he was allegedly dead? LOL!

Any proof Paul changed his passport in 1966?



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by berenike
 


Interesting anecdote about your housemate - is similar to my friend recently saying his friend's 12 year old daughter did the same thing without even knowing of the PID idea....

I believe anyone can become a better trained observer, but most of us aren't developing those skills, which explains why younger people could see the differences easier than older people?

I looked at the George Washington stamps - they look like the exact same image, except one is darkened, just as you can do to any images on the computer, and that brings out the next layer of darkening that then causes more shadows and stuff - though the poster said they were redone in 66/67, there's no reference for that - to me they do look like the same stamp, different copying tones - can be different from one copier to the next.




posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dakudo


Quit the insults, ok?


Are you for real?

Just because you disguise your insults with a snake's tongue doesn't mean that I can't see through you....you have persistently insulted people here too...do you understand the term 'continuum'?

Oh, and I don't consider it an insult, I consider it fact based on present evidence, and quite a perceptive observation at that!

[edit on 27-8-2009 by aorAki]



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dakudo



So, Dakudo, why do you care so much about this that you are trying (not very successfully in my 'lay' opinion) to debunk this theory?


Whether you care or not is irrelevant.


Your answer makes no sense when taken in context of the question....now who's obfuscating?


Scientific proof?

The forensic report by a forensic expert with excellent credentials...and sure, she said it wasn't conclusive (i.e. 100%) but that there was cause for querying the identity of the person....but hey, you don't accept it, so I don't know what else I can do.

[edit on 27-8-2009 by aorAki]



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 06:30 PM
link   
Dakudo has pointedly ignored the questions posed by the two pics he offers as "proof" the lens used alters facial features. Why ignore the questions as to why the background of a pic you claim is of the same person, in the same lighting, from the same angle does not have the same background? Was no one supposed to notice green trees were changed by the lens to become brown and white building like blurs? That proves something is different leading to the question of how much is actually different in the photos and WHY?

The freckles in the pics do not match shape or placement. As a female, I know beauty marks and freckles can be added in less than one minute with the proper makeup, no need for a computer.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by st0n3

 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




Yes... that's why I find 'this' forum to be lighter conspiracy... good website! Thanks :-)

Most unfortunate your post was taken out due to "off topic" - though not sure why - conspiracy is conspiracy is conspiracy - nice to know "censoring" is alive and well... thank goodness I checked out your post before it was taken out and saved the url...

[edit on 27-8-2009 by kshaund]



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki

Originally posted by Dakudo


Quit the insults, ok?


Are you for real?


Which part of that statement don't you understand?


Just because you disguise your insults with a snake's tongue


Yawn. Stick to the topic.


you have persistently insulted people here too


Where, exactly, have I personally insulted anyone using similar terms to "prick"?

C'mon - where?

Where?

Where?


Oh, and I don't consider it an insult


Well I do - so wind your neck in and stay on topic.

Understand?



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki

Originally posted by Dakudo

So, Dakudo, why do you care so much about this that you are trying (not very successfully in my 'lay' opinion) to debunk this theory?


Whether you care or not is irrelevant.



Your answer makes no sense when taken in context of the question


Whether you "care" if I'm "successfully" 'debunking' is irrelevant when taken in context of the question. That is what my reply addressed - and it makes perfect sense.



Scientific proof?

The forensic report by a forensic expert with excellent credentials...and sure, she said it wasn't conclusive (i.e. 100%)


Which demonstrates that the experts do not consider their observations as "proof".

In other words, they could be WRONG.



but hey, you don't accept it, so I don't know what else I can do.


Don't do anything. You are quite free to accept evidence taken from a biased PID site, rather than original photos, as credible evidence.

Myself and others, understandably, do not.



[edit on 27-8-2009 by Dakudo]



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ethera
Dakudo has pointedly ignored the questions


I haven't seen them, sorry.


posed by the two pics he offers as "proof" the lens used alters facial features. Why ignore the questions as to why the background of a pic you claim is of the same person, in the same lighting, from the same angle does not have the same background?


It does.


Was no one supposed to notice green trees were changed by the lens to become brown


Are you kidding?



In the first photo, there are no trees in the background because he is standing in a different position!

He is standing in a different position in all THREE photos.


The second and third photos show the trees to be the same colour.


and white building like blurs?


LOL! It's because the LENS is different.



That proves something is different leading to the question of how much is actually different in the photos and WHY?


See above. Your sceptism is totally misplaced. No conspiracy here.....

You need to look at the photos more carefully.


The freckles in the pics do not match shape or placement.


In your opinion. Without any forensic evidence your claim is just that - an opinion.

I simply leave it to others to make their own judgement.


As a female, I know beauty marks and freckles can be added in less than one minute with the proper makeup, no need for a computer.


So why would anyone add freckles that don't "match"?

Pretty pointless thing to do, isn't it?

So what is your explanation for this pointless excercise?

I'd love to know.



[edit on 27-8-2009 by Dakudo]



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dakudo



The freckles in the pics do not match shape or placement.



In your opinion. Without any forensic evidence your claim is just that - an opinion.

It's funny how forensics are necessary to support your argument, but when they don't support your argument, they're not credible.


As a female, I know beauty marks and freckles can be added in less than one minute with the proper makeup, no need for a computer.



So why would anyone add freckles that don't "match"?

Pretty pointless thing to do, isn't it?

So what is your explanation for this pointless excercise (sic)?


To try to make someone (Faul) look like someone else (Paul).


... the disguise specialists would alter hair color, apply facial hair, modify jaw lines, improvise dental work, create wrinkles, change complexion, or add glasses and warts to match any photographic documents ...

Wallace, Robert and H. Keith Melton. Spycraft. USA: Dutton, 2008 at 387


They just didn't do a great job of matching them up.


[edit on 27-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Originally posted by Dakudo



The freckles in the pics do not match shape or placement.



In your opinion. Without any forensic evidence your claim is just that - an opinion.

It's funny how forensics are necessary to support your argument, but when they don't support your argument, they're not credible.


Yes - properly conducted, UNBIASED forensics using ORIGINAL photos!

The Wired scientists did not use credible, ORIGINAL photos.


As a female, I know beauty marks and freckles can be added in less than one minute with the proper makeup, no need for a computer.



So why would anyone add freckles that don't "match"?

Pretty pointless thing to do, isn't it?

So what is your explanation for this pointless excercise (sic)?



To try to make someone (Faul) look like someone else (Paul).


By putting freckles in the WRONG places? (according to you).

Okaaaay....

Tell me Faulcon, what would be the point in putting the freckles in the wrong places?

I'd love to know.


They just didn't do a great job of matching them up.


These illuminati doctors/make up artists must have pretty poor observational skills, mustn't they? LOL!

Funny that you PIDDERS can see that they don't "match" but experts in plastic surgery/make up/whatever couldn't see it.

But we're still supposed to believe that these bumbling illuminati doctors/make up artists/whatever were good enough to 'modify' the rest of the imposter in order to carry out one of the greatest impostor frauds in world history?

Okaaaay....


[edit on 27-8-2009 by Dakudo]



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dakudo



The freckles in the pics do not match shape or placement.


In your opinion. Without any forensic evidence your claim is just that - an opinion.


...and in your opinion they do so it appears we are at some sort of impasse.
Without forensic evidence YOUR claim is just that as well...an opinion....and an opinion that seems reasonable until you bundle ALL the information together to gain an appreciation of the bigger picture.

Again I ask: why do you care so much about this that you feel the need to try to debunk everything about the PID theory?



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dakudo


Yes - properly conducted, UNBIASED forensics using ORIGINAL photos!

The Wired scientists did not use credible, ORIGINAL photos.


If this is your beef with the forensic analysis why don't you send them undoctored pictures. I would but I'm sure that people would question my biases.

Even better, why don't you ask them to conduct the same research on undoctored pics? That way we can all step away from accusations of bias and see what comes.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Ethera
 


DOH! The PID experts here don't even understand focal length and depth of field.

The pictures background is blurred because of the settings of the camera, the focal length (F-stop). The one without blur is taken with a long focal length, everything in focus, the other pic used a short focal length which makes closer objects sharp and farther objects blurred. It also changes the apparent size of the objects photographed.

Not different backgrounds just blurred, out of focus background.

Before you all yap on about evidence and Italian photographic analysis you should all learn a bit about photography. Jeez no wonder you guys fall for this hoax you have no clue what you're looking at...



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Whew! It's really hard to keep track of this thread with all the constant emotional bickering and the dueling photo comparisons that just go on and on. Maybe I'm an exception apart from most on this thread, but I agree with faulcon that many of the photos plainly show different people claiming to be Paul McCartney. A few of the shots are so feminine, I definitely see the "Pauline" double as some have suggested. I'm not sure how many doubles there are in all the photos, two it seems, but maybe more than two. But hey, that's what I see and I know everyone has their own opinion.

Back a ways in the thread, someone was interested in my opinion of voice synthesis technology. I've known about it for years and that's what I believe they used on the faked phone calls from United 93, but that's another thread. So yeah, they can make someone's voice sound exactly like someone else and it is unknown how long this technology has been available to the intel communities. I don't know if it works for singing as well as the spoken word but I imagine it would.

I also like the PID theory earlier in the thread that they could have used Original Paul tracks (like song demo tracks they already had in the can) and built mixes around those, then they also used a voice sound-alike person in the studio to impersonate Paul's voice but we never saw that person, and in addition, they used New Paul in public appearances because his resemblance is so close and voice close enough and that would be the guy we all still see today. All of the above men would have been very talented.

I've begun to do some research on what The Beatles and others have said in interviews about how the songs were created, who wrote which parts of each song and so forth. The first one that is suspicious (meaning I think someone wasn't telling the truth about the song's origins and development) is Eleanor Rigby. I'm not going to go into the details of my suspicions here at this point, but suffice to say that song and beyond is were there are major differences in how Lennon remembers it's origin versus the recollections New Paul and others. Eleanor Rigby was reportedly recorded in April 1966.

Does anyone know if there is any reason why the switch couldn't have happened prior to the April recording sessions? Would February/March of 1966 for the switch have been too early to even consider and reasons why? I guess I'm trying to arrive at a possible date range for the switch. I'm open minded to Paul not being at any of the USA tour dates of summer '66.

This is macabre, but I am also wondering if a suicide in a car could have been staged. Blew his mind out in a car using a revolver. If a murder was staged to look like a suicide but the innermost circle believed it was suicide, then that would explain why everyone was on board instantly to cover it up and keep silent. Maybe they wanted to keep The Beatles going for not only business but artistic reasons and felt they needed to install a double as opposed to canceling the tour, splitting up the group, and calling it quits.

This isn't a theory I've decided on. but it is currently in my imagination. Suppose it was a staged suicide and the government stepped in and offered help with a double for the "good of the nation" and to prevent so many teenage girls from having mental breakdowns over it.

Just theorizing, that's all. I know everyone thinks that's absurd..."what could have driven Paul of all people to suicide? No one would have believed it." Well, that would be part of the big mystery wouldn't it?



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki
Even better, why don't you ask them to conduct the same research on undoctored pics?


The forensics experts can tell when photos have been doctored.

I do not think only a forensics expert can decide whether freckle patterns match. Scientific technical, or other specialized knowledge isn't required to see that they don't.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Another quick note... a demo for a song called "Suicide" was recorded by someone representing himself as Paul during the white album sessions. "Paul" claims to have written that song (which can be heard on bootlegs) and offered it to Frank Sinatra who is reported to have immediately tossed the demo and refused to have anything to do with it like "you've got to be kidding me."



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by switching yard
Back a ways in the thread, someone was interested in my opinion of voice synthesis technology. I've known about it for years and that's what I believe they used on the faked phone calls from United 93, but that's another thread. So yeah, they can make someone's voice sound exactly like someone else and it is unknown how long this technology has been available to the intel communities. I don't know if it works for singing as well as the spoken word but I imagine it would.


This alone kind of gives it away from Flight 93:


Caller: "Mom? This is Mark Brigham."

www.911lies.org...


The article continues:



...These voices were the result of the technological wonder called voice morphing in which the sound of anybody's voice can be duplicated in real time. If the full range of the subject's voice has been recorded, which usually can happen in a 10 minute phone conversation, and then fed into the computer software, anybody speaking the subject's language can very convincingly sound like the subject person on the phone to his or her family, friends, coworkers, etc. etc...

www.911lies.org...




... By taking just a 10-minute digital recording of Steiner's voice, scientist George Papcun is able, in near real time, to clone speech patterns and develop an accurate facsimile...

www.washingtonpost.com...



they used New Paul in public appearances because his resemblance is so close and voice close enough and that would be the guy we all still see today.



"The voice is easy to simulate and doubles constantly study video and audio records," argued al-Asadi.

www.rense.com...



major differences in how Lennon remembers it's origin versus the recollections New Paul and others. Eleanor Rigby was reportedly recorded in April 1966.

How would Faul know? He wasn't there. That guy couldn't write something like "Eleanor Rigby" to save his life. What's my proof? He has not written anything of that caliber in over 40 yrs. If he hasn't done it by now, it's just not going to happen.


Would February/March of 1966 for the switch have been too early to even consider and reasons why? I guess I'm trying to arrive at a possible date range for the switch. I'm open minded to Paul not being at any of the USA tour dates of summer '66.

I'm pretty confident it's Paul at least until the Memphis interview of Aug 19, 1966. However, if you find evidence suggesting otherwise, then please present it.


This is macabre, but I am also wondering if a suicide in a car could have been staged. Blew his mind out in a car using a revolver.

There are hints at a head injury. I think Paul was shot in the head execution style, w/ the car accident staged. Of course, it's possible that a suicide was staged, too...


If a murder was staged to look like a suicide but the innermost circle believed it was suicide, then that would explain why everyone was on board instantly to cover it up and keep silent.

That is plausible.


This isn't a theory I've decided on. but it is currently in my imagination. Suppose it was a staged suicide and the government stepped in and offered help with a double for the "good of the nation" and to prevent so many teenage girls from having mental breakdowns over it.

I think this is the story they will try to sell. Personally, I think they took him out b/c they wanted him to do or say stuff he wasn't willing to, so they replaced him w/ a stooge who would do/say whatever they wanted. He was rewarded w/ an OBE...


Just theorizing, that's all. I know everyone thinks that's absurd..."what could have driven Paul of all people to suicide? No one would have believed it."

Maybe that's why they decided against having Paul "suicided," b/c no one would have bought it. A "car crash" on the other hand... much more plausible.


[edit on 27-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 87  88  89    91  92  93 >>

log in

join