Paul McCartney died in 1966 - replaced by Billy Shepherd

Originally posted by Ethera
overall lack of self-care would also have contributed to rapid and premature aging, explaining why the alleged double appeared several years older.

There is nothing to suggest Paul didn't take good care of himself. He nearly always looked immaculate. Actually, his personal hygiene habits could be contrasted w/ Faul's, who did not seem to have such a high standard.

The reason the double looks older is b/c he was older. If he wasn't, he certainly looks older - a lot older - in less than a year.

Aug 1966



February 1967

Originally posted by aorAki

Nope, because I'm bringing my uncertainties out into the open, not shooting things down with a few unverified words.

'..unverified words'?

How are they unverified? I have every right to 'shoot things down' when
they are completely false and the intention is to pass them off as evidence
or 'fact' in faulcon's case.
I'm not the one making these claims and attempting to verify the theory about Paul by posting falsified images and made up nonsensical youtube videos and then claiming it's the real deal.

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
Yes, some have. Paul had a very round face. If his face looks long, it's either Faul or it's been tampered w/.

Some of the "faux" Pauls have rounder faces than others. Is your position there were more than one impostor or simply the one you claim we know today or strictly tampering in every case even when the Fauls do not appear similar?

I can't know when the tampering took place. Some people have vintage pictures of Paul that have not been tampered w/.

I was asking simply for your belief, no proof needed, as you have done a great deal more research than I.

Well, there are a lot of pictures of Beatle-Paul, & no sign of major injury or scarring. He had a chipped tooth & a little scar from the moped accident Dec 1965, but that was hardly "disfiguring."

His injuries were negligible in the moped accident of 1965, yet there are some who have claimed an accident coverup in 1966, the very event some claim necessitated the Paul/Faul conspiracy.

I also would like to know what your position is on Neil Aspinall, another name which frequently appears in the PID/PIA information, based on your research.

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Originally posted by Ethera
overall lack of self-care would also have contributed to rapid and premature aging, explaining why the alleged double appeared several years older.

There is nothing to suggest Paul didn't take good care of himself. He nearly always looked immaculate. Actually, his personal hygiene habits could be contrasted w/ Faul's, who did not seem to have such a high standard.

The reason the double looks older is b/c he was older. If he wasn't, he certainly looks older - a lot older - in less than a year.

Aug 1966

February 1967

"The reason the double looks older is b/c he was older. "

Faulcon's latest notion...

...let's see then, he's grown a moustache and his hair is slightly different, he has a different facial expression and he's not in black and white.

Where's this evidence of 'lack of self-care", growing his hair and wearing different clothes??

What utter tripe.

Nothing to see here folks, move along now please.

Originally posted by aorAki
Not always, I still look much the same as I did twenty years ago, just have less hair....and I've lived HARD for years!

I look younger now than I did a decade ago. Paul was very young at the time. No one knows how deeply and how quickly the rock star lifestyle could have affected the individual. Some will weather the storm better. Others, such as Keith Richards, will be aesthetically annihilated.

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

There is nothing to suggest Paul didn't take good care of himself. He nearly always looked immaculate. Actually, his personal hygiene habits could be contrasted w/ Faul's, who did not seem to have such a high standard.

The reason the double looks older is b/c he was older. If he wasn't, he certainly looks older - a lot older - in less than a year.

Aug 1966

February 1967

George and John look as old, if not older, than Paul, in that photo. John looks to be in his 40s.

A cursory examination of the picture leads to an indication of harsh lighting which loses intensity near Ringo's eye level. Look at John's shirt, near the neck. The detailing is quite easily seen. The same can be said for George.

Move down to Ringo. Ringo's jacket fades into John's shirt, making differentiation of the two clothing items extremely difficult. If the lighting were uniform, that would not be the case. The lighting appears to be harsher at the top steadily softening as the eye moves down. Soft lighting is utilized in television, movies, and print because it softens the subject and makes imperfections less noticeable.

[edit on 9/7/2009 by Ethera]

Originally posted by Ethera

Some of the "faux" Pauls have rounder faces than others.

True. Take this guy on the far right, for ex:



He's really just an amalgamation of Paul & Faul.

Is your position there were more than one impostor or simply the one you claim we know today or strictly tampering in every case even when the Fauls do not appear similar?

I don't have an opinion yet as to whether more than one double was used. It's possible there was only one, but tampering & plastic surgery make it seem as though there was more than one.

I can't know when the tampering took place.

I was asking simply for your belief, no proof needed, as you have done a great deal more research than I.

We have found pictures from 1967 that have been tampered w/. When the pictures of "young Paul" w/ a long face were put out there, I'm not sure. There are some new ones cropping up that no one seems to have seen before, so I think maybe we're seeing the influx of such photos. It's just to confuse the issue.

His injuries were negligible in the moped accident of 1965, yet there are some who have claimed an accident coverup in 1966, the very event some claim necessitated the Paul/Faul conspiracy.

Right. There are some who think there was a car accident. I don't happen to subscribe to the "accident" theory.

I also would like to know what your position is on Neil Aspinall, another name which frequently appears in the PID/PIA information, based on your research.

With respect to what, in particular?

[edit on 7-9-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Originally posted by Ethera

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

February 1967

George and John look as old, if not older, than Paul, in that photo. John looks to be in his 40s.

That is a very interesting observation.





[edit on 7-9-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Some of the "faux" Pauls have rounder faces than others.
True. Take this guy on the far right, for ex:

But but but but, Faulcoun, you have claimed you know what happened and you know it for fact, or have you suddenly had a change of heart?

Why don't you enlighten Ethera and everyone else with what you do in fact believe and cease posting the same old pictures (see above) which were explained many moons ago by other users on here.

[edit on 7-9-2009 by pmexplorer]

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Some of the "faux" Pauls have rounder faces than others.
True. Take this guy on the far right, for ex:

He's really just an amalgamation of Paul & Faul.

If I am following you properly, what you are saying is due to different techniques and base pictures utilized, the consolidation may not match others which were altered, explaining the differences in the alleged Fauls.

Right. There are some who think there was a car accident. I don't happen to subscribe to the "accident" theory.

If there is a Faul, something must have happened to the real Paul? I thought most subscribed to the car accident, supposedly referenced in hidden clues on subsequent albums. Would the alleged drowning, or another incident, be the more plausible considering your research?

I also would like to know what your position is on Neil Aspinall, another name which frequently appears in the PID/PIA information, based on your research.

With respect to what, in particular?

I have read allegations Neil Aspinall was the real Paul McCartney which offered picture based evidence to support the claim. He was also alleged to have been a replacement, temporarily, after the real Paul's alleged death. Does your research indicate either or something completely different?

[edit on 9/7/2009 by Ethera]

[edit on 9/7/2009 by Ethera]

Originally posted by pmexplorer


Faulcon's latest notion...

...let's see then, he's grown a moustache and his hair is slightly different, he has a different facial expression and he's not in black and white.

Where's this evidence of 'lack of self-care", growing his hair and wearing different clothes??

What utter tripe.

Nothing to see here folks, move along now please.

There you go again, you just can't help yourself, can you?!

So you honestly don't see any differences in those two photographs, beyond what you posted?
Good golly

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Do you have the date information for those two photos? There are differences between each man in those two photos.

Compare each man in those pics.

Paul on the left has a nose which appears almost and beaky as Ringo's.

John appears young and fresh on the left, while appearing years older on the right. He looks haggard on the right.

George's teeth, seen clearly in both, appear uneven on the left, yet much more straight and even on the right. Focus on his left, our right, incisor and canine.

Ringo's teeth and chin appear different in both as well.

The major differences between the photos are lighting, soft and in color versus harsh and in black and white. Just one of the aforementioned differences could make the subjects appear quite different, but the presence of both severely comprises the comparison accuracy.

[edit on 7-9-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Do you have a date for this photo?

Again, we have a lighting change, natural as opposed to artificial. All four look older and George has a slight overbite not visible in the prior pics.

One major difference between this photo and the prior two is the angle. The last picture appears to have been taken by someone looking up at the subjects, instead of straight across. This can change the appearance of a subject from subtly to drastically depending on bone structure and features of the subject.

[edit on 9/7/2009 by Ethera]

reply to post by kshaund


Much as I am tempted by this, philosophically I can't bring myself to do it. I'll take the good with the bad.

[edit on 7-9-2009 by aorAki]

@ Ethera: geez, so they were ALL replaced??!!!




























































[edit on 7-9-2009 by aorAki]

@aorAoki

Show me where I even alluded that all the Beatles were replaced? I believe I pointed out different colors, lighting, angles, print, and environments change perceptions.

The real question is what did you infer.

Originally posted by Ethera

If I am following you properly, what you are saying is due to different techniques and base pictures utilized, the consolidation may not match others which were altered, explaining the differences in the alleged Fauls.

That's possible. More amalgamations:





This picture from the White Album (1968) was reused a couple of years later? Why? Wouldn't they have wanted a more recent picture - especially for a cover?



This is a picture of Paul from 1966 that was recycled for use in 1967.



Look at the mustache -



These 2 are pics of half Paul, half someone else:





I don't know what they were thinking here, but it just came out looking *wrong*

If there is a Faul, something must have happened to the real Paul? I thought most subscribed to the car accident, supposedly referenced in hidden clues on subsequent albums. Would the alleged drowning, or another incident, be the more plausible considering your research?

I think Paul was assassinated by TPTB for not getting w/ the program. My personal opinion is that it has to do w/ MK-ULTRA & '___'. Maybe Paul wasn't really keen on promoting it? I don't know, but the extent of this cover-up & media complicity make me think the Illuminati/intelligence services must have been involved.

I have read allegations Neil Aspinall was the real Paul McCartney which offered picture based evidence to support the claim. He was also alleged to have been a replacement, temporarily, after the real Paul's alleged death. Does your research indicate either or something completely different?

Well, I definitely don't think he was the real Paul. Whether he was the replacement or not, I don't have an opinion. I know that some amazing things can be done w/ disguises, though. Here's a thread on Neil Aspinall being Faul:
only1rad.proboards.com...

Originally posted by Ethera

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Do you have the date information for those two photos? There are differences between each man in those two photos.

It's 1967 - not sure about the month.

Do you have a date for this photo?

1968, possibly 1969.

Here's an example of what I was talking about earlier w/ pics of young Paul being stretched (top) - if that is even young Paul. It's been represented as such, though...



His left eyebrow sure looks funny ^ & the ears seem to be set at a different angle. Paul was really cute, but he did have Dumbo ears :-P lol






[edit on 7-9-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

An example of what can be achieved w/ makeup & Photoshop (never mind prosthetics, plastic surgery, etc)

Originally posted by Ethera
@aorAoki

Show me where I even alluded that all the Beatles were replaced? I believe I pointed out different colors, lighting, angles, print, and environments change perceptions.

The real question is what did you infer.

I wasn't meaning that you said that...sorry if it came across that way.
What I inferred is that they all look different.
John in particular (besides 'Paul')....
if they could get one, why not the lot? (waits for the flames) but we still are not sure about much of the technology they had back then...

But yeah, John looks well different too...

[edit on 7-9-2009 by aorAki]