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: 55
33
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   
That is just not true!

Faulconandsnowjob and other PID believers ARE PICKING the pics where he looks different due to lightning, camere angle, distance etc.

Also ALL THE BEATLES changed their appearance in 1967 due to style, drugs etc


Please look at this vintage pic from 1966:




You see? Long face and everything! I wonder what Faulcon has to say to that one??

If this was 1967, they would scream: "IT's FAUL!!" You know, it's selective perception...

Paul is alive, everybody chill out...




posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   
You mean late 1966, please change dates above, otherwise are you saying the photos Dated the end of that year clearly showing the change inwhich you just prompted is in dire question?

What dates do you propose those are from? The consitancy to this is pathetic at best. Theres always a new picture to claim something, in hopes that the old picture disappears.



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bldrvgr

Originally posted by magnolia_xx

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
round face vs long, thin face



[edit on 27-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]


Hi Faulcon, sorry but I had a round face too when I was 20, now I am 33 and my face is thinner, this does not mean I am not the same person (I hope
)...
People's face loose the chubby appearance while they grow old because of the reduced volume of Bichat's fat pad in the cheeks.
(www.cirugiafacial.com...)


You put the wrong numbering in this assesment. You actually give an age variation. Also of which is in 13 years. Please change this to conform of 4 months to be a better comparison.

So your saying your face was round in September ? and your face became a longer style shape by december ? Wow um Do have pics inbetween these times ? =D

[edit on 28-7-2009 by Bldrvgr]

Hi Bldrvgr, the age 20 and 33 were just an example about me (not about the Paul's photos), anyway I think these pics show the very same person, the face shape looks identical to me, just two different expressions and two different shot angles, but this is only my opinion of course.
PS I wish I could change my face (maybe including its shape) according to my moods and to the day of the week, but alas, I am not able to



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Most people would love the chance, and seems this guy got the one shot chance of it. Though think it was the worst possible decision made. Before Hand all the chicks where there screaming for him then afterwards there was crickets ~ lol



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bldrvgr
The differences between the guy in a span of months is far to asanine to believe could happen to anyone. His physical appearance, lifestyle, voice, ability on writeing songs, his signature, and attitude all changed with a load more.


His talents didn't change. Have you ever listened to 'Abbey Road'?

As far as post-Beatles, of course his songs are not going to sound like Beatles songs. The Beatles sounded like they did because of the four guys in the band. When a song writer presents a song to a band, the band interprets that song in the unique way that band works together.
Someone might suggest, 'hey Paulie that bit sounds kinda corny', and it would get changed. Solo Paul had a whole different band, and he got less input in the song writing process from that band than he had from the other fab 3. So stuff that would have been weeded out in the Beatles didn't when Paul was solo, thus more corny stuff was recorded. You see Paul likes the corny stuff, look at all the show tunes he sang in the early Beatles days.

The eys have been covered already, please read the thread through.
Hazel eyes can turn green, it's quite natural. Early pictures make his eyes look darker than they were.

[edit on 28-7-2009 by Wally Hope]



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wally Hope

Originally posted by Bldrvgr
The differences between the guy in a span of months is far to asanine to believe could happen to anyone. His physical appearance, lifestyle, voice, ability on writeing songs, his signature, and attitude all changed with a load more.


His talents didn't change. Have you ever listened to 'Abbey Road'?

As far as post-Beatles, of course his songs are not going to sound like Beatles songs. The Beatles sounded like they did because of the four guys in the band. When a song writer presents a song to a band, the band interprets that song in the unique way that band works together.
Someone might suggest, 'hey Paulie that bit sounds kinda corny', and it would get changed. Solo Paul had a whole different band, and he got less input in the song writing process from that band than he had from the other fab 3. So stuff that would have been weeded out in the Beatles didn't when Paul was solo, thus more corny stuff was recorded. You see Paul likes the corny stuff, look at all the show tunes he sang in the early Beatles days.

The eys have been covered already, please read the thread through.
Hazel eyes can turn green, it's quite natural. Early pictures make his eyes look darker than they were.

[edit on 28-7-2009 by Wally Hope]


Ahh so please explain which people in comparison you gave of those with eyes changeing the same colors ? Kinda missed the photo comparison parts showing real time of this happening with individual people. Which people had this happen to them ?

Clothes/style/movements changed Hence why as above it was stated it was an entire thing in 1967 but yet late 66 early 67 contradicts this.

in any event as in compareing paul from 70's to now there is no question or doubt that faul is the same.



[edit on 28-7-2009 by Bldrvgr]



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bldrvgr
...Ahh so please explain which people in comparison you gave of those with eyes changeing the same colors?...


The eyes have been explained already in this thread and you ignored it, now you want pictures?
Links and personal accounts not good enough?

Did your computer come with Google?

Just do some self edumacation and it might help you to determine if something is logical before you waste a bunch of time having to be schooled by someone else.

This is just one link out of a whole bunch on the world wide web, that we are now communicating on, there's a world of information out there where you can find answers to your own questions, you should check it out sometime
....

www.babycenter.com...

Are all those people lying? Did the Illuminati get to them ahead of me?

Eye colour CAN change, get over this already.

[edit on 28-7-2009 by Wally Hope]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 12:07 AM
link   
I would like to point out that Paul's supposed death happened on November 9th, 1966, at 5.00 a.m.
The legend says that he had a bad quarrel with the other Beatles during the Sgt Pepper's recording, so he left the recording session and had a car accident.
No evidence of this at all, of course.
And the first time Paul's death was ever mentioned was on Nov 12th, 1969.
So, first of all, it seems that it took 3 years for someone suspect Paul's death, quite a long time, isn't it?
And the suspects came from hints in the albums and hidden messages, not from any supposed change in Paul's look (which the fans would have noticed anyway).
I checked Mark Lewisohn "The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions".
The Beatles were not in Abbey Road Studios on Nov. 8th 1966, nor in the following days.
I recommend everybody to buy the book and check what I am saying.
On those days only the technicians were working, remixing some songs for the LP "A Collection of Beatles Oldies", including She Loves You, This Boy, Day Tripper and We Can Work It Out.
No sessions took place until Nov. 24th, when the Beatles recorded Strawberry Fields Forever (not the definitive version), in a session from 7 p.m. to 2.30 a.m. In that session Paul was also playing mellotron.
If Paul had died 2 weeks before, it is not believable that he could have been replaced in such a short time by a person who sang and played like him (apart from the physical appearance).
So, what can we conclude?
- no argue
- no death in any accident
- no Paul's replacement.
That's all.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Wally Hope
 


Re baby page, it talks of eyes changing between 15 months and 24 months old and does not say 'brown' eyes can change lighter. It talks of blue eyes changing. I always understood him to have brown eyes, dark brown eyes. This doesn't support anything you're claiming it does.

That you claim to have explained away the color change doesn't make it so - would be nice if you'd simply restate it for those asking about it - it's a long thread to pour through. I've tried to keep up with the posts and I don't recall anything that explained it away the difference in eye color? Or the height difference. Or the Italian forensics.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by magnolia_xx

And the first time Paul's death was ever mentioned was on Nov 12th, 1969.


It would pay to read this thread rather than ride in here roughshod and pass this off as fact.

Read through the thread and you'll see that you are wrong.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 03:24 AM
link   
I would like to toss something out there for the Illuminati theorists as to maybe what the band's greatest importance to them.

What was that initial Beatles era musical movement labeled as?

The British Invasion!

What did it help to accomplish?

The hippie culture, counter culture revolutionary element.

Revolutionary element?

Who had the greatest influence on this Revolutionary element?

The Beatles.

Who feared this Revolutionary element the most?

The White House, the Administration, J Edgar Hoover, the FBI.

What if the British Invasion succeeded?

Washington do as we say, allow us in and to have control where we want, or we use your own citizens to take you down and out.

The whole hippie movement would have simply been viewed as a 5th column army that could be mobilized with a few words in a song to very real, very possible, total devastating effect in overthrowing the whole American system of government.

All controlled through a few key bards with the Beatles being the most important and Paul the most important of them all.

That sure would be worth killing someone over; it sure would be worth planting a double over.

As far as Paul being replaced with a double…I am a Led Zeppelin kind of guy!

No offence to anyone, but the hardcore Beatles fans I have known and I have known a bunch…there was definitely some Kool Aide involved somewhere along the line they got a hold of!

You can see the lingering effects of it today even all these years later in this thread.

MK ULTRA




[edit on 29/7/09 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 04:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by kshaund
Re baby page, it talks of eyes changing between 15 months and 24 months old and does not say 'brown' eyes can change lighter.


You obviously didn't read past the first couple of posts there did you?


Im 34 years old and my eyes where always blue, until I hit the 30 year mark and now they are green. I would have never believed your eyes could change at this age in life.
posted 1/25/2008 by Anonymous


The point was, seeing as I already posted links on hazel turning green, that eye colour can change. Maybe when you get older yours will change also, because mine have.

You also didn't do any other research did you?

Read through these replies...

answers.yahoo.com...

Where do you get dark brown eyes from? Old photographs? Photographs with dark lighting? Photographs from magazines? You have absolutely nothing that definitively says his eyes were dark brown. If you did some darn research, already posted in this thread, his own bio says HAZEL. Hazel eyes can turn green, in fact brown eyes can turn green, and hazel can look brown in some light. It's simple, it's logical, and it doesn't require a huge conspiracy to replace Macca with someone, with the exact same skull shape and size, but with different eye colour.

His height has been explained, in this thread. Don't be lazy, GO READ, tired of repeating things.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by Wally Hope]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki

Originally posted by magnolia_xx

And the first time Paul's death was ever mentioned was on Nov 12th, 1969.


It would pay to read this thread rather than ride in here roughshod and pass this off as fact.

Read through the thread and you'll see that you are wrong.


Hmmmm actually I believe he's right, except I thought it was in October. I guess it depends on whether you believe the logical explanations, or the PID fantasies? Again this was discussed many pages ago. It started when a college paper printed the story written by a student, and then a radio station DJ picked it up and announced Paul McCartney is dead.

Where was it ever mentioned before 1969? Other than the newspaper, with it's hastily released story, that had nothing to do with the PID hoax that came later? Just like 'The Walrus was Paul' had nothing to do with the PID hoax until it was later misinterpreted by people searching for 'clues'. It was just another of Johns digs at Paul, Paul the fake. And I mean Paul the fake, not the fake Paul.
If you understand what was going on in the Beatles real life drama after Epstein died it would all make a lot more sense. Bitter/jealous/stoned/drunk/fried John (backed by timid George, Ringo was more neutral) vs control freak/I'm the best/commercial loving/all in moderation Paul. That's what a lot of the 'clues' were all about. 'The sound you make is Muzak to my ears'...

[edit on 29-7-2009 by Wally Hope]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by kshaund
 


I posted a while ago that my eyes have changed from hazel to greyish/green. They are bright green if I ever wake up in the night.

You might find this article interesting:

www.living-foods.com...

I don't know if Paul ever went on a raw food diet, but he did become a vegetarian. He also went to India and stayed with the Maharishi. I believe that was to study transcendental meditation, and spiritual practices MAY have something to do with the colour of the eyes lightening.

I'm still not swayed either way,(although I think some of the photos shown could have been of a double) but think it's important to look at all the evidence as thoroughly as possible - in these circumstances. (That's not meant to sound snarky).


[edit on 29-7-2009 by berenike]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 06:25 AM
link   
Hes really with biggie,tupac and jackson



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 06:36 AM
link   
Reptilian, Billy Shears, Billy's Boots or Billy No Mates it doesnt really matter. This whole thread has cleared up one of the greatest scandals of the modern era....that of how the hell did a man so obviously talented see fit to release a record like "The Frog Chorus" onto the population of the world?

Um, now i've written that it does seem like i should be paying far more attention to the claim that "Paul McCartney" may be reptilian.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 06:59 AM
link   
The clues to Paul's alleged death however, much like the truth, is out there.

Take a look at The Beatles crossing the zebra crossing on the Abbey Road album. Paul is not wearing shoes, ergo he is dead.

In the background, there is a VW Beetle car parked with a dodgy numberplate, which relates to Paul's age. Ergo, Paul is dead.

On the Sgt Pepper's album. there are several illustrated references to Paul's demise, most notably John's hand over Paul's head. Ergo, Paul MUST be dead.

As the LP plays out, John is heard to lament, "I buried Paul!" Ergo, Paul is dead.

There are, were, supposed to be hidden messages throughout all of The Beatles records, especially the White Album, that caused the Mason Family to kick off on their murderous spree.

Does this mean that Paul McCartney is dead?

Hardly, because there is no hard evidence.

On the other hand, John was a bit of a practicle joker with sometimes a wicked sense of humour.

On the other hand, there was a so called bitter rivalry between John and Paul over their song's accreditation.

"Lennon & McCartney" still has that magical ring to it, whereas "McCartney & Lennon" just does not cut the mustard.

I find it is so easy to blame John Lennon for all that went wrong, but were there other forces at work?



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by aorAki
 


Hi, just check here:
en.wikipedia.org... :
"The first known printing of this urban legend was in the Drake University paper, the Times-Delphic, on September 17, 1969. The rumours surrounding McCartney began in earnest on October 12, 1969, when someone telephoned Russ Gibb (a radio DJ on WKNR-FM in Dearborn, Michigan serving the Detroit market). Identifying himself as "Tom" (allegedly Tom Zarski[1] of Eastern Michigan University), the caller announced that McCartney was dead. He also asked Gibb to play "Revolution 9" backwards. Gibb thought he heard "Turn me on, dead man."[2] Gibb also produced (with John Small and Dan Carlisle) The Beatle Plot, an hour-long radio show on the rumour. The show aired on WKNR-FM in late 1969 and has been repeated in the years since on Detroit radio."

.... and here:
www.geocities.com...
"In 1969 Russell Gibb, a radio Disc Jockey in Detroit, announced that Paul McCartney was dead. His proof: evidence strewn throughout the Beatles' songs, movies, and album artwork. Newspaper and television reporters picked up the story and the news quickly spread across America."
... et cetera.

... and here:
www.gadflyonline.com...
"On October 12, 1969, Detroit disc jockey Russ Gibb of WKNR-FM received a bizarre late-night phone call from a listener. This Deep Throat told him that, if he played several tracks off of the Beatles' The White Album backwards, he'd hear some rather interesting things."..., with special attention to this: "Within weeks, the sale of new and old Beatles albums soared as both the distraught fan and the merely curious bought clean copies just to play them backwards. (The rumors helped the sales of the just-released Abbey Road, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, Magical Mystery Tour, and The White Album. Both Sgt. Pepper's and Magical Mystery Tour, which were released in 1967, re-entered Billboard's Top 200 charts in November 1969. Both LP's stayed in the Top 200 until the spring of 1970)."

.... and here:
fard-rock.blog.excite.it...


This just to cite a few sites... I hope it is enough.
It is interesting that nobody here, among the PID believers, said anything about the data I posted (took from Mark Lewisohn book about the recording sessions, readily available in every bookshop), which prove that Paul COULD NOT HAVE DIED on nov. 9th 1966.
How do you explain this? Or maybe Paul was dead on another day/month/year? Please can you provide the real death date? Or his death certificate? No certificate? No grave? Come on...
But as some people here think Paul is a reptilian (ROTFL
)/something/fake et cetera, probably no prove about his being alive and in good health would persuade them.
Diabolo was right when he said that some people are picking up pics taken in very different lighting, shooting angle, with totally different expressions, to try and prove that another person is pretending to be Paul Mc Cartney since 1966.
Craniometry can provide reliable results when we are measuring skulls, in corpses or in living people who are in front of us. Not photos. So many people showed here pics taken after 1966 where Paul looks exactly the same person he looked in the earlier Beatles years, but they were obviously ignored, since the aim of this thread is not trying and look for the truth, but it is to demostrate the PID theory.
It was an interesting thread, but after some days of research I came to my conclusions. They may be different from somebody's else conclusions, but it is not a great problem for me

I going to listen some of his great music now. Both pre- and after 1966. His voice is unique.
Love you Paul, you are still my favorite.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by magnolia_xx
 


Dear Magnolia_xx, honestly speaking, and with all the due respect for you and any other Paul's fans, I just want to pose a question: Paul is dead, or maybe he's still alive. So what ? you know, John was the true genius, Paul was an honest talented support. But, unfortunately John also passed away. You know, Bach died, Beethoven died. Even Mozart left this world. And it is still turning...



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Dear Atfouroclock,
I really appreciated your remarks.
I actually think that, though all these great musicians and composers eventually died, the most important thing is the inheritance they left us, such as their music, their words, and so on.
Therefore we could actually say that, as long as their art remains with us, they will not be really dead.
The thing that most appalled me was to realize that some guys try to catch other people's attention with hilarious theories about plots, reptilians, et cetera.
The PID urban legend looks more a pretext than anything else. The problem is that some highly emotional people could even believe this, with unpredictable consequences.
Next time when we meet we can further discuss this subject.
Warm regards,
Magnolia




top topics



 
33
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join