It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in


posted on May, 31 2009 @ 11:11 AM
reply to post by faulconandsnowjob

Well, thanks to you I had a mad 5 minutes this morning making faces in the mirror

I found it quite easy to lengthen my chin by simply dropping my jaw - mouth still closed. You can get an interesting result if you do this while widening your eyes.

If Paul had his wisdom teeth removed that could account for his face looking thinner. I had mine out a few years ago and it does make a bit of difference. (I think some actresses have had this done to improve their looks).

I've also had some work done on my lower front teeth and that resulted in my bottom lip being slightly re-aligned.

As for the photos of Paul with his father, I have two points to make. Firstly, elderly people lose some of their height and secondly the date of the second photo was 1972. I think you'll find that platform boots were fashionable at that time and they could add some inches to a person's height. As you can't see Paul's feet there is no way of knowing whether or not he was wearing a pair.

A couple of pages ago I put up pictures of an elderly Paul showing his palms and asked if anyone could provide pre 1965/66 pictures to compare them with. Have you had any luck with that?

Edit to add - I'm not discounting the other points you make - I haven't enough knowledge on the subject, although I think the most famous example of 'doubles' was that of Winston Churchill during WWII. I'm just querying the photos you're providing.

Further thought - is it at all possible that Paul was being difficult at some stage and a double was used for some photo shoots? Either sent by Paul himself or chosen by the others.

Something else bothering me - all the bickering over various things, is it credible that a replica Paul would make so much trouble? Wouldn't he be more likely to keep quiet and go with the flow?

[edit on 31-5-2009 by berenike]

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 01:24 PM
These pics were taken 9 months apart. I doubt age could have anything to do with it and Faul has his mouth close so the chin doesn't appear longer because of that.

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 01:34 PM
Pic of Paul on left, Faul on right (1967):

I think I forgot to post the sonagram when I mentioned the difference in the voices. Voiceprints are unique identifiers used to establish identity.

Paul on left, Faul on right:

More info:

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 03:40 PM
reply to post by SednaSon

Try dropping your jaw with your mouth still closed - so your top and bottom teeth don't touch.

Looking at some pictures of Paul it appears to me his jaw is slacker in some than in others.

Any chance of answering any of my other points? I haven't a clue what happened but I'd like to eliminate as many other options as I can before I conclude that Paul died and was replaced by someone else.

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 05:58 PM
reply to post by SednaSon

Wow, that link which compares numerous pictures of Paul before 66 to those after is very convincing. Paul seems to have changed a great deal, when you take a close look. These picture comparisons are very, VERY convincing.

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 06:06 PM
I'm convinced this theory is an absolute joke. However, I've opened up to giving it to some attention and seeing it's worth. But if these silly images are all that people can muster, it falls short.

The .gif image above is laughable.

The quality of the images are nowhere near similar. The head that fades in is obviously much larger to create a greater illusion. The eyes are wide open in the "fake Paul" while they conveniently chose to overlap it in a poor quality image with his eyes squinting.

I've looked at those sites as well and I don't see anything that is remotely convincing.

Last night when we discussed this, I was convinced that it is remotely possible that the Beatles may have gone along with it. Previously, I did not accept that. But with the threat of mass suicide etc., I do believe that they could have had the guys agree to go along with it. But that doesn't mean the theory carries any weight.

One of the most talented artists in the history of music is not going to be replaced by someone who then continues to tour and succeed at the business like no other.

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 06:14 PM
Here's a list of differences that people have noticed between Paul & Faul (Bill & Faul are used interchangeably, JPM = James Paul McCartney):

Paul: brown eyes
Faul: green eyes
Paul’s eyes were set farther apart than Faul's
Paul had thick eyelashes
Paul had high arching eyebrows
Bill had thick eyebrows with little arch (until he had work done)

Faul's head is larger than JPM's
Bill has a larger chin and forehead

Paul's hair grows from left to right and his bangs are very thick
Bill's hair grows from right to left, and his bangs are thin
Bill has a cowlick
Paul had more body hair than Faul

Paul was bow-legged

Bill's natural ears are much smaller than Paul's
Paul's earlobes are attached and his ears stick out far from his head
Bill's natural ears have unattached earlobes, and are set closer to his head
Bill's ears vary because he wears prosthetic ears
Faul was caught on film wearing an obviously fake ear (Look at video for “Mary Had a Little Lamb” on YT)

Paul had Bell's Palsy in the left side of his face, which caused it to droop in some pictures
Bill never had this condition and no pictures show signs of Bell's Palsy

Paul always stayed clean shaven and wore short sideburns
Bill has had three moustaches (1966-67, 1974 & early 1976), beards (1969, 1970-72), and various long sideburns

Paul was a legendary bassist and seldom looked down at his fingers while playing
Bill has always needed to look at his fingers while playing guitar, even on simple chord changes. Ditto for bass

Paul was left handed
Bill is right handed and had to learn to play guitar left handed

Paul rarely stared directly into video cameras while performing
Bill often gazes into video cameras for long periods while performing

Paul was masculine
Bill's portrayal of Paul has been very effeminate

Bill is around 2.5 inches taller than Paul, and has a larger frame

Plastic surgery is most noticeable from 1967-1969
Cheek fillers most noticeable in 1970

Faul’s feet are longer & are shaped differently from Paul’s. For ex: hammer toes

Photo doctoring and retouching has taken place to make Faul look more like Paul and vice versa.

Paul's voice was lower register, deeper, and had more resonance and vibrato than Faul's voice
Faul's singing voice is higher and thinner than JPM's, and his Liverpudlian accent is noticeably less thick and consistent than JPM's

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 07:00 PM
I think voice ID software or voice recognition software would be the easiest way to put the rumor to rest or confirm it. No two photos taken during different sessions will be from the same angle, posture, or lighting conditions unless an effort is specifically made to do just that. The voice software should recognize significant differences from the time period that is being discussed, if it is the case.

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 07:24 PM
Paul in Memphis, Tennessee, August 19th, 1966:

^ Faul outside EMI Studios, December 20th, 1966

[edit on 31-5-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 07:53 PM

Originally posted by berenike
Try dropping your jaw with your mouth still closed - so your top and bottom teeth don't touch.

Not likely but I'll assume you are right and that his jaw was dropped. So why don't the eyes and nose match in that fade?

Any chance of answering any of my other points? I haven't a clue what happened but I'd like to eliminate as many other options as I can before I conclude that Paul died and was replaced by someone else.

Can you repeat those? I'll try to answer them.

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 07:57 PM
Here's a perfect match and how a fade should look. Why? Because they are the same person. And one pic is from 1963 and the other is from 1966 where Paul had gained some weight....but still a perfect match.

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 09:00 PM

Originally posted by SednaSon

Originally posted by berenike

Any chance of answering any of my other points? I haven't a clue what happened but I'd like to eliminate as many other options as I can before I conclude that Paul died and was replaced by someone else.

Can you repeat those? I'll try to answer them.

I asked these questions in my post at the top of this page:

Have you got any pictures of Paul's palms prior to 1965/6 for a comparison with the pictures I posted of current-day Paul's palms? I've spent ages looking and can't find any.

Would there be any possibility that a double might have been used for photo shoots on days when real Paul was being difficult?

Would a double have bickered with the others so much, over management issues for example? Wouldn't it be more likely that he'd keep quiet and go along with what the other original Beatles wanted to do? I'm thinking too of the recent thing about changing the names Lennon & McCartney to McCartney and Lennon.

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 09:47 PM

1) I'll look for you. I know they exist, just have to find them.

2) I suppose

3) It depends on who's behind him, i.e. what powerful force is supporting him?

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 10:57 PM

This series offers a wealth of clues

paul is dead - the rotten apple 1

[edit on 31-5-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 11:18 PM

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by SednaSon

Wow, that link which compares numerous pictures of Paul before 66 to those after is very convincing. Paul seems to have changed a great deal, when you take a close look. These picture comparisons are very, VERY convincing.

Thanks for commenting poet1b.

Faulcon, that second pic shows an amazing difference.

posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 01:00 AM
Nothing like dusting off an old classic conspiracy.

I remember when I bought "Sargent Pepper's" back in the seventies, I thought that McCartney looked different. I commented on that to friends, and that is when I heard about the whole McCartney was dead conspiracy. Liking conspiracies, I was interested in the whole subject. The symbols are all clearly there, no one denies this. The question is, was it a hoax, or did McCartney really die, and was replaced by an imitator?

Starting in 1967 the band really did seem to change, they got darker, as well as turning out a number of great albums. All this new great material could have been stuff that had already been wrote by Lennon and McCartney before possible death of McCartney. This is very conceivable. During this period, the band seemed to also implode, during their greatest period of creativity. It was all very strange, and I think we can all also agree on this.

Now when you look at the pictures, Paul does seem to have changed, at least that is my take. That one web site that shows Lennon earlier and later pictures, and then Paul, pointing out what seems to be a change in appearance, there seems to be some reasonable evidence, but it is not conclusive. The thing is, there are imitators, who by mimicking the expressions and actions, and voice of others, especially with a little bit of make up, look a lot like the person they are imitating. Combining the skill essentials of a good imitator, who looks like the person they are imitating, it could be conceivably done in a way that fools the general public. I don't think it would take but a little surgical alteration, with close attention to make up, especially for any photo shoots or appearances. Add in the facial hair, and it would make it even easier.

However, I do not believe that such a person could get by with this around people who knew the original person well. I do not think that there is any way the imitator could have fooled people who were close to McCartney, especially his family, so that leaves a whole lot of people who would have to be in on the charade. Many of these people could be kept from making a solid conclusion by simply limiting their association with the imitator. It still seems that way too many people would have been in on the conspiracy for it to succeed. By now, someone would have had to talk, and the thing would have become public.

How did McCartney's face begin to appear longer and thinner, while his body began to appear bigger. The face should have gotten heavier as well. In addition, the band never again played publicly, except on a roof top, after this period, and that is very suspicious. Also, the very last Beatles album was subpar in my opinion. McCartney's best songs after the Beatles were "Band on the Run", and "Live and Let Die", and once again, IMO, very different in style from McCartney's Beatle days. His songs seemed to become more of a classical bent, more orchestrated, than the more basic and harder hitting songs of the Beatles.

McCartney's death at the time would have set off massive waves in youth culture at the time, that was very, very suspicious of the PTB. There was more at risk than large numbers of possible suicides. Also, what if the clean cut McCartney OD'd? Maybe!!! for these reasons they could have gotten enough people to go along with the ruse but I doubt it. It is just too much to buy.

Still, I would think that the real McCartney would want to put these rumors to rest, and not want the world to think that he was an imitator of the real thing. The fact that the rumors are still out there being actively discussed, and the question kept alive, might be the reason why so many are still willing to go along with the ruse.

posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 01:10 AM
reply to post by SednaSon

Thanks for the contribution.

And thanks to the op for the thread, starred and flagged.

Nice read on a Sunday Afternoon. I know The Kinks.

posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 01:35 AM

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Um, no, actually. Linda Eastman,of Eastman Kodak, 's family money was a hell of a lot more than (Sir) Paul's.

And which pioneering British plastic surgeon did the work on "Billy"?

I recall an interview with Linda Eastman decades ago that she was not in any way related to the Kodak-Eastmans - that it was a common but erroneous assumption?

posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 11:36 AM
reply to post by faulconandsnowjob

The 2nd image is later, probably from the 70's:

These are from 1967:

I was young when the rumors were first running rampant. We played I Am the Walrus and Revolution # 9 backwards to hear the spooky messages and looked for the clues on all of their albums.

Voice recognition would be definitive--maybe it's more fun to promote the conspiracy than to do a serious investigation? I think it's a non-starter anymore. I think Icke could afford the software. There are plenty of analogue recordings around for the best comparison capability.

posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 12:03 PM

Originally posted by Hellmutt
There's also another video in existance, where George is trying hard to teach "Paul" to play a simple riff on the bass. After trying numerous times, "Paul" just can't get it right. It was a "simple" riff, and Paul (who used to be a skilled bass player) couldn't play it. I'm not really trying to defend the "Paul is dead" conspiracy here, but ... no smoke without fire...

He could have also just been tripping nuts. Though I admit he would have to be pretty far gone to not be able to play an instrument anymore. Santana played Woodstock in such a state and I'm absolutely sure most other big groups in the late 60's and through the 70's did the exact same thing, like Aerosmith. Ozzy allegedly dropped it every single day for many years in the 70s while with Black Sabbath...

I'm a huge Beatles fan. This is all intriguing to me, but I just don't know if I can buy it. If someone has seen a good case, that's all I really want, one way or the other, laid out with very easy things to see.

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in