Paul McCartney died in 1966 - replaced by Billy Shepherd

Originally posted by kshaund
Are you kidding??? Of course you do! You're here, aren't you?!?

Er, this isn't a 'PID' forum, thank god.

Originally posted by kshaund
pm, you've offered nothing in all these pages - how could the person who started this thread be accused of trolling?!?

Did you ever answer my questions a while back, about all the threads you started here that you seem to have lost interest in since this one started? Hmm... me again thinks he doth protest WAY too much.

What about threads I've started?? Who says I've lost interest in them?
How is that in any way shape or form relevant to the discussion on this thread?
Offered nothing eh? Have you actually read through the entire thread.
I doubt it seeing as you are implying by your reply above that you believe
faulcon started the thread.

Or are you just like uncle benny trying to take this thread off topic by trying to focus on me personally?

Originally posted by kshaund
Perhaps reminding others of the 'ignore' button would be useful.

Oh believe me I've tried but I think they know that it would take away so much enjoyment if they (and you) didn't get to read my quality posts
and in of course retort with their mock outrage each time some of their
'evidence' gets shown up for what it is or they cannot answer the simplistic answers I put to them, or in faulcon's case simply ignore the fact that her claims have been refuted and just continue on trying to convince herself that she is somehow in the right by posting more of the same pictures and
leaning on her precious Italian report each time she's pressured for an answer.

Let me welcome Dakudo to the thread, I value your excellent input.

Beware though, they don't like it up 'em around here!


[edit on 26-8-2009 by pmexplorer]

Different heights?



Don't think so!

Different facial features?



Don't think so!

Originally posted by Dakudo

Paul has hazel eyes. Sometimes they do look a greeny colour depending on the lighting.

For example:
[edit on 26-8-2009 by Dakudo]

I know Dakudo. Some of the PID'ers insist Paul's eyes are brown, maybe in order to support the evidence they offer? I was pointing out in early photos, his eyes appear green, pointing to hazel, hurting the eye color argument.

Another issue I don't remember seeing in the thread, which I am not going through again, was that Paul had a palsy condition, causing a lopsided look and droopiness. Could his changes be attributed to surgeries to alleviate or correct his appearance?

Originally posted by Dakudo
In YOUR opinion it's "inconclusive".

In your OPINION it's the same guy.

To the vast majority of people across the entire world, it's very conclusive that Paul was never replaced.

Most people don't spend any time examining things. They just go by what information they are told.

Unless you provide objective - as opposed to subjective - 'evidence', this situation will happily remain.

The situation is changing fast. Many more people on the net are waking up to the fact that Paul was replaced with a double in '67. Pretty soon there will be a book out about it and this will reach even greater audiences.

Originally posted by pmexplorerLet me welcome Dakudo to the thread, I value your excellent input.

Thanks.

Beware though, they don't like it up 'em around here!

I'm used to PIDDERS.

reply to post by Dakudo



So Dakudo, welcome aboard!

I notice in that comparison (which is compelling on first glance) that the bridge of the nose changes, as well as the shape and placement of the eyebrows.

Any thoughts on this?

Originally posted by SednaSon
]In your OPINION it's the same guy.

Just like 99.99% of the entire world. Unfortunately for you, the 'evidence' you provide to support your extraordinary claims is not credible.

Therefore, the status quo will prevail. You are in the minority for a reason.

To the vast majority of people across the entire world, it's very conclusive that Paul was never replaced.

Most people don't spend any time examining things. They just go by what information they are told.

Many people have examined the PID hoax and come to the conclusion it is ridiculous.

Unless you provide objective - as opposed to subjective - 'evidence', this situation will happily remain.

The situation is changing fast. Many more people on the net are waking up to the fact that Paul was replaced with a double in '67.

Oh, really? Please provide the source and statistics to back up this statement.

Pretty soon there will be a book out about it and this will reach even greater audiences.

There have already been books about it and countless newspaper and magazine articles about it over the last 40 years.

And still most people haven't bought into your theories. Why would a new book change anything now?

[edit on 26-8-2009 by Dakudo]

[edit on 26-8-2009 by Dakudo]

[edit on 26-8-2009 by Dakudo]

Originally posted by SednaSon

Most people don't spend any time examining things. They just go by what information they are told.

I hope the irony of that sentence hasn't been lost on the others here!
Like all 'pid' believers for example.

Originally posted by SednaSon
Unless you provide objective - as opposed to subjective - 'evidence', this situation will happily remain.

Dakudo has, I have, others have time and time again.
But instead of discussing you, faulcon and the rest of you will flatly deny it and repetitively post the same old images you posted 20 pages ago and ridiculous image comparisons lifted from other pid forums like on the david icke site where images have been manipulated to try and prove your weak theories are correct.

Originally posted by SednaSon
The situation is changing fast. Many more people on the net are waking up to the fact that Paul was replaced with a double in '67. Pretty soon there will be a book out about it and this will reach even greater audiences.

Since when was it a FACT ??

Many more people on the net? Oh really do you have any figures / stats to back up this claim?

Oh is faulcon writing a book? That'll surely be a bestseller!

Same guy - just older:

Faulcon can't even see the big differences she claims!


It's just the hair!

or aging, in this case more then 20 years later:





not the same guy?












stuPID







DIFFERENCE BEING WHAT?








[edit on 26-8-2009 by diabolo1]

Brilliant and conclusive post Diabolo.



Excellent work.

It's only conclusive if you can prove that the photos used haven't been 'altered' in any way (and this goes for both sides of the argument). certainly in some (from both sides) they appear as two different people to me.
Yes, people can change appearance over time, fashions change yada yada yada but physical changes over such a compressed period of time are curious.

I think words like conclusive aren't appropriate yet as there are too many things left suspended....

....Dakudo, did you see my question in relation to your post?

I spend maybe 5 minutes a day going through this thread, so it's not something I invest a lot of time in, but I seem to notice subtle differences.
Whether these are real or imagined I haven't determined personally yet, but I'm sure I will be told one way or another.


Yes, this thread is image heavy and there are lots of youtube links. That is probably because it is a new topic here and so many of the people (myself included) weren't aware of the extent of the information surrounding both sides of the argument. However, there are other 'clues' that people have pointed out, discrepancies, certain words and phrases and visual motifs recurring through their work (from what I can gather) that haven't been satisfactorily explained yet.....to me, at least.

[edit on 26-8-2009 by aorAki]

Originally posted by DakudoTherefore, the status quo will prevail. You are in the minority for a reason.

The minority also believed the earth was round whereas the majority believed the earth was flat. So I don't care about being in the minority.

Many people have examined the PID hoax and come to the conclusion it is ridiculous.

And many have come to the conclusion that the Paul of 1966 and before is a different man than the "Paul" of 1967 and beyond.

Oh, really? Please provide the source and statistics to back up this statement.

I have better things to do with my time. Why don't you provide evidence that they are the same man without saying the majority of people think he is the same man?

There have already been books about it and countless newspaper and magazine articles about it over the last 40 years.

Most or all of those books and articles focus on the clues of Paul is Dead and not on the physical differences in Paul. If anything, these books are disinformation in that they don't focus on the most important aspects of the subject.

Originally posted by pmexplorer

Originally posted by SednaSon

Most people don't spend any time examining things. They just go by what information they are told.

I hope the irony of that sentence hasn't been lost on the others here!
Like all 'pid' believers for example.

Well what makes more sense? To brainwash 1% of the population or 99% of the population?

Originally posted by aorAki
reply to post by Dakudo

 

So Dakudo, welcome aboard!

Thanks.

I notice in that comparison (which is compelling on first glance) that the bridge of the nose changes, as well as the shape and placement of the eyebrows.

Any thoughts on this?

Lighting, slightly different camera angles. The eyebrows will change position according to the expression and muscular movements of the face. Eyebrows can also alter appearance according to how you pick them.

Do the eyebrows look different in this comp:



Don't think so.

Also, one of Paul's eyebrows was messed up by the motorbike accident:



Same eyebrows... and same eyes:

Originally posted by Dakudo
And the very same marking on the chins?

I would like to point out the fact that in this photo it is clearly visible a capped incisor tooth. Paul McCartney had that tooth chipped in a moped accident in December 1965 (visible in the "Rain" videoclip) and obviously had it capped.
This is another proof that the man of this 1967 photo actually is Paul McCartney.

Originally posted by SednaSon

Originally posted by DakudoTherefore, the status quo will prevail. You are in the minority for a reason.

The minority also believed the earth was round whereas the majority believed the earth was flat. So I don't care about being in the minority.

Well you should - because your analogy is competely erroneous. You are supporting your Paul is dead myth with another myth - which is kind of ironic:

Contrary to what most people think, the Earth was known to be spherical in ancient times. The ancient Greeks even calculated its circumference with surprising accuracy.
www.christiananswers.net...

However, it is important to note that many people were aware that the Earth was a sphere by the 3rd century B.C.; it is a common myth that people believed the Earth was flat in the Middle Ages, when in fact by that point it was widely known that the Earth was round.
wiki.answers.com...

Many people have examined the PID hoax and come to the conclusion it is ridiculous.

And many have come to the conclusion that the Paul of 1966 and before is a different man than the "Paul" of 1967 and beyond.

My point still stands. It addresses your point which infered that people don't investigate for themselves and therefore don't see the differences. They DO - and have come to the conclusion it is the same man.

Oh, really? Please provide the source and statistics to back up this statement.

I have better things to do with my time.

If you are not prepared to substantiate your claims then you shouldn't make them in the first place!

You had "time" to make the claim, yet no "time" to provide substantiation?

In other words - you have inadvertently admitted that you DID NOT have any evidence to substantiate this claim when you made it!

Otherwise you wouldn't now need "time" to back your claim up.

Shocking - just shocking!

Please - stick to FACTS - not fantasy.

Why don't you provide evidence that they are the same man without saying the majority of people think he is the same man?

Why should I have to provide evidence? I'm not the one making the extraordinary claim - the PIDDERS are.

If you are claiming that Paul was replaced and a different man has taken his place, why should I have to provide evidence its the same man? The onus is on you to support your allegations since your the ones making them.

There have already been books about it and countless newspaper and magazine articles about it over the last 40 years.

Most or all of those books and articles focus on the clues of Paul is Dead and not on the physical differences in Paul. If anything, these books are disinformation in that they don't focus on the most important aspects of the subject.

The Wired article focused on the physical differences. It doesn't seem to have resulted in any change whatsoever. I don't see hundreds of people suddenly appearing on this or any other board saying Paul was replaced.

[edit on 26-8-2009 by Dakudo]

who cares any more if he did die its one of the best cover ups if not who cares he made great music any ways

Originally posted by Dakudo
[

Why should I have to provide evidence? I'm not the one making the extraordinary claim - the PIDDERS are.

If you are claiming that Paul was replaced and a different man has taken his place, why should I have to provide evidence its the same man? The onus is on you to support your allegations since your the ones making them.

Much as it 'pains' me to say so, this is a good point.

I suspect, however, that this is going to be a case of 'Never the twain shall meet' regarding PIA/PID.

xenchan' , I care if only because if it is true then we have been duped and if it isn't why did he make such atrocious music later on?



(Mind you, I'm more of a Husker Du/ The Chills type fan to be honest)

Originally posted by Dakudo
Well you should - because your analogy is competely erroneous.

Again, that's your opinion.

My point still stands. It addresses your point which infered that people don't investigate for themselves and therefore don't see the differences. They DO - and have come to the conclusion it is the same man.

If everybody truly investigated this, then a lot more people would see the difference. I don't know if it would be a majority of the population, but it would be certainly more than 1%.

If you are not prepared to substantiate your claims then you shouldn't make them in the first place!

I am not here to defend every position I take based on the demands of someone who has an opposing view. Can you "prove" that the majority of the population believes Paul to be the same guy? You probably could, but it would be harder than you think to "prove" it and it would take up a lot of your time, which would be undesirable I assume.

You had "time" to make the claim, yet no "time" to provide substantiation? Sounds like you cannot back your claim up.

Oh, please.

Please - stick to FACTS - not fantasy.

The facts are that the Paul McCartney of 1966 and before is a different man than the Paul McCartney of 1967 to today.

Why should I have to provide evidence? I'm not the one making the extraordinary claim - the PIDDERS are.

If you wanna prove your point in words other than 'the majority believes it's the same Paul', then you could provide some evidence. But that is entirely up to you.

If you are claiming that Paul was replaced and a different man has taken his place, why should I have to provide evidence its the same man? The onus is on you to support your allegations since your the ones making them.

We've provided plenty of information for people to make up their own minds. If after seeing the information we have provided, you still don't think that it's the same guy then that is your business. But it's not for you to decide for others if the information PIDers have supplied is enough to support our argument. That's up to each person that views the information to make that determination.