It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 39
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 12:04 AM
I absolutely love this thread!!
I have a few friends who actually believe the PID theory,but i am still sitting on the fence with this one!(Probably slightly leaning towards the dead theory).
Good arguements being made by both sides,have made this a very interesting read,and i look forward to further evidence being presented.
I do believe that Heather Mills knows something regarding the story,hence her rather large divorce settlement!

Keep it up folks!!

posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 01:26 AM
I'd really like to know why some people find this theory so "impossible." Is it that they think it's not possible that someone could die or get killed, that there are doubles that could replace someone, or that the media would lie?

I think we could all agree that people do die or are killed. I think that we could probably also all agree that the media lies. I even think we could agree that there are very convincing doubles out there. So, as far as I can tell, it's possible that a convincing double could take another person's place. So, this theory isn't impossible at all, is it? You might nto agree w/ it, but it's not "impossible."

[edit on 15-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 05:41 AM
Please read

Some important facts from someone who is into this crap long enough:

1. Paul did NOT grew taller: we have found many pictures of before and after 1966 where he sometimes appears to tower over the others. Plus there are full body shots, that clearly show they are the same height.

2. Pauls ears do NOT look different. I have shown PIDers many pics of before 1967 where Pauls earlobe looks totally different on every shot. It all depends on the lightning source. There are enough photos after 1966 where his ear looks EXACTLY like before 1966. PIDer ignore that fact.

3. Pauls face didn’t change. PIDers tend to use particular photos where he makes a strange face or which are of low quality (of blurry VCR still, copied from youtube). If you find pictures of the same angle, where he’s using the same facial muscle (also called facial expression) he ALWAYS looks EXACTLY the same.

Or for instance:

4. PIDers ignore the fact that you can use pre1967 photos, to make comparisons in which he looks by their standards nothing like himself. I have shown them many picture of their beloved JPM, in which he looks really different, but they ignore the fact that that still can happen after 1966.

5. No his forehead DID NOT suddenly grow.. it’s called a haircut. It comes with a more visible forehead.

6. Paul had an asymmetrical face. You can very well see that fact, when you mirror a picture. Guess what: “Faul” has the exact same facial asymmetry. Proof:

7. There is to date no plastic surgery that can produce a similarity like that!

8. The replacement does not only look an awfull lot like Paul, he is also playing guitar and bass lefthanded, is a skillfull musician and a voice imitator.. mmh….

9. Paul had very subtle markings on his face, which can only be seen in a few photos: a small scar on his chin, 3-5 freckles on the left side of his nose, 3 freckles on his neck. Guess what: “Faul” also has these markings! :-) TO be seen here:
And here:

10. Paul produced the album of his brother Mike Mccartney in the 1970s. Would you let the guy who replaced your dead brother produce your album and let him sing background vocals? ..mmh…

11. Listen to the hours and hours of bootleg material of the let it be / get back sessions. The guy who’s jamming, joking and fooling around with the other guys is Beatle Paul. Check it out for your self: In 100 hours of footage there is no instance where he’s treated (or named) any differently.

12. The theories of doctoring, illuminati or whatever are purely fictional IMHO. I have never seen a bit of proof for them.

13. Use some common sense… it’s a internet hoax! Proof:

(original members of the 60if side coming clean)

Now I hope some might find these informations usefull! See ya!

posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 08:32 AM
A few links up there will go through when time, Probably has some good clear pics on them.

As for quick glance, nothing much on real information swaying left or right.

posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 08:37 AM
So Paul was killed anf Billy Sheares took his spot...huh?...Well about this..easy to get this one sent to bed early..BEINGS YOU ARE SO CERTAIN..GO FINGERPRINT MAC AND STOP THE SILLY BUSINESS...THANKS

posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 10:39 AM
There's more than gravity here, which is what I was questioning - the nose is very different from one picture to the next - very different - not the same nose only a little longer/bigger, the nose itself is different...? Ears and noses get larger/longer over decades, my nose hasn't changed that much in my 55 years of living from my teen years to now - is easy to tell it's the same nose in every picture... but in those two compared with the lines, the nose is most obviously different as are some other things (like the lips and ears)... So gravity doesn't explain 'different', gravity only explains larger or longer. I'm not convinced one way or another - I'm trying to keep an open mind about this and the height difference hasn't been really explained.

And I'm also wondering if Billy Shears replaced Paul, then what happened to Billy Shears all these years? Anyone know?

Originally posted by hunhaylou
reply to post by kshaund

Gravity has its way with all of us eventually. Just ask a sixty year old play boy bunny, what once were beautiful pert breasts, now more resemble oranges in a tube sock. Gravity is natures cruel evil joke.

[edit on 15-7-2009 by kshaund]

posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 11:30 AM
A doctored photo of Paul w/ blue eyes has just come to my attention. If they're going to change his eye color, why don't they change it to match Faul's?

Paul's true eye color was brown:

[edit on 15-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 11:51 AM
This video shows that Paul was only a little taller than Ringo:

So, why such a difference later on?

posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 12:52 PM
Sgt. Pepper was a grave scene. Derek Taylor admitted it.

More clues on SPLHCB

posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 03:36 PM

Originally posted by aorAki
reply to post by pmexplorer

This thread is making you angry, isn't it?

Why do you care so much and do you put the same effort into every theory you disagree with , or is it just this one?

Why are his ears not as sticky-outy (lol) later on?
Why does his nose become a 'beak'?

I'll leave you with these two questions that have stuck with me in my observations.

[edit on 14-7-2009 by aorAki]

I rarely post here but this nonsense got my goat seeing as I am
a lifelong Beatles fan. They were a truly special and unique group
who changed the world of music.

To desecrate their good name by claiming one of the two remaining
living Beatles is dead is seriously disturbing, to me and I would imagine
to everyone else bar the conspiracy nuts in here who will go to any lengths
and believe any kind of superficial 'evidence' just to perpetuate a ridiculous myth which was nothing more than a 1960's hoax which has been blown completely out of proportion, this is a deliberate slight on Paul McCartney.

angry? No it's a great source of amusement to be honest.

Er, perhaps because he grw his hair long and you couldn't see them.


His nose didn't become a 'beak'. End of.

I see faulcon is still posting her favourite youtube mumo jumbo
'PiD' montage rubbish despite my pleas to quit spamming the thread with them.

[edit on 15-7-2009 by pmexplorer]

posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 07:25 PM
PID in the news

Is it McCartney or is it an imposter?
Jerusalem Post

Some 40,000 fans are expected to pack Yarkon Park Thursday night to see Paul McCartney perform his classic songs. But will it really be the former Beatle taking the stage, or will it be Billy Shears? Or maybe William Campbell? ...

"It certainly wasn't serendipity. Even if somebody could explain away one or two of the clues, how can you explain 70 of them? There were no coincidences when it came to The Beatles - everything was a precise, conscious decision, from the music to the album art," said Glazier, who discusses the phenomenon with a coyness of someone who loves keeping the legend alive...

"During 1967, when Sgt. Pepper's came out, The Beatles stopped performing live because the new Paul wasn't up to playing in public. And by 1970, the band had conveniently broken up and no longer had to deal with the questions. And some would say that since The Beatles years, the quality of Paul's songwriting is not what it once was. But that's a judgment call," said Glazier...

[edit on 15-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 07:36 PM
reply to post by pmexplorer

I've never heard any desecrating of Paul by faulcon - it's kind of funny that you're taking all this like it's a bashing - which I don't see it as being at all. There are other people who swear people in their lives have been changed and are called crazy for it - discussing whether or not this is possible to have happened to Paul McCartney does not take away from Paul McCartney - and as I recall throughout this thread from time to time that has been restated. It's not personal - it's just a theory for discussing.

I still haven't seen a decent explanation for the differences in the height. The first question is is it possible for this to be done? (substitute people?) And either that's a yes or a no - (to me its a yes), perhaps to you it's a no. Then the next question is if this happened to Paul - could he have been replaced? Is that possible? Well, yes, it's of course possible - but herein lies the luxury of discussion. It wasn't a thread started by you - so why do you care so much what anyone else believes or discusses.

posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 07:42 PM
reply to post by faulconandsnowjob

But on page 2 of the same article he says this:

Quote: For Glazier, though, it's been something more - a 40-year obsession. He won't profess whether he thinks McCartney is really dead. "I don't really know if Paul is dead or not. I'm too busy looking for clues." End Quote

[edit on 15-7-2009 by berenike]

posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 08:06 PM
Glazier also says:

"Whoever this person is, he can certainly play well. But I still think there's something missing. Is that voice singing 'Yesterday' the same voice that sang it in 1965? You decide."

If someone is going to spend so much time & energy on PID, he obviously thinks there's something to it. I can understand why he doesn't want to just come out & say that's not Paul.

BTW, I have said multiple times that I think Paul was a brilliant musical genius. I would never in a million years bash him in any way.

There are also some things I like about Faul, but it doesn't make him the same person.

I am a lifelong Beatles fan. They were a truly special and unique group
who changed the world of music.

I am, too. And they were. No argument there.

[edit on 15-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 09:55 PM
Of course it's not the same voice!

It's a voice that has had ten years of maturity and practice, and a billion songs sung, between your two takes there my dear...

Listen to anyone and see if they do their songs exactly the same way they did ten years prior.

You must be really young or just never been beyond your front door.

posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 11:18 PM

You must be really young or just never been beyond your front door

Wally Hope, I guess you didn't read the part where the guy, Glazier, who asked about the voice in "Yesterday" had been researching PID for 40 yrs. But since you say that, I am neither "really young," nor have I "never been beyond my front door." I've lived abroad for a year & a half, actually. How about you? And anyway, voice prints are another way to identify people:

[T]he term "record" means any item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual that is maintained by an agency, including, but not limited to, ... other identifying particular assigned to the individual, such as a finger or voice print or a photograph... 5 USCS § 552a(4).

[T]he term "means of identification" means any name or number that may be used, alone or in conjunction with any other information, to identify a specific individual, including any--
(B) unique biometric data, such as fingerprint, voice print, retina or iris image, or other unique physical representation; ...

United States v. Hawes, 523 F.3d 245, 249 (3d Cir. Pa. 2008); United States v. Mitchell, 518 F.3d 230 (4th Cir. S.C. 2008).

... [T]he district court found that duty titles were not comparable to captured immutable characteristics such as finger or voice prints or photographs. The district court reached these conclusions because an individual's duty title changes over time, because multiple people can concomitantly have the same or similar duty titles, and because each individual has predecessor and successor holders of the same duty titles. We agree with the reasoning and conclusions of the district court. In circumstances where duty titles pertain to one and only one individual, such as the examples of identifying particulars provided in the statutory text (finger or voice print or photograph), duty titles may indeed be "identifying particulars" as that term is used in the definition of "record" in the Privacy Act. For the reasons detailed by the district court, however, the [**9] duty titles in this [*188] case are not "identifying particulars" because they do not pertain to one and only one individual.

Pierce v. Dep't of the United States Air Force, 512 F.3d 184, 188 (5th Cir. Miss. 2007).

"Immutable characteristics" means they don't change.

Of course it's not the same voice!

So, if it isn't the same voice, it's not the same person according to US federal law, my dear. If you want to dispute that, then please cite to some legal sources. Oh, & be sure to shepardize them while you're at it. Thanks. (not holding my breath that any will be forthcoming)

[edit on 15-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 11:26 PM


New York's top art critics are refuelling the rock 'n' roll myth that PAUL McCARTNEY died over three decades ago - after taking a rare close-up view of his paintings...

A fan of McCartney's art for years, Jones admits it took the opinions of his critical pals to make him realise that the 'Paul is dead' rumours that started in the late 1960s could be true...

Jones now claims there are major clues in McCartney's art that suggest the rocker might not be what he seems to be.

He explains, "It's one more sign that this man is communicating something. Red has been a dominant colour of his for some time.

"It might be evidence that the Paul McCartney we think we know is not Paul McCartney; he's an imposter - and here's a signal."

posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 12:15 AM
Interesting article faulcon. That reminds me of an old friend I had that was an art therapist. She could tell you much about yourself by viewing your art. Evidently, what is in your subconscious comes out when you draw or paint.

posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 12:42 AM

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
So, if it isn't the same voice, it's not the same person according to US federal law, my dear. If you want to dispute that, then please cite to some legal sources. Oh, & be sure to shepardize them while you're at it. Thanks. (not holding my breath that any will be forthcoming)

Well, so far my main theory on why you guys do not respond well to logic and reason, and see past this fantasy, is you either have an unfortunate lack of comprehension skills, and you really didn't understand what I said, per my quote.

...Or you have a habit, as you did with my quote, of purposely taking things out of context and then putting your spin on it, as you did with my quote.

So it's either bad comprehension skills, or the later my dear...

[edit on 16-7-2009 by Wally Hope]

posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 12:58 AM

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

He explains, "It's one more sign that this man is communicating something. Red has been a dominant colour of his for some time.

"It might be evidence that the Paul McCartney we think we know is not Paul McCartney; he's an imposter - and here's a signal."

Yeah and it might mean he likes red? Or maybe it means he's just getting aangry over all the people who keep trying to say he isn't who he thinks he is? It can do something to ones disposition ya know? He could develop a complex. Now you wouldn't want that would ya? Macca's never done anything to nobody, except maybe diss his friends a little, and scheme and sneak around orchestrating events in his favour.

I'm starting a 'don't give Paul a complex' movement, the DGPAC! Down with the PID movement!
We know things that will bring you all down...hahahaha

Edit; you should really give up with the quoting stuff, just post some more of your pics, at least we'll have something to look at. Or maybe not, it's a bit of a waste of bandwidth really.

[edit on 16-7-2009 by Wally Hope]

top topics

<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in