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: 97
33
<< 94  95  96    98  99  100 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

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.

I see a huge change in "Paul" between August & Nov. 1966.


Yeah... "huge change"....



Er, where, exactly?


It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what's going on.


No - just a wild imagination where freckles don't exist and eyes are brown....


It's just that some people refuse to accept the possibility of imposter replacement.


Because he wasn't replaced.


Let me remind you that virtually everything I post is supported by some sort of evidence.


Like your non existent evidence that the Wired article is "proof"?

I'm still waiting for you to answer my question regarding this. Like I predicted - you completely ignored it. Surprise, surprise.


Originally posted by Dakudo

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

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.


[edit on 29-8-2009 by Dakudo]

[edit on 29-8-2009 by Dakudo]




posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
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.


Since you claim to supply "evidence" for your claims, kindly name all these "people" who claim that "Paul changed his eye color, grew 2 inches & rearranged his facial features when he was 24 yrs old".

Please enlighten us.

You won't - because they don't exist!

Just another one of your false claims which will be evident to all when you ignore this question.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
The forensics proves that the facial features don't match.


STILL waiting for you to supply the quote where the scientists said it was "proof"!

We'll be waiting a loooooong time though, 'cos it don't exist!



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjobDo you people even know what the definition of "lie" is?


We don't need a definition. Your posts are a perfect illustration:




posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dakudo



Back in the 60s, ......



A great anecdote showing that 'Faul' remembered somebody only the real Paul would.

How do you explain that, then?


Well, I would try by saying that there is no date other than 'the 60s' so it could well have been Faul (post '66).



[edit on 29-8-2009 by aorAki]



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
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]

Well done Anok.
Anyone who had eyes could see that the photo had been enlarged!



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

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]


LOL You should do better pic-checking before posting a tampered photograph as a proof of the PID hoax.......



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Oh, and for the ears, in the post 1966 "Faul" photo you posted it is well visible that "Faul" has the same protruding ears that Paul had.
This obviously is because Faul does not exist and Paul McCartney was not replaced. It could be that he later decided to have this corrected, as many people do, and by the way many celebrities undergo plastic surgery such as face lifting, blepharoplasty and so on, so why shouldn't he?
But that guy is Paul McCartney anyway.


[edit on 29-8-2009 by magnolia_xx]



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki

Originally posted by Dakudo


Back in the 60s, ......



A great anecdote showing that 'Faul' remembered somebody only the real Paul would.

How do you explain that, then?


Well, I would try by saying that there is no date other than 'the 60s' so it could well have been Faul (post '66).


No - the whole point of the story was that the grandfather first met Paul before 1966.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by magnolia_xx

Originally posted by ANOK
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]

Well done Anok.
Anyone who had eyes could see that the photo had been enlarged!


Faulcon couldn't see it though.

This isn't surprising since she evidently hasn't got very good observational skills. She couldn't even see that Paul had freckles.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   
It's funny how these faces still don't match.





Oh, & if I don't respond to some people, it's b/c they've been added to my ignore list, not b/c I'm afraid to address any issues w/ respect to PID.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Dakudo
 


Because this is being discussed in no way disrespects Paul - so anyone feeling the need to post to defend his 'honor' doesn't need to - his honor is not at question, never has been. It's about the powers that be and their capabilities.

This rumor has persisted for decades - what other rumor has???

The Italian forensic specialists explained the differences and what it would take to go from one shape to the next compared to everyone else. They set out to determine if he was or was not the same, and could not say he was the same..... therein lies the evidence, proof, fact.

What we believe has nothing to do with what is. The PIA's can't prove it is him without his cooperation, all that can be said is everything about him being replaced is wrong, a lie, nothing to it, made up, no credentials, whatever it is, it isn't "this is proof/evidence he was not replaced" (hazel eyes can look green, therefore its still him)

Right?

What about the paternity test posted recently? That's an interesting story - and I think worth following up.

I am certain of one thing, though - and that is people who stick their noses too far into the illuminati's dirty little secrets never lives to a ripe old age.

This is one segment of eighteen on the dark side of rock and roll. I think its really well researched and at one point shows the effects the Beatles had on girls - I believe that was their role - to get the attention of an entire generation and here we are. No one gets that big without paying the piper somewhere along the line, even by their own testimonies. The whole series is well worth listening to - will help understand a different side of the music empire. That they also broadcast at a certain frequency, and on and on...

www.youtube.com...

ps - the video is presented from a totally christian perspective, which I don't myself adhere to, however the information in it is very good and documented...

Dakudo - sorry, meant to hit the 'general reply' and not personally to your post...




[edit on 29-8-2009 by kshaund]



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
Oh, & if I don't respond to some people, it's b/c they've been added to my ignore list, not b/c I'm afraid to address any issues w/ respect to PID.


You're ignoring the questions because you can't answer them. Just as I predicted you wouldn't.

"I provide evidence for my claims".

Yeah, right.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   
I love Faul's hair helmet. That's hot :-P





Paul didn't have a hair helmet.




posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dakudo

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
Oh, & if I don't respond to some people, it's b/c they've been added to my ignore list, not b/c I'm afraid to address any issues w/ respect to PID.


You're ignoring the questions because you can't answer them. Just as I predicted you wouldn't.

"I provide evidence for my claims".

Yeah, right.



? Many questions have been answered previously, it's just that this thread is very long now - and some people aren't interested in discussing the answers given so they ask again and again also claiming that proves.... it's wrong, its dodging questions, its ignorance, its always anything but up for discussion....

It's like two year olds saying "yes" "no" "yes" "no" over and over and over. It doesn't change their opinions by hearing the opposite if their minds are made up, one way or the either, doesn't matter.

faulconsnowjob has provided evidence... Doesn't mean it's the absolute truth, but its evidence nonetheless. I can provide evidence of a bloody knife with fingerprints, but that doesn't mean those fingerprints did the murder.... get the idea? We're getting duped all the time - lol - you guys are just adamant this couldn't be one of those times.

The forensic study is evidence *groan*. Doesn't mean it is absolutely true (that he was replaced), but it is, by definition, evidence nonetheless.



faulcon - perhaps you could let us know who's on your ignore list ?




posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by kshaund
Because this is being discussed in no way disrespects Paul - so anyone feeling the need to post to defend his 'honor' doesn't need to - his honor is not at question, never has been.

Actually, I find it kind of upsetting that Faul has sullied Paul's reputation. Paul, IMO, was a brilliant genius. Faul is not. It irritates me that he takes credit for Paul's brilliant songs. In addition, Paul was charming. In this interview, John called him "Paul McCharmley" at about 2:



Does anyone really think Faul is "charming?"


It's about the powers that be and their capabilities.

That is true. There's a lot more to it than just righting the injustice of blaming songs like "Ever Present Past" on Paul :-P


This rumor has persisted for decades - what other rumor has???

If there were nothing to it, there wouldn't be so much evidence to support it.


What we believe has nothing to do with what is.

Facts are facts, whether one wants to accept them or not.


This is one segment of eighteen on the dark side of rock and roll. I think its really well researched and at one point shows the effects the Beatles had on girls - I believe that was their role - to get the attention of an entire generation and here we are. No one gets that big without paying the piper somewhere along the line, even by their own testimonies.

I think the (original) Beatles were brilliant, but I agree there is no way they could have gotten THAT BIG w/out some help from TPTB.


The whole series is well worth listening to - will help understand a different side of the music empire. That they also broadcast at a certain frequency, and on and on...

www.youtube.com...

I will definitely watch that. There is so much more going on than appears on the surface. I also recommend the Laurel Canyon series about how a lot of stars have military, intel, or Illuminati connections, & how a lot die under rather suspicious circumstances: davesweb.cnchost.com...



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by kshaund
faulcon - perhaps you could let us know who's on your ignore list ?



Absolutely:

pmexplorer
edmond dantes
magnolia_xx
Dakudo
diabolo1

I don't know if I will keep ignoring them, but for now, I'm diggin' not seeing their posts :-)






[edit on 29-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by kshaund
reply to post by Dakudo
 


Because this is being discussed in no way disrespects Paul


Of course it does. You are accusing the man who is with us today of being a fraud, amongst many other things.

If somebody accused you of being a fraud, would you think that was 'respectful'?


so anyone feeling the need to post to defend his 'honor' doesn't need to.


We'll have to disagree on that.


This rumor has persisted for decades - what other rumor has???


The longest-running conspiracy rumour is probably the one about the Jews wanting to take over the world. That's been around for CENTURIES.

PID is 5 minutes ago compared to that.


The Italian forensic specialists explained the differences and what it would take to go from one shape to the next compared to everyone else. They set out to determine if he was or was not the same, and could not say he was the same..... therein lies the evidence, proof, fact.


The writers did not once claim to have proven that the pictures were of two different people.

If they don't claim it is proof, why should anyone else?

And the photos they used were taken off a biased PID forum. That in itself invalidates it as a serious scientific analysis. If it was serious they would have used high quality, ORIGINAL photos.

If you think it is acceptable to use low quality photos taken from an obviously biased internet site which is owned by somebody known to doctor photos, that's up to you.

However, others like myself require more strict and scientific protocols before accepting such 'evidence' as credible.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by kshaundThe forensic study is evidence *groan*.


*Groan*

Whose saying it isn't?

The lie being proffered is that it's "proof".



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
Absolutely:

pmexplorer
edmond dantes
magnolia_xx
Dakudo
diabolo1

I'm diggin' not seeing their posts :-)


Then how do you know we've been posting?

And our replies are quoted in other posts, anyway.




top topics



 
33
<< 94  95  96    98  99  100 >>

log in

join