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.

 

Was Pope Paul VI replaced with an actor?

page: 1
19

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2010 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Pope Paul VI was known to be a very inconsistent pope throughout his pontificate. Some think he conveyed the impression of doubt, equivocation and a pathetic weakness that caused him to contradict himself several times throughout his pontificate.

On 14 September, 1972, he came down heavily against the suggestion that women might play some part in the ministry of the priesthood. Then, on 29 March, 1973, the Associated Press reported: ‘Pope Paul ruled today that women, regardless of whether they are nuns, may distribute Communion in Roman Catholic churches.’

In May 1969, He condemned a new departure that had crept in whereby Communion was received in the hand. Yet later he took that stricture back, with the meaningless proviso that Communion bread could be so received ‘after proper instruction.’



Stories emanating from Rome of sacrilege and abuses committed in church, with the approval of the Pope, became so startling, that groups of people decided to take action. The Marian Press in Georgetown, Ontario, Canada, employed the Pinkerton Detective Agency to investigate the issue.


One of the agency’s detectives was sent, in 1973, to Rome, and he returned with a story that dwarfed all other speculations, however sensational.

He had determined that there were two Popes living in the Vatican, Paul VI and an impostor who had been made to resemble Montini with the aid of plastic surgery. Several such operations were necessary, and when colour photographs of the false Pope were sent to interested circles in Munich, where the imposture is still receiving concentrated study, there were certain noticeable differences in the two sets of features that could not be overcome.

To point out the differences: Montini had clear blue eyes, large, and being long-sighted he only required glasses for near viewing. The impostor had green eyes, small, and he wore glasses with thick lenses on all occasions.

Montini’s photographs reveal a small mole, or birth-mark, between the left eye and the left ear. This does not appear in photographs of the impostor, whose left eyebrow was nearer to the eye than was Montini’s.

The differences between the nose and the ears of the two men are held to be decisive. Montini’s nose was Roman, and protruded somewhat over his mouth. The impostor’s nose, part straight and part hooked, was short, and those who subjected the photographs to professional examination claim to have detected the insertion of a plastic strip in the nose to make it appear more straight.

But it is differences in the shape and formation of the ears that present the greatest difficulty to those who doubt the existence of an impostor. Such differences are unique, individual, and they are treated the same as finger-prints in courts of law. Any comparison of the lobes and build of the ears, as revealed by photographs, becomes not a little impressive.

But the interested circles did not stop there. They turned their attention upon the voice, and called in the help of the Type B-65 Kay Elemetrics of Pine Brook, New Jersey, and the Ball Telephone Company. Their object was to analyze the voice (or voices, if there were indeed two popes) when they pronounced the traditional Easter Sunday and Christmas Day blessing, with the words Indulgentium Peccatorum, spoken from the Vatican in 1975.

On both occasions the message was broadcast over Rome, and many people taped it; and it appeared, according to sonograms that were made – and sonograms are more sensitive than the ear – that the man who had spoken at Easter, and again at Christmas, had not been one and the same. There had been two different speakers.

Read more: The Broken Cross part 11



The FBI also did a voice analysis and determined that there were two different speakers.


Compare photos of Paul VI and the alleged imposter:



Left, above - Pope Paul VI: Long nose, reaching to the end of the ear lobe.
Right, above - the impostor pope: Nose much shorter in comparison to ear.


Note the prominent birthmark between the eye and ear of the true Pope (on the left, 1973 photo) and conspicuously absent on the impostor (right, 1977 photo). Notice the visible difference in the nose. Pope Paul has a longer, straighter, more pointed nose. The impostor has a shorter and rounder nose.


Left - Pope Paul VI: Notice complete difference of ear structure with that of the impostor. Due to the tiny bone structure the ear is the hardest thing to change in plastic surgery—this becomes obvious in the two pictures.
Right - the impostor pope: Notice not only the difference of the ear, but also the shorter nose.


Left - Pope Paul VI: Long straight nose—almost to the end of ear lobe. Ear is full and round.
Right - the impostor pope: Nose is shorter and rounder—reaching only 3/4 length of ear. Ear is longer and not as wide.
(Note: Some have conjectured that this "actor of great talent" was the stage actor Parr.)

Deception of the Century



So what happened to the real Paul VI?


So could this point to the fact that the genuine Paul VI was held captive in the Vatican, or that he was kidnapped, perhaps murdered? A layman in search of more concrete evidence went to Brescia, where some of Montini’s relations were living. There a niece informed him that they were perfectly well aware of the imposture, but that all their efforts to make it known had been stifled.

The investigator, who was obviously untried and filled with a crusading zeal to bring things into the open, soon landed in trouble. He was jailed for four years, and afterwards deported from Italy. All efforts to trace his whereabouts since then have failed.


Subsequent statements alleging that there was a false Pope Paul VI, go on to say that he was an actor whose initials are P.A.R., and that it was he who died at Castelgandolfo on 6 August, 1978. A German Bishop, who claims to have proof that Montini was last known to be living not in the Vatican but in the outskirts of Rome, hopes to make this public in a forthcoming book.

The Broken Cross part 11



Paul VI died August 6, 1978, at the age of 80.
"And as a holy Pope once told you before he died, he knew that the smoke of satan had entered into Rome and the Vatican. Well did he understand My visit to him, My child. The world has never known how close I was to your Vicar at that time, Pope Paul VI. Yes, My child, he was removed from the earth, also, with his impostor." - Our Lady of the Roses, September 14, 1985
Deception of the Century




[edit on 5/29/10 by FortAnthem]




posted on May, 29 2010 @ 08:16 PM
link   
It makes me wonder what happened to the real Paul VI? Some say he may have been drugged or held captive outside the Vatican.

The original Pinkerton report said there were two Paul VIs in the Vatican. It could be possible that he used a double to protect against assassins.

A lot of shady stuff went down in the Vatican back in those years. Some say that Pius XII was the last true pope.

We may never know the truth.


[edit on 5/29/10 by FortAnthem]



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Nice catch!! Pope Fauxl VI
Maybe it was the same guy that replaced Paul Macartney He is the walrus... goo goo ga choo.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mumbotron
Nice catch!! Pope Fauxl VI
Maybe it was the same guy that replaced Paul Macartney He is the walrus... goo goo ga choo.



What is it with all the Paul's being replaced back in the 70's?



Maybe that's another big conspiray we need to be looking into.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


That would be a great idea for a thread. Also I like your thread. Nice finding the pictures. How did the fake Pope Paul VI die?



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Romantic_Rebel
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


How did the fake Pope Paul VI die?


If the source quoted above is true, the faker died in the pope's place.


Pope Paul VI left the Vatican to go to the Papal summer residence, Castel Gandolfo on 14 July 1978, visiting on the way the tomb of Cardinal Giuseppe Pizzardo who had introduced him to the Vatican half a century earlier. Although sick, he agreed to see the new Italian President Sandro Pertini for over two hours. In the evening he watched a Western on TV, happy only when he saw "horses, the most beautiful animals that God had created." He had breathing problems and needed oxygen. Next day, Sunday the Feast of Transfiguration he was tired, but wanted to say the Angelus. He was not able or permitted to and stayed in bed, his temperature rising.

From his bed he participated in Sunday Mass at 6 p.m. After communion, the pope suffered a massive myocardial infarction, after which he kept on fighting on for three hours. On 6 August 1978 at 9.41 p.m., Pope Paul VI died at Castel Gandolfo. Paul VI is buried beneath the floor of Saint Peter's Basilica with the other popes. In his will, he requested to be buried in the "true earth" and therefore, he does not have an ornate sarcophagus but an in-ground grave.

Wickipedia



Maybe a better question is what happened to the real Paul VI?



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


I agree. What happened to the real Pope? Could he resign and they replaced him with a actor?



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Romantic_Rebel
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


I agree. What happened to the real Pope? Could he resign and they replaced him with a actor?


It IS possible for a pope to resign:


The ability of a pope to resign was made official by Pope Boniface VIII who placed by decree into canon law:

“Our predecessor, Pope Celestine V, whilst he governed the Church, constituted and decreed that the Roman Pontiff can freely resign. Therefore lest it happen that this statute should in the course of time fall into oblivion, or that doubt upon the subject should lead to further disputes, We have determined with the counsel of our brethren that it be placed among other constitutions for a perpetual memory of the same.”
If a pope wishes to resign today, there are official steps that can be taken. According to the 1983 Code of Canon Law (Canon 332.2), “If it should so happen that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that he makes the resignation freely and that it be duly manifested, but not that it be accepted by anyone.”

What this means is that a pope merely needs to make his desire to resign clearly known and that it cannot be due to outside pressure or fraud, but it isn’t necessary that anyone “accept” his resignation. Ideally the resignation is given to the College of Cardinals, since they elected him in the first place and they can determine if the resignation is submitted freely. Regardless of who’s around, though, once he does it, it’s finalized.

About.com



However, if a pope did resign, it would be necessary to hold a new conclave of all the Cardinals of the Church in order to elect a new pope.

If he had resigned, placing an impostor in his place would make the impostor an anti-pope and not a legitimate successor.

I don't believe he resigned. If the theory is true, it is most likely he was forced out or murdered. What happened to Pope John Paul I proves that some pretty shady stuff can go down in the Vatican.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 09:49 PM
link   
To the OP:

I think you may have contradicted your argument with those photos you posted. In the one set you clearly state that the "true pope" has a mole on his left cheek as seen in the photo. But in the 3rd set of photos the "true pope" does not have this mole. Maybe just a dirty lens in one particular photo or surgery had been performed.

Regards,

Wes



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by wes_dublin
To the OP:

I think you may have contradicted your argument with those photos you posted. In the one set you clearly state that the "true pope" has a mole on his left cheek as seen in the photo. But in the 3rd set of photos the "true pope" does not have this mole. Maybe just a dirty lens in one particular photo or surgery had been performed.

Regards,

Wes


Good catch. I looked through some other photos of Paul VI and found another one showing the birthmark.



Maybe it just doesn't show up in every pic?


Anyway, I didn't say this theory was necessarily true. I heard other members mention it in other threads and looked it up to see what the story was all about.


[edit on 5/29/10 by FortAnthem]



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 10:07 AM
link   
I think your all confused. I believe your referring to not Pope Paul, but Beatle Paul.

In all seriousness, you might well be on to something here. I use Firefox browser, and it allows you to pull a picture out, and can then hold it over another picture. It is very obvious in several of the before and after pictures the nose and ears DO NOT match up. The nose doesn't even come close. Especially in the profile view.

Is it a sin in the Catholic Church to get a nose job?

It was not unheard of for Popes to be killed. Usually though they just have another one of their magic mojo sessions behind closed doors to pick a new one. Maybe this time the Vatican PTB decided keeping the image of the person was more beneficial than keeping the actual person.....



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by FortAnthem

Originally posted by Mumbotron
Nice catch!! Pope Fauxl VI
Maybe it was the same guy that replaced Paul Macartney He is the walrus... goo goo ga choo.



What is it with all the Paul's being replaced back in the 70's?



Maybe that's another big conspiray we need to be looking into.


If you look into it enough you'll realise how ridiculous it is.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


A LOT of "shady stuff" goes down at EVERY Vatican, ALL the time. This is certainly not the first time something "funny" has happened to a pope. Given his power, and isolation from the public, these kind of shennanigans are invited.
Makes one wonder, if OTHER poitical figures, have been "replaced". (Not like the way JFK was "replaced!").
I have alway thought that President Reagan, NEVER acted right, after the "assination" attempt. I believe he was kept drugged, afterwards, for easier control. Of course, I never liked george bush- once CIA, ALWAYS CIA!



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Here is a movie on youtube that gets into the popes. It's called the devil in the vatican. It goes into the 70's and the stuff that went on in the vatican. I just started watching it the other night. I'm only through the second one and I don't know how many there are. It is very interesting.

www.youtube.com...
I don't know why the video doesn't work so here is the link.

[edit on 30-5-2010 by chefc14]



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by chefc14
 




The 2nd part seems to cover the impostor pope.



[edit on 5/30/10 by FortAnthem]



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 12:22 PM
link   
This is a very well known case, confirmed from many angles, not merely photographs. Paul VI's behavior changed sharply around 1972, with the most often cited case of Cardinal Mindszenty's "betrayal".

At the time, this was world news, at some level. The cold war was still on, Mindszenty had heroically suffered at the hands of Nazis and then the communists, and had been granted protection by Eisenhower. Mindszenty spent 15 years holded up at the US Embassy in Hungary. Again, it was real "news" when he was allowed to leave, and went to Rome to meet Paul VI in 1971.

Paul VI met the old Cardinal with apparently sincere warmth, and made public statements to the effect that Mindszenty was a hero and a friend, and that the pope's support would never fail. Only three years later, Mindszenty was shocked to find out that "Paul VI" (his friend?) had stabbed him in the back, "resigned" him, and left him out to dry. When the press caught up with Mindszenty, what could he say? Well, he told the truth, he said he had NOT resigned, that he had been deposed.

There is plenty of evidence that Paul VI was also "deposed" you might say, and replaced by a "double", and the photos in this thread a absolutely genuine. The "real" Paul VI was however kept "alive", apparently drugged, so that if later his remains were to be exhumed (happens a lot with this crowd), the "real" Paul's body would be there. Anyone later claiming a double was ever involved, could be laughed at.

This whole thing begs the question, "Why?" Why would they take out Paul VI, when he was by all appearances cooperating fully, had "mainstreamed" the church, and even did it on the fast-track with his Vatican II, new mass, etc.? Plus, he was 100% blackmailable too, due to his universally known flagrant homosexuality. His primary lover, a well-known red-headed actor, never bothered to even hide the fact, and it was virtually public knowledge in Rome. Ever wonder why Romans aren't terribly "religious? To answer the question, it is possible the real Paul was seeing the light so-to-speak, and was planning on screwing up the big plan of his masters. That would not do. Evidence for this is also quite famous, when Paul VI stunned the world by announcing that "The Smoke of Satan had entered the Church through some fissure..." To his credit possibly (better late than never), but this could have been a true cry for help, some think. At any rate, it probably sealed his fate.

Hopefully, Catholics won't take offense at some of this info. If so, I would recommend Googling Dr. / Fr. Malachi Martin, who wrote about these things, and so much more. A true Vatican insider, he was released from his vows, and became a best selling writer (not a bad author too, if you've ever read any of his books). Some may question his motives, but he was continuously supported by the "traditionalist" element in the Church (which is still at odds with the mainstream "Vatican II" church...think Mel Gibson sort of traditionalist--they don't even believe the pope today is genuine), and many believed Fr. Martin was just calling a spade a spade.

Fr. Martin died in 1999 under questionable circumstances (accident, he fell, yeah right), before he could finish his book that was to lay out what the Vatican would be doing in the first part of the 21st century. Too bad we won't have his info to compare to what is actually going on....

JR MacBeth
MyBlog: Gathering Storms Ahead



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


I don't think he was. A Pope is just like a president, a puppet in the hands of people that no one really knows who they are or know very little about.

Popes are only entitled to be more inconsistent because they aren't public elected and don't give too much of a rats ass about the public opinion since their sheep see them as GODs on earth and are tied by their balls by a religion that he helps to maintain. A luxury that most presidents (or kings/queens for what it matters) can have or take advantage of in the same sense.




posted on May, 30 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   
I suggest reading "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire". This book (along with the obvious history of Rome) also touches on the rise of the Christian church.

The church is HARDLY what Jesus envisioned. When JC came with his information it was a simple premise of mostly follow the 10 commandments with some deep meditation fodder in the parables.

Good stuff.

Then came the "church" .

You had the christian "hippies" that thought that if they wore more "sack cloth and ashes" they were more holy than you.

You had the schisms of the early leaders that battled with excommunications if they got pissed at each other.

*Did Jesus ever excommunicate? hmmm. dont really think so. What human REALLY thinks they have the ear of God to the point they say "throw his ass out please".


I digress.

With the disagreements over dogma and politics in the early days, how would we think it would get better? Kinda like a marriage getting started with "oh, they'll change".

yeah. right.

The church is the Roman Empire V.3 (Byzantium was V.2). It has all the corruption and evil of the latter days of the empire.

Im not quite a Dan Brown fan (hey, he ripped off Holy Blood-Holy Grail) but he has made mainstream the apparant evil in the church.

I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT CATHOLICS (or all clergy) ARE BAD. I'd give the clergy a 20% positive rating.....maybe.

Modern Christianity on the whole is a collosal waste of time. Its driven by the prosperity garbage, co-dependency, and egotism.

I'm sure that Jesus walking into ANY church of over 75 people would not be pleased. Sometimes small is better. The people can more easily watch for BS from the pulpit.

Sometimes to be a good "sheep" you must also be a good "wolf".

#As a side note,

I did kinda like JP2. I think he MIGHT have been trying to get things square. He had a good vibe. I think the church tripped him up some too. IMHO.


[edit on 30/5/10 by felonius because he cant spell]

[edit on 30/5/10 by felonius]



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   
I think I've discovered who the actor was who replaced Pope Paul VI during some appearances. I knew there was something familiar about the face. It was driving me bananas.






top topics



 
19

log in

join