Paul McCartney died in 1966 - replaced by Billy Shepherd, page 7

privacy

Pages: << 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 33 times

reply posted on 30-5-2009 @ 08:54 PM by pop_science

reply to post by ANOK

I think you are correct and it's a bunch of BS.

But are there any earlier videos of him mimicking other singers, because the believers could say that this is something that he didn't have till after the death and that is why this guy was so believable because he could mimic others talents so well.

reply posted on 30-5-2009 @ 08:55 PM by chissler

reply to post by berenike

That post truly was remarkable.

It's an irrefutable point. The reaction during that time of a McCartney death would have been unpredictable to say the least. The thought of potential mass suicides definitely could have been enough to bring Lennon on board.

reply posted on 30-5-2009 @ 08:57 PM by SednaSon

I think everyone knew that if they said anything there could be dire consequences. This is my guess but I think the family was paid off and I think that there was also a threat of harm if anyone spoke out.

Regarding the Stones, they had their own "clue" song. Since they couldn't come out and say anything, they wrote a song called Ruby Tuesday which many of us believe was written about Paul. Ruby Tuesday was Paul...Ruby for blood and Tuesday was the day of the week his body was found. There's another reference to Tuesday in I Am The Walrus, "Stupid Bloody Tuesday." The song Fool On the Hill was about the time his corpse spent there waiting to be found. I think it was about 8 or 9 days in September of 1966.

reply posted on 30-5-2009 @ 08:58 PM by faulconandsnowjob

When you start thinking in terms of the Illuminati, there really are no holes in the story. Everything can be explained using that paradigm. Of course, friends & family knew Paul had been replaced, but they're not going to just come out & say something. Did you see the interview w/ Heather Mills saying she'd put evidence in a box & had given it to a friend in case something happened to her?

SednaSon, my initiation into PID was very similar. I remember reading a long time ago about it, how John called Faul "Faux Paul," or whatever. I read that John didn't say "I buried Paul" at the end of Strawberry Fields Forever," but that he said "Cranberry Sauce." Ok, I believed that, but if you go & listen to it, he actually does say "I buried Paul." Anyway, most of the arguments against PID focus on the hidden messages. The physical evidence is what convinced me - comparing photos & videos, etc. It took me a while to see it b/c of my programming, but then something clicked, & I could never see them as being the same again.

Comp of Paul shooting "A Hard Day's Night" (1964) to Faul in 1968:

[edit on 30-5-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

[edit on 30-5-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

reply posted on 30-5-2009 @ 08:59 PM by SednaSon

Originally posted by chissler
reply to post by berenike

That post truly was remarkable.

It's an irrefutable point. The reaction during that time of a McCartney death would have been unpredictable to say the least. The thought of potential mass suicides definitely could have been enough to bring Lennon on board.

Yeah I agree. Also, Paul was the most popular with the ladies of all of the Beatles. He was probably the most popular male celebrity with the young women in the entire world in the mid 60's.

reply posted on 30-5-2009 @ 09:06 PM by chissler

reply to post by faulconandsnowjob

The face on the right is bloated, that is the only difference.

People put on pounds in different areas of the body. Some people it's the ass, the stomach, legs, etc. It's not a stretch to say that Paul put on a few pounds and it was in his face.

reply posted on 30-5-2009 @ 09:07 PM by Badgered1

I dunno, though. Same guy that gave us "Hey Jude" and "Helter Skelter" and "Eleanor Rigby" manages to give us "C-Moon" and "Somebody's Knocking At The Door"

Big difference.

I jest.

reply posted on 30-5-2009 @ 09:10 PM by pop_science

reply to post by faulconandsnowjob

Sorry but in this photo he is clearly blowing out he cheeks the "fake" one is as if about to let out air and that's the only thing that looks any different.

The eyes, the nose, everything other detail is perfect.

With being involved with reconstructive plastic surgery quite a bit , that kind of thing was not possible back then.

You would need someone with the same SKULL sure you can manipulate the upper flesh of the face and maybe some nerves and a little micro vascular work was possible then but you can't change someones eye sockets and nasal/audio passages.

Has anyone ever does a facial recognition test on the photos where they measure the distance between the eyes lips ears and nose?

[edit on 30-5-2009 by pop_science]

reply posted on 30-5-2009 @ 09:14 PM by Tenacitus

Originally posted by Excitable_Boy

Wouldn't she have noticed certain physical differences as well. The plastic surgery would have fooled someone facially but other characteristics wouldn't.

She and Paul were having marital troubles and she was actually cheating on Paul with Billy Shepherd when the accident happened. So, Linda was glad to go along with the charade. There was obviously a lot of money at stake!

Paul was engaged to Jane Asher in 1966. He married Linda Eastman in 1969.

reply posted on 30-5-2009 @ 09:18 PM by faulconandsnowjob

Something that has become apparent in the course of researching this is that photos of Paul & Faul have been tampered w/ to make the 2 men resemble each other more. Here is my favorite example. On the left is a screen capture of Paul in the Aug 19, 1966 Memphis interview. On the right is an "official" photo from that interview. Can you spot the signs of tampering?

reply posted on 30-5-2009 @ 09:22 PM by Wally Hope

reply to post by faulconandsnowjob

In that last, but one, pic Paul is puffing his cheeks out, just like in the other pic you posted he's sucking his cheeks in.

The very slight differences are easily explainable.

If you guys ever find a pic of him in 1966 when he chipped a tooth in a motorbike accident, before he got it capped, you'd all wet ya selves.

Oh look! His teeth are different...

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

reply posted on 30-5-2009 @ 09:25 PM by SednaSon

Originally posted by chissler
reply to post by faulconandsnowjob

The face on the right is bloated, that is the only difference.

What do you think they would look like if the heads were switched? Would they match up with the bodies or would Faul's head look too small on Paul's body and Paul's head look too big on Faul's body?

reply posted on 30-5-2009 @ 09:33 PM by faulconandsnowjob

These are most definitely not the same person. Here is a pic of Paul from the Memphis interview compared to Faul. I believe in that interview w/ Faul, he even says he's "just a good replica":

Do these really look like 2 halves of the same face?

^ Paul from AHDN & Faul from "Spies Like Us."

[edit on 30-5-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

[edit on 30-5-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

reply posted on 30-5-2009 @ 09:39 PM by chissler

The quality discrepancy renders these images useless. And in the last image, there is at least 30 years in the difference that you are trying to compare. You got Paul in his early 20's and approximately late 50's comparing them and saying they are not the same person.

reply posted on 30-5-2009 @ 09:41 PM by pop_science

reply to post by SednaSon

It wouldn't make a difference, as it's not that he's really bloated he is simply just puffing his cheeks out like if you blow air into your cheeks before sighing or whatever reasons people blow air into their cheeks.

Go look into a mirror, or take a picture of yourself, one with you normal and then they other with air in your cheeks you'll clearly see what I mean.

How could plastic surgery been so damn good back then ?
When it's not even great now, I've dealt with reconstructive plastic surgery and I know that this isn't possible not even now.

I had "simple" things wrong with me that they could barely fix and the excuse of money can buy anything, money wasn't an issue with my surgery I had the...well more then enough to pay for what needed to done and only then they could do very minimal experimental surgery for something that would be seen as a piece of cake next to doing a total facial reconstruction.

Like I asked before, has there been any measurements done with the eyes nose mouth and ears?
That's something that could never be changed so if they are two different people they will clearly be different.
That would be proof to make me to start to consider the possibility.

reply posted on 30-5-2009 @ 09:46 PM by faulconandsnowjob

Paul 1964 vs. Faul 1967 (MMT)

Paul 1965 vs. Faul 1968

reply posted on 30-5-2009 @ 09:49 PM by pop_science

reply to post by faulconandsnowjob

The face is asymmetrical, so those two pieces of face put together mean nothing really, take a picture of your face and then mirror them you'll look like a close relative of yourself.

Also he's manipulating his facial expression in the first half, clearly.

Also in these close up head shots we have no idea if he is standing, hunched over, or siting in either one, all effect posture length and position of the neck effecting the height of the facial features in the photos.

reply posted on 30-5-2009 @ 10:04 PM by pop_science

a video of pictures that show a full body perspective that clearly show that facial traits and show the distance with the eyes ears nose and mouth are the same also shows the age progression and how the younger Paul is in fact the older Paul we know now.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

See...everyone can show pictures and so forth but the one thing you can never get across to others is your perceptions of the photos.
People see what they want to see.

I could post a picture of a horse on youtube and I'd probably get a few replies telling me it's a cat.

So for me, I think it's nonsense due to my knowledge of reconstructive plastic surgery.

But if people want to feel differently then power to you.
It sure is rather entertaining to entertain the idea.

I think everyone here is pretty set with their perspective on the matter so I'm done here, it was fun looking at all the things though so thanks OP.

[edit on 30-5-2009 by pop_science]

reply posted on 30-5-2009 @ 11:08 PM by faulconandsnowjob

Paul in Help! (1965) vs. Faul in "Fool on the Hill" (1967)

Paul 1966 vs. Faul 1967:

Paul ~ 1964 vs. Faul in 1970's:

Another height comp - Paul & his dad vs. Faul & Paul's dad. Just as in the Ringo & Jane Asher comps, Faul is noticeably taller than Paul was.

reply posted on 30-5-2009 @ 11:20 PM by faulconandsnowjob

Terry Knight went to talk to Apple about doing a record in 1969. When he came back, he wrote "Saint Paul” - before the PID rumors started. This single came out in May 1969 - five months before the first article on PID appeared. More mysteriously, "Saint Paul" is the only Knight composition administered by Maclen Music - McCartney and Lennon's exclusive publishing company.

Terry Knight - St. Paul
www.youtube.com...

Here is some information on doubles:

A double is a person who acts like another person, and who may have been cosmetically changed to look like that person. The Illuminati replaces people with doubles. For many years, they recruited lookalikes who would serve their ends. An Illuminati Grand Master once told Cisco Wheeler, "never, never think you are seeing who you think you are seeing."

Purposes of doubles:
1) make public appearances (political decoys or celebrity impersonators)
For ex, if a president only needed to do low level tasks in front of the public, they could have their double substitute for them.
2) take over [for ex, in case of death] so that the person’s powerful influence won’t be interrupted
3) create an alibi or frame up (espionage/crime)

There is an ongoing program to find lookalikes for prominent people. Plastic surgery has also been done to help touch up the doubles. [Fritz Springmeier] There are lookalike contests often sponsored and used by those forces seeking to find doubles to play the parts of public figures. [There was a Paul McCartney lookalike contest in 1965.]

A political decoy (or other impersonator) is a person employed to impersonate a politician, in order to draw attention away from the real person or to take risks on their behalf. This can also apply to military figures, or civilians impersonated for political/espionage purposes. The political decoy is an individual who has strong physical resemblance to the person they are impersonating. This resemblance can be strengthened by plastic surgery. Often, such decoys are trained to speak and behave like their "target."

The entertainment industry is used to condition the public to accept the NWO. Celebrities are part of the mind conditioning of the masses. IF these celebrities speak, their audiences will listen. The double may be under mind control and may actually think that s/he IS the replaced person.

Faul's face on left from 1967 v. Paul's face on right from 1964: