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.

 

Paul McCartney died in 1966 - replaced by Billy Shepherd

page: 107
33
<< 104  105  106    108  109  110 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
What? I just repeated what I said in my first post to help you better understand, you obviously didn't.


Look lets cut the balony - You initially made a post about an iamaphoney vid (about 10 - 12 pages back). The post had gone without a reply so I answered it providing you with the original footage about which you had asked.

For the third time here it is (I even went to the lengths of writing out verbatum what was said by Bill/Faul) -




What part of the quote do you want me to focus on if not the 'set up' comment?



I want you to simply shut up and read -

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."


Now, you were initially making out that Bill was talking about "The Quarrymen." You implied Bill/Faul (who you believe to be Paul) was talking about the Quarrymen.

Can you please point out where he mentions "The Quarrymen" in the above segment?


So then I wrote this (and it still stands) -


Uncle Benny- 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!


and here, you wrote -


Garbage, you are the one implying a conspiracy. I'm just trying to point out to you where your 'evidence' is bogus and doesn't stand up to scrutiny.



See we`re dealing with this one post - I`m trying to help you understand your initial mistake and the hole you`ve been digging since. Put down your spade my friend it`s alright to make mistakes, we all make them!



Hey, you think you know so much challenge me to a one and one debate and we'll see who's posts get canned.
double eye rolls at you!


I`m sure you`re a great guy, judging from the above statement maybe you haven`t been told it often enough. You might "can" everyone here in a debate - All I`m implying is don`t bring a knife to a gunfight, and then complain when you get shot down!





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




posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by kshaund

the website taken out previously was ufo8.webs.com... as being off topic.

If it's about the Illuminati, it's definitely not "off-topic."



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Excitable_Boy
I don't think Paul would have gone on to have such a lame, artless solo career. Bill became a pop star. Paul would have gone in a completely different direction.


It's sad to think about all the great music that could have been :-( I could have lived without "Silly Love Songs." :-P



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Benny
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."


How does one rationalize this to mean anything other than Bill joined the Beatles after they were already set up?


Garbage, you are the one implying a conspiracy. I'm just trying to point out to you where your 'evidence' is bogus and doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

The fact that Bill was caught on tape saying that is pretty incriminating. Oopsies :-P



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 09:17 PM
link   
Faul & his fake ears. It's so ridiculous, it's just funny at some point. :-P lol




[edit on 31-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by faulconandsnowjob
 




Originally posted by Excitable_Boy
I don't think Paul would have gone on to have such a lame, artless solo career. Bill became a pop star. Paul would have gone in a completely different direction.

It's sad to think about all the great music that could have been :-( I could have lived without "Silly Love Songs." :-P


How about Ebony and Ivory. What is the deal with that? What a bleeding pile of dung that was. It would have been a good song for Sesame Street and even then would have still sucked. "You see world...everything is great between whites and people of color. Michael and Faul say it is so and so it must be." I can't imagine Paul writing or singing a song that is such sheeple brainwashing crap.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Excitable_Boy
How about Ebony and Ivory. What is the deal with that? What a bleeding pile of dung that was.


And what about "Say Say Say"? Notice how it's about con-artists. Hmmm...




posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Yes the Beatles were already set up when he joined, what is it about that you don't understand?




It needs specifying, but Paul joined The Quarreymen. Soon after that, 5 out of the 6 members ended up leaving. Then George and Stu and eventually Pete joined Paul and John. There were several name changes before they arrived at The Beatles. By the time they were The Beatles, they were a totally different band by members and by name than John's original band The Quarreymen.




[edit on 31-8-2009 by SednaSon]



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncle Benny
 


What are you yapping about?

I never mentioned the Quarymen, please show me where I did.

I know the clip and what it says, so quit repeating it.

You still haven't explained anything that has anything to do with what I said about the meaning of the clip.

I never made ANY claims, I just corrected your misunderstanding of what he said. You need to slow down, take a deep breath, drop the childish ego and go back and re-read very carefully and think about it for a few weeks, I think you'll need that long.


Once again you show your lack of comprehension, are you sure you're not Faulcon? Your misunderstandings are very similar. I'm not trying to attack you, just trying to make you see sense, please see it as that and reply intelligently without being reactionary.

Oh btw don't want to debate me on it eh? Are you not too confident in your position? (Again legit questions, not a personal attack).


Oh btw I wasn't shot down, are you kidding me? You are the one who was shot down my friend...Wake up dude.

[edit on 8/31/2009 by ANOK]



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
And what about "Say Say Say"? Notice how it's about con-artists. Hmmm...



The song is a bit cheesy but also catchy. I like MJ's vocals in it.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Originally posted by Uncle Benny
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."


How does one rationalize this to mean anything other than Bill joined the Beatles after they were already set up?


Many of the debunkers like to use words like "logic" and "reason," but when it suits them both are disgarded!



Originally posted by SednaSon

Originally posted by ANOK
Yes the Beatles were already set up when he joined, what is it about that you don't understand?



It needs specifying, but Paul joined The Quarreymen. Soon after that, 4 out of the 5 members ended up leaving. Then George and Stu and eventually Pete joined Paul and John. There were several name changes before they arrived at The Beatles. By the time they were The Beatles, they were a totally different band by the members and by the name than they were when they were The Quarreymen.


That`s it in a nutshell!



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
I never mentioned the Quarymen, please show me where I did.



Uncle Benny knows that. So does everyone else. The fact is, you probably should have mentioned The Quarreymen because you are WRONG in saying that the Bealtes were a setup affair when Paul arrived.

You just can't understand why Faul said it and you're trying to find reasons why he did.



[edit on 31-8-2009 by SednaSon]



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 09:49 PM
link   
You guys are going to stick to the topic and stop the insults and name calling.

3 day posting bans for those who keep it up.

Be guided accordingly.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by SednaSon
Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
And what about "Say Say Say"? Notice how it's about con-artists. Hmmm...


The song is a bit cheesy but also catchy. I like MJ's vocals in it.

Ok, not trying to put down MJ (RIP), but IMO this is not the direction Paul (RIP) would have gone in, musically-speaking.


[edit on 31-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 09:54 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by SednaSon
 


Yes I know the details thank you, but it wasn't necessary for me to be so detailed, it had no relevance to my point.

The Quarymen contained John, George, and Stuart Sutcliff, who became the Beatles, so yes Paul meant the band was already 'set up' when he joined.

It's just ridiculous to think the extremely well know story of their creation is all lies when countless number of people, who were there, have written about it.

I've talked to Gerry Marsden about the Beatles, they used to share stage clothes in the early days. Don't you think he would have noticed Macca suddenly changed?

What would be the point of replacing him in the first place, and what would be the point of keeping up the charade? It would be so unimaginably complicated to keep up such a charade. Common sense and logic should tell you it's an obvious hoax.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Common sense and logic should tell you it's an obvious hoax.


Where have you recently demonstrated either logic or common sense on this thread? (serious question, no pun intended)



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 10:05 PM
link   
If there were nothing to this PID theory, would it really be so hotly contested? I think it might be hitting a nerve for some people.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Common sense and logic should tell you it's an obvious hoax.


An "obvious hoax" wouldn't have tons of evidence to support it. The theory that Paul was replaced has a lot of evidence to support it.


[edit on 31-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
I've talked to Gerry Marsden about the Beatles, they used to share stage clothes in the early days.



Have you talked with him since viewing this thread? Was he there for 1967 as well as 1965? If you ever talk to him again you might want to ask him about this.




top topics



 
33
<< 104  105  106    108  109  110 >>

log in

join