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: 72
33
<< 69  70  71    73  74  75 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 01:12 AM
link   
Some of the piano playing by Paul or Faul, as the case may be, in the last couple of Beatles albums could have been done by Leon Russell, a friend of George Harrison. Also, Leon was an accomplished arranger, as well.

I know many readers will think this is too crazy to be real, that others wrote the songs and played the instruments, but realize that the music of The Monkees was written and performed by people other than The Monkees. We as kids just thought it was them but it wasn't. Commercial writers and session musicians created The Monkees illusion. The guys on TV were just playing roles (Nesmith was the only semi-competent musician).

I'm only saying it's possible. If you get Lennon, Harrison, Ringo, George Martin, Eric Clapton, Billy Preston, and Leon Russell together in the studio, they can put together music and coach the fake Paul to make it sound like he's the genius when the fact could have been they did it and he just was coached.

I'm a Paul and Faul fan, so I can't believe I'm going this far with it, but I do think it's possible people covered the writing and some of the performing. Listen to Leon's piano playing... it is eerily just like the so-called "Faul" and remember that lyric in Leon's song "Do you think Paul McCartney is O.K.?"

These guys were tight friends... Harrison, Clapton, Leon Russell, Bob Dylan, Lennon, Ringo and in India there was Donovan who reportedly taught Lennon how to finger pick folk style. Mike Love was there too, coaching Lennon on how to do the Beach Boys sound which is then mimicked in Back In The USSR, which by the way has a Leon Russell style piano part.

Another guy The Beatles reportedly tried several times to recruit into the band was Stevie Winwood who for unknown reasons turned down the offers. If Faul was an imposter and some of these extended friends helped make the tracks, I wonder if Winwood may have contributed somehow. Rumor has it that The Beatles were wanting Winwood to sit in and jam with them on the last two or three albums.




posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by switching yard
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?


Yes, it does seem like they were doing some damage control, esp w/ the LIFE magazine article.

I'm very impressed, switching yard. You're really putting the pieces together quickly.



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 02:13 AM
link   

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

The latest theory round here is that in reality, there were no clues to Paul's death and that the story that broke about the "clues" was orchestrated deliberately to divert attention away from the real evidence. This is good, because it means we don't need to spend oodles of time discussing the "clues".

The theory appears to be that Paul was murdered and replaced, only we've not got as far yet as coming up with who the perpetrators were, ... or what their motives were, ... or any evidence ...



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by switching yard
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).


Totally possible scenario. I think that some of the short songs that were kind of stuck into songs or albums like "Her Majesty," the "Can You Take Me Back" song at the end of "Cry Baby Cry," & the bridge of "A Day in the Life" were actually things Paul had recorded that they wanted to use somewhere. I remember G. Martin talking about that Paul song in the middle of "A Day in the Life" & saying how they couldn't really develop it, but wanted to use it. But anyway, I also think "Mother Nature's Son" was Paul's.


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.

That is strange... & yes, it does seem like the song is in part about Paul's death

Lyrics at
www.lyricsdomain.com...


... 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...

Or just imagine voice technology that can really sound like Paul...
"When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing"
www.washingtonpost.com...


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

I don't buy the car "accident" story at all, but I strongly suspect intell involvement. They'd have the tools & resources to pull off the ruse. They may even have recruited the talent. The media would also have to be controlled, of course.


[edit on 22-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by seaofgreen

The theory appears to be that Paul was murdered and replaced, only we've not got as far yet as coming up with who the perpetrators were, ... or what their motives were, ... or any evidence ...

We have suggested possible perpetrators & motives. We have given lots of evidence, as well. For ex: difft eye color, difft jawlines, difft ears, difft eyebrows, difft noses, difft heights, difft cheeks, difft hand-writing, difft sonagrams, possibly difft dominant hands (right v left), difft musical styles, difft mannerisms, difft feet/shoe size, difft taste in clothing, even difft taste in women. There are other differences we have talked about here yet, such as difft body hair. I'm probably forgetting some, but it's late.

[edit on 22-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 03:00 AM
link   
Some great posts there switching yard and faulconandsnowjob -


Regarding the replacement it took me roughly 5 - 6 months to get my head around the fact that Paul was replaced and never came back into the fold.

The more people view the older footage of Paul and the imposter (from the early to mid 60`s) the clearer it becomes a switch took place, and right under peoples` noses. Its been said if you want to hide something from the masses... put it in front of them, tell them it`s something else and they will never see it.


It is impossible to hide an individuals essence, we are all unique -

As good as a double can act and grow into a role, (s)he will find it impossible to take on the persons soul essence as it were. Intuitively everyone can feel that Paul and Faul are two different men - the feeling that something is just not right is always there.

Paul was affable, mischevious, pleasant, humorous - these traits came through for me.

Faul tries to morph these mannerisms but usually comes across as insincere, cold and clumsy.



www.youtube.com... - Paul McCartney in "The Night Before."






[edit on 22-8-2009 by Uncle Benny]



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Originally posted by seaofgreen

The theory appears to be that Paul was murdered and replaced, only we've not got as far yet as coming up with who the perpetrators were, ... or what their motives were, ... or any evidence ...

We have posited possible perpetrators & motives. We have given lots of evidence, as well. You're not going to make me post the law on how photos are evidence again, are you? It should be obvious that forensic science is evidence.

[edit on 22-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

With now over 1400 postings in this thread, it's a little hard to keep track of. What would be helpful, is if you could compile some sort of a dossier with the complete picture (but not all the photos! a few links would probably do). As well as the above, it would be good if you could include a list of the people who you think were "in" on it (i.e. knew but didn't say), and to show that we're all open-minded unbiased folk round here, probably best to include sections on evidence "for" and evidence "against". We can then come up with some sort of points system for how compelling/accurate we think each piece of evidence is, etc. etc.



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 03:19 AM
link   
haha.

Yeah Paul's alive, hate to burst some people's bubble's.



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
We have given lots of evidence, as well. For ex: difft eye color, difft jawlines, difft ears, difft eyebrows, difft noses, difft heights, difft cheeks, difft hand-writing, difft sonagrams, possibly difft dominant hands (right v left), difft musical styles, difft mannerisms, difft feet/shoe size, difft taste in clothing, even difft taste in women. There are other differences we have talked about here yet, such as difft body hair. I'm probably forgetting some, but it's late.

[edit on 22-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Hmm, what a lot of differences---the chap you're describing now would have fooled nobody...



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 08:57 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mario Lemieux
haha.

Yeah Paul's alive, hate to burst some people's bubble's (sic).


That would be nice if it were true, but sadly, it isn't.

[edit on 22-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by seaofgreen
Hmm, what a lot of differences---the chap you're describing now would have fooled nobody...


It's shocking that he managed/manages to fool so many people. I can't believe I fell for it for so long. Now, it's easy to tell them apart. Like Uncle Benny said, there was always something that didn't sit quite right about post 1966 "Paul."

This thread has the forensic evidence of difft facial features, plus difft eye color, difft heights, & evidence of fake ears & photo-tampering:
only1rad.proboards.com...

1966 v 1967



Bug eyes, bigger nose, wider mouth ^



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Benny

Regarding the replacement it took me roughly 5 - 6 months to get my head around the fact that Paul was replaced

It took me two days of scrutinizing photos & videos to see it.


The more people view the older footage of Paul and the imposter (from the early to mid 60`s) the clearer it becomes a switch took place, and right under peoples` noses. Its been said if you want to hide something from the masses... put it in front of them, tell them it`s something else and they will never see it.

Yeah, it's like hiding it in plain view.


Paul was affable, mischevious, pleasant, humorous - these traits came through for me.

Faul tries to morph these mannerisms but usually comes across as insincere, cold and clumsy.

IMO, this is a good ex of the difference in personality:



vs. Faul making fun of someone's accent:
www.tmz.com...




[edit on 22-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Let's leave other posters alone and stick to the topic please...

Thank you

Semper



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
IMO, this is a good ex of the difference in personality:



vs. Faul making fun of someone's accent:
www.tmz.com...




[edit on 22-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]


Please Faulcon, can you explain the differences in the personalities of Paul and Faul basing on these two videos?



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by magnolia_xx

Please Faulcon, can you explain the differences in the personalities of Paul and Faul basing on these two videos?


Sure. Paul seems funny & good-natured, & Faul seems kind of dickish - kind of what Uncle Benny was talking about.

Anyway, more on doubles creation using prosthetics:


ASHBURN, United States (AFP) - For over two decades, [Robert] Barron was a master of disguise who made the fake noses, chins, skin and ears needed to protect the identities of Central Intelligence Agency operatives in the Cold War.

He even created whole faces to make "doubles" -- people who pose as someone else...

"I thought if I could put someone in hiding, which I did in the agency, then a prosthetic device will bring people out of hiding," Barron said.

"If I can change people's identity, I can also give a person his identity back." ...

His spy years gave him the basis for his new career. "When I worked for the CIA I put people in hiding, I changed people's identities and also I made doubles.

"Agents depended on the realism of their disguise to keep them alive, this was my responsibility," he said, refusing to give any specifics of missions behind the communist Iron Curtain...

Ex-CIA disguise master helps disfigured people
news.sawf.org...




... Barron's feats were "legend," a CIA spokesman confirms. His "artistic skills were unmatched," former CIA director James Woolsey wrote in awarding the Career Intelligence Medal at Barron's 1993 retirement:

"He was the impetus of the advanced disguise system and the ideal by which all other disguise officers are judged. . . . His creativity [was] extremely instrumental in . . . what the silicone mask is today."

Silicone, which can be tinted to look like flesh, came into wide use in the 1970s. Barron could make a Caucasian CIA operative appear Chinese with a mask so realistic the agent could pass undetected within a few feet of a border guard in bright sunlight...

Crafting Hope
www.washingtonpost.com...




posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Originally posted by seaofgreen


Bug eyes, bigger nose, wider mouth ^


I'm afraid these (and similar) photos just don't cut it -- for all the reasons previously given, not least of which is the possibility of tampering.

Photos of "Bill" (in his garden, on the beach, wherever) prior to Nov '66 would be much more compelling, but what would really cut it is something more substantial like documents or statements, or reliable reports of these, relating to unusual events at the time; e.g. a newpaper report that a plastic surgery clinic had to be closed unexpectedly for a couple of days, or someone such as a waiter who worked at a restaurant frequented by Paul who noticed a sudden change in his choice of food, or suddenly didn't know the waiter's name anymore, etc. etc. One or two such reports still wouldn't amount to much, but if say half a dozen match up to the right times and whereabouts, you might be starting to get somewhere.



[edit on 22-8-2009 by seaofgreen]



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Damn, messed up the quoting in previous post and editing records "edited" but doesn't actually apply the edit



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by seaofgreen

I'm afraid these (and similar) photos just don't cut it -- for all the reasons previously given, not least of which is the possibility of tampering.

Well, I beg to differ. You can tell it's not the same person on those pics. I know some pics have been tampered w/, but I don't think these have been.


Photos of "Bill" (in his garden, on the beach, wherever) prior to Nov '66 would be much more compelling

Why would that be "more compelling?" I think it's more compelling that he's being portrayed as being Paul, ie being put in photo-shoots w/ the other Beatles, appearing on videos, etc, as Paul.


but what would really cut it is something more substantial like documents or statements, or reliable reports of these, relating to unusual events at the time

Why are those more substantial? Photos are used to establish identity. If the photos show different people, then it's evidence/proof of a replacement.


One or two such reports still wouldn't amount to much, but if say half a dozen match up to the right times and whereabouts, you might be starting to get somewhere.


What about how Faul said the Beatles were a "set up affair" when he joined? Or what about how he suddenly spoke fluent Italian when Paul didn't know Italian?



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Paul V Faul


www.youtube.com... - Paul McCartney and The Beatles.

-----------------------------------

www.youtube.com... - Faul in June of 1967

www.youtube.com... - Faul again in January 1967.





[edit on 22-8-2009 by Uncle Benny]



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 69  70  71    73  74  75 >>

log in

join