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: 122
33
<< 119  120  121    123  124  125 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   
If Faulcon and her new best mate getsmart want to do a q & a session I suggest they do it via pm instead of endeavouring to take the thread off topic by posting meandering messages which are not directly related to the subject matter such as the above.

Bear in mind that seeing as they have mostly chosen to ignore anyone who questions them, they are (cowardly) denying others the opportunity to question the material they are posting whilst they remain in their own little 'pid' bubble safe from the nasty non-believers who might put the brakes on this charade.


[edit on 8-9-2009 by pmexplorer]




posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Getsmart

Once an artist realizes that it is a no-win situation within a totally controlled industry, either they pull out, are blackballed, or both. Usually it doesn't get too extreme at this stage, at least it didn't seem to in the old days.

So, if an artist were to flat-out refuse to go along w/ something important, how "extreme" might the situation get, in your estimation?


Early doubles failed to perfectly copy ears which are the closest thing on a face to a finger print. They were a dead giveaway to Hitler's doubles but techniques have since been perfected.

Yes, I think we've seen that w/ Faul/Bill, too. Do you have more info on Hitler's doubles?

[edit on 8-9-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by pmexplorer
If Faulcon and her new best mate getsmart want to do a q & a session I suggest they do it via pm instead of endeavouring to take the thread off topic by posting meandering messages which are not directly related to the subject matter such as the above.


I (unsurprisingly) disagree and consider what they are posting about to be relevant because it gives more 'back information' which essentially are the foundations of this whole theory.
So, if you don't like reading about Laurel Canyon, the Illuminati, Body Doubles, replacements, fake ears, the notion of mind control and direction then you are in the wrong thread.

I would contend also, that because there are hundreds of pages of posts about this theory then that is because people aren't satisfied with the Official Story and sense that there may be something behind it all.
Just because there is no definite answer doesn't mean it's wrong. It could just as well mean that TPTB are indeed relatively clever in disguising the facts/agenda from the 'sheeple'.
Do you think this might, at least, be a possibility (I'm not asking whether you believe it or not, just whether it is potentially possible)?



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by pmexplorer
If Faulcon and her new best mate getsmart want to do a q & a session I suggest they do it via pm instead of endeavouring to take the thread off topic by posting meandering messages which are not directly related to the subject matter such as the above.

Bear in mind that seeing as they have mostly chosen to ignore anyone who questions them, they are (cowardly) denying others the opportunity to question the material they are posting whilst they remain in their own little 'pid' bubble safe from the nasty non-believers who might put the brakes on this charade.


[edit on 8-9-2009 by pmexplorer]


I respectfully disagree.

The posts are regarding ideas about a Beatles related conspiracy, so why would those posts have no place in this thread? I have questioned and scrutinized "evidence" presented by faulcon and those who dissent equally. I have done so maturely and respectfully.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   
I think in the Dick Cavett interview with George, that's the real George. It seems that Dick hit the nail on the head when he was talking about rumors of doubles and George shook it off in a half joking way but did seem uncomfortable with that line of inquiry.

What got me 'though was later in the interview when he said the group had problems and then emphasized with "lots of problems, folks!" as if to say, you don't know the half of it and I can't go further. It's like he was saying that the group had to go into damage control at times in their history. I know it can be explained away as nothing but it did strike me as tantalizing.

I also noticed he used the phrase "Big Brother" twice and in each context I think he sort of meant... "Big Brother is watching."

From all the photographic evidence on this thread and all the hints and innuendos in the song lyrics and album art and so forth, it seems Paul was replaced in August 1966. But for the life of me, I can't understand how it could have been pulled off so smoothly and with the other Beatles going right along with it. That's the piece of the puzzle I'm having trouble with.

I can imagine Paul dying at a questionable party of Illuminati rich occultists (as I said, see EYES WIDE SHUT) but how MI6 or MI5 or whichever MI plus CIA, how they slipped a double right in and the others took him in and supported the switch is beyond my comprehension. I agree that they would have had this double behind the scenes being coached and tutored for at least a year before the switch so he could step right in and function (and very well, it seems). I can see how pure Sandoz '___' was the likely tool in some sort of mind control experiment as part of a larger social experiment. I can also see how John & George plus George Martin along with friends like Eric Clapton, Bob Dylan and someone like Leon Russell could have written and created all the post '66 music credited to Paul.

But how they all could have done it so smoothly and without a hitch and with John, George, and Ringo supporting it, is beyond me.

I still don't believe the story that they first took '___' unknowingly when their dentist slipped it in their coffee at a dinner party. The Beatles, at that time, went to a dinner party at their dentist's request? I very seriously doubt it!

Another thing that's always nagged at me is on the Sgt Pepper cover, the old Beatles standing to the side there (like they've been relegated to secondary status at the mercy of the new Pepper band) are consoling Ringo who is weeping. That has always bothered me. What the bloody hell is that supposed to mean? The old Beatles look to be in shock, definitely at a funeral, and they're consoling Ringo as he weeps.

I've tried to keep the faith that Paul was not replaced, but this thread has shown me too many disturbing photo comps and other things. Something is just not right with the official story, the lore and legend. Some trickery did occur and it seems to me to have been the replacement scheme. It's quite a mystery.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by faulconandsnowjob
 


The models' evolution is a very good example of illusion to the masses - and I'm SURE the PTB have had the computer technology decades before us to do this with every photo - the best way to determine these differences of PID/PIA is to know for sure you have an original, unaltered pre-1966 photograph - which is probably far easier said than done these days - then getting a post-66 photo of the same quality (unaltered) to compare it to... otherwise there's no way to know one way or the other....

Can't decide whether to laugh or get pi**ed at my post being removed as being off topic whilst others continue to add nothing but hot air to the entire conversation all over the place - *groan*

I would like to remind posters *again* - this is a Paul is Replaced thread, not Paul is Alive thread - yelling over and over "he's alive, that's a "fact" and you're stupid for thinking otherwise" is ridiculous and infantile. Prove its him then or move along... nothing to see here *ahem*

I personally still don't know if I think one way or another on the topic - but at least I'm open minded to let it unfold from others and not chirp in every day just to complain about the topic and the posters!

But it is hilarious how it just has grabbed 'some' people to the point they can't move along and seem to have nothing better to do with their time...



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by kshaund
photo - the best way to determine these differences of PID/PIA is to know for sure you have an original, unaltered pre-1966 photograph - which is probably far easier said than done these days - then getting a post-66 photo of the same quality (unaltered) to compare it to... otherwise there's no way to know one way or the other....


I think the bubble gum cards might be the answer for pre-1966 - they're very small and there were loads of them.

www.mybeatles.net...

(some are available on ebay)



[edit on 8-9-2009 by berenike]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   
Seriously, I agree that the bubble gum cards would be a strong resource.

I saw some in a vintage shop a few years ago, bought them, but alas gave them away to other Beatles fans!

Brilliant idea about the cards... does anyone have any? I think there are probably plenty on eBay.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by berenike
 


Yes! I was thinking exactly about the bubble gum cards from when I was, er, um, a little younger


Even better would be to have someone's actual photograph they took of him - like an old Polaroid would be impossible to have been tampered... but I'm sure would be very difficult to get after all these decades, but you never know. Someone somewhere might come across this thread and volunteer to show it




posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by switching yard
But how they all could have done it so smoothly and without a hitch and with John, George, and Ringo supporting it, is beyond me.

I can think of a couple of scenarios as to why they'd go along w/ it... And i don't mean just b/c they were threatened or bribed.


I still don't believe the story that they first took '___' unknowingly when their dentist slipped it in their coffee at a dinner party. The Beatles, at that time, went to a dinner party at their dentist's request? I very seriously doubt it!

I noticed on the Dick Cavett Show, George said the dentist slipped them acid in their coffee, then "a couple of years later," Paul tried it. Ok... Faul had taken '___' by at least mid-1967, so I guess they'd taken '___' by 1965?


Another thing that's always nagged at me is on the Sgt Pepper cover, the old Beatles standing to the side there (like they've been relegated to secondary status at the mercy of the new Pepper band) are consoling Ringo who is weeping. That has always bothered me. What the bloody hell is that supposed to mean? The old Beatles look to be in shock, definitely at a funeral, and they're consoling Ringo as he weeps.

It's definitely a funeral scene. Derek Taylor (or Neil Aspinall?) admitted as much.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by kshaund

The models' evolution is a very good example of illusion to the masses - and I'm SURE the PTB have had the computer technology decades before us to do this with every photo

The state of technology available to "certain" people is far ahead of what is available to the masses. I was surprised to hear that photo-doctoring was already going on by 1907. So, even if they didn't have computers to do it, they had photo-labs. All the stuff in Photoshop, the eyedropper, the clone tool, etc, is probably based on some technique used before computers, right? But anyway, photos of Paul were tampered w/ at least by 1967.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by berenike
I think the bubble gum cards might be the answer for pre-1966 - they're very small and there were loads of them.

www.mybeatles.net...

(some are available on ebay)
[edit on 8-9-2009 by berenike]



Interesting that some of them appear tampered too 0.o

Click on the second set and scroll down and on the left-hand side is a picture of them all with crewcuts....I wasn't aware they had these haircuts ever so someone please enlighten me if I'm wrong!

....and if it is tampered then it opens up a whole new kettle of fish and brings into question why, how long and for what outcome; and possibly even an example of the pre-planning involved in replacements, doubles and photographic manipulation.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki

Interesting that some of them appear tampered too 0.o

Click on the second set and scroll down and on the left-hand side is a picture of them all with crewcuts....I wasn't aware they had these haircuts ever so someone please enlighten me if I'm wrong!





...In fact, there was a rumor that the Beatles got so sick of the publicity of their moptop that they went to a crew cut. Of course, it wasn't true...

The Story Behind the Mop Top Haircut
hubpages.com...



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 10:47 PM
link   
All right lets settle this once and for all.

Is there any members on this site reading through these 122 pages of posts with access to facial recognition software?

Take a photo of a young Paul and the Paul now and see if they match.

No amount of plastic surgery will fool facial recognition software!



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki

Originally posted by berenike
I think the bubble gum cards might be the answer for pre-1966 - they're very small and there were loads of them.

www.mybeatles.net...

(some are available on ebay)
[edit on 8-9-2009 by berenike]



Interesting that some of them appear tampered too 0.o

Click on the second set and scroll down and on the left-hand side is a picture of them all with crewcuts....I wasn't aware they had these haircuts ever so someone please enlighten me if I'm wrong!

....and if it is tampered then it opens up a whole new kettle of fish and brings into question why, how long and for what outcome; and possibly even an example of the pre-planning involved in replacements, doubles and photographic manipulation.


I thought of that too - they could have been 'air brushed' even for their cards...

"IF" the PID is the real story, is it even possible to get an original picture on the internet - wouldn't the PTB have assured they were all useless in one way or another to confirm? Surely anything too damning would be pulled one way or the other and what's left is ... ?

Or - instead of concerning themselves with confusing us with photos of him on the internet, they could just send out shills that screech "Anyone who thinks he's dead is stupid." Hmm... plausible...

[edit on 8-9-2009 by kshaund]



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by faulconandsnowjob
 


Well there's definitely a good photo candidate there for Pauls ear comparison ...

Did they really have crew cuts??? Don't remember that part...



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by kshaund

"IF" the PID is the real story, is it even possible to get an original picture on the internet - wouldn't the PTB have assured they were all useless in one way or another to confirm?

Yes, it's possible, b/c people have vintage magazines & other memorabilia, & they will upload images themselves. I think the PTB do flood the internet with doctored photos to confuse the issue...


Or - instead of concerning themselves with confusing us with photos of him on the internet, they could just send out shills that screech "Anyone who thinks he's dead is stupid."

This is certainly a part of a disinfo strategy.

[edit on 9-9-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by calcoastseeker
All right lets settle this once and for all.

Is there any members on this site reading through these 122 pages of posts with access to facial recognition software?


One would think that forensic scientists' findings that certain facial features on Paul & Faul differed too much to be the same person, & that the differences couldn't be explained by surgery would have settled it once & for all, but apparently not.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by calcoastseeker
All right lets settle this once and for all.

Is there any members on this site reading through these 122 pages of posts with access to facial recognition software?

Take a photo of a young Paul and the Paul now and see if they match.

No amount of plastic surgery will fool facial recognition software!


No, take photos of shortly before and after the supposed switch, e.g.



Any right-minded person will say they match -- no software needed.

Next conspiracy please.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 12:47 AM
link   




And any left-minded person will say hmmm... something's not right... let's look into this.



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 119  120  121    123  124  125 >>

log in

join