Paul McCartney died in 1966 - replaced by Billy Shepherd

Originally posted by anon217
i heard paul mccartney had atleast one freemason link before he was famous, i really despise the illuminati, has everone forgotton about them or is everyone bored of hearing/reading about that #?

I think the Illuminati are very much inculpated in this. I think they got rid of Paul & replaced his w/ their own stooge to serve their agenda: SIR Paul McCartney. The "Sir" should be a big hint in & of itself, shouldn't it? Who would have the resources to pull this off? Whoever did it has to have control of the media. Sure, there are breaches, such as w/ the Italian article, but is anyone hearing about the forensic proof Paul was replaced in English-speaking media? No. And I bet the Italian research will be squelched just like Dr. Truby's sonagrams were back in 1969. Except now, there's the Internet, so people don't have to rely on mainstream media for information. People won't be so easily convinced when [insert mainstream media name here] tells them something like back in 1969.

BTW, I hate the Illuminati, too, & want to expose this tactic of theirs. Everyone knows they murder. People should know they also replace people. It's truly diabolical. It's more evil than most people could imagine, b/c most people are not as evil as they are.

Originally posted by kshaund
I'm not young - I'm in my fifties and have never met (or heard) of anyone who's eyes have dramatically changed AS AN ADULT (unlike the baby site you want to rely on) - they are also on that talking about blue eyes changing, not brown.

It's common for babies' eye color to change from blue to brown, but it's extremely rare for an adult's eye color to change. It's just too much that not only did Paul have a rare eye condition, but that he also grew a couple of inches in his mid 20's, that his facial features changed in 4 months, & his personality & musical style, too. I mean, really. Maybe it's shocking for some people to think that a famous person could be replaced, but it's happened. Right under their noses, & most people didn't notice. How scary is that?

I'm curious about the idea of Paul maybe being substituted - and find it so funny how adamant and angry and rude posters get for even entertaining the notion that it might be true.

Some people don't want the truth to come out about this, b/c then people will be clued into what could be termed the "replacement program." Up to now, this has been going on w/ hardly anyone noticing.

Real researchers keep an open mind and follow the clues, not try and fit results into their BS (belief systems).

It may be too disturbing for some people to follow the evidence in this case. It has led to some very disturbing discoveries. Maybe some things people would rather not know... or have discovered.

Originally posted by kshaund
reply to post by faulconandsnowjob

 

Darn - that video was removed

Which video? Maybe I could find it somewhere else?

Paul - 1965



"Paul" - Dec 1966



I'm not a musicologist, but somehow, I don't think Faul's songs ever quite matched Paul's. I think a lot of people know this in their hearts, but it's not something they want to face...



compared to John Lennon's favorite



And I don't think it can be explained by saying John's influence was gone, b/c John's solo songs never matched the Beatles songs, either. So someone was a musical genius. I'm thinking it was Paul.


[edit on 30-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Here was something that never sat right w/ me. In the song, "A Day in the Life," there is a bit w/ Paul singing. George Martin said Paul has this bit & just stuck it in the song b/c he couldn't (?) develop it into a song, so they didn't know what else to do w/ it. Really? Does that sound right to people? Prolific, talented song-writer Paul who wrote masterpieces like "Yesterday," "Eleanor Rigby," "For No One," etc, couldn't develop that bit into a song? I'm thinking they just had a snippet from Paul that they wanted to use, so incorporated it into a song. Same goes for "Her Majesty," & probably the bit at the end of "Cry Baby Cry."

More eye color differences:

Just another fake ear (like we've never seen that before - yawn)




[edit on 30-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Difft shaped faces

Who is this then Faulcon?






Looks like "Faul"? Funny, 'cause we both know it's Paul in 1966!


Difft shift face:






so much for your photogrphic evidence... regarding your logic Paul was always replaced and never alive!

reply to post by Excitable_Boy


I actually think Al Pacino looks like Paul McCartney and Martin Scorcese looks like Woody Allen....... possibly one & the same.... double identities....

I find it a little amusing how non-scientists are so quick to dismiss forensic evidence that doesn't support their pre-conceived notion. If science proves w/ a biometrical analysis that Paul was replaced by a double, then it must be wrong. lol This is just another example of confirmation bias, imo. I might add that the scientists originally set out to prove PIA, but unlike *some* people, they were willing to follow the evidence & come up w/ a theory that fit the evidence, & didn't try to make the evidence fit their theory.

Anyway, big difference in the ears & eyebrows here:




[edit on 31-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Hi Diabolo, yes, it's true, maybe Paul was switched with his fake when he still was in his cradle LOL
By the way, Faulcon, please believe that I was very interested about this thread and I carefully read your proofs abouf the supposed hoax, but when you compare pics of Paul I always see the same guy, in some photos he is younger and chubby, in other ones he is older and his eyes got some discoloration from age (all my grandparents did and my father at 63 has hazel/grey eyes while he used to have dark brown eyes when he was a young man).
As I previously wrote, craniometry cannot be applied just to pics to be reliable, they actually need the head of the living person or the skull.
You go on mentioning "Wired" study, but I read the whole article in Italian (I am Italian) and the forensic experts did not conclude that there is a fake in place of Paul McCartney, they only showed some difference which they are not able to explain.
This is not a proof and no judge would ever consider it as a proof.
That's all.
Did you check Mark Lewisohn book to compare the recording sessions and the date of Paul's supposed death? What do you conclude about this? How could the Beatles record Strawberry Fields with this guy singing and playing the mellotron just a couple of weeks after Paul's death?
One could think that they actually knew that Paul would had died on a certain day, otherwise they would never have been able to replace him immediately.
Otherwise, when did Paul die? Where are the proofs that he is dead (apart from all those pics about the very same guy in different situations and with different expressions and hairstyles, et cetera)??

ts1.images.live.com... %2f2328.jpg

www.allposters.com...

a330.g.akamai.net...

ts2.images.live.com... mages%2fmdsBild%2f1212493455698l.jpg

Originally posted by Wally Hope

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]

No reasoning to get over it. They are all anonymous sourceing, and if it is so common this only gives you a ton of more people to search up to just provide a basic fact that you seem to be pushing, but yet you can't so off to hideing behind words we go ~

Its simple you can either find this event occurreing in one of the millions of liveing or dead that are frequently put up on the internet to show to valid referrance or you can't.

This is just one of many thousands topics that people claim X but when pushed to actually "show" X, they run, scrambled, throw arms, and duck behind whatever they scour to find in hopes not to provide X. This was asked for earlier in this thread, it was chosen to be ignored and run away from.

reply to post by Bldrvgr


www.flickr.com...

Please read the caption. If you did a search like I suggested you can find lots of proof of brown/hazel eyes looking green in photos.

www.flickr.com...

Photos do not always reproduce colours exactly due to light and other factors.

reply to post by faulconandsnowjob


First pic: I see Paul McCartney.
Second pic: I see Paul McCartney in a black & white photo, in which he has a moustache, a different expression and a different haircut.
Anybody else who thinks the same?

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
I find it a little amusing how non-scientists are so quick to dismiss forensic evidence that doesn't support their pre-conceived notion. If science proves w/ a biometrical analysis that Paul was replaced by a double, then it must be wrong. lol This is just another example of confirmation bias, imo. I might add that the scientists originally set out to prove PIA, but unlike *some* people, they were willing to follow the evidence & come up w/ a theory that fit the evidence, & didn't try to make the evidence fit their theory.

Anyway, big difference in the ears & eyebrows here:

[edit on 31-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

I never saw such a horrible photo of Paul, poor guy
Anyway, I can see a bad photo of a chubby young Paul and then another photo of Paul, a few years later. The face is the same, only chubbier in the first pic.

Originally posted by magnolia_xx
when you compare pics of Paul I always see the same guy, in some photos he is younger and chubby, in other ones he is older and his eyes got some discoloration from age (all my grandparents did and my father at 63 has hazel/grey eyes while he used to have dark brown eyes when he was a young man).

You are not seeing the same person. You are seeing a lookalike who you think is the same person. Your ability to differentiate has been diminished b/c of your belief system. When I look at them, I see 2 completely different people. In fact, I'm shocked how anyone could conflate the 2.

As I previously wrote, craniometry cannot be applied just to pics to be reliable, they actually need the head of the living person or the skull.
You go on mentioning "Wired" study, but I read the whole article in Italian (I am Italian) and the forensic experts did not conclude that there is a fake in place of Paul McCartney, they only showed some difference which they are not able to explain.

Unless you're a forensic scientist, I don't think your opinion on their methodology carries much weight. They are trained scientists & are experts. If you want to controvert their findings, then you're going to have to do better than just stating your layman's opinion that their methodology was somehow lacking.

The scientists concluded that Paul would have had to have undergone a series of extensive & painful surgeries to account for the changes. The scars that would have resulted are not to be seen on Faul's face.

This is not a proof and no judge would ever consider it as a proof.

Are you a lawyer? B/c if not, it's just your layman's opinion. I happen to be a lawyer. I would disagree w/ you that those findings would be inadmissible.

Rule 401. Definition of "Relevant Evidence"

"Relevant evidence" means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.

Rule 402. Relevant Evidence Generally Admissible; Irrelevant Evidence Inadmissible

All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution of the United States, by Act of Congress, by these rules, or by other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority...

www.law.cornell.edu...

[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).

Forensic science (often shortened to forensics) is the application of a broad spectrum of sciences to answer questions of interest to a legal system. This may be in relation to a crime or a civil action. Besides its relevance to a legal system, more generally forensics encompasses the accepted scholarly or scientific methodology and norms under which the facts regarding an event, or an artifact, or some other physical item (such as a corpse) are ascertained as being the case. In that regard the concept is related to the notion of authentication, whereby an interest outside of a legal form exists in determining whether an object is what it purports to be, or is alleged as being.

en.wikipedia.org...

Are you really going to try to argue that photos & findings from expert forensic scientists aren't relevant evidence? Good luck w/ that one.

How could the Beatles record Strawberry Fields with this guy singing and playing the mellotron just a couple of weeks after Paul's death?

A voice double or technology that could've made this possible. Did you read this article?

When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing
www.washingtonpost.com...

You shouldn't automatically assume that what you're seeing is really true in fact.

One could think that they actually knew that Paul would had died on a certain day, otherwise they would never have been able to replace him immediately.

Yes, I think he was murdered, & the double was ready to step into his shoes right away.

Otherwise, when did Paul die? Where are the proofs that he is dead

Paul was not seen again after Aug or Sept 1966. Where'd he go? He just vanished off the face of the earth.

Originally posted by magnolia_xx

I never saw such a horrible photo of Paul, poor guy

Anyway, I can see a bad photo of a chubby young Paul and then another photo of Paul, a few years later. The face is the same, only chubbier in the first pic.

That is Paul from 1964 v. Faul from 1967.

If you don't have a good eye for detail, you probably wouldn't notice the differences. You have to learn to look at the pictures w/ a more discriminating eye. The ears are not the same. Notice the earlobes? Neither are the eyebrows, the nose or even the mouth. This is a lookalike. He looks like Paul. There are subtle differences that give him away, though. Compare them & see if you can spot the differences.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Hellmutt
There's also another video in existance, where George is trying hard to teach "Paul" to play a simple riff on the bass.

If you can find that I'd love to see it.

The only thing I can think of is there was the clip of Paul and George arguing about a riff George was to play on one of Pauls songs in the Let It Be movie. George couldn't get it right to Pauls satisfaction. I find it hard to believe Paul would not be able to play something George showed him. Paul taught George a lot in the early days, and he was a mediocre player compared with the guitar giants of his day in London, Hendrix, Clapton, Page, Beck etc...Listen to his Beatle solo's, very basic stuff. Paul was a much better musician on all instruments than the other 3, including the drums.

You should watch Let It Be and then come back and say Paul had trouble playing any instrument let alone bass.

BTW I'm no Macca fan, just denying ignorance.

[edit on 15/7/2008 by ANOK]

Careful...learning to play a particular melody or riff sometimes has no bearing on skill level...check below vid, cause this guy ain't no slouch himself -

www.youtube.com...

From the Federal Rules of Evidence (USA):

Rule 702. Testimony by Experts

If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.

www.law.cornell.edu...

Yes, I think those forensic scientists would qualify as experts, & their findings would come in.