It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Paul McCartney died in 1966 - replaced by Billy Shepherd

page: 104
<< 101  102  103    105  106  107 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 02:41 AM

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Originally posted by seaofgreen
I think this one was also described as funny a few pages ago, no explanation as to why though...

Don't you see how the ears totally don't match up? The cheeks don't match, either. Better do a more thorough job in Photoshop next time. :-P

They're two different photos of flexible skin & muscle, taken with different distances, angles, lenses & lighting -- what are your criteria for declaring a match?

posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 03:17 AM

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Originally posted by seaofgreen
Any serious discussion/argument/investigation ways up both evidence for and against. Where are your lists of evidence for and against? I'm not sure you even understand the concept.

Was that addressed to me? lol Yeah, I'm a lawyer but I have no concept of evidence. Give me a break. You want a list? Here ya go:

Paul: brown/hazel eyes
Faul: green eyes

No, I said evidence for and against -- the concept is question is the need to consider both in order to come to any sensible decision/conclusion.

In the future, if I don't respond to you, seaofgreen, it's b/c you're on my ignore list. Just FYI.

Do you find this approach works well in your role as a lawyer -- what does a judge/jury think when you don't respond to questions?

[edit on 31-8-2009 by seaofgreen]

posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 03:22 AM
Paul was just a little taller than his dad

Bill towers over Paul's dad

posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 03:42 AM

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
Paul was just a little taller than his dad

Bill towers over Paul's dad

Youths grow; old people shrink; people lean over, slouch, or stand up straight; shoes and boots have different heel sizes; etc.

posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 05:13 AM

Originally posted by switching yard
Seems like if the "Paul" of today is really Paul, then we would have
the following...

1. No slip-ups about Beatles history. There should not be mistakes
like "The Beatles were already a set-up affair when I joined"

The Quarrymen were already gigging when Paul joined -- they were set
up. The only "slip-up" was not to refer to them as the Quarrymen, but
in the context of what was being explained, it hardly seems
significant. In any case, few people have heard of the Quarrymen so
maybe Paul was just being helpful by not mentioning the Beatles old

posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 05:15 AM

Originally posted by switching yard
but obviously the present guy going around as Paul does slip up from time to time. So he's gotten good at being vague.

It comes to us all I'm afraid -- trying to remember events from even
twenty years ago is not easy, and if you can, you're only remembering
memories of memories anyway.

posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 05:17 AM

Originally posted by switching yard
2. No questionable photo comparisons at all. We should not be seeing
the long face of varied proportion, height difference, shoe size
difference, and so forth, but faulcon has readily provided the comps
that to my eyes prove there are different men in the photos.

All photo comparisons are questionable -- not least because
photos are so easy to alter.
Much more reliable evidence here would be things such as
order forms to place an order for shoes or a suit etc. -- I expect all
such documents will have been kept as souvenirs.

posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 05:17 AM

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

In the future, if I don't respond to you, seaofgreen, it's b/c you're on my ignore list. Just FYI.

[edit on 31-8-2009 by seaofgreen]



[edit on 31-8-2009 by diabolo1]

posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 05:19 AM

Originally posted by switching yard
3. If he's really Paul, why not put a stone cold stop to all the rumors and websites by voluntarily submitting to a forensics exam which would include fingerprints, DNA, and cranio-facial measurements and show the evidence (presuming it wouldn't be doctored evidence)? PIAers would say he just doesn't have to prove anything, but consider the amazing P.R. boost he would get from that if he volunteers as a good-natured chap and says, "Allright then, let's prove it once and for all." He would get great P.R. from proving it, however that obviously seems not in the cards at all.

This would be true if commentators in the press were starting to
suggest that he should; but at the moment, it's not really on anyone's

posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 05:20 AM

Originally posted by switching yard
4. If the PID theories are such a joke, why has it been reported that he phoned the radio talk show himself in Cleveland from Scotland "in a rage" about it

Wouldn't you be a bit upset? The reason he was in Scotland was that
he wanted a bit of privacy.

posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 05:23 AM

Originally posted by switching yard
5. If the death clues on the albums are really innocent coincidences, why did Beatles and their inner circle who were involved in them either hotly deny it

They denied that they were death clues because they were coincidences. In
fact, they weren't even coincidences, they were just fabrication --
walruses and lack of shoes have never been a sign of death.

or say things like "Oh, you mean the grave on the cover with flowers
on it? There's no particular meaning in that." You get that from
Aspinall, Derek Taylor, Beatles, Blake and others, like the attitude
is "Oh the obvious death reference? We didn't mean anything by that."
I say, well then, what's it doing there?

Derek Taylor is incredulously repeating the caller's words trying to
make sense of them.

Anyone who has seen both a grave and a park floral display does not
confuse the two.

If you were to cross a street
tomorrow in a crosswalk in your city and there is a man crossing in an
expensive tailored business suit like a bank executive or high powered
attorney would wear and he is barefoot, would you think "Oh, that's
O.K., it's a hot day, that's all."

If it were a hot day such as the 8th of August, and
the guy in question had been photographed before not wearing shoes on
a hot day, then why not?

posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 05:28 AM

Originally posted by switching yard
6. On separate holiday travels, late '66, all four Beatles grew
moustaches for the first time at the same time and they said it wasn't
planned, they hadn't discussed it beforehand, just a coincidence. I
find the odds of this being a coincidence astronomical.

I've not heard it said that this was coincidence -- do you have a
reference for this?

7. There are ample reasons financially and socially why Great Britain
and The Beatles organization would have done anything in their power
to prevent a breakup of that band in 1966 for any reason. They had too
much riding on the success of The Beatles to allow them to dissolve
under traumatic circumstances, reason enough to inject a double to
keep it all together.

So why didn't they get a decent manager in to replace Brian and stop
them drifting apart from the end of 67?

8. Setting aside the lore retold countless times but not backed up by
the very people in question, why did all these women drop out of the
whole Beatles scene in a relatively short time span... Jane, Maureen,
and Cynthia? What's with the high turnover?

It's the same with rock-stars and film-stars the world over -- they're
not exactly known for their long term relationships.

9. Can anyone explain what Heather Mills could be referring to ...

No idea, but seeing as she wasn't even born in 66, I don't much care.

please explain why respected biographer Philip
Norman said we can't get at the truth because John isn't here anymore
and "Paul rewrites history all the time".

This refers to the fact that he (in 1980 at least) was a massive JL
fan and gave a somewhat biased view of the Beatles story in his book
Shout effectively saying that Beatles=JL. He was subsequently found
out and got a bit upset. Here's someone's comment on Shout:

Shout, by Phillip Norman. A good general career overview of the
Beatles, though some of the text is pretentious and judgmental, and
some of the facts have been cleared up or corrected by subsequent
researchers since this was published in 1980.

posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 06:04 AM

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
But if the "Paul" of today had really been Paul, then we would've had tons of great music rather than the (sorry) crap Bill churns out

Yeah, like the great stuff all the other 60s icons have continued to put out ever since.

posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 10:37 AM
reply to post by Dakudo

Couldn't find the exact post from you declaring the jews running the world was a "rumor" - here is just a snippit from another thread here with their bottom line:

Once again we need to differentiate between terminology abit here...there are Jews and there are Zionists. The difference primarily being that the Zionists are rich.
I do find it a bit suspicious that our untrustworthy main stream media is controlled by 6 companies, Zionists or not.

Lets look at another minority with similar percentages of around 1% of the US population, the Native Americans, and lets research how many CEOs and Fed Reserve chairmen exist in that category of minorities ?
Need I say more ?

If we weren't fighting two undeclared wars in the middle east against so called "Muslim Extremists", as well as our most recent MSM controlled presidential election.
Ron Paul, running on the Republican ticket, and not some BS no name one was shot down by the MSM and why ?

1. He was against and is still against the FED. A ZIONIST INSTITUTION*.
2. He voted against further military/financial aid to Israel.

And BTW .... Who are Obama's handlers ?

Rahm Emanuel -- Mossad Agent

Wake up People !

*The owners of the FED are:

1. The Rothschilds of London and Berlin
2. Lazard Brothers of Paris
3. Israel Moses Seif of Italy
4. Kuhn Loeb and Warburg of Germany
5. Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs
6. The Rothschild controlled Rockefeller interests of New York

That you scoff at the notion proves you don't even remotely scratch the surface of the whole picture. That it COULD BE DONE is the point - yet you want someone else to do all the research for you - I've done all my research for over thirty years and have no doubt it could be done. Have you researched the technology available? The history of mind control? The shadow government and who's in that? Oh, I suppose they're also ALL rumors...

Everyone is allowed to believe what they will - that you insist on just ramming the PID rumor without providing proof to the contrary is a waste of your time as well as ours ("ours" as in those of us in this thread who want to discuss both sides, not have immature blasts full of personal attacks to the poster instead of focusing on the topic.)

You guys who just post after post of rhetorical attacks without contributing to the discussion on the TOPIC OF THIS THREAD are put on ignore because it saves us (again, "us" being those of us in this thread who want to discuss both sides) wasting time reading valueless trite to the topic.

It makes this thread a lot more pleasant since I put pm on ignore - don't feel obligated to read it hoping it actually contains substance once in a while.

You can post it a hundred, thousand or a trillion times, and the more you post the same stuff over and over (attacking the posters) it just reflects poorly on your ability to actually support your views - PIA - and leaves you guys looking like the hecklers in a town hall meeting.

Most of us here would like to discuss it - you few obsessive people - are like the hecklers. Once out of the room (on ignore), the meeting can continue and the majority of people can get on with it.

That's the problem - a few can really make it pissy for a whole bunch of people buy just being rude and beligerant to and about the posters instead of the topic.

And I know you PIA's will shred this post too, that's your duty in your mind. In my mind it just shows lack of intelligence to provide anything else.

Go get your own equipment and do the voice prints pre and post - won't cost much and will give you something to contribute besides your cheerleading mentality which could be due to your ages, who knows. You guys act like young know-it alls, but you're not. If you were, you'd know all about the other conspiracies based in fact not fiction that all feed into this one question - was he or wasn't he replaced.

And again, the technology as been there for at least fifty years that I know of - and likely has been accessible for hundreds of years - but that's another story.

No, if you want proof of your rumors being true, you do the research. You don't even have to leave this forum to find out a lot of stuff going on - but that brings another question -

perhaps you're only here in this forum because of this topic, and not here because of the "topics" in this forum... that would explain a lot too -

Run away little children - come back when you've grown up a little and want to talk and discuss like adults and accept differences instead of denying them - "difference" in opinions, people, perspectives, etc. Because your posts are a perfect example of why even in this country people still push to divide and conquer rather than stand together and work towards a common goal - truth - no matter about what... Think about that - it's very important and will be even moreso important when they come and take you guys away to the fema camps based on a rumor of a global pandemic. What will you be thinking then?

There simply isn't enough time to entertain dissenters... that's why the ignore list - it saves time and energy.

[edit on 31-8-2009 by kshaund]

posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 11:27 AM
What was the real reason the Beatles broke up at the end of 1969? Set aside the lore and legend about the business disagreements and the thing about "wedding bells broke up that old gang of mine" that Faul is fond of saying. The other cover story is that they all wanted to go solo to explore individual creative directions... there would have been no need to break up for that because they were already producing their own songs each his own way on Beatles albums. Each one already exploring differing creative directions from mid-sixties onward.

No, what I think happened was that there was a secret agreement within the Beatles inner circle at the time of the switch that everyone would go along but there must be an exit strategy when at a given point in time anyone who wanted to go his own way and not be involved could split. The end time agreed upon was the end of the decade. They all agreed in 1966 at the time of the switch that all would play along until the end of the sixties and then split up. It was also agreed that after the public split at the end of 1969, no one would go public exposing the truth. Lifetime non-disclosure as is routine inside intel agencies.

At the end of 1969, it was like "Right then, it's over. Contract is up!"

posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 11:29 AM

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by Uncle Benny

Don't be ridiculous, my original post stands.

You are taking the term 'set-up' and misunderstanding the meaning being used.

OK once more for you, he didn't know how to form (set up) a band (cause he'd never done it before) and the band he joined (That became the Beatles) was already formed (set up) before he joined.

Do you get it now? Think about it for a while.

Here are some examples of the term 'set up', used in the same context as Macca, to help you, and a hint; none of them mean what you are implying in Macca's case [except the one about the government and facilities in India lol, never trust the guv.
]. Lord help us all...

[edit on 8/30/2009 by ANOK]

Who are you trying to fool???

Now you want to take the sting out of your original post by focusing on the term... "set up."

Here`s what was said verbatum and the original film clip (which you conveniently left out) -

Bill/Faul - "I suddenly realised that I didn`t actually know how to set up a band... If you think about it I`d never actually done it before... I`d joined the Beatles it was an already....... (pause) set up affair."

See, unlike yourself, I`m not trying to imply anything (because I don`t have to). It`s all there for people to see and judge accordingly. You put up a post and now it`s been found out..... simple!

- The truth is Paul didn`t join "The Beatles."

- The truth is that the man in the vid (who is not Paul) said the Beatles was already set up when he joined.

There`s the truth - You can imply what you like after that, the reality is you wrote a lame post that got canned!

[edit on 31-8-2009 by Uncle Benny]

posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 11:54 AM
Isn't it just a lovely coincidence that the huge remaster release is scheduled for 9-9-9?

Our precious Illuminati are quite fond of the number 9, are they not?

Check out the occult use of numerology... it is widely known and not hard to research.

posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 11:56 AM

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

You want a list? Here ya go:

Paul: brown/hazel eyes
Faul: green eyes
Paul’s eyes were set farther apart than Faul's
Paul had thick eyelashes

That's a quite a list of allegations you have there Faulcon.

Any chance you could perhaps post all the evidence which
supports all your wild and completely unfounded claims?

[edit on 31-8-2009 by pmexplorer]

posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 12:02 PM

Originally posted by kshaund
That you scoff at the notion proves you don't even remotely scratch the surface of the whole picture. That it COULD BE DONE is the point

They want people to think it's "impossible," but reading thru the sources posted on this thread should provide enough information to show it's possible to imposter-replace someone. Once people can accept that simple fact, then it's more likely that they'll see it when it has been done.

yet you want someone else to do all the research for you

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

Example: "All he's done is to quote the liberal media and a bunch of witnesses who aren't qualified. Where's his proof? Show me wreckage from flight 800 that shows a missile hit it!"

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You presume for us not to accept Don Phillips, reporter for the Washington Post, Al Baker, Craig Gordon or Liam Pleven, reporters for Newsday, Matthew Purdy or Matthew L. Wald, Don Van Natta Jr., reporters for the New York Times, or Pat Milton, wire reporter for the Associated Press -- as being able to tell us anything useful about the facts in this matter. Neither would you allow us to accept Robert E. Francis, Vice Chairman of the NTSB, Joseph Cantamessa Jr., Special Agent In Charge of the New York Office of the F. B. I., Dr. Charles Wetli, Suffolk County Medical Examiner, the Pathologist examining the bodies, nor unnamed Navy divers, crash investigators, or other cited officials, including Boeing Aircraft representatives a part of the crash investigative team -- as a qualified party in this matter, and thus, dismisses this material out of hand. Good logic, -- about as good as saying 150 eye witnesses aren't qualified. Only YOU are qualified to tell us what to believe? Witnesses be damned? Radar tracks be damned? Satellite tracks be damned? Reporters be damned? Photographs be damned? Government statements be damned? Is there a pattern here?. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 19 - ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs)?

Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation
by H. Michael Sweeney

That definitely makes me think of how they try to discredit the forensic experts.

It makes this thread a lot more pleasant since I put pm on ignore - don't feel obligated to read it hoping it actually contains substance once in a while.

I love ignore. It's harder for them to derail the thread when no one can hear their little tantrums!

posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 12:03 PM

Originally posted by virraszto
I admit I haven't read this thread since around page 70 or so, but I'm having a little trouble with this pic. Are you saying that Paul is on the left and Faul is on the right?

If so, why in the heck would Paul's father pose with Faul for a family photo? That makes no sense at all.

Hi virraszto -

How do you think this whole charade could be pulled off if Pauls original family wasn`t involved?

Why would Pauls family comply?

- They may have been told that if the fans became aware of his death there would have been many suicides. The Beatles were the first rock n`roll global phenomenon and most certainly many young fanatical fans would`ve taken their own lives (as we`ve seen with other much less popular bands).

- They may have had little or no choice/been threatened... that if they spoke out there would be reprecussions.

- Pauls legacy and name would also live on through Bill/Faul. Any future successes of Bills would be attributed to Paul (Bill being a double would never fully receive the recognition).

Now here`s a clip you may be interested in seeing -

It`s a clip of Faul/Bill in a local Liverpool tavern/pub. At roughly 2.22 minutes in Faul says "Hello Dad" to Pauls father (slinking behind his drink).

Watch the reaction of Pauls father - No.... "Hello son," or "Hi Paul" - He just looks up and turns away. It`s quite sad... look at it closely.

Also pay attention to the opening sequences - Fauls introduction to the city of Liverpool (where he supposedly grew up) is so vague it`s almost funny.

[edit on 31-8-2009 by Uncle Benny]

top topics

<< 101  102  103    105  106  107 >>

log in