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: 33
33
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   
I don't know about some of you, but in MY world, people don't change their eye color, transform their faces, & grow 2 inches in their mid-20's.

It is amazing how they pulled this one off. Lucky for them most people are asleep at the wheel.










[edit on 11-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]




posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   
I have a theory to offer, based purely on the information available in this thread.

Before I start, none of this is meant to be libelous - just a theory.

Sometime in 1966 Paul, either because he'd been in an accident or had started to experiment with drugs, became disenchanted with life as a Beatle or incapable of carrying on as one. Possibly he had got fed-up of it without the help of an accident or drugs.

A member of his entourage was William Campbell who looked very similar to him. (I read about him in the Hoax magazine article). This man had either been 'picked up' by Paul who noticed the similarity or he had won a lookalike competition.

I suggest that William Campbell was used by the Beatles and their management to replace Paul for photo shoots and whatever else they thought they could get away with.

I think it is unlikely that he won a lookalike competition because how would they trust him? I think he must have been around for a while so they knew he would play along and keep quiet.

Paul, meanwhile, was kept out of the public eye and left to live the quiet life he desired somewhere out in the country. Possibly 'under the influence'.

Occasionally he would re-surface and that's why some later photos still look like the original Paul - it was him

So since 1966 there have been two Paul McCartneys.

I noticed in the Hoax article that Jane Asher was quoted as saying that she had tried to help him. That seems a strange thing to say - why would he have needed help? Most people, if they were speaking of a broken relationship, would say that things hadn't worked out, or they'd drifted apart, something like that. Why had she tried to help him?

Paul may have continued to write songs. I can listen to Beatles' music if I have to and not be too bothered by it, but I really can't stand anything by Wings or just Paul McCartney. Mull of Kintyre was the worst dirge I have ever heard. The decline in his songwriting talent could be due to him not having John Lennon or George Martin to help him out. Or, Someone else wrote the music and passed it off as a McCartney original.

Quick stop to say that the above is only my opinion of the music. I completely understand anyone disagreeing with my miserable little assessment.

Is the Paul we see today the real thing, or not? Absolutely no idea. Although, after 40 years we would be so used to the imposter that if the real elderly Paul ever re-surfaced maybe no-one would believe it. He'd be written off as a senile old man.

On to Heather Mills. I don't know how credible she is. I got the impression that she would do anything to squeeze a bit more money out of him. If she has a box with incriminating evidence in it, then she got the idea from Princess Diana who also had a box containing dreadful secrets.

I tend to think that Heather has simply copied Princess Di. All that asking Paul to protect her. Who would she need to be protected from except for him?

Anyway, I asked several pages back if the real Paul could have been replaced in this way for photo shoots and engagements but I thought I'd get round to putting all this forward myself.

Now, nobody flame me. This has mostly been a nice, friendly thread with ideas being put forward and discussed. I liked it that way.


I am suggesting this is plausible. Not provable - just plausible. My theory is probably as full of holes as any other poorly researched theory, but I think it is no more or less believable than the Paul is Dead idea.



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by berenike
 


Berenike, that seems plausible to me; a decoy for the paparazzi.



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by faulconandsnowjob
 


Ask and ye shall receive, thanks.

She contradicts herself in this interview, I thought.

She said an underground organization was trying to kill her. Then she says she was being targeted because the press has made such a story of her. Would an underground org. care what the press says?

How do we get our hands on that box, lol.


EDIT: I guess they would if she was told to shut up and didn't.

[edit on 11-7-2009 by Strictsum]



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Tavistock Institute


In 1978, [Lyndon LaRouche] wrote that "The Beatles had no genuine musical talent, but were a product shaped according to British Psychological Warfare Division (Tavistock) specifications, and promoted in Britain by agencies which are controlled by British intelligence." ...

en.wikipedia.org...


(I don't agree w/ him about their talent, but to each his own.)


"Putin welcomes ex-Beatle McCartney to Kremlin before Red Square performance
May 24, 2003

MOSCOW (AP) - Paul McCartney's dream to perform on Red Square is coming
true - an event President Vladimir Putin assured him Saturday couldn't have
happened in Soviet times when the Beatles' were deemed ``propaganda of an
alien ideology
.'' ...

www.cdi.org...





Harrison Stabbing & Masonic Symbolism

... Considering what happened to Harrison's former bandmate John Lennon on the streets of New York almost exactly 19 years before, and considering the Beatles' key, pivotal role in the mass social experimentation carried out by Britain's Tavistock Institute in conjunction with covert intelligence agencies like the CIA, NSA and Britain's MI5/MI6, we'd say there is a strong likelihood that Harrison, like Lennon, was NOT the victim of some random act of senseless violence.

In fact, Lennon was murdered shortly after he gave an interview to Playboy magazine in which he blew the lid off the fact that the Beatles were part of massive experimentation in social control/engineering unleashed by Tavistock and intelligence agencies, as was the deliberate introduction of drugs like '___' into the burgeoning "counterculture" scene during the 1960s and 1970s. The Playboy interview was published not long after Lennon's death.

We'd say it's a good possibility Harrison was targeted to be bumped off by some of the same forces responsible for rubbing out Lennon, using MK-Ultra/Manchurian Candidate-type mind-controlled assassin Mark David Chapman...

www.hiddenmysteries.org...



Tavistock, England--This has been the primary programming center for England. The Rothschild programmers work out of Tavistock. A large number of slaves in America have been programmed there. Tavistock has been doing mind-control since before W.W.ll. Under the supervision of London’s W Board & 20 Committee MI6 and MIS’s Section BIA ran double agents and mind-controlled spies/couriers during W.W. II. MI6 has had an office at Century House, No. 100, Westminster Bridge Road. MI5 offices have been in part on Curzon St. MI5 has operated behind a number of fronts, incl. their fake travel agency Casuro Holidays. MI-5’s address for mail is Room 055, The War Office, London. Special Intelligence Service (SIS) dealt with all types of mind control. Tavistock was under SIS. The British government has had their own telephone exchange with a 222 prefix, which was later linked to another secret exchange YTAN. Outsiders could dial 222 8080 to get into the secret govt. exchange.

The Royal Free Hospital at the University of London works with Tavistock Clinic, as well as the Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU) of Sussex University. A large number of Britian’s psychologist, social workers and police get their training at Tavistock. Tavistock has set themselves up as the authority on ritual abuse and MPD (DID). In other words, the primary programming site, is pretending to be the leading institution trying to solve the problem! That’s a good cover. The Illuminati Formula Appendix I: The Programmers

www.whale.to...


Beatles, Rock&Roll and Mind Control
www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...

Why Bush & the CIA Had John Lennon Killed -- The Beatles, the Montauk Project, the Tavistock Institute and Mass Social Control
htwww.konformist.com...

Tavistock: The Best Kept Secret in America
educate-yourself.org...

Deeper Insights into the Illuminati Formula
educate-yourself.org...




[edit on 11-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   


EDIT: I guess they would if she was told to shut up and didn't.

Exactly.


8. Their first means of dealing with opposition is to buy it off. To any group as rich as the Illuminati, a few million dollars are nothing.

9. Next they try threats. Danger to possessions, status or loved ones has dissuaded many a would-be foe of Illuminati schemes.

10. And, of course, murder is an ancient political weapon. The Illuminati have been responsible for some of the most shocking assassinations of modern times.

11. They also replace people with doubles. For many years they recruited look-alikes who would serve their ends. Now they are perfecting cloning technology that will let them replace anybody.

12. Those who can't be dealt with any other way are discredited or driven mad.

The Illuminati FAQ by Abner Whateley
www.chaosmatrix.org...


Looks like they did 9 (threats) & 12 (discrediting), then 8 (buying off) w/ HM.

In the first part of the interview, Heather Mills keeps talking about how she's "protecting" her husband. Protecting him from what? The truth coming out? Honey, it's already out.






[edit on 11-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bldrvgr

www.turnmeondeadman.com.../

Like the video posted ealier.. this link is utter trash =D



Why is it trash, because it explains where and how this hoax was generated
and how it got taken out of context by the faulcons of this world?


Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
pmexplorer, you're just mad I'm trying to expose your hero for what he is - a fraud. The real James Paul McCartney was a brilliant musician. Sir Paul - not so much.

[edit on 10-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]


How dare you? What gives you the right to call Sir Paul a fraud?
Would you say that to the man's face? I very much doubt it.
Would you like it if someone started a malicious or facetious rumour
about your personal life?Would you be happy to let it lie?
Paul mcCartney won't be on ATS anytime soon I imagine but I'm damned
if I'm going to stand by and allow this nonsense to be perpetuated
continually and allow you to sully the name of one of the greatest musicians and songwriters of our lifetime.
It's all well and good hiding behind your computer screen spouting this
nonsense but will you be contacting any respected media sources such as your local newspaper or tv news/current affairs programme anytime soon to inform them
of your incredible 'findings' and all of this 'evidence' which you believe
would stand up in court? Well?
What is your motivation behind this? To increase your youtube channel
views and spread your ridiculous (in my opinion) theory as far as you possibly can or is it something else? Do you want internet notoriety is that it?
Because I really just don't get it. Why don't you write a book and see how seriously it is taken.

[edit on 11-7-2009 by pmexplorer]

[edit on 11-7-2009 by pmexplorer]



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by pmexplorer
How dare you? What gives you the right to call Sir Paul a fraud?



It's a free country and people have the right to say what they want.




Would you say that to the man's face? I very much doubt it.




faulcon would definitely confront Sir Paul and ask him about the many differences in his appearance and voice since 1966.




Would you like it if someone started a malicious or facetious rumour
about your personal life?Would you be happy to let it lie?




It's only a rumour in your eyes. The bad part about this is that someone has been living a lie deceiving their fans and the general public about their identity for so long. So no, we won't let it lie.





Paul mcCartney won't be on ATS anytime soon I imagine but I'm damned
if I'm going to stand by and allow this nonsense to be perpetuated
continually and allow you to sully the name of one of the greatest musicians and songwriters of our lifetime.




LOL





It's all well and good hiding behind your computer screen spouting this
nonsense but will you be contacting any respected media sources such as your local newspaper or tv news/current affairs programme anytime soon to inform them
of your incredible 'findings' and all of this 'evidence' which you believe
would stand up in court?




It's already been done in the past by members of the PID forums. One of them contacted the National Enquirer about the story and was told "No, we can NOT cover that story under any circumstances". Another contacted Jane Asher by email and got no response. Later on, on her website was a message that stated that she would not take any questions regarding Paul McCartney and to please don't ask them!

The fact is that many or all of us know the large role the press fulfills in perpetuating this myth and so therefore, most of us know it would be a waste of time contacting any major media outlet. That's why we choose to start forums and threads and do it via the internet. I suppose a book is in the future by someone in this area of study....


[edit on 11-7-2009 by SednaSon]



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by pmexplorer

Originally posted by Bldrvgr

www.turnmeondeadman.com.../

Like the video posted ealier.. this link is utter trash =D



Why is it trash, because it explains where and how this hoax was generated
and how it got taken out of context by the faulcons of this world?



Whomever the author was, Clearly had problems from the get go. Firstly it trys to say where it originated, but then straight after says against it. Only due it wanted to start off with the first official publication story of the PID theory. Then afterwards it goes and says about the UK dateing back to 1967 and rambles onto Terry Knight ...

From there its a cascadeing piece of written work, pulling from other places and ideas on the PID thoery. Though refuses to confront certain parts it brings in. Probably cause they where not theorized as being explained by the PIA movement. AKA the first covers it tries to tell you about "The Beatles, "Yesterday and Today"" It says about the first cover being ripped from production in replace of the other, then quickly transitions over to another cover, in hopes you where stupid enough to forget about thinking on the first one lol.

Which makes this complete and utter trash =D and that is just the begining of it !!



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by SednaSon



Would you say that to the man's face? I very much doubt it.


faulcon would definitely confront Sir Paul and ask him about the many differences in his appearance and voice since 1966.


Yes, I'm sure he would.



Originally posted by SednaSon

It's a free country and people have the right to say what they want.



Why did you then address a post and answer questions which weren't directed towards you? Can faulcon not answer for himself?
Are you faulcon in disguise? Or just one of his puppets?



[edit on 11-7-2009 by pmexplorer]



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   

the first covers it tries to tell you about "The Beatles, "Yesterday and Today"" It says about the first cover being ripped from production in replace of the other, then quickly transitions over to another cover, in hopes you where stupid enough to forget about thinking on the first one lol.

Yes, the famous "Butcher Album."



What does it mean? Could it be a reference to the Illuminati's satanic ritual abuse of children? Not saying it is, but the thought has crossed my mind. This video & one I posted earlier w/ Svali talks about that.




Originally posted by pmexplorer
How dare you? What gives you the right to call Sir Paul a fraud?

SIR Paul was knighted for his service to the Queen. What exactly was that service? And yes, I'm calling him a fraud, a phoney, a fake. I'm not the first one to do it. John Lennon called him "Faux Paul." I suppose you'd be mad at him for that, too. lol


faulcon would definitely confront Sir Paul and ask him about the many differences in his appearance and voice since 1966.

He'd probably just flip me off like he did when that guy in Moscow asked him if he were "natural or double." lol


Would you like it if someone started a malicious or facetious rumour
about your personal life?

No, of course I wouldn't like it. But I didn't start it (it started in 1967 - before I was born) & it happens to be true.


but I'm damned if I'm going to stand by and allow this nonsense to be perpetuated
continually and allow you to sully the name of one of the greatest musicians and songwriters of our lifetime.

I'm not sullying the name of Paul McCartney. He was a brilliant muscial genius. The imposter has been sullying his legacy, & I'm not going to stand for that. I'm sure Paul wouldn't like being blamed for "Ever Present Past" & some of the other awful songs Faul has sung. So, I guess we'll be battling it out. Doesn't bother me. I'm glad this is getting the attention it deserves.

BTW, since we're going to be foes, you should know that I'm a woman, b/c I don't like being mistaken for a man.

SednaSon, I'm very curious to know how long you've known Paul was imposter-replaced.



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Well, Faulcon, you're certainly a fanatic.

I find that discussing anything with fanatics (enemies of the scientific approach) tends to be pointless.

Good luck with your mission, but don't drive yourself mad!



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 09:29 PM
link   


What is your motivation behind this?

To spread the truth, mainly. I want people to know what happened to Paul & to know more about how the Illuminati/TPTB operate.


To increase your youtube channel views and spread your ridiculous (in my opinion) theory as far as you possibly can or is it something else? Do you want internet notoriety is that it?

lol. Yeah, that's it. Wow, you're so perceptive. Can you imagine someone wanting to spread the truth about something? Aren't you involved in 9/11 truth? Why do you do it? For internet notoriety?


Because I really just don't get it.

I'm really not surprised.


Why don't you write a book and see how seriously it is taken.

That's a really good idea. Maybe I will.

Anyway, this pic is from 1967. Pretty wrinkly for a 25 year old.



Paul is Dead song



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 09:33 PM
link   

I find that discussing anything with fanatics (enemies of the scientific approach) tends to be pointless.

lol. You have heard of forensic science, right?

Anyway, I find it pointless arguing w/ idiots. I don't really care what you or pmexplorer think. I know there are smart people on ATS who can exercise independent thought & judge for themselves whether this is true. They don't just believe whatever the mainstream media tells them. Those are the people I'm trying to reach. You can keep your head buried firmly in the sand, if you want.

[edit on 11-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
SednaSon, I'm very curious to know how long you've known Paul was imposter-replaced.




December of 2002.



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 10:21 PM
link   
It's funny how my "unscientific" methods of comparing photos & videos to detect doubles have been used by forensic scientists.


... A German forensic pathologist studied hundreds of Hussein photos and videotapes, concentrating on his mustache and eyebrow measurements.

Then he used computer software to locate specific points such as the tip of his nose and the cheekbone creating a face print which was compared to the Hussein photographs.

His conclusion: that there are three Hussein impersonators, all with small, distinct differences.

CIA: Man On Tape Is Saddam
www.cbsnews.com...




In 2003, German television network ZDF broadcast claimed that Iraq's former president Saddam Hussein was frequently replaced with doubles for TV appearances. This analysis was based on sophisticated measuring techniques, which detected discrepancies in the position of Hussein's facial features and blemishes from appearance to appearance. It was supported by the opinion of Jerrald Post, the man who created the CIA's Psychological Profile Unit.[22] ...

en.wikipedia.org...



Is Kim Jong Il dead? Yes, North Korea’s “Dear Leader” is no more, having passed away in the fall of 2003, writes Waseda University professor Toshimitsu Shigemura in Shukan Gendai...

In the spring of 2006, says Shigemura, American spy satellites succeeded in photographing Kim. An analysis of the photographs led to an astonishing conclusion: Kim had grown 2.5 cm!...

N Korea's Kim died in 2003; replaced by lookalike, says Waseda professor
www.japantoday.com...


BTW, a 2.5 cm difference is a lot smaller than a 2.5 inch difference - as we see btw Paul & Faul.

Yeah, I'm a real enemy of the scientific method. lol

[edit on 11-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by SednaSon

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
SednaSon, I'm very curious to know how long you've known Paul was imposter-replaced.


December of 2002.


That is a long time. That's before anyone was really talking about PID, right? I didn't figure it out until last year... What made you think he was replaced?



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   
I saw this photo on the David Icke website. Then I spent the next few months researching this, looking at pics and videos of the Beatles...everything I could get my hands on. I was convinced of a replacement after that.





[edit on 11-7-2009 by SednaSon]



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by faulconandsnowjob
 


I didn't realize you are somewhat internet famous faulcon. I was reading another website and they called you " The Worlds Leading Researcher on this Matter", Congratulations.

I personally "feel" what you are saying is true. However my mind is still telling me it can't be. If that makes any sense.

Over the last 4 or 5 months my mind has had a lot of readjusting to do. Up until then I still thought everything I heard on the news was true. That's when what some people call "waking up" happened for me. Far more recent than most on this site.

I'm still learning new stuff everyday. It's just hard sifting through the crazy made up theories and the ones that have some legs. The thing about this one is there is actually more proof for it than most I've come across yet but no one believes this one. Even people who believe some of the most out there things imaginable. I don't understand it at all.

It's Baffling



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 12:00 AM
link   

I personally "feel" what you are saying is true. However my mind is still telling me it can't be. If that makes any sense.

Yes, I know what you mean. That's why I use this quote:


Reality is always hard to accept whenever it is unpleasant. Our minds play tricks and tell us it just cannot be. We don't want to believe our own eyes and ears. Instead of accepting the truth as it is when it disturbs us, we try to deny its existence.
~ Dr. P. Beter


I say go w/ the evidence. To me, this thing w/ Faul is a little like the Warren Commission magic bullet theory. Sadly, there are some people who believe a bullet can turn right angles in mid-air. lol Anyway, if you feel it's right, you know it's right. it's just a matter of breaking free of the conditioning & the illusion to actually be able to see it.


Up until then I still thought everything I heard on the news was true.

lol - yeah. That's a tough one for people to accept - that some "news" is just some CIA guy sitting at a desk making stuff up & then getting it published in "respectable" papers.


The thing about this one is there is actually more proof for it than most I've come across yet but no one believes this one. Even people who believe some of the most out there things imaginable. I don't understand it at all.

Maybe it's b/e it's easier to accept that manipulation goes on in the media & politics, but not that the entertainment industry is manipulated as well. I think it's a matter of a lot of people just not wanting to believe it, no matter what the evidence shows.


[edit on 12-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]







 
33
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join