Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Paul McCartney died in 1966 - replaced by Billy Shepherd

page: 6
33
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 30 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by SednaSon
 


The references to Paul is dead on the Anthology were done on purpose, there is a vid somewhere of Paul talking about it.

Some people do have a sense of humor you know.




posted on May, 30 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Colin Hanton

Colin Hanton, Pete Shotton, Rod Davis.. etc.

All members of the band. They were involved during the Quarrymen days, but the Quarrymen consisted of John, Paul and George as well.

So considering these guys had such a high roll over rate in their band through these years, I don't think it is a stretch to say they would have been unwilling to push forward with another new member in the wake of Paul's death.

It wouldn't have been easy, the band would have never been the same. But John had good bands before Paul and his ego would have told him that he could have another great band after Paul.

To bring in a fake Paul says that the band can not succeed without a Paul McCartney. John Lennon wouldn't stand for that and would not believe it for a second.

(in my opinion)



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by faulconandsnowjob
 


That chin looks very dodgy, but Paul's eyes are quite pale in his photo and 'Faul's' eyes look very dark. So the eyes don't back up the argument.

I don't think the case can be proven either way by just using photographs although you've picked some interesting examples.

Is there any possibility that Paul was in the accident but survived and had plastic surgery to reconstruct his face?

Another thing, The Beatles were so famous they must have known or come into contact with hundreds of people including the Rolling Stones and they probably knew a lot of the other bands from Liverpool.

Wouldn't it be extremely difficult to replace Paul and have all those famous people keep quiet about it?

Even if you got the face and voice and guitar playing about right, his character would be hard to replicate all day, every day.

I can't remember their names, but I've read about a couple of other men who were supposed to have replaced Paul. Why do you think it was Billy Shepherd and not one of the others?



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   
I've stared at the pictures for about 20 minutes and gone through the site that was just previously linked. When I look at the pictures of the "real Paul" and the "fake Paul", I see the same person.

The chin seems to grow in some pictures, but it doesn't seem to grow as much as the "fake Paul's chin" was simply turned to the left in the picture when it was taken. The real Paul's chin is straight on, the fake one is turned to the left slightly. When you overlap, it appears as if it is bigger.

The eyes? It says how the eyes are different.

It shows a picture where the real Paul has his eyes squinting, and one with the fake Paul with his eyes stretched wide open. This is the evidence?

This site claims it was Phill Ackrill that replaced Paul, not Billy Shepherd. And it uses the same picture.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   
Paul from the "Day Tripper" video (1966) compared to Faul in 1967:



Voice:
Paul's voice was lower register, deeper, and had more resonance and vibrato than Faul's voice
Faul's singing voice is higher and thinner than JPM's, and his Liverpudlian accent is noticeably less thick and consistent than JPM's


Dr. Henry M. Truby of the University of Miami used samples from three Beatles songs sung by Paul McCartney ("Yesterday," "Penny Lane," and "Hey Jude") and produced three very different sonagrams.

(Reeve, Andru J., Turn Me On, Dead Man: The Complete Story of the Paul McCartney Death Hoax, Ann Arbor: Popular Culture, Ink, 1994: 69).



[edit on 30-5-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   
To answer some of the questions people have posed about how could this be possible, who could've done it, or why, here is my theory. Granted it is pure speculation, but it is based on a fair amount of research.

I believe the Beatles were a very talented band that got under the control of the Illuminati's Tavistock Institute (TI). It is unlikely that anyone could be that big without some help. I believe that TI used celebrities to push their MKULTRA '___' agenda on the masses as a way to control the anti-war movement that was growing in the mid-60's. Paul may have refused to go along with some part of the agenda. Paul said in 1965 interview that they wouldn’t encourage people not to drink... So, Paul, not being a "team player," was eliminated. However, he was popular, so they found a replacement who would be more amenable to their control & further the agenda. Faul gave an interview in 1967 talking about taking '___'. Aren't people more likely to try something it one of their idols does it & says it's cool? This is an example of celebrities selling the Illuminati agenda.

Maybe Paul's murder served as a warning to the other Beatles, friends, family, etc, to not step out of line. I think John Lennon was killed because he was another tough one to control. He was assassinated right after he gave a Playboy interview in which he talked about '___'. He said "they" wanted to control people, but ended up setting them free. I'm not sure why they chose a public execution for him & a replacement for Paul. Maybe it's because the Beatles were still a popular band in 1966, & they could be exploited some more. This charade with Faul could not have been pulled off for so long w/out the media's complicity - & the Illuminati controls the media.

If people don't think it's possible to imposter replace people... then I will post info about Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il & whoever else. Let me ask a simple question, though. If you can accept that there are doubles (used in military, intelligence & entertainment), & you can accept that the Illuminati kills people they don't like, how long do you think it took for them to come up w/ the the idea of killing someone & replacing them w/ their own stooge? Most people wouldn't notice, & would simply believe whatever the media presented to them.



[edit on 30-5-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by faulconandsnowjob
 


C'mon man the doubles you talk of are for the media only, they haven't replaced the people they are doubling for.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by faulconandsnowjob
 


There are "doubles" and there are "replacements".

 


This really is an issue that people will just have to agree to disagree on.

But speaking candidly, I'm flabberghasted that someone could actually look at the facts and believe that there it is what happened. Those that do, to me it just comes across as manipulating the facts to support this belief.

None of it adds up.

The music that Paul has written pre-1966 and post-1966 is some of the great music that the human race has witnessed. They could attempt to recreate his physical features, but his talent was not going to be recreated. And this thought that someone else wrote the music, I just don't see it.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 07:52 PM
link   
The Illuminati puts out celebrities in the public eye as "icons" used to manipulate and control people's minds. When you study this, as we have, then you realize the lengths they will go to keep the control they have. If word got out about even one celebrity being replaced it would radically change the public's minds about the entertainment industry and who's behind it. Every famous person has a handler and a controller, disguised as an agent, publicist, etc. The conspiracy goes far beyond just the military or politics or religion, etc.

Let me add, for anyone to "come out" with the truth, they would first have to go to a big enough publication that would be willing to put their story out. And let's say they did, that person would be ridiculed mercifully to discredit their story. When people say "someone would have come out" well, it's a lot harder than you think.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by chissler
But speaking candidly, I'm flabberghasted that someone could actually look at the facts and believe that there it is what happened.



Well I and several others have been researching this in our spare time for over 6 years. That's a lot of time and research done.



None of it adds up.



The more you research it and the more you learn about mind control, the more it adds up.



The music that Paul has written pre-1966 and post-1966 is some of the great music that the human race has witnessed. They could attempt to recreate his physical features, but his talent was not going to be recreated. And this thought that someone else wrote the music, I just don't see it.



I agree that the music was great.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by SednaSon
 


Do you have anything to support anything you've just said?

I respect your opinion and I won't try to change your position. But I am curious what material has led you to believe that celebrities have such people guiding their career. I've always felt that the Illuminati could really sink their teeth in deep with two areas: education and celebrities.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by SednaSon
 


Beyond these pictures, what else is there to spend six years of your time on?



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Several musicians have noted that "The Night Before" seems to be the song that highlights the differences between Paul & Faul.

the beatles the night before
www.youtube.com...

One of my musician friends said:


"The Night Before" is at the top of Pauls vocal range, so that distinctive huskiness clearly came through.

Bill [Faul] has a slightly higher voice and doesn`t have the required force for the vocals here imo. I`m a singer myself, and like Bill my voice goes too high (in this key) to get the required force. It`s like you`re changing gear at the wrong time.

It`s one of the major differences between Faul (Bill) and Paul; their singing range.

That's why all "the night before" is a perfect example to the limitations and beauty of paul's singing voice.


Somebody else said:


"The Night Before" video is, I think, the best performance based evidence... You NEVER heard Faul sing like that in 67 and beyond. Paul's voice was deeper, and had the vocals to project his voice louder, while Faul has a softer, higher octave voice.


Finally:


When I realised McCartney had been replaced and then viewed "The Night Before," it was obvious Paul had a classic RnB / Rock n`Roll voice which Bill can`t replicate.


Has Faul ever sung "The Night Before"? I don't think so...



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by chissler
reply to post by SednaSon
 


Do you have anything to support anything you've just said?

I respect your opinion and I won't try to change your position. But I am curious what material has led you to believe that celebrities have such people guiding their career. I've always felt that the Illuminati could really sink their teeth in deep with two areas: education and celebrities.



Sure, chissler. One site I like a lot is expansions.com. The person that runs this site was involved in the Montauk Project of the 70's and early 80's. He has a lot of inside knowledge. But he is just one source.

I sure appreciate your class in all of this. It's a pretty touchy subject with people. I understand that as I am a Beatle fan myself.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by SednaSon
 


Hey, it's not a matter of who is and is not a fan. We all love the Beatles, otherwise why would we give a damn if it was Paul or Faul?


I mentioned this before, but on second thought I'm guilty as well.

I said that I think people may believe this because deep down they truly want to and will manipulate the facts to fit this belief. But I do not want to believe this. So I'm just as capable of manipulating the facts to support my belief that it is false.

 
 


Too bad Heather Mills didn't know him before 1966. I bet she'd be singing from the mountain tops.





posted on May, 30 2009 @ 08:06 PM
link   
Not saying for one moment I believe Paul McCartney died in 1966, there are some answers however to if it did happen why it was done.

Hypothetically, say Paul did die in November 1966, his unpublished work was said be incredible and priceless, you have to remember the Beatles where humongous all over the Planet and one of the biggest commodities in Musical History, like them or not the facts are the facts, also the thought was there that a lot of his fans, who where fanatics at the time, could have hurt themselves to the point John Lennon feared a lot of suicides or attempted suicides, he also believed that the work which was unpublished needed to be completed before the Beatles mission as he called it was over.

From local rumours I have heard over the years, three people knew about the crash, John Lennon, Brian Epstein, and Neil Aspinall, all three now dead, a lot of people where very upset that Aspinall died without writing his memoirs, after all if anyone knew of the secrets of the Beatles it was him, Mr fix it I think they called him, he covered up all the shall we say delinquent stuff that most rock stars seem to have hidden away.

Of course other people where supposed to have known later, and went along with the cover up, coincidences are they never performed in concert after 1966, the last time was the October before the supposed accident, all live performances where out of reach of fans like the Abbey Road roof top gig (Wings was a different matter don't know too much, but maybe enough changes had been made and with ageing not to many would have questioned it) almost all Photographs taken for promotional material after 1966, always seemed to have Paul acting different from the rest of the band, examples his back turned towards the camera on the reverse of the SGT pepper album, the doll on the front with the car on its leg, and the old lady holding the doll having a blood stained driving glove on her left hand, the yellow flowers being in the shape of a left handed bass but with only three strings, and a sixth finger on the reverse of George Harrison pointing to some words, that last one was explained that the band members where spelling out Love with their fingers, but because we cant see Paul's hands that is still a little vague.

Linda Eastman, had been trying to get close to Paul but couldn't and ended up meeting Campbell instead which I suppose second best was good enough for most, however anyone who knows anything about love, seeing Paul and Linda together it was never more obvious that they adored each other and where dedicated to each other, them not being in love is a crazy idea.

There where supposed to be countless clues inserted into all their material after 1966 pointing towards Johns grief for his best friend.

That being said, I don't believe he died, what I think and any Scouser will back this up, the humour which you grow up with in this City, is very strong and instant, and playing games like that would have been right up John Lennon's street, if you can understand that part a lot of it makes sense as to why it was done even if he didn't die.

What does concern me however is the OP link, it appears to be more recent, and tells a different version of events from what has been passed around for the past 40 years, it is told like it is someone who was around the band, like their eyes where everywhere they went, just some of the finer details included in the writing of it and the timeline of events.

I found the Walrus reference especially intriguing, about the French Policeman saying he looked like a Walrus, and John Lennon losing it and screaming I am the Walrus not him, I am the Walrus, because all references to the Walrus in photographic form had a lot of people guessing for a very long time, it was never clear who it was dressed as the black Walrus.

Lots of photographic references pointing to the number 3 around the name Beatles, often cited as rumour to mean only three Beatles remain, then we have the abbey road cover which has already been mentioned, not sure if the licence plate has though with the 28 IF meant to mean he would have been 28 years old if the Indian belief that the pregnancy is taken into account, so he in life was 27, but with that belief would have been 28.

But macca changed that to his favour later with his own album cover walking across the same crossing, with the same or similar car, but the registration then read 51 IS meaning he was 51 when that was done.

Also according to the OP story link, it is said it was Epstein who was in the car with him, and if you check his history, he wasn't seen much at all before his real death in public, as with almost all of Paul's pictures after 66, there always seemed to be a distraction so you couldn't see his face like the other band members, as for lyrics, with any band who has tragedy or rumour all lyrics can be taken to have multiple meanings, its when those meanings are examined before the tragedy or without knowing about the events, they mean what? nothing really, reverse engineering meanings is so easy afterwards, I think the saying is foresight is a wonderful thing.

The rumours where supposedly started by a DJ who alleged to have received a phone call making the claim, and he read it out on air, anyone meeting him after the supposed crash would be clueless as that is the only Paul they have met.

So all that means is there is only two people alive who would really know the true story, that is McCartney himself, and Ringo, hiding it from everyone else would have been easy enough if they where careful about meeting people or public appearances, which again would still raise an eye brow somewhere I'm sure.

One more concern before I shut up, is I can find no trace of William Campbell after 1967, and believe me back then winning that competition would have been a big thing and would surely have been used by him to make a living, just as look a likes do even today, but I find nothing at all online anywhere, just references to him winning the competition, and a picture of him in the white Album booklet, which is said to be Paul dressed as William by some.

If Campbell could be tracked down, it would put this to rest for good as there is no conspiracy at all if he is still around or was until long after 1966, if he did disappear in 1967, then IMO it puts fire on the whole deal.

But personally I think Macca is alive and well, he does a lot for this City all the time, he set up L.I.P.A which is a magnificent achievement, I have several friends who attended there, and has produced many fantastic Artists.

Sorry for going on a bit.

Just to add, I find the voice analysis and the Professors findings of three different voices fascinating, with today's technology, that could also put it to rest or make it bigger I suppose, anyone can do that today with available software.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   
To really start to grasp the magnitude of this "replacement program" - what SednaSon was getting at - you have to have a good background knowledge of the Illuminati. For starters:


...
8. Their first means of dealing with opposition is to buy it off. To any group as rich as the Illuminati, a few million dollars are nothing.

9. Next they try threats. Danger to possessions, status or loved ones has dissuaded many a would-be foe of Illuminati schemes.

10. And, of course, murder is an ancient political weapon. The Illuminati have been responsible for some of the most shocking assassinations of modern times.

11. They also replace people with doubles. For many years they recruited look-alikes who would serve their ends. Now they are perfecting cloning technology that will let them replace anybody.

12. Those who can't be dealt with any other way are discredited or driven mad.
...
15. They control the news media, so you hear what they want you to about today's news. Any event that doesn't fit in with their program will be quickly hushed up.
...
www.chaosmatrix.org...


Paul from ~ 1963 vs. Faul in Magical Mystery Tour (1967)




[edit on 30-5-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by chissler
I said that I think people may believe this because deep down they truly want to and will manipulate the facts to fit this belief. But I do not want to believe this. So I'm just as capable of manipulating the facts to support my belief that it is false.



Sure I can see that. I'll tell you a quick story of how I got into this.

When I started reading about conspiracies, David Icke was one author I was reading. My friend got word of this through another blabby friend and started researching Icke. He found Icke and his material quite humorous. One day we were on Icke's website and in the links section was one titled "I buried Paul". I didn't even want to click on it because I thought the whole thing was stupid. But my friend clicked on the link and it went to the "physical evidence" page I posted earlier. Anyway, because of the comparisons presented there, when I saw them I knew something wasn't right between the early Paul and the late Paul.

I spent the next 4-5 months researching this by looking at many pics, every video I could get my hands on, books, etc. Then a forum was created and I started comparing things with other people. the rest is history. But you can see my mindset at the beginning of this. I thought it was stupid.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by SednaSon
 


As mentioned by another member recently, the Beatles were obviously a very popular band and extremely close to other bands during their time. One band they were very close to was the Rolling Stones, among others. Obviously these individuals would not have been informed what happened to the real Paul. So on the follow-up interactions between the groups, are we to believe it was seamless?

Were these band members told not to ask questions?

His close family, were they brought into it? If so, why? If not, how would they manage it? Paul came from a stable home. How was this aspect addressed?

So many holes in this story before I could seriously consider it.

But I am here discussing it, so that does say something.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by chissler
 


Azzllin made the point that some fans might have been suicidal if they thought that Paul had died.

That's the one thing that might persuade me that a replacement was made and why people might agree to it.






top topics



 
33
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join