Paul McCartney died in 1966 - replaced by Billy Shepherd

As a point of reference to my comments I play guitar, piano, sing, and write. I'm an enormous Beatles fan and recently went through their entire discography in chronological order. I have arranged their songs classically for performances and weddings and studied the structure of many of their songs. I feel that I am in a bit of a unique position to comment on the musicianship of the Beatles, and specifically Paul. Though take what I'm saying with a grain of salt, I obviously didn't know them. I also have a degree in psychology, so I like thinking about how people think. More on that later...



1. If Paul dies in 1966, then the material he wrote wouldn't take them much further than Sgt. Pepper. While they were prolific writers, you just don't carry enough backlog to contribute as much as Faul is alleged to. That's why bands sometimes have a great first album, that they had their whole life to write for, and a crappy second that they wrote in a year. Musicians don't like using old stuff or previously rejected material, it's like saying you got worse.

2. I think Paul's vocals improved as the got into the later albums. The two tracks you mentioned had vocal effects applied but that was part of the song creation process. The same reason that Lennon's vocals on "Strawberry Fields Forever" and "I am the Walrus" sound odd. They speed up and slowed down tracks. They used a lot of slightly shifted double tracks and experimented with mic'ing. I actually think "You Never Give Me Your Money" is one of Paul's best songs and vocals.

3. I have no way of proving Faul had someone else play bass, as they weren't touring then, so that is a possibility. Paul getting better at the piano is, in my opinion, more about him becoming a better piano player and writer. Also, you can see his bass tendencies in the types of piano songs he wrote. "Penny Lane", very bass driven. Same with "Martha, My Dear", focused on rhythm.

4. Faul's songs suck compared to Paul's? I don't know how you make that argument song for song. What do you consider pre 1966 Paul's best songs to be?



Band tension is always present, it doesn't make the Beatles immune to it. They were writing at least an album a year for almost a decade at point. They were all older, had their own lives and developed interests. It's gonna happen. Plus, what trumps all of that is the fact that they stopped recording "Let it Be" midway through and said let's put our problems to the side and write an album. Then they wrote Abbey Road, one of the greatest albums of all time (greatest imo).



The first place you lose weight is the face. Even a five pound difference will make your face look more one way or the other. The angle of the photos are also different.

Anyway, getting back to photo-tampering & how it's been done to hide the truth about Paul's replacement... I posted this pic earlier from an "official" photo of the Aug. 19, 1966 Memphis interview.



(Available for purchase here: gallery.pictopia.com...)

YouTube Link

The image on the left is a screen capture of Paul that I did myself. It has not been tampered w/ in any way. Compare it to the "official" picture.

It looks like a composite. It looks like the lower half of Faul's head has been put on Paul's head. Note the weird "v" on the left side of his face where the line of Paul's cheek-crease has been broken. The right cheek lines don't match up, either. The eyebrows look like somebody's magic-markered them in. Also, the hair has been blackened in & has no highlights except on the far right of his head. And of course, the ear has been "faultered." Oh, & note the stubble & different skin tone on the lower half of the face.

No one finds this suspicious?



[edit on 26-6-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Rubbish, there are not that many 'clues', and just about all of them have been explained. None of the clues actually say Paul McCartney died in 1966 and was replaced, so they can be interpenetrated anyway you want.

You can find anything you want if you look for it hard enough.

[edit on 26-6-2009 by Wally Hope]

reply to post by faulconandsnowjob

---

Dude look at the other three, their hair is also just as dark where the light isn't hitting them.

Another fail.

Sorry WHAT A CROCK

good lord - I guess there are very few scousers on this board - as a manc i know they would give you some short shrft on this !

Give it a break children -

1) Get a passport (its the little book that lets you travel the world)

2) Board a flight (BA, AA, Virgin - cos most of you spouting this probably are)

3) Land in LHR and get a flight to Liverpool

Say this in loud terms in Liverpool

Don't worry our NHS will pick up the pieces

In 1967, you might have gotten many people that said "Yeah I know". But nowadays?....too much time has passed.

Another example of face-stretching




(also notice how his mouth/teeth have been blackened in)

This is how *really* looked:


Where's the distinctive right eyebrow?







That eyebrow is such a give-away.


[edit on 26-6-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Here's a picture of Paul from 1966. Notice how the magazine cover from 1967 is the *exact same picture.* They just added a rather unnatural looking mustache to it.



You can see it better here:



Does anybody still think this is a "hoax" or a "joke?" B/c someone has obviously put a lot of work into tampering w/ pictures of Paul McCartney over the years.

reply to post by faulconandsnowjob

---

Paul grew a mustache after his motorcycle accident to hide the mark it made to his lip. See pic...



Your pic was probably done because they didn't have a pic of him with a mustache, so they added it to make the pic look recent? Photographers mess with pics all the time by air brushing, and other methods, pre photoshop.

Paul's moped accident was on 26 December 1965 [www.recmusicbeatles.com...].

You can see Paul's chipped tooth in "Paperback Writer" & "Rain" (1966). He doesn't have a mustache. He didn't have a mustache until late 1966, which was, quite coincidentally, the time when all the other changes appeared.

YouTube Link

[edit on 27-6-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

[yvid]zvRi7fhGRgU[/youtube]

There you go Wally. I find it quite curious. Best to listen to it without watching, and then watch and listen.

The eyebrows are odd in some images. There seems to be no rhyme no reason to some of them?

There is evidence of images being tampered with.
Why?

I'm still unconvinced either way and my bum is getting sore on the fence, damnit!

But I think there are some questions that warrant decent answers rather than being dismissed outright as foolish.

Look at the nose.



That's supposedly the same person in Aug & Dec 1966. Doesn't the nose look just a *little* longer on the right? Also, the face looks thinner on the right.

(I posted it upside-down so people will look at it in a way they're not used to. I'm hoping to by-pass the conditioning this way...)

[edit on 28-6-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Argh, sorry, embedding mistake :/



lol Wally, are youmsure that photo isn't of 'Prince'?!



[edit on 28-6-2009 by aorAki]

reply to post by aorAki

---

LOL the power of suggestion.

If the vid didn't suggest what it says you would not have come up with the same thing yourself.

If you reverse what I just said, it would say 'Paul is not dead, it's a load of bunk'.

Yes, I've wondered that. however, I did listen to it first before I watched it.
It was weird and it was evident.

Now, i think something is going on. either it is 'real' or it is an 'in joke'.

Either way it warrants further investigation in my opinion.

There are so many clues in songs & on album covers about Paul being dead, that there's no way it's a "coincidence." Someone put a lot of effort into it. The Illuminati always tells you the truth, but they don't just "tell" you. You have to decode their clues. And they are really into back-masking. Remember the "eH ma I"-Aleister Crowley stuff?

Paul is bloody

YouTube Link

Turn me on, dead man (at 6)

YouTube Link

He's dead

YouTube Link

YouTube Link

I buried Paul

YouTube Link

guess who is dead

YouTube Link

Ok, I could probably find more back-masking, but you probably get the point.

Faul's teeth are not the same as Paul's. Surely, no one would suggest Paul would add gaps between his teeth.

The ear is a smoking gun.

Yes, that ear one is odd.
Can anyone explain it to me?

(Shhhh, his nose is different in those two pics too)

[edit on 30-6-2009 by aorAki]

Yes, the nose is different, too. Paul's turned up slightly, & Faul's doesn't. Very good eye to catch that



Nose, ear, eyebrows:



Eyebrow on right looks really strange:



With the ear, Paul's seems to have less lobe. Some people have called it "attached." Faul's ear kind of looks like it has a plastic piece slipped over it...





[edit on 1-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]