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: 140
33
<< 137  138  139    141  142  143 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by seaofgreen
Can you imagine a movie star being replaced, continuing to make films, and no-one in the world noticing it was a different guy?


You can't compare now and then. Imagine being a 60's teenager. No cell phone, no internet, no DVD's. Where do you get your information? If you are in a big city you have three TV channels. Smaller cities one or two, in the country maybe none. All the TV channels have 30 minutes of news in a day, all running at the same time. You can only watch one.
You have one or two daily papers, only from your own city. You have weekly newsmagazines and fan mags. On AM radio they do three minutes of news every hour. That's it.
If you see something on TV it passes once, then it's gone. Maybe it is on reruns once. You see a movie in the theater once, twice, that's it.
So you can't compare anything unless you have magazines, which are heavily retouched and edited. You can't watch videos more than once. What do you have to go on?
We believed the press then, pretty much everyone but the John Birch Society believed the media. (turns out the John Birch Society was right. Who knew?)
In my case, when I saw the Life Magazine spread on "Paul in Scotland" I discarded what I saw for myself and bought the party line. I didn't think Life would lie to us. I was wrong.
This is what mind-control does. It was a lot easier to do then than it is now, but they are still experts at it and still try to control our perception of reality.




posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Ok, here's what I have on the LIFE PID article (Nov 1969):



It also asked the wrong question. It asked him if he were dead, not if he were the real Paul.

But "Paul" acted very strangely when the reporter went up there to interview him.



I'm sorry, but I don't buy that Paul would have moved to an isolated farmhouse in Scotland. I think they wanted that guy out of there.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekr
Imagine being a 60's teenager. No cell phone, no internet, no DVD's. Where do you get your information? If you are in a big city you have three TV channels. Smaller cities one or two, in the country maybe none. All the TV channels have 30 minutes of news in a day, all running at the same time. You can only watch one.
You have one or two daily papers, only from your own city. You have weekly newsmagazines and fan mags. On AM radio they do three minutes of news every hour. That's it.
If you see something on TV it passes once, then it's gone. Maybe it is on reruns once. You see a movie in the theater once, twice, that's it.
So you can't compare anything unless you have magazines, which are heavily retouched and edited. You can't watch videos more than once. What do you have to go on?


That is one reason I'm impressed that so many people did pick up on the fact that something was wrong. It's easy now w/ the internet to do comparisons of photos & videos. I think people back then were actually more perceptive in a way than now. Maybe it's b/c they watched less TV? Maybe people are just bombarded w/ too much information all the time now to really have time to *think* about things. It's like constant over-stimulation - it's just too much & too distracting.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

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...


I'm saying why didn't anyone in the millions of fans notice anything amiss between 1966 and 1969. We were shocked in 69 when this story of PID was originally started. Even then, it was only 'clues' from songs and albums. Why did everyone focus on the songs and album covers? We lived it yet no one living at that time noticed the heigth differences, the voice differences or the facial differences. These differences have only been brought out some 30 years after the fact.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkelf
I'm saying why didn't anyone in the millions of fans notice anything amiss between 1966 and 1969.


Oh, people in England did notice there was something wrong in 1967. There was a rumor Paul died in a car crash. The Beatle Mag denied it.




We were shocked in 69 when this story of PID was originally started. Even then, it was only 'clues' from songs and albums. Why did everyone focus on the songs and album covers? We lived it yet no one living at that time noticed the heigth differences, the voice differences or the facial differences. These differences have only been brought out some 30 years after the fact.

Yeah, I don't know why people didn't look at the photos more back then. I've noticed that there's been an effort in the media & in the books to focus on the "clues," which are open to interpretation. I think it's an attempt to steer away from the more compelling evidence, like different noses, eye color, ears, jawlines, etc.

Oh, something else weird about the video I posted of "Paul" in Scotland - it said he spent his days walking & nights watching TV. Wasn't he writing music?

[edit on 16-9-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Originally posted by MavRck
Watch this video and pay attention to the time 1:24 to 1:28

"but now's gone" and a close-up of his face... it is disturbing. Touching.

Watch it. Amazing song as well. And even "amazing" is an amazingly belittling word for it.


Yeah, I think you forgot to post it, but you mean the Anthology version of "For No One," right? Some of us think that's a clue. It's interesting how the video still is at that exact moment, too. Serendipity, I guess.



It is a brilliant song, IMO. I love the horn & the bass.

[edit on 16-9-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



Yes it`s a good song lyrically, but it`s also a cold, empty song about a heartless world without empathy.


The "she" is representative of the system that chews people up and spits them out..... "And in her eyes`s you see nothing, no sign of love behind the tears, cried for no-one" Here, "words of kindness" are hollow... "when she no longer needs you."

Read the lyrics in the context of the system which uses people and then coldly disgards them, like a cog in a wheel. Is this what happened to Paul?


Your day breaks, your mind aches
You find that all her words of kindness linger on
When she no longer needs you


She wakes up, she makes up
She takes her time and doesn't feel she has to hurry
She no longer needs you


And in her eyes you see nothing
No sign of love behind the tears
Cried for no one
A love that should have lasted years


You want her, you need her
And yet you don't believe her when she says her love is dead
You think she needs you


And in her eyes you see nothing
No sign of love behind the tears
Cried for no one

A love that should have lasted years

You stay home, she goes out
She says that long ago she knew someone but now he's gone
She doesn't need him


Your day breaks, your mind aches
There will be times when all the things she said will fill your head
You won't forget her

And in her eyes you see nothing
No sign of love behind the tears
Cried for no one

A love that should have lasted years


Great spot by MavRck in the anthology vid at 1.25 where the camera fixes on Paul
-

"She says that long ago she knew someone but now he's gone
She doesn't need him."




[edit on 16-9-2009 by Uncle Benny]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

And in response to the person who was saying the teeth looked the same. I got this image from Spycraft by Robert Wallace and H. Keith Melton:



It's possible to make teeth look like someone else's. Sorry it's not a great scan, but it's a big, unwieldy book & that was the best I could get it. These teeth were done by OTS.

OTS = Office of Technical Service

[edit on 15-9-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

[edit on 15-9-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



Great post about the teeth Faulcon
-

The intelligence sector is the greatest "illusionist/stage magician" around. It is also possible now for members of the public to have their teeth shaped and fixed like their favourite hollywood moviestar, singer etc.

For around 30 - 40 thousand dollars this procedure can be carried out in New York. If this level of technology is now available for all (granted it`s expensive), you can take it that it existed in the intelligence community in the 60`s to make Bills teeth exactly like Pauls.


[edit on 16-9-2009 by Uncle Benny]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Benny

The intelligence sector is the greatest "illusionist/stage magician" around. It is also possible now for members of the public to have their teeth shaped and fixed like their favourite hollywood moviestar, singer etc.


It's actually possible to turn yourself into your favorite star.

"This crazy guy went all out to change himself to a clone of Michael Jackson"
www.vidmax.com...



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   
I'm starting to think that the people denying PID perhaps work for an institution protecting him or at least affiliatory.


I will put it this way... if he did not die in 66... his appearance did, his sound did, and his character did.

So either way...................................

But ladies, gentlemen, instead of sitting here getting riled up at eachother's comments and trying to prove one another wrong... review all of the evidence, and research new evidence... formulate educated opinions and avoid all bias.

This is what i have done... and I am firmly on the side of believing he was replaced. I will not go as far as to say by who, when exactly, or even how exactly. I know that it is QUITE possible, and QUITE possible for that time and the motives are there.

Why do people consider this whacky? Nobody is saying that one of Nirvana was replaced, or one of the beegees... there's a reason for all of this. Everybody dismissing others' as sideshows and whatnot should really take a look at their reflection in the mirror and perhaps dawn the realization they should've bought a ticket.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by MavRck
I'm starting to think that the people denying PID perhaps work for an institution protecting him or at least affiliatory.

Quite possible - or maybe something like COINTELPRO.


... review all of the evidence, and research new evidence... formulate educated opinions and avoid all bias.

This is what i have done... and I am firmly on the side of believing he was replaced.

I think most people who research it w/out bias - & who know it is quite possible - will come to this conclusion. I understand it's hard to look at it objectively for some. No one wants anything bad to have happened to Paul.


Why do people consider this whacky?

It's just a way to keep other people from looking into it & seeing that PID is actually true. Discrediting people is a disinfo technique.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by MavRck
This is what i have done... and I am firmly on the side of believing he was replaced.

Why do people consider this whacky?


There are many reasons, but here's a comp for starters:




posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by MavRck
I'm starting to think that the people denying PID perhaps work for an institution protecting him or at least affiliatory.


Laughable!

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.



his appearance did, his sound did, and his character did.


Millions think exactly the opposite.


Why do people consider this whacky?


Because it is not true. And the so called "evidence" presented by PIDDERS is ridiculous and encompasses wild leaps of logic, pie in the sky speculation and downright lies.


Nobody is saying that one of Nirvana was replaced


That's because he's dead.


or one of the beegees...


No, true. However Faulcon and her ilk believe John, George and Ringo were replaced!

Not forgetting:

Brian Epstein, George Martin, Jane Asher, Sean Connery, Eddie Murphy, Mick Jagger, Sylvester Stallone, Tom Cruise, Nicole Kidman, Burt Reynolds, Mark Hamill, Charlie Brill, Brooke Sheilds, George Michael, Sting, David Bowie, John Travolta, Berlinda Carlisle, Steve Martin.... and countless others.

Link:

only1rad.proboards.com...

They believe replacements are around every Hollywood corner.

Incredible!



[edit on 16-9-2009 by Dakudo]

[edit on 16-9-2009 by Dakudo]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   
I enjoyed your piece by piece discredit attempt however you ... did just that; attempted.

My opinion stands... I do not for one second denounce the fact that there are people in this world who jump at conclusions for the sake of their own amusement and fulfillment...that being said... I am not one of those people.

I do not know or or believe in anybody else being replaced other than s. JP McCartney.

Even on this subject, there is an amount of space which could be allotted to him possibly being him... however... like I've said and I'll reiterate, I am with the PID crew regardless of who they are, and how they came up with their information.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   
and another thought... the "arguments" and so and and so forth the Beatles supposedly endured which 'explains' their breakup could easily be a manipulated and orchestrated front to disguise the real reason which was that the lead of the band had died in a terrible crash.

Folks... I do not care to sound as if a nut, but if not on this site, where? I thought openness and kind candor as well as a diverse mind were the pillars of ATS. (I have been coming here for years, only recently have decided to open an account.)

Anyways my point being, if it were the case that the 'Illuminati' or parallel had been the hand behind this deceitful switcharoo... let's all remember what the Illuminati do to people when they want information held. They do NOT threaten you. They tell you you'll be absolutely fine. However, they'll kill your dog, your parents, your brothers/sisters, wife, ... you see where I am going.

All of this is easily possible, none of us here today know the truth behind this subject... it is like religion, so I hope everybody will speak with an open mind and open heart and free of ego. None of you should have emotion invested, that is ego.

Unearth the truth.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Let's pretend the For No One video is a clue or contains them. I watched it just to hear the song and noticed the following. (Comments will be in parentheses.)


In the For No One video, did anyone else notice:

When "A love that should have lasted years" at 0:34 plays, Paul and John alone are being shown? (A bond that was broken much to early?)

"She no longer needs you" is a shot of Paul, John, and George. The next line begins "In her eyes", and Ringo is looking up. At 1:04, when "In her eyes" is sang again, the shot is of a solo Ringo. (If the she in the song represents Ringo, does that mean Ringo did not need the other three any more? Or did he not need Paul? Does Ringo know something?)

0:44 "You don't believe her" is a shot of a solo Paul. (Implying people see Paul and know it isn't him, but refuse to believe it?)

1:07 "No sign of love behind the tears" shows Paul and John. Love mentioned again shows the same two members only again? (John loved Paul. We get it.)

1:19 "She" is sang as a solo Ringo is shown again. (Again?)

After "But now he's gone" shows Paul, the line" she doesn't need him" is over two segments, one showing Paul behind John, the other showing Paul behind George, like he is fading into the background. Neither segment features Ringo. (Ringo did not need Paul anymore? Why?)

1:31 "Your mind aches" shows a solo shot of John. (Hmm, John lost a love early. Heartache?)

1:35 "All the things she said" plays and again Ringo shows up, alone, during "she". Again. Paul is shown when "fills your head" plays. (Wasn't Paul supposedly killed due to head trauma in a car accident?)

At the end, a shot of all four Beatles appears during "A love that should have lasted years", then a laughing Ringo, solo, fades in. (Out of place. What is funny about a lost love?)



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by MavRck
I enjoyed your piece by piece discredit attempt however you ... did just that; attempted.


You "attempted" to "discredit" PIAers by writing:


Originally posted by MavRck
I'm starting to think that the people denying PID perhaps work for an institution protecting him or at least affiliatory.


Yet you provided NO evidence whatsoever to support your statement.

Why?

Because your accusation has no evidence to back it up.

It's just yet another example of PIDDERS making pie in the sky claims without any substantiation whatsoever.


So - who exactly has "attempted" to "discredit" people here?

And who also has presented NO evidence to back up their claim?

You only need to look in the mirror for the answer, MavRck.


[edit on 16-9-2009 by Dakudo]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   
haha I cannot help but laugh. Amusing, to say the least. I have attempted no such discrediting. I simply voiced my opinion that those 'protecting' who I and many consider to be Faul are in cohesion with the conspirators.

It was an off-shot statement... I never bond anything specific in terms of words only ideas; this one I stand by.

Whether or not they are anything to do with a conspiracy... it is still very possible. If this were a case involving me, I would have networkers all over every locatable conspiracy board there were with files of information to 'discredit' the truth.

Mav



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekr

You can't compare now and then. Imagine being a 60's teenager. No cell phone, no internet, no DVD's. Where do you get your information?

Fans saw and chatted to Paul every day, outside his house and outside the studio. Paul knew many of them by name.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkelf
I'm saying why didn't anyone in the millions of fans notice anything amiss between 1966 and 1969. We were shocked in 69 when this story of PID was originally started. Even then, it was only 'clues' from songs and albums. Why did everyone focus on the songs and album covers? We lived it yet no one living at that time noticed the heigth differences, the voice differences or the facial differences. These differences have only been brought out some 30 years after the fact.

Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer. We've asked this question many times before before. Faulcon either ignores the question or floods the thread with a bazillion bad photo comps to push the question out of sight and out of mind.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by MavRck
I have attempted no such discrediting.


Of course you did! You admit it:


I simply voiced my opinion that those 'protecting' who I and many consider to be Faul are in cohesion with the conspirators.


You are infering that myself and the other PIAers are not honest.

How is that not trying to discredit people?!

Are you for real?


this one I stand by.


Even though you haven't a shred of proof to back it up?

This attitude sums up a PIDDER'S way of thinking, perfectly.

Laughable!


[edit on 16-9-2009 by Dakudo]



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 137  138  139    141  142  143 >>

log in

join