Paul McCartney died in 1966 - replaced by Billy Shepherd

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 '___' to the public as part of a mind control agenda. Maybe Paul wouldn't promote '___' use. Shortly after his replacement, Faul talks openly about '___' 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):

1/3 of the way through this radio show, it talks about the use of doubles & the Paul is Dead conspiracy theory:

www.ghostlytalk.com...

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?

There are pictures & video of Faul playing right-handed. Every Beatles fan knows Paul was left-handed.

From this video, www.youtube.com..., a picture of Faul playing right-handed:



From the Anthology, a video of Faul playing right-handed:

www.youtube.com...

From homepages.tesco.net...:

Right-Handed Guitar
There is an unusual scene in the Anthology 7 video / DVD where Paul is shown playing guitar right handed. The particular scene can be found approximately 50 minutes in where Paul is talking about writing the song 'I Will'. This particular song is playing as the scenes are shown. Of course we have to ask why Paul is playing right-handed here. According to the story, Paul's replacement William Campbell was a right-handed guitar play who had to learn how to play left-handed for public appearences. Maybe, since he was in remote India he felt he could let his guard down and play with his more comfortable stance?

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.

reply to post by faulconandsnowjob


That clip is reversed.

Look at the guitar. Notice the pick guard (the black part near the sound hole). On a right handed guitar it would be on the bottom of the sound hole when played by a righty. Left handed guitars are pretty hard to find, so most lefties string a right handed guitar upside down, so when you see them play the pick guard is upside down.

(look for pics of Hendrix playing upside down Strats)

Now if the guitar in that clip was actually being played right handed, it would have to have been a left handed guitar strung for a righty, which doesn't make sense due to the rarity of lefty guitars and the absurd availability of right handed guitars (especially in the 60's, hardly anyone made left handed acoustic guitars).

So logically Paul is playing left handed, and the shot you see has been reversed.

Here's a pic of Jay leno with Maccas RIGHT handed Epiphone...


And himself with his RIGHT handed Gibson J45...(doing Yesterday)


[edit on 28-5-2009 by Wally Hope]

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.

reply to post by faulconandsnowjob


The nose looks different, but that could be the result of a nose-job or he may have broken it - if the picture hasn't been doctored.

They eyes and ears (what we can see of them) look the same. In the second picture he looks tired or maybe the 'worse for wear' to account for his eyes being just a little droopier. The space between them appears to be the same.

Look at his left eyebrow and the way his nose 'slopes' to reach it - it's the same angle.

Compare the first picture where he has a little stubble with the moustache in the second picture. The hairline is the same.

Are there any pictures of him smiling or with the teeth in full view? That would be a more interesting comparison.

What about his height?

Here's a comparison video of Paul singing "Yesterday" in '66 & Faul singing it in '76.

www.youtube.com...

Here's a pic of Paul from '64 compared to Faul in '67 (Penny Lane video):




[edit on 28-5-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Here's Paul in 1965

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6cb2033b0a5b.jpg[/atsimg]

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

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/20faeb9d3063.gif[/atsimg]

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]

reply to post by faulconandsnowjob


His face is exactly the same shape. Any difference in features is caused by the different lighting.

As for the vids, that's a ten year difference. Look at vids of yourself ten years apart and you will also see differences, especially when the first vid was taken in your early 20's.
You expect someone to have exactly the same 'mannerisms' ten years later? And the voice, just about ALL English singers became more Americanized in their singing after the 60's (it is more commercial and sells better), Paul never stopped developing and learning at 1965, so his voice was bound to change and get better.

reply to post by berenike


The nose can grow bigger as you get older, so no real surprise there.

Drugs and alcohol can effect the nose also, it's just cartilage at the end tip.

Also he lost the baby fat in his face, so it appears slimmer and longer at one point.

reply to post by Wally Hope


I have to agree. I did a google search of images and I think the earlier and later pictures look more similar than dissimilar.

I read the story of what was supposed to have happened to Paul and it was very sad. I hope it wasn't true.

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



The faces simply don't match up: