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: 20
33
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


You can't just make someone a star, if you could then the music industry would be extremely happy. Do you know how many bands that get signed by major record labels don't go anywhere? There are thousands. No one knows how they will sell until they have a record to sell, and if the first record is a flop many bands get dropped, at a loss to the label.

Signing a band or artist is always a gamble, there are no guarantees. No 'technology', known or unknown, is going to make the public buy an artists release.

If you guys actually had some evidence, such as how exactly The Beatles were helped by the 'Illuminati' then I'd listen, but so far there is far more evidence that your story is just a hoax. The Beatles got big because the public liked their music, and Paul is alive and well in East Sussex.

You don't want to know what the peacock told me...




posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
Obviously numerous people believe they have noticed, thus all the conspiracy sites on the subject.


What people? A bunch of kids on the internet comparing pictures?

I'm talking about family, close friends, business partners etc. You know people that actually new him personally.

www.beatlesagain.com...



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 10:14 PM
link   

The Hair Parting

From since he was born and through his early years and into Beatle life Paul's hairparting has always been on the left side (your right) of his head. Even when he had his hair natural and floppy the natural parting can still be seen on the same side of his head. This is shown in the following photos...



Now, it could be said that these are mirrored shots, but this can easily be dismissed because this is just a small number of photos which show his hair parting to be on his left hand side. Just about every photo of Paul taken before the end of 1966, including candid, show him to have the hair parting on that side of his head. However, in 1967, something quite interesting happened...



His hair parting has suddenly jumped to the other side of his head!! Again, it could be argued that these photos have been mirrored, but like before this is just a small selection of countless photos where his hair parting has suddenly jumped from one side to the other. In just about every post 1967 photo of Paul (including candid) his hair parting is on the other side of his head. My mother is a qualified, professional hair stylist and basically she's told me that it is impossible for the parting in your hair to suddenly jump over like that. The hair parting is determined by how your hair grows out from your head and thus is impossible for it to just decide to jump over like this.

From Officially Pronounced Dead
homepages.tesco.net...



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wally Hope


What people? A bunch of kids on the internet comparing pictures?

3


We're not all kids.

I kid you not.

Don't assume.

As I've said before, I find this an interesting theory, which is why i keep coming back to it.
It does seem far-fetched to me, but there are many things which appear to be far-fetched until one gets into the nitty-gritty.

At the moment I'm treating it like an interesting thought exercise because I haven't seen anything to cement it for me yet.

Having said that, there are some curious things such as the obviously different nose shape and curiously-apparent fake ears...or so they seem to me, but i need to investigate this further.
Also, why so much backmasking. Admittedly some of it is clutching at non-existennt straws, but there are a couple (notably the 'Gratitude' one) which intrigue me....I mean, why would they do that?

Yes, it could be all just a big pisstake, and if so, well done!
However, i don't expect to be called a 'kid' when I'm not.

The other reason i don't like to entertain this as 'fact' too much is because then it opens a whole can o' worms about the nature of reality and how much we have been duped by the powers that be.
That just makes my head hurt



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 11:36 PM
link   
There are a few kids on the Paul is Dead forums I visit, but most of the people are in their 40's, 50's and 60's and they are all interested in conspiracy theories. Not all are Beatles fans, but most are.

I don't know why this is so hard to believe. Honestly, people need to quit acting like children when presented with this information. So a celebrity was replaced with a double, it's not the end of the world.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki
Having said that, there are some curious things such as the obviously different nose shape and curiously-apparent fake ears...or so they seem to me, but i need to investigate this further.
Also, why so much backmasking. Admittedly some of it is clutching at non-existennt straws, but there are a couple (notably the 'Gratitude' one) which intrigue me....I mean, why would they do that?


I disagree with the nose and ears looking different, they look the same to me. As we keep saying different lighting and different angles, look at photos of someone else or even yourself.

What's the 'gratitude' one I must have missed it.

The 'backmasking' was a new toy to play with. Musicians are always looking for a new thing to do. They didn't do that much of it, a little backwards guitar here and there and some studio out takes just mixed in for effect. Paul was the first to experiment with it. After they stopped touring they had more time in the studio to experiment, both John and Paul had 4 track tape machines at home. It was all part of the new psychedelic music and avante garde (Paul was the first there also even though John is thought as being the radical one). John went to the Indica gallery to see Yoko Ono's exhibit after Paul had been to see it and recommended it to him.


Yes, it could be all just a big pisstake, and if so, well done!
However, i don't expect to be called a 'kid' when I'm not.


Well done to who? No one set up this hoax, it just sort of grew from a bunch of fans who kept finding the so called 'clues', that were then reported in a college paper or two. At the time it wasn't that big of a story, I think you guys are making more of it than anyone else ever did before the internet.

After Brian Epstein died the band was kind of lost, it was Paul that kept them going, and sort of become their leader much to the resentment of the rest. But if he didn't the band would have split more than likely. Even though John was seen as the leader by default in the beginning, he was too insecure for the role of leader when it became really necessary, before that they did what Brian and George Martin told them to do. Notice Paul got most of the 'A' sides, and he managed to manipulate a lot of the processes so he would stand out from the other 3, such as the black rose when the others all had red, or standing backwards towards the band like he was the conductor, walking out of step and barefoot on the 'Abbey Road' cover. Anything to stand out from the other three. Paul is good at self promotion.

Have you ever watched 'Let it Be'? If you haven't you should, you can see how Paul seems to be the one in control of the sessions. More time was spent on his songs, he tended to be more experimental on Johns songs than he did his own.

Why would the other 3 let that happen if he was not Paul? Common sense and logic should tell you that answer.

[edit on 23-6-2009 by Wally Hope]



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by SednaSon
 


Well this thread is taking the hoax very seriously, so why shouldn't I?

Should only the believers in this take it seriously?

BTW it was kids that started this whole thing, kids in the Beatles fan club.
I find it funny that adults take this seriously.

[edit on 24-6-2009 by Wally Hope]



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 12:15 AM
link   

The other reason i don't like to entertain this as 'fact' too much is because then it opens a whole can o' worms about the nature of reality and how much we have been duped by the powers that be.

This on top of people not wanting to believe anything bad happened to Paul def makes this an unpopular "conspiracy theory." However, closing your eyes to the truth doesn't change the truth. I think it's better to know what all goes on so we don't fall victim to the manipulation & control.

Getting back to what Sedna said, I do wonder why is this so hard for some people to believe. Given that the Illuminati kill people they don't like & given that there are doubles/impersonators, then how long do you think it took for them to hit upon the idea of replacing people w/ their own stooges? And given that they control most of the media, they have been able to convince most people that a guy who was older, taller, not as good-looking, not as talented, etc, was Paul. Yeah... It's time to wake up & see how much you've been mind-you-know-whated. And this is just the tip of the iceberg...

[edit on 24-6-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 12:29 AM
link   
Paul had a very distinctive right eyebrow that the imposter didn't have. Unfortunately, his eyebrows were often hidden by his hair, but you can see them in this comp.



That's another smoking gun, I would say.



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 12:49 AM
link   
I find it hard to imagine so many girls going wonky over the guy in the white shirt. I know I wouldn't.






[edit on 24-6-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 01:51 AM
link   
Are you guys familiar w/ the concept of being stepforded? This is what could happen to you if you don't get w/ the program...





The Illuminati tell you what the deal is. Fiction is oftentimes already fact...


[edit on 24-6-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wally Hope
Please point out in detail how the ear is different?

All I see is pics at different angles and in different lighting.

If you really want to prove that human anatomy cannot be slightly different looking from pic to pic, year to year, you need a research test.
You need to look at a bunch of different people, and point out how they all look exactly alike from year to year etc., and then if they do fit your logic then you might have something convincing.

I'm guessing you won't do this?

Cranberry sauce...


It's " I bury Sauce " .....You can here the bury and the S so neither argument is right.



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 02:26 AM
link   
reply to post by LucidDreamer85
 


LOL no it's not.

This is the third time I've linked to this...

www.beatlesagain.com...

Is the man that actually said it lying?



[edit on 24-6-2009 by Wally Hope]



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

That's another smoking gun, I would say.


Yeah (yeah yeah) I think you've been smoking something, but I doubt it's a warm gun.

Oh btw this is what Paul said about 'I buried Paul'


That wasn't 'I buried Paul' at all—that was John saying 'cranberry sauce'. It was the end of Strawberry Fields. That's John's humour. John would say something totally out of sync, like cranberry sauce. If you don't realize that John's apt to say cranberry sauce when he feels like it, then you start to hear a funny little word there, and you think, 'Aha!'


So now you've got it from John and Paul, I guess they must have got together at some point to get their story straight...


And From The Beatles Recording Sessions, by Mark Lewisohn...


. . . At the end of the second overdub John Lennon muttered the words 'cranberry sauce' twice over. The red acidic berry, famous for complementing roast turkey, had no relevance whatsoever to the song and John's utterance cannot be satisfactorily explained beyond the point that it was just 'typical John Lennon'. One 'cranberry sauce' (two on some foreign pressings of the song) even made it onto the finished single, if you listen hard enough.


[edit on 24-6-2009 by Wally Hope]



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
Paul had a very distinctive right eyebrow that the imposter didn't have. Unfortunately, his eyebrows were often hidden by his hair, but you can see them in this comp.



That's another smoking gun, I would say.




Also the chin....Paul had a more Jay Leno like chin and Faul has a chin that is pushed in more....



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 02:51 AM
link   
reply to post by LucidDreamer85
 


You can't tell he's pushing his chin forward a little in that first pic?

Don't you understand that the human face is capable of many expressions that change the shape of it?

Look at the shape of his eyes, they are the same.

[edit on 24-6-2009 by Wally Hope]



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 03:01 AM
link   


Can't you tell that the eyebrows are completely different - as are the entire faces?

Sometimes I wish there were some glasses like in "They Live" that people could put on to see that those are not the same faces.



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 03:20 AM
link   


Should be 1966 & 1967, but o/wise good comp.

[edit on 24-6-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Wally Hope
 


No, you can't make just anyone a star. You need someone with the talent along with the other abilities, but there are a great many, very talented people out there with the ability and the desire. I would say more capable applicants than job openings. It takes more than just talent. What did Epstein do to get The Beatles on over the top? He put them in suits, which is what prime time media wanted. Big media does get to pick and choose who they want, and they have created stars who they groomed for their own purposes, or whose careers were nurtured because this enabled the media to put out a message that they wanted to put out, like to grow the drug culture.

Yeah, plenty of bands never make it, but how much of that is lack of putting out the tunes that people want to hear, or failure to conform to the industries desires. For the Music industry it is just R&D costs.

If you really know Paul McCartney, WOW, cool. If you have met him in person, then I guess you know how tall he is. Then again, you could be anyone saying anything. How well do you know him, or were you just a tourist who visited his farm once?

If Paul is Paul, I wonder what he thinks about this conspiracy. Does he think it is funny or annoying most of the time? Why hasn't Paul ever done something to end the theories. I suspect that he sees it as probably good publicity, and a yearning for the days before the Beatles broke up. Obviously, the die hards are big fans of McCartney, they just prefer the younger McCartney, but don't we all prefer a younger version of ourselves, at least those of us past 40.

I think John and Paul were a couple of the greatest singers and songwriters in the history of Rock-n-Roll, that is clear.



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Wally Hope
 


Umm, if John was in on the conspiracy, which he would have had to have been, then yes, when forced, he probably would lie.

On further listening, what I hear is "I bury s". What I though was the "Paul", sounds like "I", which is probably John repeating the phrase several seconds later. I definitely do not hear a cran. It clearly sounds like "I". Maybe he was just thinking about turkey and cranberry sauce, or maybe he had something to say, and cranberry sauce got the statement left on the record. Maybe it was more of a self destructive statement, and he is saying "I bury myself" in a cryptic manner. This would actually match the mood of the song and theme of the song.



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join