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.
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.
Originally posted by aorAki
Nope, because I'm bringing my uncertainties out into the open, not shooting things down with a few unverified words.
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/.
I can't know when the tampering took place. Some people have vintage pictures of Paul that have not been tampered w/.
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 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
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!
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
Originally posted by Ethera
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.
I was asking simply for your belief, no proof needed, as you have done a great deal more research than I.
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 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.
Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
Some of the "faux" Pauls have rounder faces than others.
True. Take this guy on the far right, for ex:
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.
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?
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.
Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
[edit on 7-9-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]
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.
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 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?
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.
Do you have a date for this photo?
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.