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.

 

Did Paul Mcartney Die And Was He Replaced?

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   
I read a lot of info in this thread and the links from it a night or two ago as I had a lot of free time on my hands. After reading the info I realized that there were a few 'problems' to the assumption that the man who is now known as paul is really the same as the guy from the beatles in 66.


The main one's are the fact that the face looks different, followed by the eye color. I discount the backwards messages etc as I really think thats stretching a thin point too far. HOWEVER.... I feel I have solved the mystery at least to a degree that will satisfy most people.


The key to understanding why he looks different in early and later pics is down to photography. While I admit I am not a professional photographer, I am a 3D artist who specalises in high detail photorealistic characters and as such need to have a pretty good understanding of how different cameras can effect an image (if I'm trying to get something to look photorealistic).

The reason the faces look different is the size of the lens. A 35mm lens will pull things to the center of the focus more towards the camera than they are in actual reality. The closer the person or thing is to the camera lens the more pronouced this is. If you try the same with say a 50mm lens you'll notice much less of an effect, thus making the person appear to have a different shaped face to some degree (depending on distance to camera etc).

Combine this with color differences caused by using different makes of film, and you have your solution. Its the same paul, just photographed with different lens and film combinations. Compound this by the fact that as any character modeller knows, a front photo isn't always exactly front on and can look perfect but be WAY off and it illustrates the point. A good way to tell is usually the head will look shorter if overlaid with a perfectly lined up head.

I would like any pro photographers here at ATS to test my hypothosis out and if need be I can post images of my experiments to replicate this effect. The film color differnces (which I have to admit I didn't realise HOW much a color can change just due to the different make and type of film myself). Combined with weight gain and loss and I feel confident that its explained away. Although I'd feel a whole lot better with some pro photographers experiments to go with this.

Wayne...




posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Source Canon website:








Absolutely NOT the same result....

For further details please visit:

60if.proboards21.com... on=display&thread=1115556611

and

digilander.libero.it...



[edit on 7-6-2006 by sunking]



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 01:19 PM
link   
If you would like to see a great many photographic comparisons showing that the Paul McCartney of today is not the original man, come to my forum:
only1rad.proboards62.com...

I've been involved with this mystery since 2003. It gets stranger everyday.

Peace,

Mommybird



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 08:30 PM
link   
It a word.

NO.

Paul's "death" is nothing more than a well-thought marketing scheme.

Please God, why can't this theory, er... die? I wish there was some way he could do a before/after DNA test just to shoot this down.



posted on Nov, 10 2008 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Omega85
 


Look I heard something even weirder...John Lennon died and was replaced by another guy who ALSO DIED...isn't that weird? And George Harrison died years before "George Harrison" died of cancer...he NEVER had cancer, so how could he have died from cancer years later? It just doesn't make sense.

So I think that what I'm saying is that the "Beatles" were really the Ringo Starr Band, and they continue to play to this day, using all-star "replacements" like Eric Clapton to do "star-studded" concert tours.

Do you get where I'm coming from, man? If not, smoke a little more reefer and then read this all again.

I heard another rumor that John Lennon, Buddy Holly, Jim Morrison, Elvis, and Jimi Hendrix all are still alive and run a corporation that splits up the profits secretly from all the albums that have been sold because they died...and that at one point Hendrix was going to make a comeback but the others reminded him what happened when Elvis tried that -- it diluted the product, because all these "Elvis imitators" cropped up. And my friend Dookie was THERE so he knows it's true.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 11:52 PM
link   
Paul was definitely replaced in 1966. The photos prove it. Here is a photo comparison of Paul on Aug 19, 1966 at the Memphis interview compared to an interview w/ Faul in 1967. I have changed the pics up a bit to try to break the conditioning to see them as the same.



The fact is, their faces do not match up at all.




[edit on 27-5-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 05:56 PM
link   
While I find the Paul is Dead conspiracy interesting, if it's true or not.

The patch he was wearing on his jacket did not say "OPD", it was an Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) patch. I grew up in Ontario (Canada), trust me, I've seen it all too often.



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Oh no, not another thread on this stupid hoax.


Sorry that's all I have to say.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 01:25 AM
link   
It's been proven by forensic science that Paul was replaced in 1966:
only1rad.proboards.com...

Paul & Faul's facial features were compared & measured using craniometry, & they don't match up. In some instances, such as the width of the mouth, plastic surgery can't account for the difference.




With respect to the other differences, Paul would have had to have undergone a series of extensive & painful surgeries that would have prevented him from singing for at least a year, plus they would have left more scarring than is visible.

Other differences are eyebrows, jawline, eye color, height, ears:












There's another ATS PID thread here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 07:00 AM
link   
In all the PID forums, I have not seen any remotely scientifically based evidence that PM is dead. Images are tampered with on these forums in an effort to prove that he is dead. In fact, If I were him, I would sue all of you PIDers who start these forums. Why don't people just leave him alone? Closing, I question the motivation of you PIDers and I question your morality. Ban me on that point



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by yahpete
In all the PID forums, I have not seen any remotely scientifically based evidence that PM is dead.

Biometrical analyses conducted by forensic scientists is "scientifically based evidence" that PM was replaced:

Paul McCartney is dead: proof he was replaced
plasticmacca.blogspot.com...

It's true we don't have any evidence that he is dead, other than the fact that he was never seen again after Sept 1966.


Images are tampered with on these forums in an effort to prove that he is dead.

Actually, we post tampered photos to show how the fact that he was replaced has been covered up:

Photo tampering & illusion creation
plasticmacca.blogspot.com...

Official Video Tampering
plasticmacca.blogspot.com...


In fact, If I were him, I would sue all of you PIDers who start these forums.

And what cause of action would he sue them for? Defamation? Unfortunately for Faul, truth is an absolute defense. He would never sue, b/c he would give us the opportunity to prove he was replaced. Also, his burden (public figure/public matter) would be to show not only falsity, but also malice (knowing falsehood & intent to harm) or extreme recklessness. He just would not be able to meet that standard.


Why don't people just leave him alone? Closing, I question the motivation of you PIDers and I question your morality.

Some of us actually care about what happened to the real Paul McCartney. We are trying to wake people up to the fact that people are replaCIAed.

Edit: legal standard above is for USA

[edit on 12-12-2009 by someotherguy]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 02:40 AM
link   
So if Paul was replaced by Billy , what happened to Billy ?


does anyone know of his current where-abouts , or did he mysteriously vanish in 1966 ?


... and I agree that height and facial changes could not happen
that quickly


[edit on 13-12-2009 by radarloveguy]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 02:51 AM
link   
Couldn't a dental record, finger print, or DNA test prove this right or wrong?



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by paranoiaFTW
Couldn't a dental record, finger print, or DNA test prove this right or wrong?


Fingerprints: I have read that when "Paul" was arrested in Japan for marijuana possession there was an issue w/ the fingerprints not matching from when the Beatles were there in 1966. "Paul" was held for 10 days. I have not been able to confirm that about the fingerprints, however (but he was held for 10 days).

DNA: Bettina Krischbin alleged "Paul" sent a body-double to give blood for a paternity test in 1983. I believe Faul was the body double.

"Paul's" stand-in gave blood in paternity case
plasticmacca.blogspot.com...

The biometrical analysis conducted by the forensics experts is very compelling. IMO, it proves Paul was replaced.

Paul McCartney is dead: proof he was replaced
plasticmacca.blogspot.com...

Plus, I think a lot of people just intuit that there's something not quite right. To people who know about imposter-replaCIAments, this is really not a good double. He makes a lot of mistakes. lol



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkipShipman
Three points need answering.

1.) Why is the new Paul (after September 1966) taller that the original Paul?

Adults can still grow with good excercise


Originally posted by SkipShipman
2.) How do deep brown eyes turn green?

Eye colors can change


Originally posted by SkipShipman
3.) Why is the original Paul found with a wider proportional chin, and the new Paul has a sharper more pointed chin?

Facial structres change with age

All the questions you brought up do have scientific explanation. I don't subscribe to this Beatles conspiracy, in fact I never heard of it till joining ATS. I am not saying that my response closes the door on this theory. I'm sure, someone will not accept these simple explanations. However, it is not so unnatural for physical changes to take place in ones life. It's happening all around you.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by keepureye2thesky

1.) Why is the new Paul (after September 1966) taller that the original Paul?

Because it's a different guy who is taller.


2.) How do deep brown eyes turn green?

They don't. Faul just forgot to wear his contacts. It's funny how in the Strawberry Fields Forever video, they zoom in on his eyes, just to make sure you get a good look at his *green* eyes. lol

Don't it make your brown eyes *green*
plasticmacca.blogspot.com...


Originally posted by SkipShipman
3.) Why is the original Paul found with a wider proportional chin, and the new Paul has a sharper more pointed chin?

The forensics experts noticed changes in the mandibular curve & the palate (among other things). While these changes *could* be brought about by surgery, it would require a series of extensive surgeries, including palate inserts. Obviously, this didn't happen b/c "Paul" kept singing throughout this time.

Paul McCartney is dead: proof he was replaced
plasticmacca.blogspot.com...



For people who know what's going on, it's funny & sad at the same time.

[edit on 13-12-2009 by someotherguy]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Not even sure why I posted. It's a lost cause. Your minds are made up.
Just a few questions before I jump ship on this ridiculous scenario:
How does this even effect the peoples lives on here?
Do you find it difficult to sleep at night knowing this information is rattling around the mind? What does replacing Paul achieve anyhow?



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by keepureye2thesky
Not even sure why I posted. It's a lost cause. Your minds are made up.
Just a few questions before I jump ship on this ridiculous scenario:
How does this even effect the peoples lives on here?
Do you find it difficult to sleep at night knowing this information is rattling around the mind? What does replacing Paul achieve anyhow?


Yes, if you are going to try to convince me Paul was not replaced, there is no point. I know for a fact he was.

It bothers me that people are murdered and replaced. It is a little troubling to me how practically the whole world has been psyched-out by the imposter.

For people who find the idea of imposter-replaCIAment "ridiculous" or "impossible," please see

Background information on doubles
plasticmacca.blogspot.com...



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by someotherguy
 


We already proved this to be all a load of garbage when Faulcon tried to convince us these altered pics and faked videos are real.

Every pic and vid she posted was found to be fraudulent almost as fast as she could post them. The Italian investigation concludes nothing factual, yet you PIDers claim is does. It used the same altered pics taken from the web, hardly scientific.

Sorry but there is FAR more evidence that Paul is still alive and well. The one thing that doesn't change between the two Paul comparisons is his skull shape (proven), ears and noses changing shape is normal. Try to find me two people with exactly the same skull shape and size, and I might listen again to this rubbish, but that ain't gonna happen and you know it.

You're not Faulcon are you lol? You said the same thing that 'you know' he dead, which is such an illogical statement..



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Link to a photo array showing the obvious anatomical differences in the ears of Paul & Faul

Faul's false ears
plasticmacca.blogspot.com...



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join