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: 84
33
<< 81  82  83    85  86  87 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by SednaSon

Originally posted by Dakudo
Well you should - because your analogy is competely erroneous.



Again, that's your opinion.


No it isnt - it's historical FACT! Something PID is real short on.



My point still stands. It addresses your point which infered that people don't investigate for themselves and therefore don't see the differences. They DO - and have come to the conclusion it is the same man.



If everybody truly investigated this, then a lot more people would see the difference. I don't know if it would be a majority of the population, but it would be certainly more than 1%.


Mere supposition and speculation.


If you are not prepared to substantiate your claims then you shouldn't make them in the first place!



I am not here to defend every position I take based on the demands of someone who has an opposing view.


Sorry - that a complete cop out and you know it. This is a debate. If you make a claim to support your position expect to be challenged on it's authenticity. Otherwise, don't make the claim.

If you cannot support your claim, then it proves your claim is worthless.

As such, your unsupported claim just demonstrates a very weak argument that it's author cannot substantiate.


Can you "prove" that the majority of the population believes Paul to be the same guy? You probably could, but it would be harder than you think to "prove" it and it would take up a lot of your time, which would be undesirable I assume.


It is easy to demonstrate that the majority of the population believes Paul is the same guy and the Paul is dead contention is a myth:



MCCARTNEY DEATH RIDDLE TOPS MUSIC MYTHS POLL

PAUL MCCARTNEY's death riddle has topped a new online poll to find rock's greatest myth. The 'Paul is dead' fable beat STEVIE NICKS' anal drug fixation to land at the top of Rolling Stone magazine's ridiculous rumours list. Music fans voted for their favourite myth over the weekend (30MAR07-01APR07). Here's the top 10: 1. PAUL MCCARTNEY is dead


That took about a minute!



You had "time" to make the claim, yet no "time" to provide substantiation? Sounds like you cannot back your claim up.




Oh, please.


Says the person who had no evidence to back up his claim but still made it.




Please - stick to FACTS - not fantasy.



The facts are that the Paul McCartney of 1966 and before is a different man than the Paul McCartney of 1967 to today.


Those are not facts but mere supposition and conjecture.

Like I said - please stick to FACTS!




Why should I have to provide evidence? I'm not the one making the extraordinary claim - the PIDDERS are.




If you wanna prove your point in words other than 'the majority believes it's the same Paul', then you could provide some evidence. But that is entirely up to you.


See above where I have.




If you are claiming that Paul was replaced and a different man has taken his place, why should I have to provide evidence its the same man? The onus is on you to support your allegations since your the ones making them.



But it's not for you to decide for others if the information PIDers have supplied is enough to support our argument.


Please provide the quote where I stated that I was deciding for others.



[edit on 26-8-2009 by Dakudo]




posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   
I want to hear more about Stevie Nicks' Anal drug fixation!


What we need is to, oh, I don't know anymore


All we need is love!



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by DakudoThis is a debate.



Now, this is also your opinion. I believe this thread is for sharing information about Paul being dead and replaced. I don't have to debate you and I can still post on this thread. I did at first but you seem to me not be open-minded enough to spend valuable time debating with. Mainly, my goal is to share information about Paul McCartney and his replacement. I am not here to satisfy your demands. Goodbye.

[edit on 26-8-2009 by SednaSon]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki
I want to hear more about Stevie Nicks' Anal drug fixation!


What we need is to, oh, I don't know anymore


All we need is love!




Don't you mind about Stevie Nick's Anal drug fixation - it's a myth.

Just like Paul is dead.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by SednaSon

Originally posted by DakudoThis is a debate.


Now, this is also your opinion.


Sorry, but it simply isn't. It is FACT.




DEBATE
1. To consider something; deliberate.

2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.

3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument.
www.thefreedictionary.com...


You will find all of the above definitions occuring in this thread.

It's a debate whether you believe it is or not.

Just like Paul wasn't replaced whether you believe it or not.




I believe this thread is for sharing information about Paul being dead and replaced.


Which falls under:


1. To consider something; deliberate.


However, you will clearly see examples of 2. and 3. throughout this thread.


I don't have to debate you


Then don't. But don't complain when I call into question the veracity of your claims and you are unable to substantiate them.

I'm interested in the TRUTH of the Paul is dead conspiracy. If you cannot answer any points I make then I will let others judge whether your claims are valid or not.


but you seem to me not be open-minded enough to spend valuable time debating with.


Please cut out the personal insults. It's a sure sign of someone with a weak argument.


Mainly, my goal is to share information about Paul McCartney and his replacement.


And it's my aim to show that such information is baseless, flawed and erroneous.

I will let others judge whether my points and claims have any merit and, unlike yourself, will provide evidence to back it up. As such, it will show the strength of my arguments.





[edit on 26-8-2009 by Dakudo]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by SednaSon

Now, this is also your opinion. I believe this thread is for sharing information about Paul being dead and replaced. I don't have to debate you and I can still post on this thread. I did at first but you seem to me not be open-minded enough to spend valuable time debating with. Mainly, my goal is to share information about Paul McCartney and his replacement. I am not here to satisfy your demands.


That's all well and good but you are the one claiming that
'Paul was replaced' is a FACT.


Originally posted by SednaSon
The facts are that the Paul McCartney of 1966 and before is a different man than the Paul McCartney of 1967 to today.


This is a false statement as if it was indeed a fact it would be common knowledge and more importantly provable .
So therefore what you are stating is a blatant lie

Fact - Definition: a concept whose truth can be proved;

This is not a factual statement as any so called evidence which you and your cohorts have presented here (which has for the most part consisted of edited images lifted from other 'pid' sites backed up by claims of discrepancies between those taken in one time period compared to other) has been shown up in turn as being nothing more than unsubstantiated claims which Diabolo and Dakudo have also completely debunked over the last couple of pages.

Wild opinions and speculation backed up by the weakest of supporting 'evidence' does not a fact / truth make.



[edit on 26-8-2009 by pmexplorer]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by pmexplorer

Originally posted by SednaSon
The facts are that the Paul McCartney of 1966 and before is a different man than the Paul McCartney of 1967 to today.


This is a false statement as if it was indeed a fact it would be common knowledge and more importantly provable .
So therefore what you are stating is a blatant lie

Fact - Definition: a concept whose truth can be proved;

This is not a factual statement as any so called evidence which you and your cohorts have presented here


Yes, I quite agree. There is no "proof" that Paul has been replaced, so the original poster of this claim is making a completely ficticious statement.

Why can't people stick to facts in here?

[edit on 26-8-2009 by Dakudo]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Paul McCartney speaking about the rumours of his death in the news today:

Ex-Beatle McCartney recalls 1960s death rumours


LONDON (Reuters) - Former Beatle Paul McCartney has described rumours that he had died, which surfaced more than 40 years ago, as "ridiculous" and an "occupational hazard" for a member of one of the world's biggest bands.

The conspiracy theory began in October 1969, when a Detroit-based DJ claimed that the three other Beatles -- Ringo Starr, John Lennon and George Harrison -- had recruited a lookalike replacement for McCartney after he died in 1966.

He argued that because the man "posing" as McCartney on the cover of the Beatles' 1969 album "Abbey Road" had bare feet meant it represented a corpse, and that the number plate on a car in the photograph was LMW 28IF -- denoting McCartney's age, if he had lived.

"It was funny, really," McCartney, 67, told MOJO music magazine in an interview. "But ridiculous. It's an occupational hazard: people make up a story and then you find yourself having to deal with this fictitious stuff.

"I think the worst thing that happened was that I could see people sort of looking at me more closely: 'Were his ears always like that?'"

He said that he had bare feet in the famous record sleeve image because he had kicked off his sandals, and that the car parked in the background was "random."

"It was madness," he recalled.


I don't really subscribe to this one, but I thought you'd all like the article!



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by pmexplorer
 


Originally posted by kshaund
Are you kidding??? Of course you do! You're here, aren't you?!?



Er, this isn't a 'PID' forum, thank god.


Excuse me, yes, technically, this is not a forum, it's a thread. Semantics. You're still spending time on a subject you continually complain about and admonish others for participating in.

And yes, I was in error about the originator of the thread, however, you can hardly infer someone supporting and actively contributing to the thread topic, like faulconjob, is trolling - trolling means you have people who continually chirp in and disrupting without adding any 'content' to the topic at hand all the while complaining that the topic even exists in the first place... you know the kind of people....



I only had to check your posting history to see you've been posting here for weeks rather than in other threads you started prior. Seems you obsess in this thread that people are even discussing this. I've tried to keep up with the thread 100% from the beginning. I don't post often because I have nothing to add to the discussion other than saying I'm interested, and that doesn't really add to the discussion overall - and I don't need to "repeat" myself over and over thinking if I say it more often it will make a difference... again, like some kind of people...


This is actually one of the lighter sides of discussion around all the illuminati crap going down - kind of entertaining in a NWO sort of way...

[edit on 26-8-2009 by kshaund]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by pmexplorer
 


Please specifically read #3 before you start telling people what, in fact, "fact" means or doesn't mean.

home > Library > Literature & Language > Dictionary
n.

1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2.
1. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
2. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
3. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
4. Law. The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.

Facts have no relationship with common knowledge. That you think they do is the first sign of either a closed or very well programmed mind that doesn't think outside the box or even bother to look up word definitions...

Can you prove that genetic engineering exists? No, but it's a fact, isn't it? Hmm... wonder where that line of thinking could lead....

[edit on 26-8-2009 by kshaund]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by kiwifoot
 



Well, what a surprise, he denied it - again - wouldn't expect him to say otherwise... He also talked about it on David Letterman. The thing is the rumor just doesn't stop - which to me lends credibility to the rumor having some substance to begin with.

Not sure where Stevie Nicks came into this and anal fixations - but she wouldn't be the first... there was also talk of Richard Gere and a fettish for mice, which I know for sure... (this one's for you pm!) .... is fact. Can I prove it? Of course not. Is it fact? Yes. How can I say that? Because I know the neighbor of someone who treated him in the Vancouver hospital when he was in Canada filming Intersection and had one die inside... GROSS GROSS GROSS! But it should make everyone shake their head and REALLY WONDER what all these celebs are REALLY ABOUT! They're for our entertainment - to keep us all gaga over every little bit of juicy news (really bad punn there... sorry but it fit so well... OMG another bad punn! ...


[edit on 26-8-2009 by kshaund]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dakudo
The forensic scientists admitted their research was inconclusive. Stop dealing in misinformation and start dealing in FACTS.


The fact is that the faces don't match up. And yes, forensics do prove that.










[edit on 26-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dakudo
Unless you provide objective - as opposed to subjective - 'evidence', this situation will happily remain.


Socrates, you don't have a clue what evidence is.


ev⋅i⋅dence  [ev-i-duhns] Show IPA noun, verb, -denced, -denc⋅ing.
–noun
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

dictionary.reference.com...


[edit on 26-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dakudo
There is no "proof" that Paul has been replaced...


Of course, there is proof. The proof is that (& these are facts) post 66 Paul is taller, has different colored eyes, different facial features, etc, etc.


proof  [proof]
–noun
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2. anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?
...
4. the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.
5. Law. (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.
6. the effect of evidence in convincing the mind...

dictionary.reference.com...





[edit on 26-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Assuming I am past needing any more proof using photo comparisons and I accept that a double took the place of Paul in late 1966...

could someone who has studied the PID forums please post in a brief summary of what the leading theory is of what happened and why the other Beatles cooperated with the switch so well that Sgt Pepper sessions produced one of their greatest successes. I just want to hear what the consensus seems to be as to what really happened.

Seems like most everyone agrees that Original Paul played Candlestick Park. So, whatever happened occurred sometime between the end of the USA tour and the beginning of the Sgt Peppers sessions (which began with tracks for Strawberry Fields Forever)... right? So I've heard 9 November, Wednesday morning 5:00 AM, 1966. Right? Or do the current PID researchers now have any better date than that and why?

Does anyone know the exact dates "Paul" was in Kenya with Mal Evans? Strikes me as odd he wanted to go on safari with Mal instead of Jane Asher. I understand Jane didn't go to Africa. When did "Paul" return to London from Kenya?

Was there a car crash or not? I know no one knows for sure, but what is the current best PID theory regarding the car crash? It is referenced in song lyrics. John always said that his car crash imagery in "A Day In The Life" had to do with the crash of Guinness heir Tara Browne. But I'm open to the possibility John meant Paul and just always used Tara Browne as a cover story. What do PID theorists think?

What's the story on the Paul look alike contest? I've only heard that there was one and the winner was not announced. Any dates on when the contest took place?

I know this sounds really bizarre, but the more I think about the switch the more I keep imagining all four Beatles were on some holiday or other to just get away after the USA tour and they had holidays and travel that didn't include each other. So then they all reconvene in London for the new album sessions and New Paul just walks right in boldly and acts as if nothing is amiss. Could he have fooled them? It sounds crazy, but I think that's what may have happened. He came in from Kenya with a moustache, John was excited about Strawberry Fields, they were all heavy into drugs, and the double just snows them. Now, if that was the case, we know "Paul" had the big concept for Sgt Pepper and early in the sessions pitched this concept to John and the others --- you know, they would impersonate a fictitious band and call it Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club band, so they go for the idea. So, the question is, how did the campaign of clues start (the planting of clues in songs and album art)?

Anyone who studies the PID forums (I haven't had time to investigate because I've been reading this entire thread)... what's the leading best theory of PID researchers as to what really went down? Can you summarize?



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 11:15 PM
link   





posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by switching yard
Seems like most everyone agrees that Original Paul played Candlestick Park.

Maybe, maybe not.


So, whatever happened occurred sometime between the end of the USA tour and the beginning of the Sgt Peppers sessions (which began with tracks for Strawberry Fields Forever)... right? So I've heard 9 November, Wednesday morning 5:00 AM, 1966. Right? Or do the current PID researchers now have any better date than that and why?

Paul was definitely gone by the Nov 1966 Kenya trip - that is for certain. I think Paul was gone by the end of Aug. 1966, personally, from comparing photos & videos.


Does anyone know the exact dates "Paul" was in Kenya with Mal Evans? ... When did "Paul" return to London from Kenya?


Looks like they left on November 6th, 1966. He was back by Nov 27:




Was there a car crash or not? I know no one knows for sure, but what is the current best PID theory regarding the car crash?

My opinion is that there was a staged car crash, but Paul's death was no accident.


What's the story on the Paul look alike contest? I've only heard that there was one and the winner was not announced. Any dates on when the contest took place?

There was one in 1965. It could have been a cover for scouting for talent to replace him.


In 1965, [Keith Allison] won a "Paul lookalike" contest, sponsored by The Beatles, the American teen magazine "Tiger Beat," and Dick Clark.

www.imdb.com...


Picture:



Could he have fooled them?

I don't think Faul fooled anyone who knew Paul even reasonably well.


So, the question is, how did the campaign of clues start (the planting of clues in songs and album art)?

IMO, it's the Illuminati dropping hints about what the truth was.


... what's the leading best theory of PID researchers as to what really went down? Can you summarize?

My theory is that Paul was killed for refusing to go along w/ the agenda (& probably refusing to quit). I think the Illuminati used CIA (or some such agency) to carry out the hit.


[edit on 26-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   
By the way, I thought it was an interesting coincidence that there are some very tenacious PIA agents working this thread from the beginning, they haven't been able to derail the thread or throw it off track, this thread's still going strong, hundreds of thousands of people read ATS and what a coincidence, the man himself is in the news today calling PID theory "ridiculous" and trying to reduce it all down to just the bare feet on Abbey Road thing as if that's all there was to it. Feeling the heat, whomever you really are? Heather knows.

Hopefully, the PID movement will gain even more steam until someone asks New Paul to just go ahead and give fingerprints and prove he's who he says he is. If he is Original Paul, seems like he could prove it forensically. That is, if pre-1966 documents have not been altered or gone missing.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by switching yard
...hundreds of thousands of people read ATS and what a coincidence, the man himself is in the news today calling PID theory "ridiculous" and trying to reduce it all down to just the bare feet on Abbey Road thing as if that's all there was to it. Feeling the heat, whomever you really are?

Oh, I hope so. If he would just admit it, he would feel better. It must weigh heavily on him having to pretend to be someone he isn't. Of course, I bet all of Paul's money helped to alleviate any discomfort he might have felt...


...If he is Original Paul, seems like he could prove it forensically...


Don't forget about Bettina Krischbin, who alleged that "Paul" sent a double to give blood when her mother (Erika Huebers) commenced a paternity suit against him in Germany in 1983. She said he looked different, & it was a different signature in the paternity case file from the one in the Hamburg Beatles museum.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 12:06 AM
link   
Just another quick note about how Faul (I prefer to call him New Paul who replaced Original Paul)... how he has described the shooting of the Abbey Road cover photo.

I'm paraphrasing because I don't have his exact quotes in front of me, but basically what he says is that The Beatles were shown a sketch (or maybe he was the one with the sketch, can't remember) of them walking across the crosswalk. They approved it and then during a break in one of their sessions, they quickly went out in the street for the photo shoot wearing whatever they put on that day (in New Paul's case he put on an expensive tailored suit and then instead of shoes slipped on a pair of sandals "because it was a hot day") and everything in the shot was "random", he says.

Does that sound professional? This was the biggest show business act in modern history and the biggest celebrities on the planet at this time. They were producing what many critics say is their finest album and obviously put in their best effort to meticulously craft the sounds on Abbey Road ---

oh, but the cover was just "random" ---

and we're supposed to believe that? Oh yeah, it was just a hot day, that's all, thought I'd wear sandals with a tailored business suit. That's all. Planting a clue? Don't be ridiculous.



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 81  82  83    85  86  87 >>

log in

join