Paul McCartney died in 1966 - replaced by Billy Shepherd

Ex-Beatle McCartney recalls 1960s death rumours
uk.reuters.com...

Former Beatle Paul McCartney has described rumours that he had died, which surfaced more than 40 years ago, as "ridiculous"

Well, of course, "he" didn't die. We're saying the original mop-top Paul died, not the one who imposter-replaced him. All the LIFE magazine article did was prove post 1966 "Paul" was "still with us."

an "occupational hazard" for a member of one of the world's biggest bands.

Are there a lot of rumors of other musicians being dead & replaced - at least, on this scale? If so, then I'm not aware of them.

The conspiracy theory began in October 1969

It actually started in 1967 when rumors of a "car crash" went around England.

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.

Russ Gibb didn't claim that. Someone calling himself "Tom" called into his radio show & said Paul was dead, & that Gibb should play Revolution 9 backward.

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.

Russ Gibb didn't "argue" that. Fred Labour heard the radio broadcast, & started looking into it. I believe he wrote about the bare feet & the 28IF clues. BTW, Faul's explanation for having bare feet that day is less than satisfactory, IMO.

"It was funny, really," McCartney, 67

Faul is probably about 72. He said he was 30 in MMT, which was 1967.

"But ridiculous. It's an occupational hazard: people make up a story and then you find yourself having to deal with this fictitious stuff.

Except there's the problem of all the facts that don't add up: the photos, the videos, the forensics, etc.

"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?'"

No, they were not. Forensics have proven that.

You can see the different conformation of piercing A (billobato before the 1966) the different performance of ellce and the different amplezza of antelice and of the valley. Do not coincide even the proportions between the various points Litania-from antelice and incisura pretagica (or the depression between Piercing and antitrago).

ASK WHO WAS THE "BEATLE"
/mw83db

...Technically called trago. All we have two, one by ear, but the characteristics are different for every human being. "In Germany, a recognition procedure craniometrico, identification of the right ear even tantamount to fingerprint, ie the collection of fingerprints," recalls Carlesi. But what trago? It is the small cartilage covered with skin that overhangs the entrance to the ear and ear canal, like the whole ear, not be changed surgically. How then to explain the differences between the right ear of Paul McCartney in a previous snapshot to 1966 and probably a built in the late nineties? It is not only to betray trago a different conformation as well as other parts, just above the ear canal entrance, measurements and dell'antelice propeller. Things that ordinary mortals might seem irrelevant or unclear, but instead, every day, allowing the experts to locate and identify persons, bodies, photographs...

ASK WHO WAS THE "BEATLE"
/mw83db

Plus, Paul didn't have weird, plastic ear inserts:





[edit on 27-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

[edit on 27-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Originally posted by switching yard
Oh yeah, it was just a hot day, that's all, thought I'd wear sandals with a tailored business suit.

It's a hot day & you're walking on hot pavement... So, you're going to take off sandals b/c that's so much more comfortable? Who'd rather walk across scorching pavement w/ maybe broken glass or whatever else than to wear sandals? Personally, I don't find this argument persuasive at all.

Originally posted by switching yard
...

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 ...

Interesting, b/c I saw an interview w/ Ringo once where he said they just went outside to shoot the cover b/c it was more expedient. He made it seem like they just didn't feel like putting any effort into the cover at all.

but the cover was just "random" ---

and we're supposed to believe that?

Yes. We're also supposed to believe that a guy can rearrange his face, change eye color & grow 2 inches in his mid-20's. lol

The Abbey Road cover had to have been very carefully art directed. The clothes would have been planned in advance. I'm willing to say the 28IF plate may have been on a random car parked in the street. I'll give him that much. But the clothes and the suit with no shoes --- those aspects of it had to have been art directed. You know, they may have wanted the effect that it was all random, but it is a fact that album covers for the most powerful band in the business were art directed in detail and especially so as late as 1969.

Thanks for your summary post earlier, faulcon, I agree with you.

Until now, I haven't considered that the fake performed at Candlestick Park. Now I'm not so sure. I have an open mind about it.

I think a lot of Beatles lore, the stories we've heard repeated down through the years, have been lies and misrepresentations of the facts. Somewhere I read that George Harrison let slip that "98% of what you've heard about The Beatles isn't true" and I remember in several interviews John gave that he said "The Beatles' best work was never recorded." He seems to mean that the real Beatles were great performers before they hit it big and one could read into that that he also meant that The Beatles ceased to exist before the psychedelic later period which was not really them but a counterfeit or newer group entirely.

We've heard all the cover stories for stuff over the years... like "Sexy Sadie" was written about the Majarishi because John got angry at Majarishi over gossip that Majarishi tried to seduce a young girl at Rishikesh. That story never rang true to me.
Maybe Sexy Sadie was written about the fake replacement and was another clue. "However big you think you are!"

Originally posted by switching yard
I'm willing to say the 28IF plate may have been on a random car parked in the street. I'll give him that much.

Maybe, but it's on a white Bee[a]tle... Maybe it was random, maybe not.

... like "Sexy Sadie" was written about the Majarishi because John got angry at Majarishi over gossip that Majarishi tried to seduce a young girl at Rishikesh. That story never rang true to me.
Maybe Sexy Sadie was written about the fake replacement and was another clue. "However big you think you are!"

That story never rang true for me, either. I think it was a cover, too. There is a very good possibility "Sexy Sadie" was about Faul.

"Sexy Sadie you'll get yours yet"

Oh, yeah.


[edit on 27-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Oh Faulcon, "their" faces DO match pretty well, only in your messed up comparisons they don't...


check out how perfectly the match and let the PID hoax rest in peace..










look at the facial assymetry when the photo is mirrored! plastic surgery? yeah right!








[edit on 27-8-2009 by diabolo1]

Earlier, someone posted some comps showing non-matching freckle patterns. I think this might explain that:

From Wallace, Robert and H. Keith Melton. Spycraft. USA: Dutton, 2008 at 387:

... As necessary, more elaborate disguises using full or partial facial masks could perform an ethnic or sex change to alter a person's racial or gender appearance. among the options are padded clothing to alter body type and weight distribution, sculpted appliances that alter eye color, mouth lines, and affect speech tone, makeup and hair coloring, hand and arm "gloves" to match facial coloring, shoe lifts to add height, and torso devices to create a stooped posture. Individually and in combination, the disguise techniques can affect dramatic appearance change.

For officers in need of a disguise subject to close attention and durable for hours or days, OTS specialists would spend several hours performing the transformations. These labor-intensive disguises were typically applied on individuals in high-risk situations, such as illegal border crossings. Given time, the disguise specialists would alter hair color, apply facial hair, modify jaw lines, improvise dental work, create wrinkles, change complexion, or add glasses and warts to match any photographic documents and thus avoid chance recognition at a border crossing or airport checkpoint...

If they could add wrinkles & warts, they could add freckles & scars. Of course, photo-doctoring could also be involved.

Book info:
www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251357906&sr=8-1

He posted these pics to support his theory that they are the same person, but those are not the same noses or eyes. The freckles don't even match up, if you look carefully.







[edit on 27-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

[edit on 27-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

The eyes & eyebrows don't match up at all. They're clearly from 2 different faces.

Originally posted by Dakudo

Originally posted by aorAki
reply to post by Dakudo

 

Lighting, slightly different camera angles. The eyebrows will change position according to the expression and muscular movements of the face. Eyebrows can also alter appearance according to how you pick them.

Do the eyebrows look different in this comp:

Don't think so.

Also, one of Paul's eyebrows was messed up by the motorbike accident:

[edit on 27-8-2009 by diabolo1]

Originally posted by switching yard
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.

Let me address what I think happened with Pepper. Some of the songs on Sgt. Pepper were recorded by Paul before September of '66. This includes:

Getting Better
She's Leaving Home
Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds(chorus)

The songs Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band Reprise were recorded by Faul. The songs Lovely Rita, Fixing A Hole and When I'm Sixty Four were performed by a vocal imitator(s) other than Faul.

So that leaves five "Paul" songs not performed by the real Paul. I think they were written by John, George Harrison, George Martin, possibly Faul and some other song writers. I see Pepper as a "team" effort. Interestingly, it was discussed awhile back that the vocal imitator on those three songs was Neil Aspinall, but that's really hard to determine.



[edit on 27-8-2009 by SednaSon]

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
The eyes & eyebrows don't match up at all. They're clearly from 2 different faces.

Originally posted by diabolo1

Plus to match up Faul with Paul "perfectly", you have to find just the right pic and you have to make Faul's head smaller to make it work. If you could view the entire body on these two pics you'd see that Faul's head would look disproportionately small on Paul's body and Paul's head would look too big on Faul's body. Look at the pics again and try imagining switching heads and what it would look like.



[edit on 27-8-2009 by SednaSon]

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

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.

The forensics DO NOT prove that at all. From the Wired article:

Io ancora adesso non so cosa dire, anzi cosa dirmi», ammette Gavazzeni che di McCartney, chiunque egli sia, si dichiara fan. Mentre Carlesi si limita a osservare: «I dubbi sono molto forti e le discordanze numerose, ma non ci si può esprimere ancora con assoluta certezza. Soprattutto perché parliamo di un personaggio così noto e per di più vivo.

Davanti a un cadavere sarei più netta: i dati emersi mi avrebbero indotto e autorizzato a procedere con più esami approfonditi e dirimenti. Comunque, se sostituzione c'è stata, il vero capolavoro è stato quello di trovare un sosia con caratteristiche antropometriche tutto sommato molto vicine all'"originale"», ammette. «C'è da dire che l'analisi antropometrica va, necessariamente, corredata da esami di altro tipo per formulare una perizia certa al 100 per cento.

Translation from an Italian speaking poster on Icke:

"I still do not know what to say, or better still, what to say to myself", admits Gavazzeni, who declares to be a fan of McCartney - whoever he is. While Carlesi just remarks:

"The doubts are very strong, and there are many mismatches, but it is not possible to express any absolute certainty. This especially because we are speaking about such a famous, and furthermore alive, person. I would be more resolute if I were in front of a corpse: the results would have induced and autorized me to go on with more in-depth and deciding exams. Anyway, if a replacement happened, the real masterwork was to find a double whose anthropometric characteristics were very close to the 'original', she admits.

"We must say that anthropometric analyses must be necessarily accompanied by other exams to be able to formulate a 100% sure forensic report".

Your claim that the forensics "prove" anything is totally, completely and utterly false - FACT!

Your photoshopped photos are not very good. Done properly, the faces clearly match:




[edit on 27-8-2009 by Dakudo]

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

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]

And you do?

It is the credibility of evidence which is important. And no PID evidence has any credibility. The Wired article used photos from a PID board where manipulation of photos occurs.

If it was a serious scientific study they would have used original photos - not photos taken off some internet site.

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

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.

Merely stating your OPINION of these things does not make them facts. All those claims have been shown to be false. For example, the alleged height difference:



Where is your alleged height difference in the above comp? It doesn't exist.

So where does that leave your so called 'height difference' "proof" now?

It has been proven that camera angles can alter the appearance of somebody's height in photos - FACT.

Can you PROVE this fact false?

So where does that leave your so called 'height difference' "proof" now?





[edit on 27-8-2009 by Dakudo]

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
Earlier, someone posted some comps showing non-matching freckle patterns.

Well of course you'd say they are "non matching". However, I'll let others decide if they are the same freckles or not:

If they could add wrinkles & warts, they could add freckles & scars.

Ok, let's get this straight. You are now suggesting that the illuminati went to the trouble of adding freckles to 'Faul' - yet they completely messed this up and couldn't even put them in the right places?

And at the same time as the illuminati doctors were muddling about putting freckles in the wrong places they didn't bother with something so obvious as his ears and so had him wandering around with fake ears stuck to the side of his face which were so badly made that they kept coming unstuck?

Okaaaaaaay.....

And you have previously stated that:

Faul had freckles. Paul did not.

Now you are saying Paul did?

Your claims are not very consistent, are they?

Of course, photo-doctoring could also be involved.

Ah, the old PID fall back! If in trouble, blame doctored photos. Funny you never provide the UN doctored photos to support your claim.

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

He posted these pics to support his theory that they are the same person, but those are not the same noses or eyes.

Mere speculation and opinion.



[edit on 27-8-2009 by Dakudo]

Of course Faulcon did not answer to my question about the greenish hair and beard color in the photo where the supposed "imposter" has green eyes.

It seems that she is deliberately ignoring questions she cannot reply.

And she cannot reply because it is obvious that Paul McCartney has hazel eyes (not brown), as much as it is obvious that he always was taller than Ringo (not just after 1966), that he still has the same face freckles and naevi that he had before 1966, that his ears are still the same (as anyone can see just looking at the photo posted by Faulcon herself), and all this is just because Paul McCartney was never replaced and all this hoax was built on ludicrous "proofs" (including the biased Wired comparison), probably to act on people with frail and impressionable minds.
Be careful not to be brainwashed with all these silly "proofs".

Originally posted by SednaSon

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
The eyes & eyebrows don't match up at all. They're clearly from 2 different faces.

Originally posted by diabolo1

Plus to match up Faul with Paul "perfectly", you have to find just the right pic and you have to make Faul's head smaller to make it work. If you could view the entire body on these two pics you'd see that Faul's head would look disproportionately small on Paul's body and Paul's head would look too big on Faul's body. Look at the pics again and try imagining switching heads and what it would look like.

Mere erroneous armchair speculation.

This photo shows the error in your speculation. The heads are the same size:




[edit on 27-8-2009 by Dakudo]

Originally posted by SednaSon
Let me address what I think happened with Pepper. Some of the songs on Sgt. Pepper were recorded by Paul before September of '66. This includes:

Getting Better
She's Leaving Home
Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds(chorus)

The songs Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band Reprise were recorded by Faul. The songs Lovely Rita, Fixing A Hole and When I'm Sixty Four were performed by a vocal imitator(s) other than Faul.

So that leaves five "Paul" songs not performed by the real Paul. I think they were written by John, George Harrison, George Martin, possibly Faul and some other song writers. I see Pepper as a "team" effort. Interestingly, it was discussed awhile back that the vocal imitator on those three songs was Neil Aspinall, but that's really hard to determine.

[edit on 27-8-2009 by SednaSon]

Thank you for sharing your opinions with us.
But please stick to facts.
These are only your personal opinions.
Not proofs.
Now, here are some proofs that you are wrong.

1) "Getting Better" was not recorded in 1966. The recording sessions were on March 9th, 1967 (19:00-3:30), March 10th (19:00-4:00), March 21st (19:00-2:45) and 22nd (19:00-2:25)
2) "She is leaving home" was not recorded in 1966.
It was recorded on March 17th, 1967 (19:00-0:45) and mixed on March 20th (19:00-3:30).
3) "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" was not recorded in 1966.
The first proofs of the song took place on February 28th, 1967 (19:00 to 3:00). The recording took place on March 1st (19:00-2:15) and 2nd (19:00-3:30), and the mixing on March3rd (19:2:15).

All these recording sessions took place in the Studio 2 in Emi Studios in Abbey Road.
By the way, these are not my opinions. They are facts. A fact is something that can be documented.
All these data can be checked by anyone of the book "The complete Beatles recording sessions" by Mark Lewisohn.
So, what of your assumptions?
I suppose that you think that these 3 songs were recorded in 1966 by the real Paul McCartney... well, it seems that they were all recorded in 1967.
By the real Paul McCartney. The same Paul McCartney who is still alive and was replaced only in the minds of PIDers.

Click here for more information.