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: 96
33
<< 93  94  95    97  98  99 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by kshaund
It sure seems that way - had no idea that person had 10,000 posts - that's pretty obsessive. Seems they like to attack faulcon personally rather than her information, a classic move - attack the messenger instead of questioning the message. . .



It's classic disinfo. It's easier to "try" to discredit me than to attack the facts. The fact is that Paul & Faul have different colored eyes, different eyebrows, different noses, different jawlines, different ears, & different heights. This isn't my "opinion." It's been proven by objective evidence - forensics, photos, videos, etc. The PIA'ers want to attribute all these differences to "camera angle," "camera lighting," "age," "rare eye conditions," etc, anything other than Paul was imposter-replaced. lol




posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Benny
You only have to spend a short time on MFH (Maccas Fun House) to realise it`s a front and a sham.

Like you said, who would dedicate so much time to debunking a "hoax"? If it were truly a hoax, I bet there wouldn't be so much evidence supporting it.


You will find the MFH posters on all these forums (and more, like here on ATS and on the D.I forum) doing everything and anything to persuade people that "Paul is still Paul"...............

Unfortunately, yes. There are even some on PID Miss Him. We tolerate them as long as they manage to stay civil & don't spread too much disinfo :-P


They`ll give their reasons about bringing balance and all that nonsense. Let me ask you, if you believed PID was nonsense would you spend almost everyday on forums trying to persuade other people??

Obviously, no. And these people "guard" the threads. They are ready w/ a counter-post pretty much immediately. The funny thing is, they usually just insult people's intelligence rather than posting evidence to support their "theory" that Paul wasn't replaced.


Yes they`ve continually ridiculed and attacked Faulcon because she has persevered and caused them more headaches than most. Like you say, they have attacked her personally

Like I care what disinfo agents think about me. I'm glad I'm giving them trouble. If they are attacking me personally, then I've obviously been effeective :-)


It`s the lowest of the low, cowardly stuff but for all their tactics they`re extremely limited in what they can achieve. Once you see Paul McCartney was permanently replaced there`s nothing anyone can do about it!


They can call people w/ vastly superior educations "stupid" all they want, but that's not going to keep people from seeing Paul & Faul don't have the same faces. lol



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   
It's kind of amusing in a way how desperately they're trying to keep people from seeing how Paul was imposter replaced.






posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Faulcon, I think someone attacked you personally (not that this is right, I am just trying to find an explanation) because it really seems that you refuse to see some things.
I don't think you are in bad faith (maybe you remember when I first joined here: in the beginning I was quite intrigued by PID theories and it was after reading "proofs" from PID members that I came to my conclusions and I rejected PID as a hoax) but honestly speaking, for example, when a PIA member posted two photos of the left year pre- and after 1966 and you went on saying they did not matched it was very hard for me to believe you (I am just speaking of my personal impressions, I don't consider them representative of all PIAers). I really thought that it is impossible to look at those 2 ears and to find differences - please don't cite the Wired study again, we all read it and we came to different conclusions about it - I am speaking of you and your eyes and what they see. If you were said that they are 2 photos from your neighbour or your cousin or one of your ex-schoolmates, would you say that they are from different people??? BTW you can always claim that they are doctored pics if you think so (but in this case please provide the undoctored original photos as a proof of this), but you can't say that they are different without being considered in bad faith by PIAers.
As for being "desperate", I think that no PIAer is desperate at all... we love Paul McCartney and we strongly believe that he is the very same person since 1942, as firmly as PIDers believe the opposite thing.
And the reason why PIAers go on confuting your theories is because they feel that it is their duty to show the other side of PID and to defend Paul McCartney's reputation. It is really unpleasant for his fans to see him called "an imposter" or "a scammer" by PIDers. Expecially when he is considered a great and talented musician by millions of people all over the world.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Originally posted by kshaund
It sure seems that way - had no idea that person had 10,000 posts - that's pretty obsessive. Seems they like to attack faulcon personally rather than her information, a classic move - attack the messenger instead of questioning the message. . .



It's classic disinfo.


Like your erroneous claims that Paul never had freckles? Or your erroneous claims that Paul's eyes were brown? Or your erroneous claims that the Wired scientists "proved" Paul was replaced?

The only "disinfo" comes from your keyboard.


It's easier to "try" to discredit me than to attack the facts.


You discredit yourself. You don't speak in "facts":




The fact is that Paul & Faul have different colored eyes, different eyebrows, different noses, different jawlines, different ears, & different heights. This isn't my "opinion." It's been proven by objective evidence - forensics,


No it hasn't! If it has, then kindly show everyone the quote where the scientists say their investigation is "proof" he has been replaced!

You won't - because your claim is untrue. You will just ignore this like you always do and just blindly keep on repeating it.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Benny
I`ll explain it for you very simply -


Recently the D.I forum PID threads have been over-run by about 8 - 10 posters from MFH (Maccas Fun House), a forum with one main intent, to debunk anything to do with PID.

Some of these MFH debunkers are here, and you`re one of them. Here let me show you -

maccafunhouse.proboards.com...


The above story was fabricated by a poster calling herself Elisha on D.I and who posts on MFH as ET Girl/Miss Vagie... Again let me show you -

maccafunhouse.proboards.com...

This poster has over 10,000 (Yes that`s right - OVER 10,000 POSTS ON A FORUM SET UP TO DEBUNK ANYTHING TO DO WITH PID).


What I`ll say is if I had over 10,000 posts on a forum completely dedicated to debunking something I didn`t believe in, I`d think about signing myself in somewhere. What a complete waste of time to ridicule and insult people who are dedicated to exposing the replacement of Paul McCartney (or at least investigating it)....

Unless of course there`s a very good reason for the massive resistance -TO PUT PEOPLE OFF LOOKING INTO IT.




[edit on 29-8-2009 by Uncle Benny]


You, sir, are a liar. Elisha is not Vaggie. Please offer proof of your accusation.

And how dare people from MFH post here or anywhere else. Of course, only pidders are allowed to post their fraud everywhere. People who know Paul is alive are not allowed to post anywhere.


Sorry, pal, we are quite open about who we are. I certainly am not hiding that I am from MFH. Look at my sig for God's sake. We want people to know who we are. We are not afraid. We also provide links to pro PID sites as well. We want people to have all of the information available.

Oh. And Vaggie has over 10,000 posts. Maybe 20% have anything to do with PID vs PIA. The others have to deal with Avril, Lukas, broccoli yogurt and asparagus juice, as well as other stuff. You see, we have fun at MFH. We talk about all sorts of things that interest us. But for any one reading, don't take my word for it. Come and have a visit and see for yourself.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Some people are really buying that this is the same guy - lol




Oh, & Focrates, whether Paul's eyes were brown or hazel, that still != green.



But keep on trying to convince people the difference in eye color is b/c of "camera lighting" or some "rare eye disease" Paul had. lol



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by magnolia_xx
Faulcon, I think someone attacked you personally (not that this is right, I am just trying to find an explanation) because it really seems that you refuse to see some things.

Oh, the irony. I can tell you what I see. I see a huge change in "Paul" between August & Nov. 1966. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what's going on. It's just that some people refuse to accept the possibility of imposter replacement.


I don't think you are in bad faith

Oh, how very generous of you. Let me remind you that virtually everything I post is supported by some sort of evidence.


And the reason why PIAers go on confuting your theories

They haven't "confuted" any of my theories. It's been proven by forensic science that Paul was replaced.

But you know what? This thread isn't about me. It's about how Paul was imposter-replaced. And if anyone thinks they're going to stop me from posting on this, they are sadly mistaken. You people might be able to bully others into submission, but homey don't play that game. *snap*


[edit on 29-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Faulcon, I wonder how you have the nerve to post such a ridiculously flattened photo of Paul McCartney and go on saying that it is a proof of his replacement.
This is why you are considered not believable by PIAers.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Originally posted by Uncle Benny
You only have to spend a short time on MFH (Maccas Fun House) to realise it`s a front and a sham.

Like you said, who would dedicate so much time to debunking a "hoax"? If it were truly a hoax, I bet there wouldn't be so much evidence supporting it.



Just an issue of logic. What else would you debunk other than a hoax? Debunk and hoax go together.

Again.

We at MFH are Beatle and McCartney fans. We like and respect the Beatles.

Over the past 6 years that I have been involved with this I have seen the pidders claim that:



  • Yoko is a secret agent and murdered John
  • Paul is a pedophile and molested his own children
  • Paul was involved in a plot to murder John
  • Yoko and Paul toasted John's death on 12/9/80
  • The remaining Beatles took part in the cover up in order to make more money
  • George was murdered
  • Paul died of explosive diarrhea from IBS
  • Paul's body was launched into space by NASA and is in orbit today
  • Faul is actually the clone of a female WWII spy who was the real Paul's mother.
  • Don Knotts replaced Brian Epstein
  • Charlie Brill (from a Star Trek episode) replaced John and was the actual one killed by Yoko
  • Other insane theories


Yes. These things are part of a hoax. We people who believe Paul is alive, and like and respect him are not going to sit idly by and see him, along with the rest of the Beatles and their families, smeared by these baseless and reckless accusations. We will not sit back and let new comers to the Beatles and PID have only these crazy theories as the story behind PID and the Beatles.

There is always this baloney that if PID weren't true we wouldn't be trying so hard to discredit it. That is completely wrong and illogical. Be honest with yourself. If I, or someone else falsely accused you of being a murderer or child molester, would you only defend yourself if it were true. You are saying you would not defend yourself if you knew it were a lie?

How about if someone made the same accusation against a friend or family member. Are you saying you would not defend that person if you knew the accusations were false? Of course you would. If the charges are false, you would put up a strong, spirited defense. And you would do it without getting paid for it.

That is what we are doing here. Strongly defending someone we like and respect against mean, reckless and false charges.

Oh, and that Wired article has been shown to be a PID fraud. The only source for the data was a pro PID website run by Sun King. Sun King has been shown to alter and flip photos to support his theories.

Even the "scientists" behind the article don't claim it is forensic proof. How can you claim it is proof?

[edit on 29-8-2009 by edmond dantes]



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by magnolia_xx
Faulcon, I wonder how you have the nerve to post such a ridiculously flattened photo of Paul McCartney and go on saying that it is a proof of his replacement.


You should do better fact-checking before you make such accusations. That picture of Paul is from this:



The picture of Faul above is a screen cap from "Penny Lane." Here's another comp of Paul 66 v Faul 67:




This is why you are considered not believable by PIAers.


Those people believe that Paul changed his eye color, grew 2 inches & rearranged his facial features when he was 24 yrs old, so I'm not too concerned about what they think.

[edit on 29-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmond dantes

Just an issue of logic.

How ironic. The forensics proves that the facial features don't match. It doesn't take extraordinary logic to figure out they're not the same person.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Ears




posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Originally posted by edmond dantes

Just an issue of logic.

How ironic. The forensics proves that the facial features don't match.


That is a lie. Even the people behind that article say it is not proof that is two different people. If they don't claim that they have forensic proof, how can you?



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
Ears



Whooo! Bad comp.

Try this one.




posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by faulconandsnowjob
 


Hey FaulCON yer busted!

Proof of tampered photograph...



The pic on the right is from the album cover, your left pic crop has been widened.

[edit on 8/29/2009 by ANOK]



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Oh, & Focrates, whether Paul's eyes were brown or hazel, that still != green.



But keep on trying to convince people the difference in eye color is b/c of "camera lighting" or some "rare eye disease" Paul had. lol


Oh, how often are you going to try this lie.

Hazel eyes can look green.

Hazel eyes can look green. That is not even in dispute. It is backed up by hundreds of sources. Hey everyone. Don't take my word for it, research it yourselves.


Hazel
This iris shows a mixture of brown, green, and amber colors.

Hazel eyes are due to a combination of Rayleigh scattering and a moderate amount of melanin in the iris' anterior border layer.[7][25] Hazel eyes often appear to shift in color from a light brown to a dark golden-green. A number of studies using three-point scales have assigned hazel to be the medium-color between the lightest shade of blue and darkest shade of brown. Hazel mostly consists of Brown and Green. The dominant color in the eye can either be green or light brown/gold.[46][47][48][49][50][51][52] This can sometimes produce a multicolored iris, i.e., an eye that is light brown near the pupil and charcoal or amber/dark green on the outer part of the iris (and vice versa) when observed in sunlight.


en.wikipedia.org...

Makeup companies even give instructions as to how to bring out the different colors

www.essortment.com...


If you are one of those lucky people that have hazel eyes, you can change the look of them as fast as you can apply new makeup. All of the colors that are contained in your peepers can be brought out, one by one, with a few makeup tips
for changing your hazel eyes.


No matter how many times you say that hazel eyes can't look green, it doesn't change the fact that they can and often do.

But again, visitors here. Don't take my word for it. Research it for yourselves.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmond dantes


That is a lie. Even the people behind that article say it is not proof that is two different people. If they don't claim that they have forensic proof, how can you?


It's not a "lie." I think you should read the article more carefully. They definitely found differences. They just stopped short of saying Paul was replaced. Just b/c they didn't want to come out & say it doesn't mean that other people can't connect the dots.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmond dantes

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Oh, & Focrates, whether Paul's eyes were brown or hazel, that still != green.



Hazel eyes can look green.

Hazel eyes can look green.


Do you people even know what the definition of "lie" is? The fact is that Paul & Faul don't have the same other eyes, no matter how you try to rationalize it.






top topics



 
33
<< 93  94  95    97  98  99 >>

log in

join