Paul McCartney died in 1966 - replaced by Billy Shepherd

page: 5
33
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Bettina Krischbin alleged that "Paul" had sent a double to give blood when her mother (Erika Huebers) commenced a paternity suit against him in Germany in 1983. He looked different & had a different signature (comparing the paternity case file to the one in the Hamburg Beatles museum).

More info:

paul is dead - the rotten apple 52 2
www.youtube.com...




posted on May, 29 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Good find faulcon. I had forgotten about that one.

Btw, for those who are interested, here is a link that gives good physical evidence for the two Pauls:


digilander.libero.it...



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 08:56 PM
link   
Ears are unique identifiers for a person, and it is necessary for a doppleganger to hide or disguise his or her ears in some way.

Faul's ears are much smaller than Paul's
Paul's earlobes are attached and his ears stick out from his head
Faul's ears have unattached earlobes, and are set closer to his head
Faul's ears vary because he wears prosthetic ears











Faul was caught on film wearing an obviously fake ear. Look at the video for “Mary Had a Little Lamb”:

www.youtube.com...




posted on May, 30 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Here is a comparison of Paul on the 1966 "Butcher album" & Faul in the 1970's.




posted on May, 30 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Putting the pics upside down you can really see the differences.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 04:34 PM
link   
So did Paul or Billy have the talent?

This really is hands down the most ridiculous conspiracy theory that exists. The notion that planes didn't actually hit the towers on 9/11 is more feasible than this.

People grow, they change. They lose weight, they gain weight. Millions of variables that are introduced in our day to day life can account for physical change. I've listened to almost every single Beatles song at least a hundred times a piece, if not more. And the voice singing "Love Me Do" or "Twist & Shout" in the early 60's is the same voice that was singing "Hey Jude" in the 70's and the same voice that tours today.

If this conspiracy is true, I just paid to go see Billy Shepherd in concert on July 11th. And that doesn't excite me nearly as much as the thought of seeing Paul McCartney.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   
I think the most damning evidence, the one that really sheds the light on it is that the Real Paul played a Hofner bass. Faul used (and uses) a Rickenbacker.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by chissler
People grow, they change. They lose weight, they gain weight. Millions of variables that are introduced in our day to day life can account for physical change. I've listened to almost every single Beatles song at least a hundred times a piece, if not more. And the voice singing "Love Me Do" or "Twist & Shout" in the early 60's is the same voice that was singing "Hey Jude" in the 70's and the same voice that tours today.

If this conspiracy is true, I just paid to go see Billy Shepherd in concert on July 11th. And that doesn't excite me nearly as much as the thought of seeing Paul McCartney.




Many of the pics are from August 1966 compared to December of 1966 where the differences of aging cannot show up that quickly. And it can't be weight gain or weight loss because his body looks generally the same in terms of leanness. There are too many differences in the bone structure of the face to discount. Why not take an open mind on this?

Btw, John sang on "Twist and Shout" not Paul.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fuggle
I think the most damning evidence, the one that really sheds the light on it is that the Real Paul played a Hofner bass. Faul used (and uses) a Rickenbacker.


OK that was a joke my bad, but I'll leave the rest of this cause I think it's funny...


I suppose John and George must have been replaced also because they also started using different guitars after they stopped touring, including Gibsons, Gretch, Fenders, Epiphones (before Gibson owned them).

Ringo got a new drum kit with an extra tom tom also, the old Ringo only need one.

So I guess we must have Tom, Faul, Beorge, and Bingo, the fabless four eh?



[edit on 30-5-2009 by Wally Hope]



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by SednaSon
Many of the pics are from August 1966 compared to December of 1966 where the differences of aging cannot show up that quickly. And it can't be weight gain or weight loss because his body looks generally the same in terms of leanness. There are too many differences in the bone structure of the face to discount. Why not take an open mind on this?


Oh I have an open-mind. And I'm not new to this theory. I just don't believe it. If someone can present something beyond what's been said here or previously uncovered, I'm fully prepared to reconsider my position and argue for a refund on my ticket. But as it stands, with what's been presented thus far, I've come to the conclusion that the theory is baseless.


Originally posted by SednaSon
Btw, John sang on "Twist and Shout" not Paul.


Indeed, but Paul's voice was still in the song. Well, it's overshadowed by the screams of teenage girls.. but if you listen close enough you can hear it.

 
 


Of those who believe this theory to be valid, do you believe that John and the rest of the Beatles were informed? If so, why would they perpetuate the lie and shame their dear friend in such a way of showing no respect to his passing. And if not, are we to actually believe that these people who spent every waking moment with him did not notice a difference?

It's not believable that every note, every chord, every move, every inside joke, etc. would have been a seamless transition.

It is more believable that the guys knew than didn't know. But I don't see any way that those guys, John especially, would have allowed Paul to pass on and have an impostor carry on in his place.

John was too damn stubborn to buy into something like that. And if he did, in a drunken stupor that he found himself in on a daily basis, it would have slipped to somebody.

Thoughts?



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by chissler
 


I agree. If these folks new ANYTHING about the Beatles they would know how much the other 3 resented Paul in the later days, and there's no way they would not have blown his cover. It would not have been in their self interest to keep it quiet. In fact they would have had a huge opportunity to blackmail Paul into not trying to control the band to his advantage, which is what he did.

Listen to the song 'How do you Sleep' By Lennon, it's not about a fake Paul.

Yeah keep an open mind, but not so open yer brains 'faul' out...

[edit on 30-5-2009 by Wally Hope]



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   
I just skimmed the thread

but a point from the op - Linda was not Eastman Kodak family - she was from the Eastman family that was a firm of Lawyers in NYC



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Wally Hope
 


Check out the Beatles Anthology. George, Ringo & Paul are all interviewed on it. George and Ringo typically recant similar stories about who did what and who was to blame for what. Paul usually had a separate story. Certainly a bit of friction between them all and some skewering of the facts on what seems to be Paul's side. And I agree that one of them would have chimed up if there was something to say.

Between Paul & John though, while there was a short split between the two, they did make amends and repair their friendship prior to John's passing. Not all historians or biographers say so, but from every person who was close to the two men seem to share a similar story that amends were made. So the split between them all is blown out of proportion at times, but one did certainly exist at one time or another.

 
 





posted on May, 30 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by chissler
Oh I have an open-mind. And I'm not new to this theory. I just don't believe it. If someone can present something beyond what's been said here or previously uncovered, I'm fully prepared to reconsider my position and argue for a refund on my ticket. But as it stands, with what's been presented thus far, I've come to the conclusion that the theory is baseless.



Keep in mind that the guy we call Faul had many great songs from the 1970's until today which he'll be performing along with the later songs of the Beatles which were written by 'who knows'.....possibly him(some may have been written by Paul before his death, i.e. Penny Lane)




Indeed, but Paul's voice was still in the song. Well, it's overshadowed by the screams of teenage girls.. but if you listen close enough you can hear it.



He was singing backing vocals on that song along with George.




Of those who believe this theory to be valid, do you believe that John and the rest of the Beatles were informed?



Of course they were. The differences in person would be obvious. IMO, the only people who wouldn't be able to tell were perhaps those that met him briefly before '67 and then met him again many years later.




If so, why would they perpetuate the lie and shame their dear friend in such a way of showing no respect to his passing.


They had no choice. They had to play the game.

Many people on this site accept that there is a system of control that controls every area of life. From Science, Religion, Military to Politics. So why wouldn't that cover the Entertainment Industry? In fact, the Entertainment Industry is one of the greatest tools for mind control. That's what all this is about. No need for everyone to be offended. We are not trying to insult the Beatles or their fans. We just want to get the truth out.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 05:56 PM
link   
John and George making fun of Paul and his new album, RAM, during a meeting about Johns new album.

www.youtube.com...

John and George recording 'How do you Sleep' attack on Paul, note the snide comments about RAM from John. (warning language).

www.youtube.com...

And the best for last...

www.youtube.com...

(Satire not the real boys, but it proves people did understand the songs context)



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by SednaSon
They had no choice. They had to play the game.


Have you read any past or current literature on John Lennon?

In the off chance you had missed it, he wasn't really a "system" type of guy. A lot of people will take his bigger than Jesus comment and use that to illustrate the man, but that was not his intentions and a comment taken out of context. But everything the man was and is, it all speaks to one truth.. and that is his character and integrity.

0% chance that he would allow someone to step in and pretend to be Paul.

The Beatles, the "Fab Four", had close to 10 different members. This wasn't 4 group of guys from child birth. If Paul had of died, he would have been replaced by someone under a different name.



Many people on this site accept that there is a system of control that controls every area of life. From Science, Religion, Military to Politics. So why wouldn't that cover the Entertainment Industry? In fact, the Entertainment Industry is one of the greatest tools for mind control. That's what all this is about. No need for everyone to be offended. We are not trying to insult the Beatles or their fans. We just want to get the truth out.


I do not dispute this system of control. But I believe with all my heart that John Lennon is the last person who ever walked this earth that would ever buy into what you speak of with concerns to Paul.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   
I remember reading this thread way back when it was first posted, and nice to see how the thread has developed very nicely.

On a side note, and not trying to muddy the waters, but i had a bizarre thought come into my mind, not the first time lol.

What if John Lennon was assassinated partly because he was going to tell the world of this mockery, and how Paul was really faul....??

I realise there were more probable reasons to assassinate John, with the current conspiracy theories already out there about john's death, but just a thought.

To add, i found this video of paul/faul being interviewed after hearing the news of his death, i believe this is the first interview he gave after hearing of john's death.

Something is not right with his reaction or comments.

What do you guys think?




[edit on 30-5-2009 by Denied]



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by chissler
reply to post by Wally Hope
 


Check out the Beatles Anthology. George, Ringo & Paul are all interviewed on it. George and Ringo typically recant similar stories about who did what and who was to blame for what. Paul usually had a separate story. Certainly a bit of friction between them all and some skewering of the facts on what seems to be Paul's side. And I agree that one of them would have chimed up if there was something to say.

Between Paul & John though, while there was a short split between the two, they did make amends and repair their friendship prior to John's passing. Not all historians or biographers say so, but from every person who was close to the two men seem to share a similar story that amends were made. So the split between them all is blown out of proportion at times, but one did certainly exist at one time or another.




There were clues that were left on the Anthology...it wasn't just back in the late 1960's. There is a video shot that shows a grave with and outline of a left-handed Paul playing bass(perhaps faulcon has that pic) and there is also this video which I posted earlier. At 1:25, the song lyrics are "But now he's gone" just as the camera shows a closeup of Paul's face:


www.youtube.com...

[edit on 30-5-2009 by SednaSon]



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by SednaSon

Of course they were. The differences in person would be obvious. IMO, the only people who wouldn't be able to tell were perhaps those that met him briefly before '67 and then met him again many years later.


You mean like his family? His longtime friends like Mal Evans, or Neil Aspinall, who both also worked for the Beatles?

How about all the Liverpool bands that were also managed by Brian Epstein and played on the same bill as the Beatles?

Or maybe their original drummer, Pete Best?

I guess all these people couldn't tell the difference between Paul and a fake?

You might be able to make people look alike, but there is no way you're gonna find someone who thinks, acts, sings, plays guitar, in exactly the same way so that a long time friend wouldn't know instantly.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by chissler
I do not dispute this system of control. But I believe with all my heart that John Lennon is the last person who ever walked this earth that would ever buy into what you speak of with concerns to Paul.



I agree with you. Perhaps that's why he was so bitter in the latter years, though?


Here is a site that shows a detailed comparison of the two "paul's". If you have the time I think it's worth it. The evidence is quite impressive:

digilander.libero.it...





new topics
top topics
 
33
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join