It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by poet1b
I know The Kinks.
I have shown my wife faul/paul pictures and she knows nothing about mccartney didn't even recognize him in the pictures, but I asked if it was the same guy with about 5 photos and each time she could distinctively pick out which one was faul and which was paul.
I asked my girlfriends 12 year old sister if they were the same man and she just laughed and went "no you stupid idiot" and carried on playing with her ipod like i was the fool for saying they were the same - the exact opposite of how we are told things are.....unbiased mind you see....
[T]he voice technology is present though not to the general public. United Airlines Flight 93 was an example of this with the cell phone call from Mark Brigham to his mother which is not normally the way one speaks to a parent or any close relative for that matter. Here is the transcript of the infamous call.
Caller: "Mom? This is Mark Brigham."
Caller: "I want you to know that I love you. I'm on a flight from Newark to San Francisco and there are three guys who have taken over the plane and they say they have a bomb."
Alice: "Who are these guys?
Caller: (after a pause) "You believe me, don't you?
Caller: "Yes, Mark. I believe you. But who are these guys?
Take into consideration how far advanced the U.S. military is compared to the mainstream technology of today, estimated 20-40 years as a good reasonable guess. With advanced algorithmic voice recognition and today's powerful computers, it is just a matter of programming detailed nuances of a voice using synthesis to allow a person to say anything and have it coming out so well not even your mother could tell it is not your voice over the telephone. The only key would be to have enough recordings of the individual to complete the voice profile.
Originally posted by cindymars
This is my favorite and most humorous of all conspiracies.
First time I read it I could not stop laughing. But hey, I am not saying it is not possible.
[edit on 28-5-2009 by cindymars]
Originally posted by Wally Hope
reply to post by faulconandsnowjob
This is just getting sillier. Eye color can look different under different light, and especially in photographs taken years apart. Eye color changes with age also usually from dark to light.
My eye color goes from green to grey to blue depending on the light and my mood.
I suggest you take a different person and do the same research and I think you'll find, according to your logic, everyone has died and been replaced.
Give it up man you have no argument here, Paul is the same Paul, and no I'm not a fan so don't go there.
Certain emotions can change both the pupil size and the iris color. That's why some people say their eyes change colors when they're angry or loving.
Eye color also can change with age. This happens in 10 to 15 percent of the Caucasian population (people who generally have lighter eye colors). For instance, my once very brown eyes are now hazel, a combination of brown and green. However, some hazel eyes actually get darker with age.
www.allaboutvision.com...
Originally posted by Wally Hope
reply to post by faulconandsnowjob
Again you are clutching at straws.
The angle a photo is taken can easily make people look taller or shorter.
You need to study other people to have a better idea of how small minute differences you are pointing out can be possible.
If it wasn't Paul it would be obvious.
But I guess you don't care as you are ignoring my posts you want to believe it's not Paul for some reason.
Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
Here is a comparison of Paul on the 1966 "Butcher album" & Faul in the 1970's.
Originally posted by chissler
So did Paul or Billy have the talent?
This really is hands down the most ridiculous conspiracy theory that exists. The notion that planes didn't actually hit the towers on 9/11 is more feasible than this.
People grow, they change. They lose weight, they gain weight. Millions of variables that are introduced in our day to day life can account for physical change. I've listened to almost every single Beatles song at least a hundred times a piece, if not more. And the voice singing "Love Me Do" or "Twist & Shout" in the early 60's is the same voice that was singing "Hey Jude" in the 70's and the same voice that tours today.
If this conspiracy is true, I just paid to go see Billy Shepherd in concert on July 11th. And that doesn't excite me nearly as much as the thought of seeing Paul McCartney.
Originally posted by Wally Hope
Originally posted by Fuggle
I think the most damning evidence, the one that really sheds the light on it is that the Real Paul played a Hofner bass. Faul used (and uses) a Rickenbacker.
OK that was a joke my bad, but I'll leave the rest of this cause I think it's funny...
I suppose John and George must have been replaced also because they also started using different guitars after they stopped touring, including Gibsons, Gretch, Fenders, Epiphones (before Gibson owned them).
Ringo got a new drum kit with an extra tom tom also, the old Ringo only need one.
So I guess we must have Tom, Faul, Beorge, and Bingo, the fabless four eh?
[edit on 30-5-2009 by Wally Hope]
Originally posted by chissler
Originally posted by SednaSon
Many of the pics are from August 1966 compared to December of 1966 where the differences of aging cannot show up that quickly. And it can't be weight gain or weight loss because his body looks generally the same in terms of leanness. There are too many differences in the bone structure of the face to discount. Why not take an open mind on this?
Oh I have an open-mind. And I'm not new to this theory. I just don't believe it. If someone can present something beyond what's been said here or previously uncovered, I'm fully prepared to reconsider my position and argue for a refund on my ticket. But as it stands, with what's been presented thus far, I've come to the conclusion that the theory is baseless.
Originally posted by SednaSon
Btw, John sang on "Twist and Shout" not Paul.
Indeed, but Paul's voice was still in the song. Well, it's overshadowed by the screams of teenage girls.. but if you listen close enough you can hear it.
Of those who believe this theory to be valid, do you believe that John and the rest of the Beatles were informed? If so, why would they perpetuate the lie and shame their dear friend in such a way of showing no respect to his passing. And if not, are we to actually believe that these people who spent every waking moment with him did not notice a difference?
It's not believable that every note, every chord, every move, every inside joke, etc. would have been a seamless transition.
It is more believable that the guys knew than didn't know. But I don't see any way that those guys, John especially, would have allowed Paul to pass on and have an impostor carry on in his place.
John was too damn stubborn to buy into something like that. And if he did, in a drunken stupor that he found himself in on a daily basis, it would have slipped to somebody.
Thoughts?
Are there any pics of him before all this and what happened to his existance after all this occured