Paul McCartney died in 1966 - replaced by Billy Shepherd

Originally posted by Ethera
After looking at all the pictures in this thread, I find the current Paul and teen Paul look more similar than the early Beatles Paul and the late 60's to late 70's versions. The current Paul and the younger Paul both have long faces. Beatles Paul has a round face and the later incarnations all vary.

If the pre Beatles Paul pics match the aged man now, but not the early Beatles and Wings Paul, are the young pic in circulation not the real Paul or is it the real Paul and the early Beatles version an impostor, a face for the fans and the real Paul wanted his glory and threw the fakes out?

Ethera, it's just "optical illusion". Through the late 60s and the 70s especially, Paul was either setting or following the fashions which in those days could change every month. Think about all those makeover shows on TV: all they do is give someone a new hairdo and a new set of clothes and then their friends/colleagues hardly recognise them. Throw in a "V" moustache (which makes the face appear longer), a load of different facial expressions, lighting conditions, camera angles and lens types, and a dose of natural ageing, and you get all the "different" Pauls.

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Originally posted by Getsmart
Turning an interesting thread into a flame war is a fairly lame way to try to get a thread you don't agree with closed.

This is, basically, info-warfare being waged on the internet. Some of us are trying to reveal some information that some other people would rather keep hidden. I don't take it personally. They're just doing their jobs. JMO.

While he'll probably say we're wrong because we cannot "prove" his intent, I will choose to not feed the troll, who is doing a rather lame and amateurish job of disinfo. If he really was that skeptical he'd have been out of here in a flash. Clearly the motives are of an "alternate nature".

Originally posted by Getsmart

While he'll probably say we're wrong because we cannot "prove" his intent,

'Getsmart' by name but not by nature eh?

Yes a demand for proof of such a claim is a rather surprising one alright.

Originally posted by pmexplorer ''Info-warfare! "

Unfortunately Faulcon's interpretation of 'evidence' is far removed from what might actually be presented in a court of law.

Well, it seems that you have not yet figured out that nobody here is on trial although you seem to have taken on quite the role as public accuser? If you don't like this thread, nobody has shackled you to it.

We are also entitled to our opinions, and you've had plenty of opportunity to voice yours. Keep it, nobody is trying to convince you. Be so kind as to give us a break by ceasing to dole out grief. ATS threads are not for flame wars.

Let us now go back to our discussion about various - plausible or implausible - hypotheses or unsubstantiated insights into what may or may not have transpired.

GetSmart

To get this thread back on track here is a neat theory about John Lennon's death.

Note: Opponents of any unproven hypotheses (by definition a hypothesis is not yet proven) or imaginative speculation without hard evidence should stick to reading court reports rather than purposely disrupt the free exchange of ideas, abstract concepts and sometimes inspired if unsubtantiated insight.

Disclaimer: This is NOT a claim. It is, like most of the ideas tossed about in this thread, just an idea. Nobody is suing anyone over this free speech medium. We are having healthy clean fun and at the same time entertaining our intellect with controversial thoughts. We are not held to adhere to, defend or support any assertions, given they are only stated here for the above stated purpose.

Here is the link suggesting that John Lennon was not assassinated by the officially designated culprit, but was executed by express order of political interest groups which John Lennon openly denounced and vehemently opposed. The identity of the alleged assassin is unusual to say the least. For your perusal:

www.lennonmurdertruth.com...


[edit on 7-9-2009 by Getsmart]

Originally posted by pmexplorer


'Getsmart' by name but not by nature eh?

Brilliant! True to form there!

So there is nothing that has been presented that even makes you think "Hmmm"?, no curiousity about nose shape, eye colour, strange happenings with ears, fake moustaches, strange circumstances, just situation normal with nothing odd at all?

You see, I tend to think that there is and while I can't absolutely prove it (obviously) I feel that there is a lot of information that when compiled together as a whole does start to make me go " Hmmmm".

Yes, you are entitled to your opinion just as I am to mine and it appears that we will never agree on this topic.

but hey, this is the internet and you can't willingly choose who will reply to threads and who won't so I'm happy to go along with that. It makes for interesting reading (sometimes) and is eye-opening as to how close-eyed some people are....especially, it seems, when it comes to someone they've 'pedestalled'...perish the thought...they couldn't do it to my idol, could they?....could they?

Originally posted by Getsmart
To get this thread back on track here is a neat theory about John Lennon's death.

Wow, so your idea of getting this thread on track is to start posting about a completely seperate incident and basically unrelated subject matter.

Who is this 'we' you speak of. Are you part of a specific group?

Or do you see yourself as a representative for other 'pid' believers opinions also?

Also please spare me the little speech on forum ethics when you are trying to simultaneously accuse anyone with a contrary opinion of being a 'disinfo' agent.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions as am I.

This thread is discussing Paul McCartney, if you want to discuss the
murder of John Lennon then there are plenty of threads on here for you to do so like this one for example...

www.abovetopsecret.com...



[edit on 7-9-2009 by pmexplorer]

Originally posted by aorAki

Brilliant! True to form there!

So you accept double standards? It's okay for him to label someone a troll?

Originally posted by Getsmart

Originally posted by pmexplorer ''Info-warfare! "

Unfortunately Faulcon's interpretation of 'evidence' is far removed from what might actually be presented in a court of law.

I think it's so funny how pm keeps saying that, even though I've posted legal definitions of evidence over & over. I guess he missed it the 1st 20 times I posted it?

ev⋅i⋅dence  [ev-i-duhns] Show IPA noun, verb, -denced, -denc⋅ing.
–noun
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

dictionary.reference.com...

[Federal Rules of Evidence] Rule 401. Definition of "Relevant Evidence"

"Relevant evidence" means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.

www.law.cornell.edu...

Let us now go back to our discussion about various - plausible or implausible - hypotheses or unsubstantiated insights into what may or may not have transpired.

GetSmart

But that is exactly what they don't want - lol.

[edit on 7-9-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

But that is exactly what they don't want - lol.

How amusing that Faulcon chooses every now and then to ensure she responds to those she has made a point of ignoring.

Who's this they you are referring to Faulcon?
Come on now. You obviously don't miss anything on here despite pretending that you do.

No one has asked for legal definitions. You are the one claiming things which you cannot prove are true and that you know these things for a FACT.

It's quite hypocritical (and bemusing) to then try and worm your way out of this by posting definitions of evidence for some strange reason.

[edit on 7-9-2009 by pmexplorer]

[edit on 7-9-2009 by pmexplorer]

Originally posted by pmexplorer

Originally posted by aorAki

Brilliant! True to form there!

So you accept double standards? It's okay for him to label someone a troll?

Yep, if the cap fits....
I don't really think you're a troll, but I don't think you are adding anything new to this discussion either...your contentions have been dealt with time and time again and just as you are accusing the PID (for want of a better acronym) of not acknowledging posts, so can the same be applied to your methods of obfuscation.

Anyway, something smells in the land of the Fab Four and I'm not sure exactly what, but something definitely ain't right.

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob


I think it's so funny how pm keeps saying that, even though I've posted legal definitions of evidence over & over. I guess he missed it the 1st 20 times I posted it?

Yeah, I was going to say something about that but I considered it better not to stoke the fire...but yeah, you've posted enough to show me at least you have a grasp of the law!


[edit on 7-9-2009 by aorAki]

Originally posted by Getsmart

Originally posted by pmexplorer ''Info-warfare! "

Information Warfare on the Internet

... Information techniques

Distraction with irrelevant posts. ... Discussion is lost in the noise...

Distraction by voluminous postings with no information by blowhards and empty name-callers. (Can be hard to distinguish from genuine blowhards.) People who wallow in the mud do not need to outdebate you; they only need to drag you down there with them...

Planting of provocateurs (and sleeper agents, etc.). These people will vary from the posters who suddenly show up one day under an alias attacking regular posters, to people who seem like regular posters themselves. They may work in teams, supporting each other and giving the illusion of popular support on the net. (Remember, net IDs are basically free, and one person can have many.) ...

www.opposingdigits.com...

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
Some pics of young Paul have been tampered w/ to give him a long face. It's also possible that pics of young Faul have been introduced into the mix to confuse the situation.

As far as older Faul looking more like Paul than he did in the early stages, that may be b/c of more plastic surgeries, or his "Paul disguise" improved.

You believe the candid pics of a pre-Beatles Paul have been tampered with to create a more believable natural age related morph into Faul.

When do you believe the pics were tampered with? In the immediate aftermath of the alleged replacement? Now, using current technology? Would absolutely no one have candid pictures of early Paul?

Yes, plastic surgery could be responsible for the older Faul's look, but what I am pointing out is the the Beatles era Paul is the least like the alleged before Beatles or alleged after replacements being presented.

On the topic of plastic surgery, there is no way to know if Paul had surgery prior to his Beatles era days. If the alleged car accident I have seen listed around happened, wouldn't it be logical to conclude an accident of that magnitude, if not fatal, would be disfiguring and require a multitude of surgeries, rendering the subject much different in appearance from his prior state? If the car accident allegations are true, the need for doubles, the apparent multiple doubles, and the current McCartney's apparent surgery would all be explained. As for the supposed clues left on subsequent Beatles albums, expert marketing skills, twisted senses of humor, and admitted drug abuse would be logical basis assumptions.

Originally posted by aorAki


Yep, if the cap fits....

I don't really think you're a troll, but I don't think you are adding anything new to this discussion either...your contentions have been dealt with time and time again and just as you are accusing the PID (for want of a better acronym) of not acknowledging posts, so can the same be applied to your methods of obfuscation.

Anyway, something smells in the land of the Fab Four and I'm not sure exactly what, but something definitely ain't right.

If the cap fits eh? Well that explains a whole lot.

What contentions have been dealt with time and time again?

How about you go back through the last few pages where I have posted some interesting link and footage of Paul which was simply overlooked.

Possibly because Faulcon jumped in with yet more of the same old images taking up half the page as a response.

You make claims about obfuscation and then end on the claim that
''something definitely ain't right'' but you don't know exactly what!

Aye, double standards alright.

Originally posted by seaofgreen
Ethera, it's just "optical illusion". Through the late 60s and the 70s especially, Paul was either setting or following the fashions which in those days could change every month. Think about all those makeover shows on TV: all they do is give someone a new hairdo and a new set of clothes and then their friends/colleagues hardly recognise them. Throw in a "V" moustache (which makes the face appear longer), a load of different facial expressions, lighting conditions, camera angles and lens types, and a dose of natural ageing, and you get all the "different" Pauls.

Those are excellent points. Backgrounds and environments influence the interpretation of what we are seeing greatly, as you pointed out. Clothing, hair, complexion, and weight have incredible influence on our perception of a person's look.

Drug and alcohol abuse and overall lack of self-care would also have contributed to rapid and premature aging, explaining why the alleged double appeared several years older.

Originally posted by Ethera
You believe the candid pics of a pre-Beatles Paul have been tampered with to create a more believable natural age related morph into Faul.

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

When do you believe the pics were tampered with? In the immediate aftermath of the alleged replacement? Now, using current technology? Would absolutely no one have candid pictures of early Paul?

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

On the topic of plastic surgery, there is no way to know if Paul had surgery prior to his Beatles era days...

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."

Originally posted by pmexplorer

You make claims about obfuscation and then end on the claim that
''something definitely ain't right'' but you don't know exactly what!

Aye, double standards alright.

Nope, because I'm bringing my uncertainties out into the open, not shooting things down with a few unverified words.
There's a difference between obfuscation and uncertainty, but I don't need to school you on grammar now, do I?

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

You believe the candid pics of a pre-Beatles Paul have been tampered with to create a more believable natural age related morph into Faul.
Yes, some have. Paul had a very round face. If his face looks long, it's either Faul or it's been tampered w/.

Faulcon, that's rubbish and you know it well.
You have already been shown up on here for posting pictures of Paul, and then later re-posting them and claiming there were facial discrepanies and that it was in fact''Faul''.

If you can't even get your own 'evidence' right how do you expect anyone to take you seriously, it's completely shambolic.



[edit on 7-9-2009 by pmexplorer]

Originally posted by Ethera

Drug and alcohol abuse and overall lack of self-care would also have contributed to rapid and premature aging, explaining why the alleged double appeared several years older.

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!