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: 78
33
<< 75  76  77    79  80  81 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by switching yard
 


You guys have no proof on why any intelligence agency would even case about the Beatles. You truly believe it was to push a mind control '___' agenda????

At this point in life and in the world we live in, the last thing I give a care about is what trouble a bunch of pop culture clowns got into.

People get shot.
People get cancer.
People get attacked.

Your chance of this goes exponentially high when you're an outspoken group that were the first to hit pop culture icon status.

When I hear hoofsteps I think horses, not zebras.

I don't immediately think of the most exotic unlikely scenario, I think and research the most plausible one.

Is there not speculation by any of your research team on where Paul came from? I read something a few years ago about speculation on an English singer from another band.




posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by brocket99

You guys have no proof on why any intelligence agency would even case about the Beatles. You truly believe it was to push a mind control '___' agenda????

It's a theory. You're welcome to come up w/ your own. But we do, actually, have some support for it.



People get shot.
People get cancer.
People get attacked.

People get imposter-replaced.

[edit on 25-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 01:43 AM
link   
Notice they didn't shoot both of them because that might have been a tad obvious.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by brocket99
When I hear hoofsteps I think horses, not zebras.

I don't immediately think of the most exotic unlikely scenario, I think and research the most plausible one.


I've been researching this for over a year now, & I'm not afraid to go where the evidence leads. In this case, it has led to some pretty startling revelations. But what is not "plausible" about an intell connection? What do you know about intell? Have you ever had a glimpse behind the scenes? B/c some of us have.


[edit on 25-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 01:54 AM
link   
Sedna - thanks for posting these reaction to SFF:
www.jojoplace.org...

"They look older"
"They're ugly"
"They look like grandfathers"



& Penny Lane:

"Weird"
"They look different than they used to"
"They look entirely different"




posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by pmexplorer

Originally posted by berenike
reply to post by Strictsum
 


I do see your point. The height issue, for instance. Some very good arguments have been made to the effect that photos prove nothing in relation to that.

What 'gets' me is that nose. On the one hand it's the thing that persuaded me that a double could have been used because it looks so beaky sometimes.

On the other, if you're going to put in a replacement, wouldn't you at least try and get the nose right? So it's sort of like a bluff - well he must be the real Paul because if we were going to replace him, we'd have got the nose right



pmexplorer:

For crying out loud, the scale of this 'replacement' is almost too much to even fathom.

A lookalike who can completely fool the man's family, his own father for god's sake let alone his friends, bandmates, business colleagues, neighbours, acquaintances plus millions and millions of people worldwide.

I've yet to hear a logical explanation as to how these people who would have known Paul could all have been 'got to' seeing as the the conspiracy believers seem to have it that the dark forces of the illuminati were at work.

I mean who are these 'pid' believers trying to kid?



For crying out loud READ my posts.

I've posted evidence for your side of the debate more than once - in the post you quoted, in regards to the height issue I said 'good arguments have been made to the effect that photos prove nothing in relation to that'.

In a previous post I provided the link you first provided to make a point about the height issue because I thought it was worth bringing up again. (That was the post Wally bashed me for because he didn't read it properly).

I've had to cut out some of your post because it was lengthy - I hope I've managed to keep the main flavour of it. To get to my point:

I've said that I think a double was used when it suited Paul / The Beatles / their management. I've never said that I believe you can prove one way or another that he is dead or alive by posting photos on the internet - Faulcon has said that, too.

She is trying to make her case and I am trying to provide ideas / evidence just for scrutiny by either side - to accept or debunk.

Tell me, when you go to work how many of your friends and family follow you there? Paul could send Faul to a photo shoot and his Dad or his brother or John's Aunt Mimi need not know anything about it. If the photographer had never met Paul and the Beatles didn't say 'this is a double', how would he know?

If Paul wanted to retreat to Scotland and live like a hermit and let Faul take his place sometimes not that many people would need to be in on it.

What about the move to Sussex? Why is it inconceivable that Paul is still in Scotland and allows Faul to live in Sussex and get on with impersonating him? After 40 years the majority of people coming into contact with Faul would never know the difference because they'd never have met Paul.

And please note: I have posted a lengthy reply to you without being rude - after my first sentence in which I replied to you in exactly the same way you replied to me.



[edit on 25-8-2009 by berenike]



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 11:37 AM
link   
I'm still reading through the entire thread and came upon the link to the BBC article which states (about the flowers on the Sgt Pepper album cover spelling out either Beatles or Be At Leso)...

"Another view is that it spells out "Be At Leso" if you include the flowers on the right - supposedly the resting place of Paul McCartney's remains. However, nowhere with the name of "Leso" is listed in modern atlases."

Right, well there may be no place on an atlas called Leso but if you take that word and spell it backwards you get Osel and there is indeed an Osel...

en.wikipedia.org...

Yep, it was a restricted area under Soviet control back in 1966, but the sixties were also the era in which spy swaps were arranged with the Soviets. Suppose Mi6/CIA said to the Soviets "O.K., we'll turn over your agent so-and-so in exchange for you letting us have a burial on your restricted island."

Nobody on that island would have even have ever heard of The Beatles or could even recognize anyone in the inner circles (other Beatles, wives, associates, friends). Nobody from the West would even be allowed to go there for decades.

What if Paul is buried on Osel, the largest of the Estonian islands?



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by switching yard
What if Paul is buried on Osel, the largest of the Estonian islands?


As far as I know, no one has linked Be at Leso to Osel before. That is a very interesting theory. It's really anyone's guess what happened to Paul's body.


A lookalike who can completely fool the man's family, his own father for god's sake let alone his friends, bandmates, business colleagues, neighbours, acquaintances plus millions and millions of people worldwide.

Why does anyone think the double fooled Paul's family & friends when he didn't even fool some of the fans?


I've yet to hear a logical explanation as to how these people who would have known Paul could all have been 'got to' seeing as the the conspiracy believers seem to have it that the dark forces of the illuminati were at work.

Threats of violence or being sent to a psych ward are logical explanations for why people kept quiet. I might also remind people that Mal Evans died under suspicious circumstances - right before he was about to publish his tell-all book, which just "happened" to disappear. Also, Heather Mills said she'd received threats & sent a box of evidence to a friend in case something happened to her. Let's not forget the strange attack on George & John's assassination. Oh, & Brian Epstein's suicide may or may not have *actually* been a suicide.


I mean who are these 'pid' believers trying to kid?

We're not trying to kid anyone. We're trying to open eyes.

And about the height issue - I fail to see how straight on shots of Paul & Faul showing the feet are not evidence of a difference in height.




[edit on 25-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob


And about the height issue - I fail to see how straight on shots of Paul & Faul showing the feet are not evidence of a difference in height.




[edit on 25-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]




Well, then Faulcon, please look at these:







wait! now ringo is taller then JOHN!!




oh no he isn't! And Paul was always taller then Ringo!




NOW WHAT FAULCON?? GONNA IGNORE THOSE AGAIN?





posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by diabolo1
NOW WHAT FAULCON?? GONNA IGNORE THOSE AGAIN?


Posting a bunch of other photos doesn't change the fact that this photo comp clearly shows a difference in height.



As does this one:




[edit on 25-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
You do realize that there are more photos of Paul being a lot taller then Ringo then your one where it APPEARS they are the same height??








HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT?








But you are always right, aren't you?





posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by diabolo1
You do realize that there are more photos of Paul being a lot taller then Ringo then your one where it APPEARS they are the same height??








HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT?








But you are always right, aren't you?




hello. great to be here.

great stuff diabolo. you have clearly shown that paul was taller than ringo in all of those pre 1967 pictures. height is a strange thing in pictures. camera angle can play tricks due to perspective. it is also worthless to use photos that don't show the feet, because you can't see if anyone is standing on something, or the types of shoes.

also, be careful showing height differences against people of old age. i saw one above showing paul against his father like 6 years apart. my mother-in-law dropped 4 to 5 inches in height between 2000 and 2004 due to compression fractures and osteoporosis.

Paul was 5'11". John and George were 5'10" and Ringo was only 5'6".



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmond dantes
Paul was 5'11". John and George were 5'10" and Ringo was only 5'6".



Paul McCartney was no where near 5' 11 in height - He was 5' 9 1/2 tops! He wore lifts in his shoes to make him appear taller (as does Bono).

Faul is two inches taller than Paul - Paul also wore a shoe size eight, Faul (Bill) wears a 9 1/2.




posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Benny
Paul McCartney was no where near 5' 11 in height - He was 5' 9 1/2 tops! He wore lifts in his shoes to make him appear taller

I know some people think that about the lifts, but I don't. I don't see how he would have fit 2 inch lifts in his shoes. But yeah, Faul is around 2 - 2 1/2 inches taller than Paul.





Def no lifts in this one:



Paul also wore a shoe size eight, Faul (Bill) wears a 9 1/2.

Makes sense that a taller guy would have bigger feet.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   
I agree with faulcon. In my research, Faul is about 2 to 2 1/2 inches taller than Paul.

My opinion is that John, George and Paul were all around 5'9" to 5'10" and Ringo was 5'6" to 5'7". So in general, the other 3 were about 3 inches taller than Ringo. But if you look at the cover of Sgt. Pepper(and many other photos), Faul is a good 5 inches taller than Ringo and 2 inches taller than John and George.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob





Paul McCartney and the Beatles



Well one things for sure, Faul couldn`t make himself any smaller!




[edit on 25-8-2009 by Uncle Benny]



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by SednaSon
I agree with faulcon. In my research, Faul is about 2 to 2 1/2 inches taller than Paul.


Yep, no doubt about it.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 05:21 PM
link   


McCartney was actually the tallest (closer to 6'), followed by Harrison (5'11") and Lennon (5'10-1/2"). Starr's actual height was closer to 5'7".


wiki.answers.com...



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by diabolo1
You do realize that there are more photos of Paul being a lot taller then Ringo then your one where it APPEARS they are the same height??








HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT?








But you are always right, aren't you?




Hmmm. These pictures above show Paul taller.

Pre 1967
Post 1966


Wow. Paul was so much taller before 1967. Did he shrink after 1966?

[edit on 25-8-2009 by edmond dantes]

[edit on 25-8-2009 by edmond dantes]




top topics



 
33
<< 75  76  77    79  80  81 >>

log in

join