Paul McCartney died in 1966 - replaced by Billy Shepherd

Originally posted by Wally Hope
]

Dude you are looking at this too hard.

Or, dude (I'm not that natty a dresser by the way, and I grew up in the country, so by definition, I'm not a dude, dude) you're not looking hard enough.

The measurements were as exact as you could get with a simple graphic

But they only shew two dimensions and there were discrepancies there.

Yes I did as explained already. If it was to be used in court then a little more time and better photographs it wouldn't be approximate, because they measure exactly the same as you can see if you actually look. I say approx because you can't see the skull because of skin but as long as my lines are the SAME on both pics than being slightly off to the actual skull doesn't matter, as long as the lines on both pics match to the same points on each photo then the skulls are the same size.

So you drew lines on two pictures and made them match up, even though you didn't remove the hair/skin and we are supposed to just accept this even though there appears to be evidence to the contrary?
And why patronise us by using a simple graphic rather than one that would hold up in a court of law?

Im aware of the official details of the album.Just one more coincidence in a list of many.My opinion only of course !!

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Try to find evidence of Faul biting his nails. Go on, I dare you. Oh, & Paul did bite his finger-nails - even in interviews.

Oooh a dare! I love dares.

Okay then, here you go, a search that took me all of 60 seconds
brought up this excellent interview with Sir Paul.

Watch out for 6.57 approximately and 7.34 to 7.42 approx.

www.youtube.com...

(Oh and be sure to check out the thumbnail image for that video
when it appears in the search list with the others, a lovely shot of Paul
exactly like the ones you posted as 'proof' in his heyday with the Fab Four with his finger pressed to his mouth)

Next.



[edit on 16-7-2009 by pmexplorer]

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
If you don't like the fact that voice prints can be used to establish identity, then you should take it up w/ the legal system.

OK then why don't you then take your 'voice prints', you do have them right? Take them to a judge and let the legal system take care of it, or just give you a written assessment of your voice prints?

So, there were a lot of people who knew about PID in 2005? How would you know? You're dropping hints that you know something, but you clearly don't. Nice try. But we'll ask someone who has more history in this.

Yes a lot of people new about it in 2005, sry but I was around in 2005 and remember it well. In fact it's something that was often discused by various people, many times, since I left high school in 1980. Just because you were not in the loop in 2005 it doesn't mean lot's of other people didn't know about it.
Your claims are ridiculous, like I said before what makes you such an expert to make such claims? Did you make all those PID web sites? Just because something is not mentioned in the media, or on the net, it doesn't mean it's unknown and not being talked about elsewhere. The net is just a small part of our world, even though it might seem like everything revolves around it. Only about 19% of the worlds population use the internet.

Do you even know what "relevant evidence" is? It is "evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any material fact more or less probable." Why do you think photos are on picture IDs? I think photos of faces are very relevant to establishing identity.

Yes, this point has been addressed already. The point you keep missing is photo's are only good for evidence if they point to something relevant. You are completely missing how this actually works, people other than yourself have to interpenetrate those pics according to what they can see, NOT WHAT YOU CLAIM YOU SEE. In other words you could scream all day at a judge that because you have two pictures with different eye colour it proves Macca died and was replaced, the judge does not have to, and probably won't, agree with you. He would use common sense and logic to determine the eye colour was not a sign of 'faul' play, but simply a natural occurrence, and your case would be thrown out.
If you continued to show your pictures with your faulty logic you would probably get contempt of court, and or a frivolous law suit charge.

This is kind of like pmexplorer's idea of asking Faul if he's Paul or not. lol

Hehe love your logic, of course, it's Faul he would just lie, damn silly me!

And how would you know? You're obviously not a lawyer. lol

Why obviously? Can't lawyers post on internet web sites? They do a lot of sitting around waiting you know with not much to do.

How do I know those pics show nothing? Because I have eyes in my head. Using a lawyer to answer your question would be like using a chain saw to trim your toe nails. If you want me to mention this to my lawyer I will, he likes to have a chuckle. Let me know...

[edit on 16-7-2009 by Wally Hope]

Uh-oh he's doing it again!

Sorry Faulcon, I know this must hurt a lot.

www.youtube.com...

3.05 to 3.10 approx.


Next?

Originally posted by aorAki
So you drew lines on two pictures and made them match up, even though you didn't remove the hair/skin and we are supposed to just accept this even though there appears to be evidence to the contrary?
And why patronise us by using a simple graphic rather than one that would hold up in a court of law?

I give up mate. I told you how to check it for yourself, you could be more accurate than me even, as accurate as you're able to be.

Taking his skin off you're being too literal. I said my measurement were approx to pertinent skull points. Regardless they match IN BOTH PICTURES 50 years apart in age.

The only way to prove me wrong is to DO IT YOURSELF. Take the same pics I did and do what I did. The take two different pics and do the same. Try matching up two different people without stretching the pics to fit, re-size with proportions constrained only. Why is that so hard? You could have done it days ago and saved all this pointless groundhog day posts going over the same stuff again and again.

Originally posted by pmexplorer
Oooh a dare! I love dares.

Okay then, here you go, a search that took me all of 60 seconds
brought up this excellent interview with Sir Paul.

Watch out for 6.57 approximately and 7.34 to 7.42 approx.

www.youtube.com...

.........

Uh-oh he's doing it again!


Sorry Faulcon, I know this must hurt a lot.

www.youtube.com...

3.05 to 3.10 approx.


Next?

He's not biting his nails! Watch the videos again, all he's doing is touching the corner of his lip which I've seen Faul do many times before.

reply to post by pmexplorer


Jeeze these guys really do live under rocks huh?

I used to bite my nails, all the way though high school until I was working, and then I quit doing it, because most people DO when they lose the nervous habit as their adult confidence grows.

They used to sell this stuff you painted on your nails that tasted nasty to help you break the habit. In England at least, nail biting was very common in kids.

Originally posted by Wally Hope

I used to bite my nails, all the way though high school until I was working, and then I quit doing it, because most people DO when they lose the nervous habit as their adult confidence grows.

Indeed. Nor have they ever heard of someone quitting other habits like smoking
or drinking it seems. But then again you have to remember that they
are desperate to be right despite knowing fully well that this is a complete farce.

"Twin Freaks" is a good example of Faul referencing his twin. The video for "Ever Present Past" is another one.

Here's a link to a vocal comparison & a sonagram of the 2 "Paul" voices:
digilander.libero.it...

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
"Twin Freaks" is a good example of Faul referencing his twin. The video for "Ever Present Past" is another one.

That idea has just been debunked by a thorough explanation which
I posted.

Now are you going to answer the important question I directed towards you
(you know the one you answered with a question back there)or are you going to continue to duck and dive and post this regurgitated nonsense that you have just googled?

Originally posted by pmexplorer


That idea has just been debunked by a thorough explanation which
I posted.

What if it had a dual meaning? One surficial one for the people who don't care/can't care/ won't notice/can't notice/slaves/sheeple etc and one for those who can.



Wally, how can things be 'approximate' in one sentence and then match in the next?
That's a bit sloppy.
I can't do the picture comparisons myself because my skill level in this regard is negligent. If I attempted it i wouldn't be happy with the results because I would be aware of the lack of certainty due to my lack of skill.

So there has been a sonogram undertaken and it came out as different people? Hmmm.

[edit on 16-7-2009 by aorAki]

Weird celebrity stories that may shed light on how infiltrated & controlled the entertainment industry is.

Margot Kidder
By ANDREW WILLIAMS - Friday, April 8, 2005

Actress Margot Kidder is best known for playing Lois Lane opposite Christopher Reeve in the Superman films. She also starred as Kathy Lutz in 1979's The Amityville Horror, a supposedly true haunted-house flick which has just had a Hollywood remake. Kidder had a nervous breakdown in 1996 and thought the CIA were trying to kill her. She's since recovered and continues to act in US TV movies...

www.metro.co.uk...

...
ROSEANNE: Well, I have this head shrinker and he says it's deliberately induced because the CIA is where they started inducing it when after they brought all the Nazis over from Germany to run American Psychiatric Association [Project Paperclip].

KING: What are you about?

ROSEANNE: I'm telling you the truth. It is all mind control and all kinds of things to invent people with multiple personalities. [MK-ULTRA]

KING: So you have been captured by Nazis?

ROSEANNE: The government. Well in a way, I believe the government has implanted some kind of a chip into my head where...

transcripts.cnn.com...

Has Britney Spears Flipped Because of Mind-Control?
Alex Constantine
www.thetruthseeker.co.uk...

Originally posted by pmexplorer

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
"Twin Freaks" is a good example of Faul referencing his twin. The video for "Ever Present Past" is another one.

That idea has just been debunked by a thorough explanation which
I posted.

Obviously, you've never studied hermeneutics if you think something can have only one interpretation. AorAki's interpretation is perfectly reasonable, that there are layers of meanings. Some will get the deeper meaning, some (most) will be completely oblivious. The Illuminati do tend to telegraph what they're up to.

[edit on 16-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Originally posted by pmexplorer

That idea has just been debunked by a thorough explanation which
I posted

I dont think posting an "official" version of why Twin Freaks is named can in anyway be classified as debunked. If everything was considered debunked because of an "offical" version of events, ATS probably wouldnt exist.

[edit on 16-7-2009 by jimstradamus]

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Obviously, you've never studied hermeneutics what they're up to.

No I haven't and I'm willing to bet you haven't either.

Was the illuminati in the studio recording the album aswell?

For the third time will you actually be answering my question from a previous post about Paul's family and friends anytime soon?
Because your theory hasn't got a leg to stand on until you come up
with a believable answer to that most basic and expected questions considering the subject matter.
And that's not just to appease me, as you'll know doubt be quick to note,
if you have any interest in saving face here then it's up to you.

Go round up your buddies on the other forums and see what they can muster up. And remember we won't accept a)the illuminati again or b) another dodgy ''PiD'' youtube montage video as an answer.


[edit on 16-7-2009 by pmexplorer]

Originally posted by jimstradamus If everything was considered debunked because of an "offical" version of events, ATS probably wouldnt exist.

Excellent point. The official version is the version I trust the least.

Originally posted by pmexplorer

For the third time will you actually be answering my question from a previous post about Paul's family and friends anytime soon?

I've already answered that at least 3 times, but I will answer it again, since it takes more time for some to catch on.

Let's see, why wouldn't they speak out? Maybe they were threatened or bribed. Didn't you watch the video w/ Heather Mills or consider how she was treated in the media? They threatened her & pretty much discredited her, I guess in case she did spill the beans. I guess they ended up buying her off.



[edit on 17-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Obviously, you've never studied hermeneutics what they're up to.

Originally posted by pmexplorer
No I haven't and I'm willing to bet you haven't either.

Then you would lose that bet. But this isn't about my extensive education, this is about Paul.

I guess you believe the "official" version of 9/11 & the JFK assassination, too? Why are you on ATS if you just believe official versions of everything?


[edit on 17-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Faul on David Letterman



This is him - the good double. Or is it?

Just preserving the myth. lol