View Active Topics          View Your Posts          Latest 100 Topics          Switch to Mobile

Paul McCartney was replaced by a double in 1966, experts say

Discuss Other Topics not related to the Paranormal or Conspiracies (within reason of course).

Re: Paul McCartney was replaced by a double in 1966, experts

Postby Scepcop » 06 Apr 2014, 02:19

Clare Kuehn JL wrote:
NinjaPuppy wrote:
Scepcop wrote:Maybe I was wrong about the whole Paul thing. Check out this playlist of video clips from interviews with Paul McCartney from 1965 to 1968. They all look like the same person - same face, same voice, same mannerisms, same tempo of speech, same facial features, same facial expressions, etc. So I guess maybe I was wrong about him being replaced?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkKYgX2F ... kKYgX2Fu-U

With something like this, there's really no right or wrong. It's just speculation and/or fodder for discussion. While there is a right or wrong answer to the basic question, it's still interesting to review the possibilities.

It's pretty much the same with CTs and all of the other paranormal subjects. Is there? Isn't there? No scientific proof. Plenty of personal experience. You name it, people can come up with it. I'm sure that questions like this have bought plenty of unusual things to light over the centuries.


Nonsense -- no offense intended, actually -- both of you.

Scepcop: if you think the most contained version (that is, resistant, calm) Paul McCartney in the press conference who does flash smiles suddenly is the same as the flatter-faced poseur who gave the LSD interview, with very different eyebrows when worried, you are quite mistaken. However, let me note to you ... given that Sir Paul is often more self-contained, head-oriented (intellectual-type), less animated, it would be better maybe if you didn't compare the most sedate Paul with the Sir Paul who is often sedate. The overlap for you in impression is obviously too much.


Hi Clare. Nice to have you here. Well you've studied the Paul McCartney thing for a long time. So I don't know. But how about this: Why don't you show clips of him just before he was switched, and then ones of him right after? Preferably clips that show close ups of his face. If they are different people, it should show.

Even clips of identical twins, if viewed enough times, will reveal differences. You can have a dog for years, and if it is replaced by another dog of the same size and breed and looks identical, you will notice the difference.

Even if the Paul McCartney today is an imposter, how do you know when he was replaced? Maybe it was after 1967?

How do you know he didn't have an accident and then have plastic surgery afterward that made him look different? Remember Mark Hamill who played Luke Skywalker in Star Wars? Well he looked different in Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back, because he had a car accident and plastic surgery on his face. Why weren't there conspiracy theories about him being replaced by a double too?
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3258
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Paul McCartney was replaced by a double in 1966, experts

Postby Scepcop » 06 Apr 2014, 02:24

justintime wrote:People should always go with their gut feeling. Was Paul McCartney replaced by a double? The answer is yes. The person who should know is his supposedly ex wife Heather Mills.
Here is the scoop. Paul McCartney is estimated to be worth a billion dollars today. Yet Heather Mills only go some 40 million as a divorce settlement. Why so little?
Because when she thought she was marrying Paul McCartney she was actually marrying his double.As Paul's double he was worth a lot less. So Heather Mills only got what half of what Paul's double was worth and had no grounds to contest her divorce settlement.
Another piece of evidence. All the women Paul has dated since the divorce have two good legs. So the rumour Paul was fetish about one legged women and the reason he married Heather Mills has been debunked.


Come on. That's flawed. Just because he's worth one billion doesn't mean he has one billion dollars. And it doesn't mean that Heather Mills should get half of that. She doesn't need that much money. Especially if she didn't earn it.

And even if he was a double, he is still officially Paul McCartney, so why shouldn't he have his full worth? If the courts recognize him as Paul McCartney, then he gets the value of the man.

Who did Paul date that had one leg? Where do you get this? Why would he have a fetish for one leg but not two? This makes no sense.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3258
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Paul McCartney was replaced by a double in 1966, experts

Postby Arouet » 06 Apr 2014, 03:11

justintime wrote: What is even more cruel according to the tabloids. Heather Mills would have got a whole lot less or nothing at all if she had two good legs because she could have walked out of her marriage unassisted.


Ok, I'll give you that this made me audibly chuckle!
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Paul McCartney was replaced by a double in 1966, experts

Postby Clare Kuehn JL » 06 Apr 2014, 13:57

Scepcop wrote:Hi Clare. Nice to have you here. Well you've studied the Paul McCartney thing for a long time. So I don't know. But how about this: Why don't you show clips of him just before he was switched, and then ones of him right after? Preferably clips that show close ups of his face. If they are different people, it should show.

Even clips of identical twins, if viewed enough times, will reveal differences. You can have a dog for years, and if it is replaced by another dog of the same size and breed and looks identical, you will notice the difference.

Even if the Paul McCartney today is an imposter, how do you know when he was replaced? Maybe it was after 1967?

How do you know he didn't have an accident and then have plastic surgery afterward that made him look different? Remember Mark Hamill who played Luke Skywalker in Star Wars? Well he looked different in Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back, because he had a car accident and plastic surgery on his face. Why weren't there conspiracy theories about him being replaced by a double too?


Hi back.

Clips are shown in many places. The idea "it would show" is tried all the time. You can learn to see it or see it right off, or you will not or cannot. Some people will never see it.

But it can be KNOWN.

One thing which happens in trying to point out how imagery and surgery would change the man is that some get befuddled by the many differences in different angles of camera and camera types; angles are going to give an impression of typical poses of the face and expression and so on, and cameras can change but there are typical proportional changes with those changes.

And there is context for the late 1966 date: ALL reference points in the circumstantial argument change there (and, if you see the difference in the men, that too).

So, regarding cameras, etc., and "we would see the difference" -- well, look! Do you see the differences? If not, can you learn what typically Paul did and looked like? Sure. Can you get an impression which deliberately asks: if he is different, what would I need to notice? Yes.

If you do that, you can then go back and say are those differences possible in the same man? This helps personal perception.

Or one can just look at the ear. The upper leg of the antihelix in the 2nd Paul is wider and further back than on the younger Paul (except for one false ear, where we can see the join to the head).

But when discussing forensics, one has to remember that one can still, ad hoc, try to explain them away. Even DNA can be argued as inconclusive by being imperfect possibly. So with the ear one could say that he specifically had a major cartilage change on that ear in a way which is improbable and maybe even impossible, or is wearing a false ear to look DIFFERENT than Paul. But what's the likelihood? No, we caught him out. One photo of the real ear.

Or learn the whole case, the likelihoods: why these kinds of things in high interrelated detail and serious circumstantial questionableness, if they're the same? Some cases are won on that alone.

Or learn to see it. Hear it. It's not TOO difficult.

When I was a kid I thought the Mag Myst Tour Paul must have been filmed years later because he was so not thin, boppy, young, and had high, flat cheekbones, a "longer" face structure relative to his nose and eyes and so on. But ... then I learned, a few years ago, the images of him poseur-like, totally different style of person and face, on the bus, were only 1 year after Sept 11 1966.

And ... noticed how THOSE personality and face structure attitudes were not changeable from the original Paul that way; think of turning a wider shorter face with narrower jaw into THAT. Nope.
User avatar
Clare Kuehn JL
 
Posts: 2
Joined: 06 Mar 2014, 02:51

Re: Paul McCartney was replaced by a double in 1966, experts

Postby ProfWag » 06 Apr 2014, 17:15

Looks like the same guy to me:
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Paul McCartney was replaced by a double in 1966, experts

Postby NinjaPuppy » 06 Apr 2014, 20:37

ProfWag - That's a good one!

Extra points for it being a YouTube video. :lol:
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Previous

Return to Off-Topic Board

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests