Paul McCartney died in 1966 - replaced by Billy Shepherd

I did a bunch of reading on this a couple years back. there are a lot of crackpot sites out there (like the one the original poster used), but there are a lot of intelligent analysis out there as well. Ultimately i lost interest (as i'm prone to), but i've never dismissed the idea-- although i'd like to, because too many things that are blatantly apparent just dont' jive (especially where paul's appearance is concerned).

If you can find that I'd love to see it.

The only thing I can think of is there was the clip of Paul and George arguing about a riff George was to play on one of Pauls songs in the Let It Be movie. George couldn't get it right to Pauls satisfaction. I find it hard to believe Paul would not be able to play something George showed him. Paul taught George a lot in the early days, and he was a mediocre player compared with the guitar giants of his day in London, Hendrix, Clapton, Page, Beck etc...Listen to his Beatle solo's, very basic stuff. Paul was a much better musician on all instruments than the other 3, including the drums.

You should watch Let It Be and then come back and say Paul had trouble playing any instrument let alone bass.

BTW I'm no Macca fan, just denying ignorance.

[edit on 15/7/2008 by ANOK]

Peoples faces and appearance change as they age from weight gain or loss, wear and tear etc...

So does the voice, but there is no mistaking Pauls voice, and vocal ability, as I think I have shown already. Paul has a talent that is hard to replicate.

This one is the most ridiculous conspiracy of all time. To assume that a beatle could be replaced by a lookalike who could sing and write like Paul is absurd.

A replacement that could write songs like Hey Jude, Mother Nature's Son and Get Back????? I very much doubt it.

Also, wouldn't his brother Mike be wondering why the so called lookalike was getting all the royalties from the songs between 1962 and 1966?

This is actually one of my favourite conspiracy theories of all time.

I don't actually believe a word of it and have yet to see any 'evidence' that really holds up and yet the supporters of the conspiracy have such a fervour and a tenacity that's mind-boggling.

The Beatles Conspiracy!!
Priceless.....

I do like the Beatles, they wrote some good songs,
but WHY replace Paul Mc Cartney!?!?!?

They were decent musicians, they incorporated
12 bar blues along with major, minor and pentatonic
scales well and their thick harmonizing vocals were
great as well but certainly not on the level of having to
do something on this scale.

They took basic music theory wrote some great melodies
and certainly did change the face of music the right time,
but they were certainly not as genius as Stravinsky or Zappa.

No need for a conspiracy.

Depending on which version of the 'Paul Is Dead' theory you read, it was the fact that McCartney had a different cultural cache to the likes of Stravinsky or Zappa was why he was replaced. There are claims the Tavistock Institute, for some reason that is beyond me, actually wrote all McCartney's tunes as a vehicle for NLP seeding and similar techniques with which to control teenagers. Like virus-writers, they aimed chose a channel that would deliver a bigger payload.

Again, I've never seen a single piece of proffered proof that stands up to any real scrutiny.

I think the 'real' conspiracy behind this conspiracy is that it's mainly perpetuated with seeding from writers with a vested interested on conspiracy-related sites and blogs &c.

reply to post by Merriman Weir

---

Interesting theory about seeding.
I don't remember reading anything like that,
I will certainly check that out.

I always got the impression that musicians,
especially songwriters were trying to make
you feel what they feel or understand their
emotions and experiences. This to me is
a kind of seeding, no?!

So does the theory, mean that Paul didn't
understand even what he was singing about
since they were written for him.

Thanks for enlightening me.
"Yesterday" just came on Sirius Radio.
Hahahahaaaaa!!!!!

I've always loved this particular idea. It's rather fascinating how far it went, and I don't believe a word of it either. But...

At the end of I'm So Tired, there is a backward message and it clearly, very clearly, says "Paul is dead... miss him... miss him". The question to me was always why.

1) It was a ruse. The Beatles playing a joke on those they knew were looking for such hidden messages.

2) Perhaps it referred to a spiritual death.

3) John was iterating some feeling of his as the Beatles were falling apart.

[edit on 7-12-2008 by TravelerintheDark]

Well, yes that's the goal of song-writing. However, it's believed that Tavistock is an Illuminati/CIA-related organisation and the songs had specific intents to induce moral decay through drugs, rebelliousness &c.



Well, the problem is that there's many different versions of this. Even when McCartney was a replaced is an issue. Some versions have McCartney being replaced around the time of the first Beatles trip to America - to molest the minds of American youth with their specially-written songs. Other versions have Faul - as the supporters often call 'Fake Paul' - writing his own songs in the style of McCartney, either very, very successfully or not successfully at all, depending on where you stand on this.

The most popular time, conspiracy-wise, for the replacement was following his car crash in 1966 though.

I love ya, EB, but let me set you straight.

Hmmmm.....

John Lennon was a master marketer, he kept coming up with all kinds of stuff to make their albums more famous.
This story about Paul is pure BS. it was done to intrigue the public further, all the hints and clues on their albums were all done to keep the sales going. Even some songs played backwards, were written so they would have a message in them.

Paul McCartney is very much alive- the real one.

I have put many hours into this subject, heard how and why it was done, ingenious, i have to say.

Love you bro.

Or even 'Monsieur, Monsieur, Monsieur how about another one'.

Listen to it forwards...

It's amazing how ones perceptions can be manipulated by mass media.

Well, I had never heard this story before (don't get newspapers / tv in my cave), and I don't say I believe or disbelieve it.


But when I saw the thread it reminded me of a dream I had some years ago ... I should say that I am one of those people who rarely recalls dreams but when I do they are extremely lucid.

Anyhoo, in this dream of mine I saw Paul McCartney shot and killed ... he was inside a dimly lit room when this happened and there was more than one person in the room ... there was also a bit of pushing and jostling before the shooting (in my dream).

It was so vivid that I was sure there would be a news report in the coming days about the death of a Beatle. And there was ... but it was George Harrison. I thought this was a bit of a coincidence and that as predictive dreams go ... I was pretty s#*t !

Interesting thread though. Has there ever been an explanation offered for the apparent growth-spurt ?

Woody

I don't think Paul and Linda were together in 1966. Where they?

reply to post by PammyK

---

Paul met Linda at the June 1967 launch party for Sgt. Peppers, and they married in March '69.

This just sickens me, leave the man alone.

Perhaps though if there was any truth to this, he could be a walkin. Also thinking along these lines perhaps John Lennon was going to tell the truth and that was why he was killed?

reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread195888/pg2#pid54

Actually, I think it sounds like a garbled mess forwards, that's why I reversed it in the first place. At the time I wasn't aware there was supposed to be anything in the song. Before that, I'd always thought it was just meant to be mumbling, as if finally sleeping.



[edit on 7-12-2008 by TravelerintheDark]

No one seems to be mentioning the fact that if this william campbell did take his place, he then wrote some of the greatest songs of all time. Now that's lucky! lol

Great conspiracy, but one that's sadly untrue.

Actually I think this John Lennon lyric will dispel any Paul is dead myth...



A scathing attack on Paul McCartney that would have been a bit redundant if he was really dead. The period right after the breakup when the other 3 were really resentful toward Paul because he was the real reason for the breakup, not John, not Yoko. Paul was extremely slick and manipulated events to his own benefit after Brian Epstein died. It if wasn't for that though the Beatles would have broke up in 1967.

That's interesting considering Neil Aspinall died on March 23rd, 2008. It's especially interesting that Paul McCartney is doing interviews and made many public appearances after March 23rd, 2008.

So who did they do plastic surgery on and hire to impersonate Neil Aspinall impersonating Paul McCartney?