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: 91
33
<< 88  89  90    92  93  94 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 11:12 PM
link   
Thanks for the insights. I'll have to ponder all this some more. Hmmm.




posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 11:39 PM
link   
Switching Yard, going back to what you were saying about a possible earlier date of demise, here is a timeline.

July 1, 1966 - Tokyo




July 4 or 5, 1966



Aug 19, 1966 - Memphis





Aug 22, 1966 - NY




Aug 28, 1966 - LA




Aug 29 - San Francisco



Aug 19 v Aug 29, 1966


Nov 1966 - Kenya trip




Dec 18, 1966



Dec 20, 1966 - EMI studios



Winter 1966 - is that supposed to be Paul?




[edit on 27-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dakudo






Excellent catch! I hadn't noticed the freckles. Freckles can fade over time or appear after exposure to sun, but no two people will have the exact same configuration of persistent freckles, not even twins. It's a clincher.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by elfie
I hadn't noticed the freckles. Freckles can fade over time or appear after exposure to sun, but no two people will have the exact same configuration of persistent freckles, not even twins. It's a clincher.


Sorry, but it's not a "clincher." We've already discussed how freckles are easy to fake either w/ photo-tampering or w/ make-up. And anyway, the freckles don't even match.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Originally posted by elfie
I hadn't noticed the freckles. Freckles can fade over time or appear after exposure to sun, but no two people will have the exact same configuration of persistent freckles, not even twins. It's a clincher.


Sorry, but it's not a "clincher." We've already discussed how freckles are easy to fake either w/ photo-tampering or w/ make-up. And anyway, the freckles don't even match.


There's no makeup in any of those photos. If you look very carefully you can see they are practically moles (as in beauty marks). The placement, spacing and shapes are consistent through out the series. If you ever have the opportunity to meet him I'm sure you'll be scanning his face for them, like his recent comment about the ears! Interesting they were not addressed during the forensic examination.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 12:27 AM
link   
Whoever performed the plastic surgery on Faul to make him look like Faul, well, do you think they would leave out marks like freckles? Come on.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by SednaSon
 


Any evidence of surgery would have been highlighted by the forensics team and is noticeably absent from the article of the report (note: the actual report has not been published). I checked google for recent images and in several photos the freckles on the right side can still be seen.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by elfie
There's no makeup in any of those photos. If you look very carefully you can see they are practically moles (as in beauty marks).


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


... [T]he 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...



If you ever have the opportunity to meet him

I really have no interest in ever meeting him. It would be like meeting an Elvis impersonator. Big deal :shrug:


his recent comment about the ears! Interesting they were not addressed during the forensic examination.

I guess you missed the posts where I quoted the experts findings on the ears.




... Technically called trago. All we have two, one by ear, but the characteristics are different for every human being. "In Germany, a recognition procedure craniometrico, identification of the right ear even tantamount to fingerprint, ie the collection of fingerprints," recalls Carlesi. But what trago? It is the small cartilage covered with skin that overhangs the entrance to the ear and ear canal, like the whole ear, not be changed surgically. How then to explain the differences between the right ear of Paul McCartney in a previous snapshot to 1966 and probably a built in the late nineties? It is not only to betray trago a different conformation as well as other parts, just above the ear canal entrance, measurements and dell'antelice propeller. Things that ordinary mortals might seem irrelevant or unclear, but instead, every day, allowing the experts to locate and identify persons, bodies, photographs...

ASK WHO WAS THE "BEATLE"
/mw83db




[edit on 28-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by elfie
Any evidence of surgery would have been highlighted by the forensics team and is noticeably absent from the article of the report


Yet they talk about how not even surgery could account for some of the differences:


...Gabriella Carlesi adds an additional element: "Compared to the previous picture, that of Sgt Pepper's show clearly that the commessura lip, that is the line formed by the lips of the two, it was suddenly stretched. Which obviously is not possible and that the whiskers can not camouflage. In other words, the phenomenon is all too frequently these days, the lips can be inflated and increased in volume, but the width of the lip commessura can not vary that much. May be slight, but this is not the case for the photos examined: here the difference between the before and after is too strong to have been caused by any surgery. 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



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 01:38 AM
link   
reply to post by faulconandsnowjob
 


They are comparing an early 60's pic with a pic of Paul now. It's the same ear with age! Now I'm beginning to doubt the experts. Notice how the lobe has stretched? Natural aging. The cartilage in the nose will sag, etc., etc.

www.theregister.co.uk...


Do our ears grow longer with age?

...They point out that since the body shrinks somewhat with age, the ears may appear to have grown longer (and larger) while actually staying the same size. So what does science say? In fact, our ears do grow longer with age. Indeed, they grow throughout our lives.

In 1990, Drs L Pelz and B Stein from Medical Branch of the University of Rostock in Germany measured the ears of 1,271 children and adolescents. They report in Padiatrie und Grenzgebiete that ear length increases "steadily and annually", but ear width remains the same....



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by elfie
They are comparing an early 60's pic with a pic of Paul now. It's the same ear with age! Now I'm beginning to doubt the experts.


Maybe they should have compared these:










posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by elfie
reply to post by faulconandsnowjob
 


They are comparing an early 60's pic with a pic of Paul now. It's the same ear with age! Now I'm beginning to doubt the experts. Notice how the lobe has stretched? Natural aging. The cartilage in the nose will sag, etc., etc.

www.theregister.co.uk...


Do our ears grow longer with age?

...They point out that since the body shrinks somewhat with age, the ears may appear to have grown longer (and larger) while actually staying the same size. So what does science say? In fact, our ears do grow longer with age. Indeed, they grow throughout our lives.

In 1990, Drs L Pelz and B Stein from Medical Branch of the University of Rostock in Germany measured the ears of 1,271 children and adolescents. They report in Padiatrie und Grenzgebiete that ear length increases "steadily and annually", but ear width remains the same....

You are totally right Elfie! This forensic analysis was so accurate that even someone just looking at the photos can tell he is the same man.
But you know, PIDers refuse reality. Reality is so simple and boring sometimes, better dream of conspiracies and refuse to see things objectively.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Originally posted by elfie
I hadn't noticed the freckles. Freckles can fade over time or appear after exposure to sun, but no two people will have the exact same configuration of persistent freckles, not even twins. It's a clincher.


Sorry, but it's not a "clincher." We've already discussed how freckles are easy to fake either w/ photo-tampering or w/ make-up. And anyway, the freckles don't even match.

Faulcon, how can you say that they don't match, when they actually match? It is sad to see that you still go on posting the same photos (I think you posted some of them at least 10 times, it is quite boring) and go on saying the very same things, even when they are actually confuted by mere observation and good sense.
By the way, you are saying that the Illuminati doctors would have been reproducing freckles on the fake Paul McCartney, so a very meticulous job... and then they would have put ridiculous fake years, so clearly visible?
Where is the logic in your construction?



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by switching yard
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?


Yes, you are just theorizing. Please, if you believe that Paul McCartney was replaced, provide proofs. Not theories.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Originally posted by elfie
There's no makeup in any of those photos. If you look very carefully you can see they are practically moles (as in beauty marks).


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


... [T]he 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...



If you ever have the opportunity to meet him

I really have no interest in ever meeting him. It would be like meeting an Elvis impersonator. Big deal :shrug:


his recent comment about the ears! Interesting they were not addressed during the forensic examination.

I guess you missed the posts where I quoted the experts findings on the ears.




... Technically called trago. All we have two, one by ear, but the characteristics are different for every human being. "In Germany, a recognition procedure craniometrico, identification of the right ear even tantamount to fingerprint, ie the collection of fingerprints," recalls Carlesi. But what trago? It is the small cartilage covered with skin that overhangs the entrance to the ear and ear canal, like the whole ear, not be changed surgically. How then to explain the differences between the right ear of Paul McCartney in a previous snapshot to 1966 and probably a built in the late nineties? It is not only to betray trago a different conformation as well as other parts, just above the ear canal entrance, measurements and dell'antelice propeller. Things that ordinary mortals might seem irrelevant or unclear, but instead, every day, allowing the experts to locate and identify persons, bodies, photographs...

ASK WHO WAS THE "BEATLE"
/mw83db




[edit on 28-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]


Anyway, you snipped part of my reply mid-sentence. Sorry if my intent was unclear. To clarify:

If you ever have the opportunity to meet him I'm sure you'll be scanning his face for them [freckles] (like his recent comment about the ears!). Interesting they [freckles] were not addressed during the forensic examination.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 03:10 AM
link   
Regarding the ears:

Faulcons comps are usually video stills taken from low-quality youtube videos.

And you can always find a shadow or a stray of hair in them..


Let's take a good quality picture, taken from the same angle:







Guess what? ...same ear!



[edit on 28-8-2009 by diabolo1]



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 04:29 AM
link   
For Faul to be Paul he must have been wearing contacts since the late 60's 'cause I have not seen him in glasses in that time and I don't believe they had laser surgery up until the last 15-20 years. But obviously Paul wore glasses as evidenced in pictures we've seen of him like the one above.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 04:40 AM
link   
yeah, keep on ignoring that it's the same ear...


just bring up another topic...


He is wearing those nerd-glasses for fun, and you call that evidence?




posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by diabolo1
yeah, keep on ignoring that it's the same ear...


It looks similar but I've seen more pics that show that the ears look different. In that photo you posted, Paul's ear looks bigger compared to his head than Faull's do.




He is wearing those nerd-glasses for fun, and you call that evidence?





So are you saying Paul never wore glasses because he needed them? Just want to make sure I understand you.





[edit on 28-8-2009 by SednaSon]



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by diabolo1
Regarding the ears:

Faulcons comps are usually video stills taken from low-quality youtube videos.

And you can always find a shadow or a stray of hair in them..


Let's take a good quality picture, taken from the same angle:







Guess what? ...same ear!



[edit on 28-8-2009 by diabolo1]

This is a real (and excellent) comparison.
That's just what anyone who is not blinded by the PID hoax could see!!!
Well done Diabolo!



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 88  89  90    92  93  94 >>

log in

join