Paul McCartney died in 1966 - replaced by Billy Shepherd

I'm sorry, but I absolutely do not believe that anyone who actually knew Paul well would have failed to notice the difference. And we are not talking about a difference detectable over a period of years. We're talking about a big difference in 4 months.

[edit on 27-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
I'm sorry, but I absolutely do not believe that anyone who actually knew Paul well would have failed to notice the difference. And we are not talking about a difference detectable over a period of years. We're talking about a big difference in 4 months.

[edit on 27-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

And this being the part that gets me. Out of all these people, friends, family, fellow musicians and so on, not one of them has come out to admit it, to admit to what must be one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated.

Ok, I know coverups happen, I know that every story has a kernel of truth within somewhere but as for this one... Well, at least it makes for good, healthy debate. It gets us all thinking, and that's the important thing..

Here's an important one for you, well worth some research.. Why does the first cuppa of a morning taste so much better than the second?

Cheers!

Where is the difference???

look at this comparisons video:



or look at these:





There is 20 years between these pictures:




See how his facial assymetry is exactly the same?


Now let's compare all 4 Beatles:



These are from the same photoshoot. Who changed most? Certainly not Paul!!

Originally posted by kshaund
Wikipedia is not a credible source but I expect you and the rest of the internet world would disagree with me on that point.

I think most people would agree that's it's not smart to completely dismiss something because you don't like the source. Wiki is as credible as any website, all websites can contain BS. How do you decide which to believe?
Because you research and check the info, or it says what you want to hear?

Can you provide evidence that the article is wrong? Do you know enough to edit that article to correct what you think is wrong?

If you can't, or won't, then your post is just empty words.

[edit on 27-7-2009 by Wally Hope]

I think the thing with using Wikipedia as a source is that, due to experience, people have been made aware of discrepancies in some information due to editting bias.
I know that it is frowned upon as a source in Academic circles.
I can appreciate, however, that the majority of information is probably 'correct' and that it can be useful as a 'go to' a la supermarket, for information. However, if the article is worth its weight, it will at least have sources which can then be followed up because it is much better to find the original 'proposition of concept etc' than to use third- or fourth-, or even secondhand information.

Regarding the topic: I have no opinion at the moment. I swing wildly between 'believing' and 'not'.
I do find it fascinating, however.

reply to post by aorAki


You just have to use common sense.

Why would someone post a long article about a known subject that was made up?

Anyway there are plenty of other resources...

But identifying individual faces is tricky, and the software can't find faces in all photos, says Gokturk. For instance, if an image is obscured, it's difficult to identify. "We most likely won't be able to detect your face if you paint it green," he says.

www.technologyreview.com...

A study by the government's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), for example, found false-negative rates for face-recognition verification of 43 percent using photos of subjects taken just 18 months earlier, for example.

www.biometricsinfo.org...

Are those sources better? Faulcons recognition software from that genealogy site is not very scientific or accurate.

round face vs long, thin face



[edit on 27-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Ears, eyebrows, mouth, etc



[edit on 27-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Originally posted by aorAki
I think the thing with using Wikipedia as a source is that, due to experience, people have been made aware of discrepancies in some information due to editting bias.
I know that it is frowned upon as a source in Academic circles.

Wiki is helpful as a starting point, but I would never cite to it in a legal or scholarly work.

reply to post by faulconandsnowjob


I notice you buy into the David Ike reptilian stuff.

Kinda explains a lot to me. I mean if you believe that you'd believe anything...

'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' (Carl Sagan)?

Just like the evidence for reptilians, your evidence that PID is extremely weak, and some of it is nothing but laughable.

Watch out, those 4th dimension fiends are out to get ya!

I'm new to this conspiracy theory, so I'd appreciate if someone could answer a couple of questions. If Paul died in 1966, what was the point of replacing him? Was he such an icon that the truth about him being dead would be too "devastating"? How is it possible to perform a near perfect transformation in the 60's? Am I wrong for not thinking too highly of plastic surgery in the 60's?

Originally posted by Wally Hope


You just have to use common sense.

I agree, sadly it is largely lacking...ubiquitously so.

Originally posted by Wally HopeAre those sources better?

Yeah, I consider those to be better sources.

So, what do you think about 'the Italian Job' if I can appropriate that title?
The lead scientist had some pretty good credentials.

Originally posted by Excitable_Boy

Billy Shepherd was also known as Neil Aspinall and he was "Billy Shears" from the Beatles song and also Billy Pepper....aka Sgt. Pepper....

In the song, 'Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band'... do you know who sang 'A little help from my friends' after the Billy Shears introduction lyrics?

Hmm?

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
I'm sorry, but I absolutely do not believe that anyone who actually knew Paul well would have failed to notice the difference. And we are not talking about a difference detectable over a period of years. We're talking about a big difference in 4 months.

The thing is if anybody had noticed then the game would have been up. This is what makes the whole hoax illogical. Can't you see the irony of your post?

You said, 'I absolutely do not believe that anyone who actually knew Paul well would have failed to notice the difference...' and you're right, people would have noticed the difference. Again that's what makes the whole hoax illogical.

Originally posted by Wally Hope

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
I'm sorry, but I absolutely do not believe that anyone who actually knew Paul well would have failed to notice the difference. And we are not talking about a difference detectable over a period of years. We're talking about a big difference in 4 months.

The thing is if anybody had noticed then the game would have been up. This is what makes the whole hoax illogical. Can't you see the irony of your post?

You said, 'I absolutely do not believe that anyone who actually knew Paul well would have failed to notice the difference...' and you're right, people would have noticed the difference. Again that's what makes the whole hoax illogical.

^That is a very good point!

This is how Paul himself dealt with it, in an Simspons episode:

Originally posted by diabolo1
Where is the difference???

look at this comparisons video:

or look at these:

There is 20 years between these pictures:

See how his facial assymetry is exactly the same?


Now let's compare all 4 Beatles:

These are from the same photoshoot. Who changed most? Certainly not Paul!!

Well done Diabolo!
He looks the same under every respect.

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
round face vs long, thin face

[edit on 27-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Hi Faulcon, sorry but I had a round face too when I was 20, now I am 33 and my face is thinner, this does not mean I am not the same person (I hope )...
People's face loose the chubby appearance while they grow old because of the reduced volume of Bichat's fat pad in the cheeks.
(www.cirugiafacial.com...)

PS by the way how can we compare face shape using pics where he has different expressions and even the shot angles are different... in the pic on the left side the face looks "compressed" because the camera was lower, while the right photo shows a long face because the shot was taken downwards...
(sorry for my not-so-good English)

Originally posted by magnolia_xx

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
round face vs long, thin face

[edit on 27-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Hi Faulcon, sorry but I had a round face too when I was 20, now I am 33 and my face is thinner, this does not mean I am not the same person (I hope

)...
People's face loose the chubby appearance while they grow old because of the reduced volume of Bichat's fat pad in the cheeks.
(www.cirugiafacial.com...)

You put the wrong numbering in this assesment. You actually give an age variation. Also of which is in 13 years. Please change this to conform of 4 months to be a better comparison.

So your saying your face was round in September ? and your face became a longer style shape by december ? Wow um Do have pics inbetween these times ? =D

[edit on 28-7-2009 by Bldrvgr]

The differences between the guy in a span of months is far to asanine to believe could happen to anyone. His physical appearance, lifestyle, voice, ability on writeing songs, his signature, and attitude all changed with a load more.

He could be considered a freak from the entire transition. his eyes supposedly changed color to which no one can validily show that could ever happen. The entire turnabout change as well is something that has never happened in a record of a few months. There is no examples of other people experianceing these changes because they are not there, Paul is a "Special" one of a kind case.

In which i call blatant BS.

at this point until people magically start bringing photos and research on variouse other people that have had these similar "events" accur in such a short time frame. to the point of where people purposefully do not want to bring in certain photos due to it blatantly cannot be rationalized, so skip to a photo that can. Then and only then will actually consider the other stance.

[edit on 28-7-2009 by Bldrvgr]