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: 48
33
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 12:59 AM
link   
Those who do not or will not accept that the current Paul is a substitute will not be persuaded otherwise. Similarly with those who not believe the current Paul is the original.

For those of us who were there back in the 60s, the sad truth is, the Paul we loved hasn't been around for a very long time. And no, we do not believe he grew several inches or that the bones in his face suddenly went narrower when he was in his 20's.




posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 01:24 AM
link   
www.youtube.com...

This is the intro of an eighteen part series that in detail describes the history and effect of 'rock and roll'. It is a christian produced series, and for the record any religion is still a religion and dogma in my books, but the documentary itself is well researched.

I have watched it previously and honestly don't recall if the Beatles were anywhere in it - hard to imagine they wouldn't have been - mostly it delves into what rock and roll is and what it does to us. The Beatles were the wave that caught an entire generation around the world and off we went.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 01:27 AM
link   
Very interesting - what persuaded you? I was 12 at the time and never gave the rumor much thought or really followed them after I 'graduated' to Pink Floyd and the 70's...


Originally posted by St Vaast
Those who do not or will not accept that the current Paul is a substitute will not be persuaded otherwise. Similarly with those who not believe the current Paul is the original.

For those of us who were there back in the 60s, the sad truth is, the Paul we loved hasn't been around for a very long time. And no, we do not believe he grew several inches or that the bones in his face suddenly went narrower when he was in his 20's.




posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 03:15 AM
link   
From the 1970 Rolling Stone interview..Lennon talking about the second time the Beatles tried acid.



…We were on tour, in one of those houses, like Doris Day’s house or wherever it was we used to stay. And the three of us took it. Ringo, George and I. I think maybe Neil [Aspinall, a roadie].


Wow. They were on tour and Paul wasnt there.Dont worry folks because Neil was.





posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 07:32 AM
link   
reply to post by ogbert
 


Thanks for the link to stargods.

I think that probably it just about reflects my current thinking on the situation


I suggested something similar a few pages back having done no research so I'm glad to see that someone has come to that conclusion and can provide pictures to back it up.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by kshaund

Thank you - there was a lot of 'little' lines in that clip quickly - but yeah, anything needed to keep the plan on schedule according to.....?

I think we're left to speculate. But it seems there is a "schedule," & a change is planned... by someone.


If you're more familiar with the movie (as I don't recall it much at all) - is the entire movie filled with nuances about control?

Oh, definitely. Their whole lives were very controlled.


Are there scenes from that movie that clearly show Paul's height?

This pic isn't from the movie, but is from that time frame (1963-64)



This one is from 1965, I believe:


Then you have this:


Well, I guess we don't have to scratch our heads & wonder what's going on anymore. We know what's going on.

I'll post some height comp pics from AHDN if I find any.

[edit on 20-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by St Vaast
Those who do not or will not accept that the current Paul is a substitute will not be persuaded otherwise.

True... but one can try to reach people who are open-minded about it.


For those of us who were there back in the 60s, the sad truth is, the Paul we loved hasn't been around for a very long time...

Even those of us who weren't around in the '60's (in our current form, at least) can see that. Sad





[edit on 20-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by St Vaast
For those of us who were there back in the 60s, the sad truth is, the Paul we loved hasn't been around for a very long time. And no, we do not believe he grew several inches or that the bones in his face suddenly went narrower when he was in his 20's.


Oh right, so you believe this conspiracy nonsense but unlike Faulcon
you don't believe that he changed physically. Riiiiiiggghhhht.


Might I be so bold as to ask for some evidence then or at least an explanation why 'the Paul you loved has not been around for a long time' ?
Or is this all just based on 'gut feelings' and instinct.

Because my instincts, gut feelings, common sense and the fact that I have seen and heard the man in the flesh, read about him, heard his music, followed the beatles etc etc tell me that he is as much alive as you or I am right now and I feel quite disturbed having to state a matter of fact like this on an internet forum.



[edit on 20-7-2009 by pmexplorer]



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   

so you believe this conspiracy nonsense

It's not "conspiracy nonsense." It's been scientifically proven that Paul was replaced. Or do you think Paul went thru a series of extensive surgeries to transform his face?


Might I be so bold as to ask for some evidence

There's been tons of evidence posted here, but you just ignore it b/c it doesn't support your "theory" that Paul was never replaced. I've also proven that photos are evidence. What do you want? Are we supposed to produce Paul's dead body or something?



[edit on 20-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   
The Italian article in which the scientists proved Paul was replaced is online here:

Chiedi chi era quel «Beatle»
www.wired.it...«beatle»-.aspx?

The methods they used have been used by other scientists to identify other doubles, including Saddam Hussein:


... 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...



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

so you believe this conspiracy nonsense

It's not "conspiracy nonsense." It's been scientifically proven that Paul was replaced. Or do you think Paul went thru a series of extensive surgeries to transform his face?


Might I be so bold as to ask for some evidence

There's been tons of evidence posted here, but you just ignore it b/c it doesn't support your "theory" that Paul was never replaced. I've also proven that photos are evidence. What do you want? Are we supposed to produce Paul's dead body or something?


Paul's dead body, lol, yes that would be a start.
Or how about some dna samples or dental records which we could compare to this stooge, that might be somewhat concrete alright.
Why would Paul require surgery?
And when did he transform his face? So far all you've presented
is shadowy edited photos lifted from dedicated 'PiD' forums where
the users are so desperate to perpuate this myth that they will use
editing software to make up their 'analysis' as has been shown up
by the link I produced a few pages ago which debunked and explained
many of them.

You've proven that people are gullible alright that's about it.

As I've already asked you (one of the questions you chose to ignore, again)
if this Italian research is so factual and reliable then why isn't this headline news?
Why aren't there reputable media sources following up on this?
Or is it really not that important?

Why aren't the illuminati stopping this getting out? You'd imagine
they'll be severely dealt with, these reporters seeing as they might
expose this massive conspiracy eh?
After all the illuminati successfully tricked or convinced hundreds if not thousands of people including Paul's family and friends not to say a word when he was, wait for it, replaced by a lookalike in the 1960's who then went on to seamlessly continue the Beatles legacy and become one of the world's biggest selling solo artists.



[edit on 20-7-2009 by pmexplorer]



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   
[edit on 20-7-2009 by SednaSon]



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by pmexplorer
Why aren't there reputable media sources following up on this?
Or is it really not that important?

Why aren't the illuminati stopping this getting out? You'd imagine
they'll be severely dealt with, these reporters seeing as they might
expose this massive conspiracy eh?
[edit on 20-7-2009 by pmexplorer]


Ahhh you want media sources to follow up the fact Paul is dead? Just like they have been saying how the WTC were brought down by Military Grade Thermite?

If it indeed was the illuminati then I don't see why they'd be so pissed. 9/11 was a far more dangerous act for TPTB to pull off. But hey, that's another thread all together.

How about you give us proof the Paul McCartney who parades around now in a feminine manner is indeed the same Paul from back in the day?



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
Are we supposed to produce Paul's dead body or something?



LOL.

Speaking of his dead body, I think he'd have hair well below his knees by now!

[edit on 20-7-2009 by SednaSon]



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by RenDMC

Ahhh you want media sources to follow up the fact Paul is dead? Just like they have been saying how the WTC were brought down by Military Grade Thermite?


Wow, what a great analogy that is.


*(^ that's sarcasm by the way)


Originally posted by RenDMC

How about you give us proof the Paul McCartney who parades around now in a feminine manner is indeed the same Paul from back in the day?



What a mature post right there.

''who parades around'' in a what!!!



[edit on 20-7-2009 by pmexplorer]



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by pmexplorer

Paul's dead body, lol, yes that would be a start.

Well, I'm afraid I can't produce that for you. As has been mentioned before, Jimmy Hoffa's body was never found, either, but he's definitely presumed dead. The fact that Paul was never officially missing is a great way to keep people from looking for his body. What a clever way to hide a murder.


Or how about some dna samples or dental records which we could compare to this stooge

If you will recall, the Italian scientists did study the teeth. They concluded they were not the same.


Why would Paul require surgery?

He didn't. That's the point. Only extensive surgeries would account for the changes the scientists saw other than that he was imposter-replaced.


And when did he transform his face?

As has also been stated before, noticeable differences in his appearance occurred between Aug 1966 & Dec 1966.


You've proven that people are gullible alright that's about it.

Yes, they are. They can be tricked by a taller, less-talented look-alike. lol


As I've already asked you (one of the questions you chose to ignore, again)
if this Italian research is so factual and reliable then why isn't this headline news?

Do you really expect TPTB to just admit that they've been deceiving people for over 40 yrs? The truth is coming out, but they're not going to just fess up. I wouldn't be surprised if these scientists are pressured into recanting like Dr. Truby was.


After all the illuminati successfully tricked or convinced hundreds if not thousands of people including Paul's family and friends

I'm sure the double didn't trick anyone but the public. I'm sure no one who actually knew Paul would have fallen for it.


replaced by a lookalike in the 1960's who then went on to seamlessly

Not so seamlessly. The Beatles announced they'd stop touring forever in 1966. A lot of people figured out something was wrong back in 1967, & then even more in 1969.


[edit on 20-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by pmexplorer

Originally posted by RenDMC

Ahhh you want media sources to follow up the fact Paul is dead? Just like they have been saying how the WTC were brought down by Military Grade Thermite?


Wow, what a great analogy that is.


*(^ that's sarcasm by the way)


Originally posted by RenDMC

How about you give us proof the Paul McCartney who parades around now in a feminine manner is indeed the same Paul from back in the day?



What a mature post right there.

''who parades around'' in a what!!!



[edit on 20-7-2009 by pmexplorer]


And yet I see no proof? And I did state he paraded around in a "feminine manner", rather than shoot me down. Why not actually find some evidence to back up your claim?



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by RenDMC

If it indeed was the illuminati then I don't see why they'd be so pissed. 9/11 was a far more dangerous act for TPTB to pull off.

Yes, but this threatens to expose a whole other tactic. People already know they murder people, but do they know they replace people, too? This thing w/ Paul is just the tip of the iceberg of mass deception.


How about you give us proof the Paul McCartney who parades around now in a feminine manner is indeed the same Paul from back in the day?

Yeah, I'd love to see that, too.







posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by RenDMC

And yet I see no proof? And I did state he paraded around in a "feminine manner", rather than shoot me down. Why not actually find some evidence to back up your claim?


And what claim would that be?
What the hell are you on about? A feminine manner.
I have never heard anything so ridiculous and childish.

Here's a fact for you: Sir Paul McCartney is alive and well.
He played on top of the Letterman studio in New York just last week
in fact and he rocked as he always has.
He never died, he wasn't replaced and he sure as hell isn't the leader
of the Illuminati as faulcon once claimed on here.


Now try and find something useful to do with your time
other than trying to fool people that there is any truth in this ridiculous
hoax.


[edit on 20-7-2009 by pmexplorer]



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by pmexplorer

And what claim would that be?
What the hell are you on about? A feminine manner.
I have never heard anything so ridiculous and childish.

[edit on 20-7-2009 by pmexplorer]


The claim you keep making that Paul McCartney is infact the original.
I am on about how Paul suddenly became more feminine. The poses he was in, the clothing he wore... seemed a little feminine. Was Paul intouch with him female side? He didn't seem so when they first came out, seems it happened.... almost.... over a short period of time.
How did he age so rapidly over a 9 month period?
If you think this is drivel and I am some sort of loon. Why do you persist in entertaining me? Surely you would say "heck that guys a nut" and no more?

The Cavern, where they played isn't even the original place. The original burned down years ago. Yet many people don't know that and still go in like WOW!! TO THINK THEY WERE IN HERE

[edit on 20-7-2009 by RenDMC]




top topics



 
33
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join