These paul is dead threads come and go oftern on ATS. They are mere speculation from mild beatles fans. As a beatles fan and a fan of sir mcartney, i highly doubt this is true and is no diffrent to that of the elvis is alive theory and jim morrison isnt dead.

I am also doubt in this as a Beatles fan. I've heard also rumours that even Lenon is still alive.

After 9 months of research into the PID conspiracy theory, I am convinced Paul was replaced ~ Sept. 1966. I have compared many photos and videos of Paul & Faul. Based on physical and personality differences, I have no doubt that the Paul that appeared at the end of 1966 is a fake. Many people noticed back in 1969 that something was wrong, but when LIFE magazine trotted out someone representing himself to be Paul, almost everyone breathed a sign of relief. Hey, if LIFE magazine says it's true, it must be, right?

It seems that many people can't conceive of a celebrity being killed & replaced. They are perhaps not aware of the Illuminai, and how they control the entertainment industry just like everything else. I am certain the Illuminati will kill people if it suits them, and I am certain they have the resources to find a replacement. Their control of the media perpetuates the charade. Not only do they represent the imposter as being the real deal, but I have found evidence of photo tampering, which is an attempt to make the two men resemble each other as much as possible.

Why would the Illuminati kill Paul? Of course, it's speculation, but there was an effort in the mid 1960's to spread LSD to the public as part of a mind control agenda. Maybe Paul wouldn't promote LSD use. Shortly after his replacement, Faul talks openly about LSD use in some interviews. If a Beatle is doing it, it must be cool.

Here is a picture comparison of Paul from Help! (1965) and "Paul" from the Magical Mystery Tour, Fool on the Hill video (1967):

The photos prove that Paul was replaced. This image shows Paul on the left in the Memphis interview of Aug 19, 1966. On the right is his double ("Faul"), who made his first public appearance outside of EMI studios in late Nov 1966. As you can see, Faul's nose is noticeably longer than Paul's was.

I am posting the original comp, a negative, & upside down. I think b/c people have basically been conditioned to see the 2 men as the same, it's useful to see them from a difft perspective.






[edit on 27-5-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

I don't know what's more ridiculous, this subject, or the fact that I've taken the time to read every post. what's wrong with me?

---

---

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
The photos prove that Paul was replaced. This image shows Paul on the left in the Memphis interview of Aug 19, 1966. On the right is his double ("Faul"), who made his first public appearance outside of EMI studios in late Nov 1966. As you can see, Faul's nose is noticeably longer than Paul's was.

I am posting the original comp, a negative, & upside down. I think b/c people have basically been conditioned to see the 2 men as the same, it's useful to see them from a difft perspective.

[edit on 27-5-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Great comparison pics faulcon. I like how you used the special light and the upside down angles. Very good way of seeing the differences.

---

---

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
The photos prove that Paul was replaced. This image shows Paul on the left in the Memphis interview of Aug 19, 1966. On the right is his double ("Faul"), who made his first public appearance outside of EMI studios in late Nov 1966. As you can see, Faul's nose is noticeably longer than Paul's was.

I am posting the original comp, a negative, & upside down. I think b/c people have basically been conditioned to see the 2 men as the same, it's useful to see them from a difft perspective.

Blow these pics up and look at the tip of the "original Paul's" nose.
It looks like a cone with a sphere protruding from it.

This photo has been retouched. A piece has been cut from near the end of Paul's nose and the tip pulled upwards, then the area beneath the nose cloned to bring it up to the new nose-tip.


I don't know why someone wanted to make Paul's nose look less pointy, but that's what happened.

The pictures are definitely both of the same person.

Here's Paul in 1965



and here he is some years later - I'm guessing early seventies:



The teeth look the same to me - he's got one on the top right that is slightly crooked and his top front teeth are quite distinctive.

I have noticed something odd about his nose in later pictures though, it does looked more hooked.



[edit on 28-5-2009 by berenike]

Here is a picture comp of Paul on Aug 19, 1966 compared to Faul in 1967:



The faces simply don't match up: