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: 70
33
<< 67  68  69    71  72  73 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   
I'm very familiar with the "Paul is dead" theory and all the clues and everything. It would be easier to believe except for the fact that the "new Paul" is more talented than the old one.

The "new guy" is one of the best bass players on the planet (plain to see) and has written some very brilliant and in some cases genius level material ever since the so-called deadly car crash resulting in the proposed coverup and clues.

So, bottom line, I don't think Paul was killed and replaced. I think we have the same Paul now as always.

HOWEVER, I do think The Beatles planted mysterious clues and have all denied doing so. Why they planted the clues is a very deep mystery, in my opinion.

I believe they began planting clues in various aspects of the Sgt Pepper album and continued planting clues until they broke up.

Proof that clues were planted...

Lennon sings "here's another clue for you all"

absolute proof, right there, that they were up to something. Now, why they never admitted to planting clues and never revealed why or what the purpose was, to me that is the real mystery, but Paul dead and replaced? I can't buy into it because how can you replace a brilliant guy with someone more brilliant and more of a genius who also happens to be a look alike? Highly unlikely, I think.

Why did they plant mystical and mysterious clues? Maybe someday it will come out but Ringo and Paul seem totally unwilling to talk about it and George Martin has been mum on the topic, as well.

Weird.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by switching yard
I'm very familiar with the "Paul is dead" theory and all the clues and everything. It would be easier to believe except for the fact that the "new Paul" is more talented than the old one.

The "new guy" is one of the best bass players on the planet (plain to see) and has written some very brilliant and in some cases genius level material ever since the so-called deadly car crash resulting in the proposed coverup and clues.



Sir Paul's solo stuff, although catchy, was not what I would consider genius.

What material are you talking about?



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by switching yard
The "new guy" is one of the best bass players on the planet (plain to see)


This is a common misconception (very plain to see) - www.youtube.com...


Originally posted by SednaSon
Sir Paul's solo stuff, although catchy, was not what I would consider genius.


I agree, nothing genius about these (And whose to say who wrote the material) -

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...


I like Bills "Maybe I`m Amazed," and one or two from "Band on the Run." That`s it for me - Musical genius he certainly is not!





[edit on 19-8-2009 by Uncle Benny]



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   
Since 1966 Paul didn't write genius level material, you say? Most of Side 2 of Abbey Road was written by Paul. I rest my case.

The guy is one of the world's greatest bass players. If that isn't obvious to you, what can I say. There are bound to be bass players out there who would agree?



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by switching yard
Since 1966 Paul didn't write genius level material, you say? Most of Side 2 of Abbey Road was written by Paul. I rest my case.



And what about after 1969?




The guy is one of the world's greatest bass players. If that isn't obvious to you, what can I say. There are bound to be bass players out there who would agree?



The late Beatles albums like Abbey Road were most likely Klaus Voorman on bass or an annonymous bass player. The style of bass playing changed from the early 1960's to the late 1960's. Check out Faul's "terrific" bass playing on Revolution.



www.youtube.com...



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   
I've always admired Paul's bass playing pre and post 1969. His musical talent did not diminish after 1966, nor did it diminish after 1969 except that he did not have John and George there to help edit out a lot of silly, light stuff. But he has written some amazing material post 1969.

Look, if you think it is easy to step into an extremely successful band and be as successful or more successful than a predecessor, you try it and see how far you get.

Lennon would have exposed the charade if there had really been one.

That said, I agree with earlier posts that Lennon's assassination was very strange. Chapman performed along the very same lines as Sirhan Sirhan. But that's a whole different thread I suppose.

I'm into conspiracies. I think it is possible that Paul was replaced and that some very clever people arranged it and perpetuated it, but believing something is possible does not prove that it happened and until I see better proof than has appeared on this thread, I remain convinced that number one, Paul did not die and the famous guy we see today is the real Paul and number two, mystical clues were planted on Beatles albums that so far no one has satisfactorily explained how or why they were planted.

Summing up...

Paul is alive and well today and continues to be massively successful due to his impressive talents in writing and performing.

The best argument against the theory he was replaced is that it would have been unlikely in the extreme that they could have found someone just as talented as the guy he was replacing.

John Lennon would have exposed this plot if it had been real, but didn't.

Mystical clues were planted in Beatles recordings and in album art and in lyrics by The Beatles themselves and people who created the album sleeve artwork. There has never been a satisfying explanation as to why, what they mean, what the purpose was, and how the idea of the campaign was hatched and why and so forth. The planting of clues remains a deep mystery. Lennon sang on the white album "here's another clue for you all, the walrus was Paul" and his singing that on record preceded the Paul is dead conspiracy by approx 2 years, so it's clear Lennon was referring to planting clues way before the conspiracy hit the mainstream culture. The "why" of this is deeply mysterious.

Lennon was killed by an assassin in a manner consistent with a "manchurian candidate" one would suppose because Lennon was one of the few people capable of rallying and motivating huge masses of young people who could have been mobilized to overthrow TPTB had Lennon lived and desired to foment such a real revolution. He was knocked off to get him out of the way. The thing about the "lone nut" is classic disinfo. They used that for the JFK hit and the RFK hit in which the manchurian candidate was obviously Sirhan.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by switching yard
That said, I agree with earlier posts that Lennon's assassination was very strange. Chapman performed along the very same lines as Sirhan Sirhan. But that's a whole different thread I suppose.



Have you seen this link?

www.jfkmontreal.com...




Lennon would have exposed the charade if there had really been one.



Perhaps he didn't have a choice? He was assassinated afterall. And keep in mind the last album he made was called Double Fantasy(i.e. Fantasy of a Double). He never stopped leaving clues.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   

John Lennon would have exposed this plot if it had been real, but didn't.


This is another thing I wonder about. Why didn't Lennon come out and tell the truth if Paul had been replaced. He could have told about it in the Rolling Stones interview with Yoko Ono if he wanted to, couldn't he?



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 08:21 PM
link   
I will say this much... if Paul really was dead and replaced in 1966, so if that really were the case, and if I were to be persuaded that's what really happened, then I would say that John and George wrote all of The Beatles music from Paul's death until the breakup. I do not think a double could have stepped in and wrote great songs. It would have had to have been John mainly picking up the slack along with George writing a big share of Faul's songs as well.

As a matter of fact, I have always thought that Hey Jude sounds more like it was written by John than by Paul.

Whoa now you've got me spooked.

What if... John and George wrote all the music attributed to Paul from 1966 to 1969? That might explain why George was always grumpy about John and Paul not letting him have enough songs on the albums. What if he had lots of songs on the albums but the fake Paul got all the credit? That would explain why he was miffed.

Let's say just for theorizing that in 1966 John and George were told that they had to become the big songwriting team and write all the songs. Could they have done it without the real Paul? I think maybe so. Look at George's album All Things Must Pass. Songwriting that was as good as John's. The songs Something and Here Comes The Sun were as good as or better than anything Paul wrote.

Having put this twist out, I still stubbornly don't buy it that Paul died and was replaced. It's just too fantastic.

But was John capable of doubling or tripling his output of great songs? Yeah, I think he was capable of it and George to some extent. Hey Jude does sound like a Lennon song to me.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by switching yard
I'm very familiar with the "Paul is dead" theory and all the clues and everything. It would be easier to believe except for the fact that the "new Paul" is more talented than the old one.

Yikes. I think Faul's songs suck compared to Paul's.


The "new guy" is one of the best bass players on the planet (plain to see) and has written some very brilliant and in some cases genius level material ever since the so-called deadly car crash resulting in the proposed coverup and clues.

Yeah, "Spies Like Us," "Another Day," & "Ever Present Past" are so much better than "Eleanor Rigby," "For No One," etc. lol I'm sure some of the good Beatles songs post-Paul were actually Paul's songs he'd written before he was murdered (I don't believe the "car crash" story).


I think we have the same Paul now as always.

Well, it's been proven by craniometrics that it's not the same guy. I think I'd go w/ the experts on this one.


HOWEVER, I do think The Beatles planted mysterious clues and have all denied doing so. Why they planted the clues is a very deep mystery, in my opinion.

They planted clues b/c the Illuminati always tell people what the truth is, only they don't just come out & tell you.


... but Paul dead and replaced? I can't buy into it because how can you replace a brilliant guy with someone more brilliant and more of a genius who also happens to be a look alike?

They just found a lookalike for Paul - that's all he is. Maybe he can play, but he's not the genius Paul was.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Benny

I agree, nothing genius about these (And whose to say who wrote the material) -


That's a really good point. Just b/c Faul says he wrote such & such song doesn't mean he actually did. For ex, he claims to be Paul McCartney, but he obviously isn't, so what else is he lying about?

"Wag the Dog" is a great movie to show how people can be manipulated into believing pretty much anything using a little studio magic.




posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by switching yard
Since 1966 Paul didn't write genius level material, you say? Most of Side 2 of Abbey Road was written by Paul. I rest my case.


Paul could have written it before he died.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by switching yard
I've always admired Paul's bass playing pre and post 1969. His musical talent did not diminish after 1966, nor did it diminish after 1969 except that he did not have John and George there to help edit out a lot of silly, light stuff. But he has written some amazing material post 1969.

The silly, light stuff was Faul, not Paul.


Look, if you think it is easy to step into an extremely successful band and be as successful or more successful than a predecessor, you try it and see how far you get.

How hard could it be to be successful when you have the Illuminati-controlled media convincing everyone how "great" you are? Oh, & convincing everyone that you're the same genius you were before, even though the songs do not quite measure up to previous work.


Lennon would have exposed the charade if there had really been one.

Maybe, maybe not. You don't know what's going on behind the scenes. And as you admitted, his assassination is very fishy.


The best argument against the theory he was replaced is that it would have been unlikely in the extreme that they could have found someone just as talented as the guy he was replacing.

It may be "unlikely," but it's clearly been done. Only the lookalike isn't as talented & isn't as good looking or as charismatic. He also slips up & forgets details of "his" supposed life, such as suddenly speaking fluent Italian when Paul didn't speak Italian, or saying the Beatles were a "set up affair" when he joined. Oops.


Lennon was killed by an assassin in a manner consistent with a "manchurian candidate" one would suppose because Lennon was one of the few people capable of rallying and motivating huge masses of young people who could have been mobilized to overthrow TPTB had Lennon lived and desired to foment such a real revolution.

Well, I agree that MDC was a mind-controlled assassin. Maybe John was threatening to spill the beans about Faul. Maybe that's what happened to Mal Evans when he was about to publish his tell-all book.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Yes, he is, b/c we know Paul was replaced. We are posting here to make other people aware of this.


So it's we now is it? You and your mates from the Icke forum?

Has ATS become a project for you all?

Faulcon you seem to forget you admitted to the world that....


Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
Well, I happen to know for a fact Paul is dead, but it's not something I can prove, so I just try to show he was replaced. I don't really care if people believe me or not about his being dead.


Woops!


Oh and Uncle benny - don't patronise me with your hypocritical posts.
I won't warn you again.



[edit on 20-8-2009 by pmexplorer]



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by faulconandsnowjob
 


I just came across something recently that said Paul's original shoe size was 8 and the post-66 was a larger shoe size (9.5).

Also, what (if ever) has been written by Paul's family about him, especially his brother?

Regarding having the ability to write/play music, anyone who understands hypnosis and multiple personality disorder knows that every one of us have an unlimited resource in our subconscious that can be pulled out given the right techniques...

I'm sure, PM Explorer, that there is no NWO or manchurian candidates in our midst; that HAARP really is environmentally friendly, the government has never lied about anything, and that David Icke is out to lunch.

Why do you care what others believe or explore so much?

There is no such thing as mind control? There is no such thing as cosmetic surgery? Dolly was really the 'first' clone? It's absolutely impossible that they government could be mucking around with controlling masses via .... rock music? television? grade 5 tv programming, social breakdowns, increasing militancy, war...

Why do you keep bothering to post here instead of cultivating one or more of twenty or so threads you started? If you're trying to be funny, it's not coming off that way. If you're seriously perturbed for people even discussing this topic, well, you got a long way to go.... No time for debate anymore - anyone with half an eye can see what's going on - they hide nothing.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 07:30 PM
link   

haha - just saw a bunch of posts deleted - can't remember what they said now... I still maintain the eye color is too much of a difference and everyone around him could be mind-wiped to play along too. Impossible? No, not impossible. I still say they have the means to do whatever they want - if they wanted to for whatever reason with Paul McCartney, so be it. There is testimony out there that many people have been mind controlled, millions even. I have no idea, I'm just saying there's testimony to that effect. Very unsettling at the least - this is one of the lighter conspiracies - from here they get "really bad" ...




top topics



 
33
<< 67  68  69    71  72  73 >>

log in

join