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: 139
33
<< 136  137  138    140  141  142 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 12:50 AM
link   
that's the one man. Thanks a lot, and great research. I've noticed you kind of 'whore' a lot of the same pictures and get a lock of flack for it but... for the most part you hit a lot of nails on the head.

I am awake to this... none of us need to ever fully take a 'position'... i think all of us however, need to look at this information and at the very least be open to the possibility.




posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by MavRck
Overlay pictures all you like, compare video footage, voice... anyone with any intuition can do a simple search "paul mccartney 1966" then do a "paul mcartney "1970" and you can clearly see that it is NOT the same person.

Care to explain why you believe your insight is so much better than the millions of people between 66 and 69 who clear saw he was the same person, i.e. people who were actually there.
Even come late 69, all focus was on the album "clues", not that he looked different.



the fact the band stopped playing live after 1966...

You seemed to have stopped mid sentence; what are you waiting for -- a suspense fanfare?

Just watch the LA interview a few posts back, they're sick of not just the touring but the whole Beatle thing.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob


It's possible to make teeth look like someone else's.


And it's equally possible that someone with PM's teeth is in fact PM.

How would your singing be with 2 sets of teeth in your mouth?



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by seaofgreen

Originally posted by MavRck
Overlay pictures all you like, compare video footage, voice... anyone with any intuition can do a simple search "paul mccartney 1966" then do a "paul mcartney "1970" and you can clearly see that it is NOT the same person.

Care to explain why you believe your insight is so much better than the millions of people between 66 and 69 who clear saw he was the same person, i.e. people who were actually there.
Even come late 69, all focus was on the album "clues", not that he looked different.


This is one of the things that bothers me. I lived through this and you'd think that one of us (millions of listeners) would have noticed an overall change in looks or voice. True, they quit touring after 66 but it's not like they dropped off the end of the world.

There is a school of thought that says we didn't notice a change because we would never believe that a man could be replaced in this manner.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by berenike
I noticed this video in the set that Uncle Benny posted:
www.youtube.com...
Throughout, David Crosby is standing just behind George and Paul. I don't know if anyone would find that significant in light of what had been suggested about him.


Incredible, when pressured by a reporter for his personal opinion Faul dropped the ball and let the cat out of the bag at 1:38 saying:


"We can't tell you our image, you know. We can only..."
[edit: incomplete sentence presumably referring to gag order]
"Our image is what we read in the newspapers, and that's the same as you read."
[edit: confession as to how he learned to mimic Paul?]
"We know our real image, which is nothing like our image."
[edit: Faul's confession to being a fake]
"And... what I mean't to say is..."
[edit: admission that prior statements were an unconscious slip of the tongue, Faul could not complete this sentence]."


Uncle Benny, thanks for the link to that video and Berenike, thanks for bringing it again to our attention in the current debate.





[edit on 16-9-2009 by Getsmart]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by seaofgreen

Care to explain why you believe your insight is so much better than the millions of people between 66 and 69 who clear saw he was the same person, i.e. people who were actually there.
Even come late 69, all focus was on the album "clues", not that he looked different.



Um, remember a couple of pages back when I said I was there and I thought he looked different? Way different?



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekr
... The story of Laurel Canyon is a must read.


Seekr,
Could you please link to information about Laurel Canyon explaining what you refer too? Thanks.



Originally posted by Seekr
He used to be cheeky, now he’s just kind of grumpy and arrogant... Paul just seems different. He doesn't have the depth he once had.


This is KEY to deciding if Faul is a fake Paul. Art experts the world over place that sort of assessment above chemical analysis and chromatography: it is the intimate conviction of a trusted expert who determines whether deep in their conscience they recognize "the painter" within the artwork. If the artist is absent, the object is a fake.


By the same token, if Paul is absent within Faul, then Faul is a fake Paul.



In this instance the piece of artwork is Faul and in the absence of a recognized expert, we must assess the presence or absence of Paul in Faul ourselves.



Originally posted by Seekr
The video of the Liverpool pub where the older lady greets him as "Bill" is impressive.


Would you have a link to this video? it would be a treat for sore ears to hear someone speak the truth!



Originally posted by Seekr
By the way, this site says Svali is alive and safe in an environment without internet access:
svalispeaks.wordpress.com...


Unfortunately, unless there is a recent interview of Svali we cannot know if that site speaks truly. After all, there are plenty of "Paul Speaks" type websites pandering Faul as Paul. I'm not saying it isn't true, only that unless confirmed we cannot be 100% sure.

All I saw was some typing on a web page saying that parties unknown confirm her being alive. Their statement that she is without internet access and was unable to communicate for the better part of 3 years does not bode well.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by seaofgreen
The key words would seem to be "it was possible that the photographs were not of the same person", however "it was possible that the photographs were of the same person" is an equally valid interpretation. In other words, they proved diddly-squat.



The Illuminati are a very powerful group with ruthless mind controlled assassins and access to operational task forces of multiple countries when needed. You DON'T want to be taking these people head on with a direct blow. It is like Jack telling the Jolly Green Giant that he was going to get him. You keep a low profile and hack away at his bean stalk.


Your lack of intellectual honesty has just placed you on my Ignore list, please be so kind and courteous as to do the same for me, I wish not to share my ideas with closed minded people who endlessly claim "The Lie might be true so the Truth is probably false." This is not the place to do that, we are in a PID thread, thanks for acknowledging that FACT.


PS. I will also have the visual pleasure of no longer seeing your avatar which is presumably representative of your mindset.




[edit on 16-9-2009 by Getsmart]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Getsmart

Seekr,
Could you please link to information about Laurel Canyon explaining what you refer too? Thanks.


The story is here.

www.davesweb.cnchost.com...



Originally posted by Seekr
The video of the Liverpool pub where the older lady greets him as "Bill" is impressive.



Would you have a link to this video? it would be a treat for sore ears to hear someone speak the truth!


www.youtube.com...



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Has it occured to anyone that that Faul (the fake Paul) is the Paul we saw in the begining? The Beatles were packaged and sold to us as a bunch of cute, cleancut, cheeky, likable blokes who just wanted to entertain us. Nothing like the band that played in Germany a few years earlier. Is it possible that they all got sick of the charade and wanted acceptance for who they were and not who the were portaryed to be?



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkelf
This is one of the things that bothers me. I lived through this and you'd think that one of us (millions of listeners) would have noticed an overall change in looks or voice. True, they quit touring after 66 but it's not like they dropped off the end of the world.

There is a school of thought that says we didn't notice a change because we would never believe that a man could be replaced in this manner.

Paul's fame in the 60s was similar to that of an international movie star. Can you imagine a movie star being replaced, continuing to make films, and no-one in the world noticing it was a different guy?



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekr

Originally posted by seaofgreen

Care to explain why you believe your insight is so much better than the millions of people between 66 and 69 who clear saw he was the same person, i.e. people who were actually there.
Even come late 69, all focus was on the album "clues", not that he looked different.



Um, remember a couple of pages back when I said I was there and I thought he looked different? Way different?

Huh, what are you trying to say here? That because you thought he looked different, then the millions of people who saw him as the same person somehow didn't exist?



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkelf

Originally posted by seaofgreen

Care to explain why you believe your insight is so much better than the millions of people between 66 and 69 who clear saw he was the same person, i.e. people who were actually there.
Even come late 69, all focus was on the album "clues", not that he looked different.


This is one of the things that bothers me. I lived through this and you'd think that one of us (millions of listeners) would have noticed an overall change in looks or voice. True, they quit touring after 66 but it's not like they dropped off the end of the world.


A lot of people DID notice a change. PID was huge - big enough to force LIFE magazine to trot out the imposter to convince everyone Paul was "still with us." Give me a break. People said right after seeing the new SFF/Penny Lane videos that the Beatles looked old & ugly:
www.jojoplace.org...


There is a school of thought that says we didn't notice a change because we would never believe that a man could be replaced in this manner.

Yeah, well, once you know it's possible, then it's pretty easy to detect the difference, IMO.


[edit on 16-9-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by MavRck
yeah... I can't stress enough. I am a musician, and I have just the other day unearthed this topic. Before it I had never heard of this however I always felt the beatles 'went off' after 1966.

Most people think they got better; from the current BBC album chart:

5 NEW
New Entry (-)
Beatles
Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
(EMI)
6 NEW
New Entry (-)
Beatles
Abbey Road
(EMI)
9 NEW
New Entry (-)
Beatles
Revolver
(EMI)
10 NEW
New Entry (-)
Beatles
Rubber Soul
(EMI)



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Getsmart

Originally posted by berenike
I noticed this video in the set that Uncle Benny posted:
www.youtube.com...
Throughout, David Crosby is standing just behind George and Paul.


Incredible, when pressured by a reporter for his personal opinion Faul dropped the ball and let the cat out of the bag at 1:38 saying:


"We can't tell you our image, you know. We can only..."
[edit: incomplete sentence presumably referring to gag order]
"Our image is what we read in the newspapers, and that's the same as you read."
[edit: confession as to how he learned to mimic Paul?]
"We know our real image, which is nothing like our image."


I find it very interesting that David Crosby is there (looming?), considering his Illuminati ties (see the Laurel Canyon series for more info on that).

That just doesn't seem like Paul to me. And the hair is really wiggy looking.

Laurel Canyon series here: davesweb.cnchost.com...

[edit on 16-9-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Getsmart

Originally posted by berenike
I noticed this video in the set that Uncle Benny posted:
www.youtube.com...
Throughout, David Crosby is standing just behind George and Paul. I don't know if anyone would find that significant in light of what had been suggested about him.


Incredible, when pressured by a reporter for his personal opinion Faul dropped the ball and let the cat out of the bag at 1:38...


Er, no. That's PAUL, PRE PID!!!

That interview took place on August 28 1966 - BEFORE Paul was allegedly replaced.

Getsmart has just proven that they think PAUL is the ficticious impostor.

Getsmart - time to move over to the PIA camp.

Glad to have you onboard!



"We can't tell you our image, you know. We can only..."
[edit: incomplete sentence presumably referring to gag order]
"Our image is what we read in the newspapers, and that's the same as you read."
[edit: confession as to how he learned to mimic Paul?]
"We know our real image, which is nothing like our image."
[edit: Faul's confession to being a fake]
"And... what I mean't to say is..."
[edit: admission that prior statements were an unconscious slip of the tongue, Faul could not complete this sentence]."


Getsmart, please re-read the above quote in light of the fact that you are talking about PAUL.

Can't you now see that you can misinterpret meanings out of the most innocent of things?!

PIDDERS do this all the time with their so called "evidence".

You have just demonstrated this perfectly.


Uncle Benny, thanks for the link to that video and Berenike, thanks for bringing it again to our attention in the current debate.



And thanks, Getsmart, for proving you cannot see any 'differences' between Paul and 'Faul'! LOL.


[edit on 16-9-2009 by Dakudo]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Getsmart
Art experts the world over place that sort of assessment above chemical analysis and chromatography: it is the intimate conviction of a trusted expert who determines whether deep in their conscience they recognize "the painter" within the artwork. If the artist is absent, the object is a fake.

By that same token, if Paul is absent in the music, it's a fake. I'm sorry, but I cannot hear Paul in Faul's solo songs for the most part.


In this instance the piece of artwork is Faul and in the absence of a recognized expert, we must assess the presence or absence of Paul in Faul ourselves.

Yes, but we do have expert opinions that Paul was replaced, namely the Italian forensic scientists.


Originally posted by Seekr
The video of the Liverpool pub where the older lady greets him as "Bill" is impressive.



Would you have a link to this video? it would be a treat for sore ears to hear someone speak the truth!





Unfortunately, unless there is a recent interview of Svali we cannot know if that site speaks truly. After all, there are plenty of "Paul Speaks" type websites pandering Faul as Paul. I'm not saying it isn't true, only that unless confirmed we cannot be 100% sure.

That is a good point. With voice technology, it would be possible to make it seem like she's talking, but she's really not:

When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing
By William M. Arkin
www.washingtonpost.com...


All I saw was some typing on a web page saying that parties unknown confirm her being alive. Their statement that she is without internet access and was unable to communicate for the better part of 3 years does not bode well.


Oh, well, in that case, that's not proof at all that she's "still with us."

[edit on 16-9-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Originally posted by darkelf

This is one of the things that bothers me. I lived through this and you'd think that one of us (millions of listeners) would have noticed an overall change in looks or voice. True, they quit touring after 66 but it's not like they dropped off the end of the world.


A lot of people DID notice a change. PID was huge - big enough to force LIFE magazine to trot out the imposter to convince everyone Paul was "still with us." Give me a break. People said right after seeing the new SFF/Penny Lane videos that the Beatles looked old & ugly:
www.jojoplace.org...


But didn't that magazine layout come out after the original PID hype? I'm talking about the time frame between the last US tour in 66 and the PID in 69. Why weren't any of the discrepancies noticed before the internet sites started popping up in 2000?



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Getsmart

Originally posted by seaofgreen
The key words would seem to be "it was possible that the photographs were not of the same person", however "it was possible that the photographs were of the same person" is an equally valid interpretation. In other words, they proved diddly-squat.

I know I've said this until I'm blue in the face, but photos are evidence of identity. They actually ARE used to prove someone is who they say they are. If not, why would they be on passports & driver's licenses?


[T]he term "record" means any item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual that is maintained by an agency, including, but not limited to, ... other identifying particular assigned to the individual, such as a ... photograph... 5 USCS § 552a(4).

... [T]he district court found that duty titles were not comparable to captured immutable characteristics such as ... photographs. The district court reached these conclusions because an individual's duty title changes over time, because multiple people can concomitantly have the same or similar duty titles, and because each individual has predecessor and successor holders of the same duty titles. We agree with the reasoning and conclusions of the district court. In circumstances where duty titles pertain to one and only one individual, such as the examples of identifying particulars provided in the statutory text (... photograph), duty titles may indeed be "identifying particulars" as that term is used in the definition of "record" in the Privacy Act. For the reasons detailed by the district court, however, the [**9] duty titles in this [*188] case are not "identifying particulars" because they do not pertain to one and only one individual.

Pierce v. Dep't of the United States Air Force, 512 F.3d 184, 188 (5th Cir. Miss. 2007).



The Illuminati are a very powerful group with ruthless mind controlled assassins and access to operational task forces of multiple countries when needed. You DON'T want to be taking these people head on with a direct blow. It is like Jack telling the Jolly Green Giant that he was going to get him. You keep a low profile and hack away at his bean stalk.

Good strategy. You don't want to end up like Rik Clay
This is what we're doing here, isn't it? Hacking away at the beanstalk - by exposing some of their tactics? I think a lot of people have been unaware that people are imposter-replaced. I know I was ignorant of that before I started looking into PID. OK, I knew vaguely about how doubles could be used, but it never occurred to me that they would actually *replace* someone. It's just so horrifying, it was something I'd never contemplated before.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkelf

But didn't that magazine layout come out after the original PID hype? I'm talking about the time frame between the last US tour in 66 and the PID in 69. Why weren't any of the discrepancies noticed before the internet sites started popping up in 2000?


The LIFE magazine article came out in late 1969 to squelch PID. They only showed pictures of "Paul" from 1967 & later. So, what they proved was that the 1967 "Paul" was the same one as in 1969. Let me see if I can find the layout. I know I've seen it somewhere...



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 136  137  138    140  141  142 >>

log in

join