Paul McCartney died in 1966 - replaced by Billy Shepherd

Originally posted by aorAki

I think that this whole idea has potentially serious repercussions and that it is just too much for some to swallow, or even contemplate because it shakes the very foundations of our 'culture'.

This is very true. Maybe people will start to realize that a lot of what they're told is just a story - it isn't necessarily true just b/c it's coming from a newscaster/newspaper. Also, just b/c someone *appears* to be a particular person, doesn't mean it actually is that person. Pretty disturbing indeed.

faulconandsnowjob,

* Beatles entourage
* Paul's family and friends
* Jane Asher + family and friends
* Other musicians: Rolling Stones, Donovan, Cilla Black, etc.
* EMI staff: doorman, engineers, catering staff, session musicians, etc.
* Fans: outside Paul's house, outside EMI studio, etc.
* Staff and other regular customers in restaurants, clubs, etc.
* Paul's paperboy, window cleaner, etc.
* Etc. etc.

Many, many people had regular contact with Paul through '66, '67, '68 in the flesh.
And yet not one single person saw what you claim to see now.

In '69 when PID was born, there was nothing mentioned about about height, eye color etc., it was all based on the 'clues' in the lyrics and album sleeves (Paul not wearing shoes etc.).
Then when Paul turned up in Scotland, the whole PID thing was killed stone dead -- nobody started questioning old photos then.

So is it just your remarkable powers of perception that explains why you see this while no one who was actually there did, or do you think that they were all just paid to keep quiet (and have never once had a drunken or somesuch moment where they've let it slip)?

Originally posted by seaofgreen
Many, many people had regular contact with Paul through '66, '67, '68 in the flesh.
And yet not one single person saw what you claim to see now.

That's not true. I think you should do some more research on the Illuminati. First, they bribe people to buy their silence. If that doesn't work, then they will discredit them, convince people they're crazy, etc. They're not above murdering people (& replacing them) who won't play along. If you knew what those people were capable of - proven by what they did to Paul - would you speak out? Remember the Heather Mills interviews?

In '69 when PID was born, there was nothing mentioned about about height, eye color etc., it was all based on the 'clues' in the lyrics and album sleeves (Paul not wearing shoes etc.).
Then when Paul turned up in Scotland, the whole PID thing was killed stone dead -- nobody started questioning old photos then.

As has already been shown on this thread, PID wasn't "born" in 1969. It actually started in 1967. Back then, it wasn't as easy to compare photos as it is now, but people definitely noticed something was wrong. Girls said the Beatles were "ugly" in SFF.



Maybe if they had noticed the different colored eyes & height variation, then people would have discovered PID wasn't a "hoax" after all.

I agree that the Beatles left a lot of clues as to what happened.

So is it just your remarkable powers of perception that explains why you see this while no one who was actually there did, or do you think that they were all just paid to keep quiet (and have never once had a drunken or somesuch moment where they've let it slip)?

I'm just paying attention & have a decent eye for detail. You should look into the strange death of Mal Evans. He went to Kenya w/ "Paul" in the Fall of 1966. He was writing a memoir when he was shot by police. His ashes & his suitcase were both lost. The memoir was never published in its entirety. Yeah, that's not suspicious...

But anyway, it's been proven by forensic science that Paul was replaced, unless you believe Paul went through a series of extensive surgeries for no apparent reason - & that didn't leave the requisite scarring or interfere w/ his singing:
only1rad.proboards.com...

The scientists didn't discuss the eye color change or the miraculous growth spurt, which is unfortunate.

These noses aren't the same.



[edit on 7-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Why do people assume that none of his friends or family noticed the change? If strangers noticed a change, then of course people close to Paul noticed. How could they not? I know of at least one person who did.

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
Why do people assume that none of his friends or family noticed the change?

Because if friends and family could have noticed, then there are several hundred others with direct access to Paul (and several million with indirect access) who could have noticed, ... but didn't.

I think you should do some more research on the Illuminati. First, they bribe people to buy their silence. If that doesn't work, then they will discredit them, convince people they're crazy, etc.

So where are all the newspaper reports, claims & counter claims, from between late '66 and '69?

Back then, it wasn't as easy to compare photos as it is now

Back then, it wasn't as easy to manipulate photos as it is now. And anyway, as already mentioned, there were many people with direct access to Paul on a daily or weekly basis -- no photos needed.

Girls said the Beatles were "ugly" in SFF.

Of course, they'd decided it was time to shake off their smiley, cartoon-like image (which by then had many imitators) and move on. Nothing odd there.

I've just been reviewing some of the mind control stories out there from the CIA and MK Ultra stuff - I think it should be remembered that if it were wanted or warranted to have Paul McCartney replaced, the powers that be indeed do have the means and technology to do so.

Dr. Ewen Cameron and Manchurian Candidate anyone? There could be untold thousands of people pre-programmed according to some testimonies. It is not difficult to brainwash anyone to believe and do anything including Paul's friends and family - so whether or not it's possible (in my opinion) is absolutely yes, it's possible.

Was he replaced? Have no idea - but I can't say for sure "he wasn't".

Why do these stories hang around for decades if there's nothing to them? Usually there's something at the root of a rumor or else it just doesn't last long enough to keep anyone interested.

Originally posted by seaofgreen

Because if friends and family could have noticed, then there are several hundred others with direct access to Paul (and several million with indirect access) who could have noticed, ... but didn't.

Of course, they noticed. How could they not? I know of one who did. What do you think would happen to somebody who spoke out? They might end up like Rosato from SNL - locked away in an insane asylum, or maybe they'd end up getting "suicided" or "accidented." Info about Rosato at
doppels.proboards.com...

So where are all the newspaper reports, claims & counter claims, from between late '66 and '69?

I'm not sure what you mean, but there were pro-PID articles back then. I posted one earlier in the thread. Here's the link:
james-paul-mccartney.150m.com...

Also, here is a page from another one:

Back then, it wasn't as easy to manipulate photos as it is now.

Actually, they were certainly able to manipulate photos. People were tampering w/ photos as early as 1907, & possibly earlier. These are doctored "official" photos:




Also, many, many "official" photos of Paul have had the face stretched. Some "official" photos of Faul have had the face compressed to make his face look more rounded. The forensic scientists noticed this, too:

... Then there is a detail concerning the conformation of the skull: "Indeed, the impression is that the shape of the head was given a 'more rounded', Gavazzeni says:" So in the reduced effective length, by a trick used at the time and realized that being printed. Eff CTIVITIES change the conformation of the skull of an adult is something impossible. Yet, judging from the photos, is exactly what it shows...

ASK WHO WAS THE "BEATLE"
Fabio Gigante Andriola and Alessandra | 15 July 2009
/mw83db

Of course, they'd decided it was time to shake off their smiley, cartoon-like image (which by then had many imitators) and move on. Nothing odd there.

lol. No, it's b/c Faul isn't as good-looking as Paul. Sorry, but it's true.



[edit on 8-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

[edit on 8-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
james-paul-mccartney.150m.com...

For some reason 'Web of Trust (WOT)' rates this site as unsafe...



What's up with that?

[edit on 8-8-2009 by Wally Hope]

Originally posted by seaofgreen
Because if friends and family could have noticed, then there are several hundred others with direct access to Paul (and several million with indirect access) who could have noticed, ... but didn't.

We're saying this is a conspiracy and so being anyone that spoke about this could be severely harmed.

So where are all the newspaper reports, claims & counter claims, from between late '66 and '69?

A few people who lived in Liverpool at the time have frequented the PID forums over the years and described this "rumour" that began in early 1967.

Originally posted by SednaSon

We're saying this is a conspiracy and so being anyone that spoke about this could be severely harmed.

Were they harmed in '69?

A few people who lived in Liverpool at the time have frequented the PID forums over the years and described this "rumour" that began in early 1967.

So where are the newspaper etc. reports from early '67? Where are the worried letters in Beatles Monthly? Where are the reassuring statements from the press office and the fan club?

Don't forget that all the Beatles, but most of all Paul, had time (photographs, autographs, chat) for fans outside the recording studio and his house -- they knew him well.

Originally posted by seaofgreen
Were they harmed in '69?

Huh?

So where are the newspaper etc. reports from early '67? Where are the worried letters in Beatles Monthly? Where are the reassuring statements from the press office and the fan club?

Why would there be newspaper reports? This is a coverup.

Originally posted by SednaSon

Originally posted by seaofgreen
Were they harmed in '69?

Huh?

As per your suggestion that "anyone that spoke about this could be severely harmed", were those who in '69 did speak about it, severely harmed?

So where are the newspaper etc. reports from early '67? Where are the worried letters in Beatles Monthly? Where are the reassuring statements from the press office and the fan club?

Why would there be newspaper reports? This is a coverup.

You're really not making any sense: there were newspaper (and magazine, TV, radio, etc.) reports in '69. The question is: why not in late '66 & early '67, when folk were in the best position to notice the sudden change?

It's been proven Paul was replaced in 1966 by forensic science. If you don't like our theory about how or why that happened, then feel free to come up w/ your own - but make sure it fits w/ the facts & evidence

They stopped touring. They only did promo videos like SFF - & people noticed something was wrong. This was from a 1967 Beatles Book:



Then, PID was big enough in 1969 for LIFE magazine to trot out the imposter saying he was alive, which wasn't really the point. lol


[edit on 9-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Originally posted by seaofgreen
As per your suggestion that "anyone that spoke about this could be severely harmed", were those who in '69 did speak about it, severely harmed?

Who, that was on the inside, spoke up in 1969? Answer: No-one. They all denied it.

You're really not making any sense: there were newspaper (and magazine, TV, radio, etc.) reports in '69. The question is: why not in late '66 & early '67, when folk were in the best position to notice the sudden change?

People all over Lancashire and parts close to it knew about what happened to Paul. The knowledge of this was growing but the newspapers, because they are heavily controlled, would never print anything that anyone said . They were not permitted to. The 1969 "Paul is dead hoax" was planned to make the idea of Paul's death appear ridiculous.

[edit on 9-8-2009 by SednaSon]

Originally posted by SednaSon

People all over Lancashire and parts close to it knew about what happened to Paul. The knowledge of this was growing but the newspapers, because they are heavily controlled, would never print anything that anyone said .

Berenike:

Do you have any sources you would be prepared to hand over to the ATS media? If you could provide something solid to follow up maybe a UK based investigative reporter could look into this.

It would be great to have proper interviews from ordinary members of the public - they can't all have been bought off.

[edit on 9-8-2009 by berenike]

I think to come forward would have to be their choice, not mine.

And unfortunately, a lot of people aren't around anymore from those days to give interviews. It sure would be nice to know what Mal Evans had that mysteriously went missing when he was killed. I'd also like to know what evidence Heather Mills had that she gave to a friend in case something happened to her...


[edit on 9-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
It's been proven Paul was replaced in 1966 by forensic science.

Not quite: in general, scientists present findings, not facts or proof (lawers and mathematicians present proofs); only once a number of other scientists are able to repeat/corroborate those findings are findings are accepted as true.

If you don't like our theory about how or why that happened, then feel free to come up w/ your own - but make sure it fits w/ the facts & evidence

Yours is a great theory and there may be credible evidence, but it would be nice to get all the less convincing evidence out of the way so we can concentrate on the good stuff.

They stopped touring. They only did promo videos like SFF

But there is plenty of non-PID evidence for this, e.g. the Manila incident, the Jesus incident, hearing gunshots in the crowd, etc.

people noticed something was wrong. This was from a 1967 Beatles Book:

This is not people noticing something was wrong and in no way supports the theory that he was replaced in Sep '66 -- this is most likely that someone with a back mini was killed on icy roads in Jan '67 and some passer by thought, "black mini, it could be Paul!".

Then, PID was big enough in 1969 for LIFE magazine to trot out the imposter saying he was alive, which wasn't really the point.

Still no evidence I'm afraid that PID in '69 was based on anything other than album cover/lyric "clues".

Originally posted by seaofgreen
Not quite: in general, scientists present findings, not facts or proof (lawers and mathematicians present proofs); only once a number of other scientists are able to repeat/corroborate those findings are findings are accepted as true.

Scientists present facts all the time.

This is not people noticing something was wrong and in no way supports the theory that he was replaced in Sep '66 -- this is most likely that someone with a back mini was killed on icy roads in Jan '67 and some passer by thought, "black mini, it could be Paul!".

It supports the theory if you combine it with all of the other evidence that has been gathered.

Still no evidence I'm afraid that PID in '69 was based on anything other than album cover/lyric "clues".

Other than the fact that "Paul" looked so different.

Originally posted by SednaSon

Other than the fact that "Paul" looked so different.

only he didn't:





Here is a like to that pic:

i208.photobucket.com...

[edit on 10-8-2009 by diabolo1]