Paul McCartney died in 1966 - replaced by Billy Shepherd

Originally posted by darkelf
Actually, most of my friends and I looked on the PID as allegorical. No more "I wanna hold your hand or she loves you; no more yeah, yeah, yeah. Nothing is Real! That's how we felt back then. The racial issues, the assainations, Vietnam, nothing was how we were taught it was. Everything seemed to teem with government and corporation corruption.

You were right about the govt/corp corruption. Some of us think that the Beatles (at least Paul) were victims of it. You might be surprised that PID actually is true. It's been proven by forensic science that Paul was replaced in 1966. We can't *prove* he's dead, but he hasn't been seen since 1966, so it's reasonable to assume he's dead at this point.

Originally posted by Dakudo

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Originally posted by Uncle Benny

Originally posted by Dakudo
If we wanted them shut down they would have been shut down a lot sooner.
[edit on 14-9-2009 by Dakudo]

I know - People should TAKE NOTE of this statement by dakudo - what are these people about??

So, they're saying they have the power to shut down these PID threads?

Oh, brother!

That`s exactly what I expected!

Originally posted by Uncle Benny

Oh, brother!

That`s exactly what I expected!

Shutting down the thread on ATS is going to be a lot harder than on Icke since ATS actually punishes the offending party & doesn't just shut down debate (or so it seems).

Has anyone come up w/ an explanation for Heather Mills' interview, or are they just conveniently ignoring it?

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Shutting down the thread on ATS is going to be a lot harder than on Icke since ATS actually punishes the offending party

Yes, you have personal experience of that, haven't you?

Or is the fact that you were suspended the fault of PIAers, too?

[edit on 14-9-2009 by Dakudo]

Originally posted by magnolia_xx
I did not assassinate the character of anybody, I just remarked that it is hard to believe to Heather Mills... a person who first, when she was the pampered young wife of one of the most famous and rich musicians in the world, writed that he was so loving that he prepared breakfast for her every morning, and after their split she sayd that he stabbed her with a broken glass and beated her when she was pregnant with his child.

Especially when her first husband says that she actually beated him!!!!

I don't know which is the truth. I am just saying that one of the things she said cannot be true. Paul McCartney was a kind husband or an abusive one. He could not be both the things.

Keep in mind that Linda also said that Sir Paul was abusive to her. This was confided to a male friend of Linda's for many years. When the information came out, it was quickly suppressed by Sir Paul's camp.

So, if she could lie on something, she could lie on something else.
So I would not consider her the most believable witness in the world.

No-one wants to believe bad things about our favorite celebrities. But the truth is, is that often these people are much more messed up than the average person. I think there's more reason that Sir Paul would deny the abuse to keep his reputation, than Heather would make it up out of spite.


[edit on 14-9-2009 by SednaSon]

Originally posted by SednaSon

Originally posted by magnolia_xx
I did not assassinate the character of anybody, I just remarked that it is hard to believe to Heather Mills... a person who first, when she was the pampered young wife of one of the most famous and rich musicians in the world, writed that he was so loving that he prepared breakfast for her every morning, and after their split she sayd that he stabbed her with a broken glass and beated her when she was pregnant with his child.

Especially when her first husband says that she actually beated him!!!!

I don't know which is the truth. I am just saying that one of the things she said cannot be true. Paul McCartney was a kind husband or an abusive one. He could not be both the things.

Ok, unless you were married to Faul, you have no way of knowing what kind of husband he would be. Lots of abusive husbands *seem* really nice to outsiders. But what kind of person could take over someone else's life? A nice, kind, loving person? I have trouble believing that. *Maybe* Faul is a victim in all of this, but he also knows what he is doing is wrong.

Oh, & Heather Mills has done fantastic charity work. I admire her for what she was doing/trying to do to help the poor baby seals in Canada that are beaten & skinned alive. And yes, I give credit to Faul for that, too, for lending Paul's name to something good.


[edit on 14-9-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
Yes, they post doctored photos in their comps.

Unless this can be proved, showing the undoctored original photos, this assertion is worthless.
It is funny that I actually pointed out that this person had posted a doctored photo of Paul (enlarged to make it unmatching to a post-1966 photo) and though this was proved showing the original photo she still claims that PIAers photo comparisons are fraudulent

[edit on 14-9-2009 by magnolia_xx]

This is a thread that is perportedly about Paul McCartney being replaced in 1966. It's not about tit for tat point scoring, or personality's of members, nor, and most especially, animosity brought over from other boards...

Get it back on topic. As a reminder:

PAUL MCCARTNEY DIED IN 1966 - REPLACED BY BILLY SHEPHERD.

It'd be a shame to have to contemplate closing a thread so old, and 300 plus pages...

Up to you.

[edit on 9/14/2009 by seagull]

Originally posted by darkelf

Actually, most of my friends and I looked on the PID as allegorical. No more "I wanna hold your hand or she loves you; no more yeah, yeah, yeah. Nothing is Real! That's how we felt back then. The racial issues, the assainations, Vietnam, nothing was how we were taught it was. Everything seemed to teem with government and corporation corruption.

This is a very interesting interpretation. It could be this that the Beatles had in their minds when they ceased to be a beat group and the psychedelic period began.
In the beginning they were four nice-looking pert boys, somehow irreverent but apparently inoffensive. Then they became iconoclasts.

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
[Ok, unless you were married to Faul, you have no way of knowing what kind of husband he would be. Lots of abusive husbands *seem* really nice to outsiders. But what kind of person could take over someone else's life? A nice, kind, loving person? I have trouble believing that. *Maybe* Faul is a victim in all of this, but he also knows what he is doing is wrong.

Oh, & Heather Mills has done fantastic charity work. I admire her for what she was doing/trying to do to help the poor baby seals in Canada that are beaten & skinned alive. And yes, I give credit to Faul for that, too, for lending Paul's name to something good.

Sure, Faulcon, I have no idea what kind of husband would Paul McCartney be, everyone has faults and can behave badly, even looking a good-natured person; but I am simply pointing out the fact that HM stated two completely different things about her life with him, she said she was happy with a loving and thoughtful husband and then she said he was abusive, so there's something not right in her claims.

While reading this article on Lennon being a mind control slave and Yoko his handler, two quotes jumped out at me. The first:

“Face it, human beings have an aversion to sinister conspiracies and inexplicable violence.”

Perhaps this is why so many of us still refuse to believe that Paul was killed and replaced by a trained double. We had just, a few years earlier watched our president brutally and violently executed. We wanted to believe that it was a lone nut. We wanted it wrapped up quickly. We did not want to believe that there was some sinister elite group that would or could orchestrate this evil a deed.

The second:

“The Beatles have always had an intimate connection to the JFK assassination. . . . Even Brian Epstein [the group's manager] believed the Kennedy assassination helped their rise -- the Beatles appeared to bind our wounds with their messages of joy and handholding. . . . replacing Camelot with Oz [did he just say "Oz"!]”

As a country, we needed healing, and we were ripe for a balm to bring us back together. Was the rise of Beatlemania a coincident, or was there some nefarious string-pulling in the background? Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. It certainly makes you think.

Originally posted by magnolia_xx

Originally posted by darkelf

Actually, most of my friends and I looked on the PID as allegorical. No more "I wanna hold your hand or she loves you; no more yeah, yeah, yeah. Nothing is Real! That's how we felt back then. The racial issues, the assainations, Vietnam, nothing was how we were taught it was. Everything seemed to teem with government and corporation corruption.

This is a very interesting interpretation. It could be this that the Beatles had in their minds when they ceased to be a beat group and the psychedelic period began.
In the beginning they were four nice-looking pert boys, somehow irreverent but apparently inoffensive. Then they became iconoclasts.

Most of my friends were artist or muscians so we had a different outlook than most teens. We felt the switch to the psychedelic period was more to do with making a statement. No more bubble gum and lolly pops kids, this is real life!

So they found this "Faul" and he just happened to look, sound, act and be, identical to Paul.

We are supposed to believe that they managed to find someone like that in the same city?

Come on guys...

I know it's a fascinating subject and quite an entertaining conspiracy theory, but there is no proof... no logic and absolutely no truth in what you are saying.

None, zero, zilch, zip, nada,


Paul McCartney is alive and well and still singing actually.

Nobody replaced him.

None of your photos (which are extremely misleading and hand-picked to make sure they appear different) show anything other than changes in light, contrast or the position that Paul may be standing in.

Others have presented pictures showing that Paul looks exactly the same as he always has.

This is no conspiracy to silence the PID ( ) crowd, as you put it... nor am i affiliated in anyway, nor a shill for, the PIA crowd ( )


So come on....

Sir Paul McCartney is a legend.

Leave the guy alone.




[edit on 14/9/09 by blupblup]

Originally posted by seagull
This is a thread that is perportedly about Paul McCartney being replaced in 1966. It's not about tit for tat point scoring, or personality's of members, nor, and most especially, animosity brought over from other boards...
Get it back on topic. As a reminder:

PAUL MCCARTNEY DIED IN 1966 - REPLACED BY BILLY SHEPHERD.

It'd be a shame to have to contemplate closing a thread so old, and 300 plus pages...
Up to you.

Dear Seagull,

MANY THANKS for stepping in and offering to bring this thread back on course. I have invited the PID camp AND the PIA camp to put each other on IGNORE to avoid further drifting off topic. Please be so kind as to instruct those in the PIA camp, who are graciously hosted by PID investigators in this PID thread, to remain constructive or else place whoever they dislike in IGNORE mode. Thanks for keeping this very central thread to many aspects of Illuminati Mind Control going as long as possible. We are on the verge of completing the puzzle, and it will not necessarily be such a pretty picture. PIA diversions are shaking our puzzle board to prevent us from completing this puzzle. Please steady the board rather than closing the thread and tossing all the pieces of the puzzle back into the box.

NOTE TO ALL POSTERS

This is a very interesting thread and its speculative nature is encouraged in this Skunk Works section of ATS. We should all make every effort to keep it open, regardless of our personal opinions or convictions. To do otherwise at this stage, after clear warning by the MOD, can only be construed as willful sabotage of this PID thread.

I invite both PID and PIA posters to please use the ignore button to no longer risk indulging in mud slinging, whether justified or not. It will only achieve killing this thread, please refrain.

To show the example, I have added the following posters to my own ignore list:

PMExplorer
edmond dantes
The Gorn
Dakudo

Others will no doubt be added if I detect in their posts personal attacks, insults, trivial diversions, corrosive comments, mocking attitudes, settling old scores, etc. (these are my own chosen criteria binding to nobody else).

I posted their names to encourage them to do likewise with me. I would actually rather not have any contact with these parties, and for this I am most grateful to ATS providing us with the Ignore Button. I invite the above mentioned to please ignore me too. My posts are possibly too challenging for them to find any benefit in reading them, and will only rub against their grain. Thanks for understanding and kindly complying with a gentleman's arrangement to keep this thread going.

NOTE:

These people were not Ignored for their diverging opinions: I usually only read newspapers with opposing points of view to mine, it is thus that one learns more than confirming what one already thinks. No, it is regrettably due to behavioral characteristics of their postings which can be explained for either psychiatric idol adulation reasons or due to organized debunking motivations. I fail to imagine other reasons for such behavior, but will be thankfully spared a most discourteous rebuttal thanks to ATS: Ignore...

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
Shutting down the thread on ATS is going to be a lot harder than on Icke since ATS actually punishes the offending party & doesn't just shut down debate (or so it seems).

Has anyone come up w/ an explanation for Heather Mills' interview, or are they just conveniently ignoring it?

Falcon, I hope that Seagull will NOT shut down this thread due to a few hate posters heckling us in the last few pages. ATS would do well to advise them to start their own PIA thread instead of trashing this PID thread. We are entitled to share our ideas without being thrown off track and forced to disperse our sincere research efforts over other threads and other boards.

Regarding the Heather Mills interview, I was shocked to see to what extremes she is taken to protect her child's life and her own. Given her aghast expression, it seems that he might have gone further yet than we dare imagine. These Luciferian cults take the lives of your loved ones as a supreme sacrifice, some of my family members didn't get beyond their teens. It is quite possible, and YES, this is "educated speculation", that Faul had accepted that his own flesh be used for a blood sacrifice, enough to make any wife and mother get the hell out of there.

This is what I would call a more serious "betrayal" than sexual infidelity. And this is also possibly why she says "the people don't want to know the truth, they couldn't handle it". I wonder if she had the camera rolling during any of the ceremonies? Faul lovers will agree that the only way to "get the evidence" to prove these statements would be to "horizontalize" Heather Mills, something I sincerely hope they won't do but which might bring this hard evidence they so adamantly demand to the surface. But it is unlikely that in that case that they would still call for evidence then.

[edit on 14-9-2009 by Getsmart]

Originally posted by blupblup
So they found this "Faul" and he just happened to look, sound, act and be, identical to Paul.

He doesn't look or act identically to Paul. The measurements of the facial features don't match - this was the conclusion a team of forensics experts came to after doing a biometrical analysis. One was an expert in craniometry. Please see this article:

ASK WHO WAS THE "BEATLE"
/mw83db

In a nutshell, they said the discrepancies they were seeing in "Paul" after 1966 were too great to be the same person. They said some of the changes could not be explained by surgery, namely the ears, nose, & mouth. They said the changes to the jawline *could* have been made with surgery, but a series of extensive & painful surgeries would have been needed. Obviously, this didn't happen, since "Paul" doesn't have the requisite scars & never took a break from singing. It would have been hard to sing w/ palate inserts, don't you think?

We are supposed to believe that they managed to find someone like that in the same city?

Why do you think he was in the same city? We don't know where Faul came from. Some think Canada.

there is no proof... no logic and absolutely no truth in what you are saying.

There is plenty of proof - photos, forensic evidence, sonagrams, hand-writing, etc.

None, zero, zilch, zip, nada,

I think you should review the thread.

Paul McCartney is alive and well and still singing actually.

Actually, he's not b/c he's dead. I know he's dead for a fact. I can't *prove* he's dead, I can only prove he was replaced.

Nobody replaced him.

If he's dead, then he was obviously replaced.

None of your photos (which are extremely misleading and hand-picked to make sure they appear different) show anything other than changes in light, contrast or the position that Paul may be standing in.

I think you're confusing the people trying to expose the truth to the ones trying to suppress it.

Others have presented pictures showing that Paul looks exactly the same as he always has.

The ones that haven't been tampered w/ show the differences.

Paul is a legend. He deserves better than being swept under the rug.

Originally posted by Getsmart
We are on the verge of completing the puzzle, and it will not necessarily be such a pretty picture. PIA diversions are shaking our puzzle board to prevent us from completing this puzzle. Please steady the board rather than closing the thread and tossing all the pieces of the puzzle back into the box.

Even IF this thread gets closed, the truth is still going to come out. There are other forums.

To show the example, I have added the following posters to my own ignore list:

There's no way the PIA'ers are going to add us to their ignore list. They are not here to "complete the puzzle," as you say. If we were on ignore, they wouldn't be able to attack every little thing we say.

Regarding the Heather Mills interview, I was shocked to see to what extremes she is taken to protect her child's life and her own. Given her aghast expression, it seems that he might have gone further yet than we dare imagine. These Luciferian cults take the lives of your loved ones as a supreme sacrifice, some of my family members didn't get beyond their teens. It is quite possible, and YES, this is "educated speculation", that Faul had accepted that his own flesh be used for a blood sacrifice, enough to make any wife and mother get the hell out of there.

This is what I would call a more serious "betrayal" than sexual infidelity. And this is also possibly why she says "the people don't want to know the truth, they couldn't handle it".

Interesting... And yet, she was married to Faul for about 4 yrs, so she must have figured out he was Illuminati/Luciferian before 4 yrs. I'm not part of that cult, so I don't know, but I would imagine... But yes, I definitely think Faul is Illuminati. He controls so much wealth and he's been knighted? Yeah, I would say he is.

There is real evil in the world. I'm sorry your family has been victimized by it. Scary stuff.

[edit on 14-9-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Hi, I'm new here and have been fascinated by this particular ct for some time. I'm not a believer and have posted about it elsewhere (eg Icke). To some, therefore, I am clearly a 'shill', 'disinfo agent' or whatever. Goes with the territory, I suppose.

Anyway, apologies if these have been posted before but I find them particularly compelling.

If 'Faul' is no relation to Paul's father how come he looks more like him the older he gets?

i208.photobucket.com..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

Are these not the same teeth?...Actually when I asked this question on another forum someone replied saying they were 'obviously' not the same. Didn't say why though - from those who agree I'd love to know.

img513.imageshack.us..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

[edit on 14-9-2009 by helloiloveyou]

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
Why do you think he was in the same city? We don't know where Faul came from. Some think Canada.

So they found a Canadian guy with an authentic scouse accent?
Amazing that.

There is plenty of proof - photos, forensic evidence, sonagrams, hand-writing, etc.

No..... for every piece of "evidence" you have provided, someone has provided counter evidence stating and proving the exact opposite of what you claim.

I think you should review the thread.

I have followed the thread thanks... this is not my first post in it.
Must be hard for you to remember though as you're always posting misleading and ridiculous pictures comparing "faul" and Paul.

Actually, he's not b/c he's dead. I know he's dead for a fact. I can't *prove* he's dead, I can only prove he was replaced.

No he's very much alive.
I have a couple of his solo albums and have seen him perform and seen interviews with him.... trust me, he's alive.

So you know he's dead but can't prove it?

Okaaaaay

I think you're confusing the people trying to expose the truth to the ones trying to suppress it.

No no..... I've followed the thread and watched all your repetitive attempts at "proving" that Paul was replaced.
And I'm not convinced.

I admire your persistence, really i do.... but it doesn't change the fact that Paul McCartney is alive and well.

Originally posted by darkelf
Perhaps this is why so many of us still refuse to believe that Paul was killed and replaced by a trained double. We had just, a few years earlier watched our president brutally and violently executed. We wanted to believe that it was a lone nut. We wanted it wrapped up quickly. We did not want to believe that there was some sinister elite group that would or could orchestrate this evil a deed.

The second:

“The Beatles have always had an intimate connection to the JFK assassination. . . . Even Brian Epstein [the group's manager] believed the Kennedy assassination helped their rise -- the Beatles appeared to bind our wounds with their messages of joy and handholding. . . . replacing Camelot with Oz [did he just say "Oz"!]”

As a country, we needed healing, and we were ripe for a balm to bring us back together. Was the rise of Beatlemania a coincident, or was there some nefarious string-pulling in the background? Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. It certainly makes you think.

Great points darkelf, and welcome. I think it is more of a coicidence that Beatlemania began right after JFK was shot. Keep in mind The Beatles were trying to get their records played over in the US months before JFK was shot and then all of sudden "I Want To Hold Your Hand" goes number one and a few months later the Beatles come to America. What better way to take people's minds off of the JFK assassination?

[edit on 14-9-2009 by SednaSon]

Forgive me for not reading all 135 pages before posting this. Being a pack rat, I still have my newspaper clippings (1970's) from when this conspiracy first was discussed. I am amazed it is still a topic of conversation!