Paul McCartney died in 1966 - replaced by Billy Shepherd

Originally posted by seaofgreen
Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
... I believe Paul was not a "team player."

And you think John was!

Did I ever say I thought John was a team player? He got himself assassinated for something.

Refused to go along with what exactly?

W/ the agenda - whether it was '___'/mind control or something else

This level of training is sufficient to fool only people who have a passing acquaintance with the subject.

He's been able to fool a lot of the public. I don't think he fooled anyone who knew him, at least not well.

"Possible" is no good, fairy-tales are possible.

Ok, fine, then Faul's probable link to intell.


[edit on 23-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Originally posted by seaofgreen
that requires evidence.

I'd really like to know what a layman considers to be "evidence." Please, if you don't mind, give me your definition of "evidence." Thanks.

Originally posted by switching yard
I often wondered why he didn't marry Jane Asher and now it is clear why... not the same man.

Exactly, this is the one part of Jane Ashers life she has publicly refused to comment on. She never even mentioned it in any of her memoirs - She was engaged to one of the Beatles, yet won`t utter a word about it.

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Originally posted by switching yard
I think the guy who replaced Paul may have undergone tremendously intense secret training by perhaps Tavistock group prior to appearing on the scene...

Yes, he would have had to have practiced Paul's signature, studied his mannerisms, learn the details of Paul's life (he gets details wrong sometimes), etc.

www.youtube.com... - "Spies Like Us"

www.youtube.com... - "Live and Let Die," song for the Mi6 spy 007, James Bond. George Martin completed the musical score for the film and asked Faul to join him.



[edit on 23-8-2009 by Uncle Benny]

Originally posted by seaofgreen
Refused to go along with what exactly? Getting individual test subjects is easy; getting mass test subjects is also easy -- just put the chemical in the water supply.

What faulcon is referring to here is the influence pop stars like McCartney had over the young 60`s generation to delve into drugs (do what thou wilt mindset).

These guys were icons to hysterical teenagers all over the world. They were the first such phenomenon and there were many darker elements who could benefit from the Beatlemania bandwagon.






[edit on 23-8-2009 by Uncle Benny]

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Originally posted by seaofgreen
that requires evidence.

I'd really like to know what a layman considers to be "evidence." Please, if you don't mind, give me your definition of "evidence." Thanks.

Er, how about my previous 2 posts?

23-8-2009 @ 01:03 AM

22-8-2009 @ 02:27 PM

Also consider things like pen-pal letters: Beatles fans had pen-pals all over the world; anything fishy going on (Paul or Brian being seen in an unusual place, meeting with an unusual person, etc. etc.) would be discussed in such letters. Start posting photos of such letters and you'll suddenly get a lot more credibility.

Originally posted by Uncle Benny

Originally posted by switching yard
I often wondered why he didn't marry Jane Asher and now it is clear why... not the same man.

Exactly, this is the one part of Jane Ashers life she has publicly refused to comment on. She never even mentioned it in any of her memoirs - She was engaged to one of the Beatles, yet won`t utter a word about it.

Er, Jane is middle-class -- kiss-and-tell? I don't think so.

Originally posted by Uncle Benny
What faulcon is referring to here is the influence pop stars like McCartney had over the young 60`s generation to delve into drugs (do what thou wilt mindset).

These guys were icons to hysterical teenagers all over the world. They were the first such phenomenon and there were many darker elements who could benefit from the Beatlemania bandwagon.

Beatlemania was on the wane -- the Monkees however would have been the perfect vehicle for such shenanigans.

Originally posted by seaofgreen
I don't think so.

I know.

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Originally posted by seaofgreen
Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
... I believe Paul was not a "team player."

And you think John was!

Did I ever say I thought John was a team player?

I think you implied it: Paul was assassinated in '66 for not being a team player; the implication is that the other three (having not been assassinated in '66) were team players. Of course, if this was not what you intended to imply, please clarify.

He got himself assassinated for something.

Yeah, but not in '66.

Refused to go along with what exactly?

W/ the agenda - whether it was '___'/mind control or something else

If all you're going to do is make up vague stories with no evidence to back them up, you'd might as well make up something a little more plausible, like Paul was threatening to go solo or somesuch.

This level of training is sufficient to fool only people who have a passing acquaintance with the subject.

He's been able to fool a lot of the public. I don't think he fooled anyone who knew him, at least not well.

Okay, so all the fans ("apple scruffs") then -- with whom he was on first name terms -- where are their letters/statements?

Originally posted by Uncle Benny

Originally posted by seaofgreen
I don't think so.

I know.

Huh? You know someone wouldn't kiss-and-tell, but then still think it's remarkable that they don't?

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

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?"

Well, I'd hoped that was obvious: you're trying to convince people that there were 2 people going under the name PM; many people don't believe the 2nd guy exists; but if you can get a photo of Bill in the UK or wherever, when Paul was in the US, or in the Bahamas or wherever, then you've at least proved that the 2nd guy existed prior to the supposed switch.

Originally posted by Uncle Benny
Thank you Semper and I fully approve!

Quoted for future reference.


So how many claims are you "pid'rs'' making now?

He was the leader / a member of the illuminati.

He ''got himself assassinated or something'' - faulcon

because....

he refused to go with....

W/ the agenda - whether it was '___'/mind control or something else - faulcon again.

What agenda?

It just gets more and more ridiculous and unbelievable.

I'm waiting for someone to bring President Nixon into it.
I'm sure he was in on it aswell.

reply to post by pmexplorer


I disagree - it doesn't get more and more unbelievable. Either you're open to the idea or you're not. (and we all know where you stand, or more likely jump up and down).

Just because we're discussing PID, doesn't mean someone should have all the answers to "your" satisfaction. Why would he be replaced?!? Who knows for sure - my best guess is it was because it was time to bring the masses to '___' land, perhaps he didn't want to.

You do know there was a conspiracy to do this to the masses, right? You do read outside this forum, right? You do realize there is mind control going on in the millions around the world, right?

And again I say, for at least the third time to you, if you don't like the idea of this discussion, why continue post and post? This is just a discussion, it's not like we're passing a "have to believe this law" or something - very confusing why you insist it "can't be" when it's clear it "could be" (they have the means, that's very well documented, which you would know if you read outside this forum).

Start your own PIA thread then... you're not discussing anything, you're simply dissing everything.... it's even more redundant than anything you've complained about.

reply to post by switching yard


That quote from Rock and other Four Letter Words is very awesome - it's the first I've come across from someone 'outside' the rumors talking about it being real...

Sounds crazy, but I tend to think the ritual sacrifice scenario makes the most sense. As of now (and I may change my mind after studying this more)...

I think Paul had a few days off from working with The Beatles and then the replacement just shows up ready to interact with everyone as if nothing at all happened. I think this would have blown the minds of the inner circle because they all would have been doubting themselves. Like they would have thought to themselves "this can't be him, but it must be" and it was like the ultimate mind bender.

Imagine something like that suddenly happening in your own life. Someone you know very well just without any hint of trouble appears so different but so much the same in so many ways that it confuses you until you think there's something wrong with you not him. Perhaps you confront him and he insists in the same voice and accent and with very close physical features, same clothes, same everything "Hey, what are you on about?" and makes you feel like the one who needs a psych exam. This could have happened.

I imagine behind-the-scenes John, George & Ringo were freaked out to the maximum and didn't have any idea what to do about their suspicions.

Kubrick showed the world mind control techniques in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. Then before he died he made EYES WIDE SHUT which is one continuous dream sequence from first frame to last, but in that film he showed us Illuminati ritual practices involving group sex but also hinting at ritual murder. I believe Kubrick was murdered because he revealed too much. I don't think he was part of the Illuminati but I do think he was trying to expose it.

Flashback to Paul being replaced in 1966. What if (and I'm only speculating with all this), what if Paul was a sort of prize for the highest level of Illuminati. At the time, Paul was perceived to he the ultimate young man by many... creative, intelligent, witty, handsome, talented and so forth. For the well to do, the world over, it was quite an achievement to get Paul to attend a private party, very highly prized. Also, there is the dark side among Illuminati types of homosexual or bisexual attraction. Not saying Paul was either of these because I don't think he was, but he could have been highly sought after by Illuminati homosexuals/bisexuals.

I've always heard rumors that in the mid to late sixties (probably to the present day), very young, somewhat naive, "cute" boys and girls were hotly invited (with zeal and even intimidation tactics) in Hollywood and elsewhere to come to parties and once arrived there would find orgy behavior and food/drink spiked with all kinds of date rape drugs. I think this is well known in Hollywood but I imagine London, as well. I wouldn't be surprised if they had tried repeatedly to lure the original Paul (and the other Beatles) into these party scenes and we're talking put on by the super rich. These would have been quite lavish affairs. Imagine the pressure on The Beatles to attend parties given by the super wealthy and some of those parties not at all "right" if you get my drift. The Illuminati is rumored to be headquartered in London.

I don't know how this all adds up but this is my current line of thinking. Next time you see EYES WIDE SHUT, imagine that the Tom Cruise character is Paul attending a super wealthy persons party and finding himself in the devil's den, so to speak. We're talking people whose wealth is a trillion trillion pounds, you know like you can't even get your mind around the wealth.

The Paul Is Dead mystery is laughed away by most people as just a little goofy diversion for some college kids in 1969 who had nothing better to do than over-analyze record albums.

There are posters on this thread who seem to take it as a job to tear down this thread with ridicule.

But ridicule is precisely the tactic that disinfo agents and the controlled mass media use to try to control the masses. When a UFO case appears in the mainstream media they always make a light-hearted joke about it. To this day, they still use this ridicule technique.

When I see ridicule being used in relation to a mystery, I am always more attuned to the possibility that those being ridiculed are on to something real and the ones who hurl the ridicule are agents whose job it is to "put out the fires".

I am almost half way through reading every page on this thread and I see the usual ridicule and vehement denial that is the classic footprint of disinfo agents working for intel agencies and on the job trying to put down the theorists.

Why do these posters seem to work so hard to try to derail the discussion? What's in it for them if they are not on some covert payroll?

This thread has been very actively monitored by some posters who've been working hard every day to make ridicule of it and make it go away.

If the PID theory is a harmless hobby of some nerds and meaningless, why are posters, who seem to be agents, working so hard to disrespect the theory.

My impression of Heather Mills is that she got herself involved in a situation that was not what she was led to believe initially and was in over her head. They, whomever "they" are, used very heavy power and leverage to try to control her but she got wise and wouldn't play along. They spit her out of the inner circle with all kinds of character assassination. When all that was going on, I too bought into "hey, what a greedy wench she is, what a golddigger!"... which is precisely what "they" wanted you to think. Now, however, I have a totally revisionist view of Heather Mills. I think she was sucked into the deal and got wise to it and then was persecuted.

I'm now a supporter of Heather Mills.

Originally posted by seaofgreen
Er, how about my previous 2 posts?

23-8-2009 @ 01:03 AM

22-8-2009 @ 02:27 PM

I'd really like to know what you consider to be "evidence," so please give me a definition, if you don't mind.

Originally posted by seaofgreen

Er, Jane is middle-class -- kiss-and-tell? I don't think so.

Sorry, no. Jane Asher is not middle class. Her father was a psychiatrist.

Father: Richard A. J. Asher (psychiatrist)

www.nndb.com...

Her father, Dr. Richard Asher, was a psychiatrist and her mother Margaret Augusta Eliot was a classical music professor at the Guildhall School of Drama and Music. Her mother used to play the oboe in symphony orchestras but quit in order to have a family. However she continued to give private lessons in her home; one of her students was future 'Beatles' producer George Martin, long before Jane and Paul McCartney ever met...

Her father, Dr. Richard Asher, was the first to identify Munchausen's syndrome, naming it after Baron Munchausen instead of himself (which she commented was typical of him). It's a disease where the afflicted fakes physical illness - usually acute, dramatic, and convincing - and wanders from hospital to hospital for treatment...

www.imdb.com...

I've also read her family has royal bloodlines, but I don't have time to look for links right now...

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Originally posted by seaofgreen
Er, how about my previous 2 posts?

23-8-2009 @ 01:03 AM

22-8-2009 @ 02:27 PM

I'd really like to know what you consider to be "evidence," so please give me a definition, if you don't mind.

Well I don't claim to be good at defining words -- why don't you just look in a dictionary?

I can give you a contextual example: "not enough evidence to convince someone that something is true".

I've already given you several concrete examples of the sorts of thing that might be more convincing than those you have been presenting up 'til now. And given the trouble you've had in convincing people so far, I thought you might find these welcome! More fool me it would seem.

I've also made suggestions on how to collate and present the evidence in a way that would make the discussion more accessible to others and encourage their participation without inviting ridicule -- all of which seem to have been ignored.

Originally posted by seaofgreen
I've also made suggestions on how to collate and present the evidence in a way that would make the discussion more accessible to others and encourage their participation without inviting ridicule

Just to add why this would be a good thing: because if you can present a persuasive argument then you'll get people thinking "Hmm.. I've got an old box of papers/cuttings/etc. in the attic that might relate to this, I think I might just go and have a look through it..." and come up with some much more powerful evidence than you already have. The more people you have doing this, the better.