Paul McCartney died in 1966 - replaced by Billy Shepherd

reply to post by LucidDreamer85


No problem, I didn't mean to give YOU that impression either

I can't get away from the nose....nobody knows the trouble I've seen!

I want to address the lighting issue that someone raised. The thing is that most people don't need to have the exact correct lighting conditions to look like themselves in pictures. In addition, Paul looks like Paul in the comps, & Faul looks like Faul, but Paul & Faul don't look like each other. This is true even with different lighting conditions. That honker on the right is noticeably longer than the one on the left. I don't care what anyone says about "lighting conditions."



Anyway, big difference in the foreheads, too, methinks.

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85

Disinfo agent possible i assume ...I could be wrong though....have been before..

?

Didn't take long for that one to be rolled out despite the fact I even predicted
it a few posts ago.
No mate I am simply intelligent enough to realise that one of my musical heroes did not die and become replaced by a stooge who amazingly and unprecedentedly could look, sound and sing exactly like the real Macca
and continue to fool his friends, family and millions and millions of fans for nigh on 40 years after.
Someone mentioned his teeth, Paul has two prominent central incisors
and one inward pointing lateral incisor which is clearly evident in any pics which show him smiling, some of which I posted above.

I can't believe I am even attempting to prove anything as this whole thread
is utterly ridiculous and as usual in these cases as has already been proven, you either jump on the bandwagon and continue to perpetuate the myth by making statements like 'oh yes his ears are an odd shape in that black and white photo from 1963 compared to the one from 1969'' or 'in that youtube video'' (which of course couldn't possibly have been edited/photoshopped in order to further this wacky theory etc etc) OR you are set on by the 'truthers' and labelled a ''disinfo agent''.

Falcon whatever your name is, if you felt this passionately and are so convinced about this Faul person why didn't you start a thread of your own before now, this goes for all of you other gullible idiots trying to find differences in photos

Well when you can show me some irrefutable evidence I'll sit up and take notice but until that point continue this utterly pointless charade which sullies the name of one of the greatest musicians and songwriters of our time.

Shame on you if you call yourselves Beatles fans and in the same breath proclaim Paul McCartney to be deceased.

ps. to the poster asking did I think Paul's Wings work compared to the Beatles? what a ridiculous question, he wrote some terrific songs with Wings who were a terrific band in their own right but how could you compare anyone to the Beatles, it wasn't Lennon/McCartney and it was the 1970's.
If that adds weight to your petty notion about this 'Faul' person then
you really are clutching at straws.

"Whisper words of wisdom, let it be. "

No mate I am simply intelligent enough to realise that one of my musical heroes did not die and become replaced by a stooge who amazingly and unprecedentedly could look, sound and sing exactly like the real Macca

Except he doesn't, which is obvious to some of us. It has nothing to do w/ "intelligence," just powers of observation.

and continue to fool his friends, family and millions and millions of fans for nigh on 40 years after.

He didn't fool anyone but the gullible public who wanted to believe he was the real Macca. Most people, sadly, will believe anything TPTB tell them.

And btw, photos are proof of identity - that is why they're used on ID's. If 2 people don't look the same, have the same features, & are of different heights, then chances are they not the same person.






[edit on 6-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Fantastic!

So tell me what are these dramatic differences that you see
in the above.

Apart from the fact that Paul is three years older in the picture on the right
if they are indeed from the times you stipulate.

Dear oh dear.

It's a different guy in those 2 photos. Don't you think the cheeks look just a little weird?



This one on the right has weird cheeks, too. What is that? Some kind of collagen injection to give him chipmunk cheeks? Looks like it sagged a bit.





[edit on 6-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Originally posted by pmexplorer
ps. to the poster asking did I think Paul's Wings work compared to the Beatles? what a ridiculous question, he wrote some terrific songs with Wings who were a terrific band in their own right but how could you compare anyone to the Beatles, it wasn't Lennon/McCartney and it was the 1970's.

Not all of Paul's songs done in the Beatles involved John Lennon. And since when did it being the 70's fly as an excuse for not writing good music? There was plenty of good music written in the 70's.

Not all of Paul's songs done in the Beatles involved John Lennon.

I used to think Paul's solo work wasn't as strong as his Beatles work b/c he wasn't working w/ John, but I don't really think John's solo work was that strong either. I just don't see the genius that was in the Beatles' songs in the solo work. That's JMO.

I've never been much of a Beatles fan and never heard of this before except maybe in passing. Never looked into it. I have to say the photos definitely look like different people. Not just aging either but different people. Also how is the height difference explained? He is taller after 67 which is extremely odd, at least from the pictures I viewed on the Officially Pronounced Dead site.

I have a hard time believing this though. I went to Ickes site and looked at the hands and they look like the same hands before and after 67. I swear the photos look like different people, lol. I don't know what to make of this one.

Hands are the same. < can't fake the lines in the hands
Face looks different.
Height is different. < ?

Keeping an open mind but I think it has to be the same person just because of the hands.

Keeping an open mind but I think it has to be the same person just because of the hands.

Really? Even though so many things are different, like the faces & the height? Ok... lol.

I think it has to be the same person just because of the hands.

Really? Even though so many other things are different, like the faces & the height? Ok... lol. But, the hands were different. Faul's palm was longer w/ shorter fingers compared to Paul's.




And even if the hands do look similar, I'm not buying it. Not unless it's the same fingerprint. But what are the chances of that.

Here is a comp w/ Paul's dad. Was Faul standing on a box?




[edit on 6-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

This is what I was talking about w/ the cheeks:



I think they over did it a little. lol

These comps use 1/2 of Paul's face & 1/2 of Faul's face. They don't match up. But feel free to try it for yourself.






[edit on 7-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Simply, Faul has shorter or fatter fingers. That's pretty obvious to me based on this photo.





[edit on 7-7-2009 by SednaSon]

Originally posted by SednaSon


Not all of Paul's songs done in the Beatles involved John Lennon. And since when did it being the 70's fly as an excuse for not writing good music? There was plenty of good music written in the 70's.

You don't say.
What I meant was that it was a different era, times were changing, music
was changing, styles were changing etc.
And the original point was that I was arguing that Paul continued to write excellent songs and music which he did and has done throughout his career.
But the idiots in here who believe for example that his cheeks are different
in the pictures above would have you believe different in order to further
their ridiculous theory.

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
This is what I was talking about w/ the cheeks:

I think they over did it a little. lol

These comps use 1/2 of Paul's face & 1/2 of Faul's face. They don't match up. But feel free to try it for yourself.

[edit on 7-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

I'm sure if I posted ill-fitting pictures of myself from different periods
of my life I'd look bloody different too.
God almighty you don't half make the most ridiculous attempts to
carry on this charade!
Photos from one end of the sixties to the other of varying sizes and quality where you seemingly fail to account
for a boy turning into a man, natural ageing, weight gain, hair growth,
constant change in fashion and personal grooming styles, edited photographs etc etc etc.
Sorry but you're not fooling anyone mate.

Surely I'm not the one one who has retained his sanity around here
or has this utter nonsense actually managed to sucker you all in?

I really do despair. But then I guess I would seeing as I'm a ''disinfo agent'' etc.

I cannot, for the life of me, believe this thread is still going.

Dear lord!

reply to post by faulconandsnowjob


The reason I say that is because I see absolutely no way someone could fake the lines in their palm. I know he looks different, sometimes completely different in the photos but if you you weigh the 2 things.

Palm Lines vs Photos

I think the the palm lines are heavier, for now.

Just one opinion that wouldn't be hard to change with a little more info. I'm just not willing to say they replaced a human being without a little more evidence. I admit there is a ton of weird weird stuff going on here though.

For now I lean toward it's the same guy.

The thing I can't figure out is the height difference ???? That seems like stronger evidence than the face differences to me.

But the idiots in here who believe for example that his cheeks are different
in the pictures above would have you believe different in order to further
their ridiculous theory.

Temper, temper. The "idiots" simply have a better eye for detail than you have. Those chimpmunk cheeks might fool you, but they don't fool me, esp not when they sag like in "Fool on the Hill." lol

I'm sure if I posted ill-fitting pictures of myself from different periods
of my life I'd look bloody different too.

Like I said, go ahead & try to make them fit. Good luck w/ that. Notice that the different halves of John's George's faces fit together just fine. And anyway, the basic structure of one's face doesn't change w/ age. It's really just refusing to face facts to insist that the 2 halves of these faces come from the same guy:



The ear is different & the eyes are even different colors. lmao

[edit on 7-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Originally posted by pmexplorer
You don't say.

What I meant was that it was a different era, times were changing, music
was changing, styles were changing etc.
And the original point was that I was arguing that Paul continued to write excellent songs and music which he did and has done throughout his career.

Setting the Paul is dead theory aside, would you please answer my question? Do you think Paul's songwriting in the 1970's compares to his songwriting in the Beatles, particularly from 1964 to 1966?

Originally posted by DazE777
I cannot, for the life of me, believe this thread is still going.

Dear lord!

I cannot believe how many people won't give this a fair look. It's not the most outrageous thing. There are more unbelievable scenarios than this one. I think people just get attached to their celebrities and don't wanna admit something was wrong. Heck, they don't even wanna look!

[edit on 7-7-2009 by SednaSon]

[edit on 7-7-2009 by SednaSon]