Paul McCartney died in 1966 - replaced by Billy Shepherd

Originally posted by Wally Hope
Eight out of ten posters, who contributed to this thread, say they do.

9 out of 10 people are asleep - So there`s a vacancy here for one more brainwashed PIAer who believes everything (s)he reads in the mass media.

reply to post by Uncle Benny


Oh, thank you for letting us know, Uncle Benny.
We needed this clarification.

Originally posted by Uncle Benny

www.youtube.com...

Paul McCartney was replaced.

Look Wally I can do that too!

I see you casually overlooked by previous reply to your last
post here.

Paul IS NOT DEAD

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by Uncle Benny

Originally posted by Wally Hope
Eight out of ten posters, who contributed to this thread, say they do.

9 out of 10 people are asleep - So there`s a vacancy here for one more brainwashed PIAer who believes everything (s)he reads in the mass media.

LOL! So true.

[edit on 16-8-2009 by SednaSon]

I've just found these pictures in the Daily Mail of a very young Paul McCartney. Nothing to do with the PID debate, but I thought they would be interesting for everyone to see.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Originally posted by SednaSon
They don't "perfectly" match.

No, they don't. You can tell just by looking at the pics that they don't match.



But even if you can't tell, forensic science has proven that they don't match:
only1rad.proboards.com...

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Originally posted by SednaSon
They don't "perfectly" match.

No, they don't. You can tell just by looking at the pics that they don't match.

But even if you can't tell, forensic science has proven that they don't match:
only1rad.proboards.com...

Faulcon, you go on saying the same things all the time.
And I wonder why you picked this horrible grainy pic among all the great pics of young Paul available on the web, to declare that they don't match...

Originally posted by magnolia_xx
Faulcon, you go on saying the same things all the time.
And I wonder why you picked this horrible grainy pic among all the great pics of young Paul available on the web, to declare that they don't match...

The reason they don`t match is because they`re of two completely different men. The shape of both heads is different, eyes and eyebrows and McCartney never grew those ridiculous looking "boot-polished" tashes on his face.

Here`s a nice compilation of Paul from pics and vid footage -

www.youtube.com...

Oh yes, they are so C O M P L E T E L Y different that PID people need to show tampered photos and bad stills to try and prove that they are different guys, and so C O M P L E T E L Y different that many people here, and most of the people all around the world firmly believe that the "Paul McCartney" writing songs and touring around nowadays is the very same guy who met John Lennon on July 6th, 1957 in Woolton...
And this notwithstanding all the PID proofs.

Oh well, as we say in Italy, il mondo è bello perchè è vario...
(not literal translation: the world is interesting because there are so many different opinions)

Originally posted by magnolia_xx
they are so C O M P L E T E L Y different that PID people need to show tampered photos and bad stills to try and prove that they are different guys,

I would say this about the PIA people in that they need to show tampered photos to show they are the same guy.

Assuming that Paul was replaced, what would PID people do then?
If all this was unconfutably proved, not basing on photos and comparing face features, but for example by a DNA test (comparing his DNA with Michael McCartney DNA)?
BTW I wonder who would go under surgery to have the same naevi on his neck? Many pics showed that Sir Paul has the same spots that 16 year-old Paul had....

Originally posted by SednaSon

Originally posted by magnolia_xx
they are so C O M P L E T E L Y different that PID people need to show tampered photos and bad stills to try and prove that they are different guys,

I would say this about the PIA people in that they need to show tampered photos to show they are the same guy.

Yeah, it is funny how the PIA'ers use doctored photos to show how they're the "same," even though forensics proves they're not. For ex, I've noticed they use the tampered photo from Sgt Pepper for comps:



But anyway, here's another comp showing how they're not the same person.




[edit on 17-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Another page and yet another repost by faulcon and her cronies
of the same old pictures which prove absolutely nothing except that
there are lots of Paul McCartney pictures available online, some of which
have been manipulated by the mccartney has died conspiracy theorists
to try and support their weak and baseless theory that he was killed / died
and subsequently replaced even though there is zero proof other than
the aforementioned tampered and photoshopped images which folk like
faulcon use to try and convince the other gullible ones like uncle benny etc
that his eye colour, nose and various other features changed dramatically over the years when in fact they did not, they will also not seem to allow for natural ageing or the fact that he along with the rest of the beatles and the rest of the world underwent changes in fashion,hairstyles and beliefs during the 60's.
Youtube collages are the most laughable claims of 'proof' on here
and before someone chooses to point it out, my post above with a video link was in sarcastic reply to uncle benny's repetitive posts and was tongue in cheek.

**awaits faulcon's next picture gallery

[edit on 17-8-2009 by pmexplorer]

Originally posted by pmexplorer
Another page and yet another repost by faulcon and her cronies
of the same old pictures which prove absolutely nothing except that
there are lots of Paul McCartney pictures available online, some of which
have been manipulated by the mccartney has died conspiracy theorists
to try and support their weak and baseless theory that he was killed / died
and subsequently replaced even though there is zero proof other than
the aforementioned tampered and photoshopped images which folk like
faulcon use to try and convince the other gullible ones like uncle benny etc
that his eye colour, nose and various other features changed dramatically over the years when in fact they did not, they will also not seem to allow for natural ageing or the fact that he along with the rest of the beatles and the rest of the world underwent changes in fashion,hairstyles and beliefs during the 60's.
Youtube collages are the most laughable claims of 'proof' on here
and before someone chooses to point it out, my post above with a video link was in sarcastic reply to uncle benny's repetitive posts and was tongue in cheek.

**awaits faulcon's next picture gallery

[edit on 17-8-2009 by pmexplorer]

Another empty post from the angry little man!


www.youtube.com... - Paul McCartney R.I.P





[edit on 17-8-2009 by Uncle Benny]

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

But anyway, here's another comp showing how they're not the same person.

...

When I get to the bottom I go back to the top of the slide
Where I stop and I turn and then I go for a ride
'Til I get to the bottom and I see you again

(repeat ad infinitum)

It's been proven by forensic science that Paul was replaced in 1966. I'm really sorry if some people can't handle that fact, but it's not going to stop me from exposing the truth.

I think something IS going on here, but I really don't think those pics are any good for comparison (and you know how I feel about the eyes/nose/ ears).

Some will agree, some won't. It seems to be human nature, but I am amazed at the 'vehemence' of some of the replies, especially the PIAers. Why such aggression?

We finally got the Letterman interview with P.McCartney on our free to air tv last night (it's o.k. we got electricity in 1885 and cars in 1999 so we're catching up!) and it was an odd interview...he's quite unrelaxed really and his eyes do dart about....


That there are clues to something shouldn't be in dispute. As to what they mean, that is another matter.

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
It's been proven by forensic science that Paul was replaced in 1966. I'm really sorry if some people can't handle that fact, but it's not going to stop me from exposing the truth.

Faul's forehead is much bigger.

Originally posted by SednaSon



Faul's forehead is much bigger.

That may be so, but that photo is not good for that comparison. Until 'we' can come up with concrete, tangible and junior-school level, then we can't expect the PIAers to jump ship

Originally posted by aorAki

That may be so, but that photo is not good for that comparison. Until 'we' can come up with concrete, tangible and junior-school level, then we can't expect the PIAers to jump ship

I don't think we're going to find anything more conclusive than a biometrical analysis by forensic scientists showing that Paul was replaced. I don't think anything will convince the PIA'ers short of Paul's dead body or a confession from Faul.

These photos are just fine to compare. Paul's jawline is completely different from Faul's. The scientists said it was a 6% difference - too much to be the same person w/out having extensive surgeries.

...The mandibular curve between the two sets of photos showed a discrepancy of over 6 percent, well beyond the threshold of error. But there was more. Changed the development of the mandibular profile: before 1966 each side of the jaw is composed of two curves Net, since 1967 appears to be a single curve. There is therefore a curve morphological different...

ASK WHO WAS THE "BEATLE"
/mw83db

[edit on 17-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]