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: 71
33
<< 68  69  70    72  73  74 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by kshaund


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).


That is to be expected since Faul was a couple of inches taller than Paul.



Mind control: the US govt admitted to MK-ULTRA



Project MK-ULTRA, or MKULTRA, was the code name for a covert CIA mind-control and chemical interrogation research program, run by the Office of Scientific Intelligence. The program began in the early 1950s, continuing at least through the late 1960s, and it used United States citizens as its test subjects.[1][2][3] The published evidence indicates that Project MK-ULTRA involved the surreptitious use of many types of drugs, as well as other methods, to manipulate individual mental states and to alter brain function.

Project MK-ULTRA was first brought to wide public attention in 1975 by the U.S. Congress, through investigations by the Church Committee, and by a presidential commission known as the Rockefeller Commission. Investigative efforts were hampered by the fact that CIA Director Richard Helms ordered all MK-ULTRA files destroyed in 1973; the Church Committee and Rockefeller Commission investigations relied on the sworn testimony of direct participants and on the relatively small number of documents that survived Helms' destruction order.[4]

Although the CIA insists that MK-ULTRA-type experiments have been abandoned, 14-year CIA veteran Victor Marchetti has stated in various interviews that the CIA routinely conducts disinformation campaigns and that CIA mind control research continued. In a 1977 interview, Marchetti specifically called the CIA claim that MK-ULTRA was abandoned a "cover story."[5][6]

See more at en.wikipedia.org...


Cosmetic surgery: I've already shown how SOE was using plastic surgery in WWII to improve doubles' likenesses


The SOE had a list of plastic surgeons who could alter the features of agents who had had their cover blown.

more at www.bbc.co.uk...




posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by pmexplorer

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.


And? What's your point? I do know he's dead. There is a difference between knowing something & being able to prove it. I can, on the other hand, prove that he was replaced, so that's what I'm doing.


[edit on 20-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

And? What's your point? I do know he's dead. There is a difference between knowing something & being able to prove it. I can, on the other hand, prove that he was replaced, so that's what I'm doing.




Very well said faulcon.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 10:56 PM
link   
I just came across this clip, what I find interesting is it's in 1970 but showing a video of the beatles aroud a minute in - Paul looks quite shorter - also the 'news' was because they had lost their best band in the world status to Led Zeppelin - the times, they were a changing....

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 20-8-2009 by kshaund]



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 08:00 AM
link   
I'm going back over this entire thread because I'm just slightly beginning to understand that this could have really happened... Paul died and a double replaced him.

One bit that was chilling was the interview with Heather Mills when she said something to the effect that "if the real truth were known, people would be just completely devastated", or something like that. What could be so devastating?

I'm reviewing the thread with an open mind. Especially since I realized that from 1966 through 1969, John plus George H. plus George Martin plus whatever was unfinished by the early Paul could have all been combined to do the great work of the late Beatles period. Up until that realization, I was thinking 'couldn't be' because obviously Paul wrote great stuff in the later years, but I've just realized that if the others pulled together, they could have put out the material and given false attribution to "Faul"... I think that was possible.

I'm not convinced yet, not persuaded, but I do now have an open mind and I'm looking at the whole thread again. I don't know if I will cross over to the other side on this, but it is extreeeeeemely fascinating.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by switching yard
Paul wrote great stuff in the later years, but I've just realized that if the others pulled together, they could have put out the material and given false attribution to "Faul"... I think that was possible.

Bear in mind that a lot of the songs of the later period were written and developed fairly openly, viz. the white album in India and the Let it be and Abbey road albums in the Get Back sessions.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
I do know he's dead.

Just wondering how you can know that he's dead -- I'd have thought that the most one could say here would be to believe that he's dead (based on an evaluation of the available evidence).
To know that someone is dead would suggest a very close connection with the death itself, e.g. having witnessed the murder or having viewed the death certificate, but even then, the murder victim might have been a double, the death certificate might have been forged, so `know' seems a little strong -- care to elucidate?



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 12:06 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by kshaund
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.


Why are you directing your questions to me ???
Why do you keep bothering to post here?
Your dull sarcastic tone is wasted here, maybe you'd be better served
joining the Icke forum, I'm sure you'd make lots of friends there posting about us nasty people who reuse to believe in your made up theories.

First of all what's your problem? Am I not entitled to post here or is just for the 'PID' believers?
How are my personal beliefs or non-beliefs in anything other than the subject matter anyways relevant to you or this discussion?
Who says I'm ''seriously perturbed'' or 'trying to be funny'' what purpose would that serve exactly?
A word of advice quit trying to pigeon hole me for your amusement or whatever your agenda is, to try and show me up or take the topic off track and try and get me removed for a retaliatory post or something perhaps, that really is quite pathetic.


Originally posted by seaofgreen

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
I do know he's dead.

Just wondering how you can know that he's dead -- I'd have thought that the most one could say here would be to believe that he's dead (based on an evaluation of the available evidence).
To know that someone is dead would suggest a very close connection with the death itself, e.g. having witnessed the murder or having viewed the death certificate, but even then, the murder victim might have been a double, the death certificate might have been forged, so `know' seems a little strong -- care to elucidate?


Good post. Well said.

here we go again! ......


Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
I do know he's dead. There is a difference between knowing something & being able to prove it. I can, on the other hand, prove that he was replaced, so that's what I'm doing.


Yes faulcon there is a difference, one is called having an opinion, and the other is having sufficient hard evidence to know something is true and factworthy.

She doesn't know anything, and she can't prove anything for a fact.

Despite her unrealistic and quite immature claims.

It just smacks of desperation, as the weaker minded and easily led
get suckered in by the propaganda and dramatic claims, the buzz words
like illuminati etc. are just used as bait, this is a conspiracy theory related site amongst other things, we've seen from the multiple hoax threads on here how easy it is to catch people hook line and sinker with a well put together claim or allegation such as this one.

There is NO irrefutable evidence that Paul McCartney has died and there is NO irrefutable evidence that he was replaced or that the current Paul McCartney is anything other than the real one, (I even feel silly having to write that sentence) and no amount of dodgy photo
comparisons and photoshopped youtube montages is going to change that.

And if faulcon wants to be taken seriously and this discussion to continue I suggest she either comes up with and presents this proof that she obviously has as after all she has claimed on at least a few occasions that she knows for sure that he is dead.

Otherwise she cannot expect her opinion to be respected or taken seriously.



[edit on 21-8-2009 by pmexplorer]



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by switching yard
I'm going back over this entire thread because I'm just slightly beginning to understand that this could have really happened... Paul died and a double replaced him.


One thing that prevents people from seeing the switch is that they think it's "impossible," but it is definitely possible. If "they" had decided to switch one of Gen. Montgomery's official doubles, M.E. Clifton James, for Monty, most people would never have noticed. That was a better double - I can't really tell the difference between them. But, the stakes were higher. In espionage, for ex, even a slightly different eyebrow could give someone away.


...With [Robert] Barron's help, CIA disguises were soon years ahead of Hollywood's. There was motivation: Espionage wasn't fantasy, but serious business in which an unrealistic eyebrow or false skin tone could be fatal...

Crafting Hope
www.washingtonpost.com...



... If his work, shown in before-and-after photos on his Web site, appears startling in its verisimilitude, that's because Barron worries the details, down to the hairs visible on an ear and the freckles on a nose. "It's just like in the Agency," he says. "I wouldn't issue [agents] a disguise if their life would be in jeopardy" as the result of a less-than-perfect disguise...

For a Former CIA Master of Disguises, An Eye for an Eye
www.washingtonpost.com...


Apparently, Robert Barron was not the one making Faul's fake ears :-P



Anyway, once you get past the mental block of thinking it's "impossible," you can see the differences more easily, such as different eyebrows, noses, jawlines, ears, eye color, stature, etc.

[edit on 21-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 08:48 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 08:52 PM
link   
Playing along with the theory Paul was replaced after a car crash 9th November 1966, who wrote the songs? Assuming the real Paul had a backlog of unrecorded songs that Faul then recorded after the crash, my reckoning is... When I'm 64 (Paul backlog), Penny Lane (Paul backlog + John), A Day In The Life bridge (Harrison), Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band & Reprise (John), Fixing A Hole (Paul backlog + John), Lovely Rita (Paul backlog), She's Leaving Home (John + George Martin), Baby You're A Rich Man (John), All Together Now (John), Your Mother Should Know (Paul backlog), The Fool On The Hill (Harrison + John), Hello Goodbye (John), Lady Madonna (Harrison + George Martin), Blackbird (John + Donovan), Ob-La-Di-Ob-La-Da (John), Helter Skelter (John + Harrison), Hey Jude (John), Mother Nature's Son (Paul backlog), Rocky Racoon (John), Wild Honey Pie (Harrison + Clapton), Back In The USSR (John + Mike Love), I Will (Paul backlog), Birthday (Harrison), Honey Pie (George Martin), Martha My Dear (Harrison), Why Don't We Do It In The Road (Harrison + Clapton), I've Got A Feeling (John), Get Back (John), Two Of Us (Paul & John early song backlog), Let It Be (Harrison), The Long And Winding Road (John), Oh! Darling (Harrison/Clapton), You Never Give Me Your Money (John), Her Majesty (John), Golden Slumbers/Carry That Weight (George Martin + John), Maxwell's Silver Hammer (John + Harrison), The End (John + Harrison + Clapton), Because (John).

Songs not mentioned above were obviously written by John or George Harrison.

I'm just saying this is how it could have gone down if things were kept a real tight-lipped secret.

Note: "Within You, Without You" was not performed at The Concert For George... why not? Perhaps the lyrics made reference to Paul's death and since Faul was in attendance at The Concert For George, Clapton just couldn't stomach it.

By the way, I'm still not totally convinced that Paul died and was replaced and I will just have to say this... sincerest apologies to Paul if you didn't die, but if you did, this is how it could have gone down from a songwriting perspective. Kind readers... imagine John or George Harrison singing the lead vocal on the tracks above that I've imaginatively attributed to them instead of Paul and you can just imagine... an alternate reality or a parallel universe, as Dr. Michio Kaku would say really does exist.

Did Paul McCartney die an "untimely death" at approx 5:00 AM on 9 November 1966 and was then replaced perhaps with the assistance of MI 6 and John, George Harrison, Ringo, and George Martin were called into a conference room and given the option of allowing a replacement of their choosing and given some options, then John coached the new guy, planted clues all over the place, but later became disillusioned along with the other original Beatles when "Faul" became an egomaniac.... was Harrison depressed because he had contributed songs and work that was falsely attributed to "Faul" and did Lennon turn to heroin and "drop out" psychologically because he regretted being a part of the ruse?

According to a leading string theory physicist Dr. Michio Kaku... yes, this indeed really and actually happened... it's called a parallel universe... so the real question is... which universe are we all now living in... the one in which Paul didn't die and the guy in the media is the real Paul or are we living in a universe in which Paul was killed in a car crash 9 Nov 1966 and we are seeing a brilliant secret plot play out to the end.

My mind is open to either possibility... how about yours?



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 09:43 PM
link   





posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Further refinement of imagining... "Get Back" (John + Bob Dylan) and "Let It Be" (Harrison + Billy Preston).

Just to further refine.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 11:26 PM
link   
Excerpt from the book "The Walrus Was Paul: The Great Beatle Death Clues" by R. Gary Patterson, Simon & Schuster, 1996, page 17, paperback edition... (highly recommended)...

October 12, 1969...

"I spent two hours live on the air on the WKNR call-in line reciting the clues, and telling Russ how to cue the records up to the right spot to hear 'I buried Paul' or 'Turn me on, dead man.' He played records and, in between, I was on the air with him. He was skeptical, but he stayed with me because he was so caught up with interest. He had never heard any of this before. It took about all of that time though, and I was real tired when it was over.

Then I visited the station, about an hour later, with two friends along for the fun. By then McCartney himself had already called WKNR from Scotland, in quite a state of rage, I hear, trying to put a stop to the story."

Okay, so who was monitoring the show and then phoned McCartney in Scotland, got him out of bed and had him call the Gibb show in Cleveland and in an angry rage McCartney tries to discredit the clues? MI-6?

If the clues were planted by The Beatles for a lark, why would Macca call in angrily trying to dismiss them?

Why did Macca see this as important enough to get out of bed in the middle of the night and phone a radio talk show in Cleveland and make any comment at all?

Why the urgency? Was there a fear that the ruse was going to be exposed?

Why?



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Guitars played on "The End"... Clapton, Harrison, Lennon.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 11:34 PM
link   
Sorry, the correct order of guitar solos on The End would be Harrison first, then Eric Clapton, then Lennon. Sure of that.



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

No of course he isn't dead and there isn't one shred of solid evidence to suggest he is...


Except that it's a different guy after Aug (or possibly Sept) 1966 & the real Paul is never seen again. So, what happened to him? But like Sedna said, we should focus on whether he was replaced or not. We've already shown that Faul has different color eyes, different eyebrows, different ears, a different nose, a different forehead, a different hair part, different hand-writing, is taller, & possibly has a different sonogram. Plus, there's lots of examples of tampering w/ pics of Paul & Faul. Sorry, but I'm not buying it that it's the same guy.




[edit on 5-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]


These are two different guys, no question.




top topics



 
33
<< 68  69  70    72  73  74 >>

log in

join