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: 92
33
<< 89  90  91    93  94  95 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 08:45 AM
link   
From magnolia_xx... "Yes, you are just theorizing. Please, if you believe that Paul McCartney was replaced, provide proofs. Not theories."

Where's your proof he wasn't replaced?

ATS is a forum where theories can be discussed and bounced off other theorists until someone connects the dots in a way that could explain what happened. I really don't need to look at any more photos because I can see different people in them all claiming to be Paul. I understand that many people can't or won't see that. So, to me, the photos I've seen presented on this thread are proof enough for me that Paul was replaced by one or more doubles.

I've been a hardcore Beatles fan since 1964. I would like to believe nothing sinister happened and today's "Paul" is the same one we've appreciated for his talent since 1964 (earlier than that for UK fans my age), but there are very serious doubts about this legendary figure and about the true history of The Beatles.

The Anthology video series and book are supposed to be the official story. It is possible that a lot of it is propaganda. Many of the stories that have been repeated over the years make a legend, but a legend is not necessarily the truth.

Sure, if Paul was replaced it was a very slick job. The kind of thing CIA and MI-6 specialize in. Are there secret societies in the world? Sure, there have to be and it would not surprise me if the Illuminati does exist, wealthy and powerful beyond measure, and capable of assassinating very famous people and then covering it up.

With The Beatles, we have the early period and the later period or psychedelic period. There are death clues permeating the songs and album art of the later period. John is on record singing "here's another clue for you all, the walrus was Paul"... no one can deny John put that on record in 1968 well before there was any public conspiracy theory about Paul being dead. Why did John do that? If there was no idea in the public of any PID clues, why did John say "here's another clue for you"... explain that. Of course, we now know all the albums going back at least as far as Sgt Pepper were loaded with clues. Why go to all the trouble? Why death clues?

This PID thing is a very real mystery. When you see Anthology or read the official story of The Beatles... please don't believe everything especially whatever is said by the fellow presenting himself as Paul McCartney.




posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 09:06 AM
link   


I really don't need to look at any more photos because I can see different people in them all claiming to be Paul. I understand that many people can't or won't see that. So, to me, the photos I've seen presented on this thread are proof enough for me that Paul was replaced by one or more doubles.



I wonder where you see different people...










Sure, if Paul was replaced it was a very slick job. The kind of thing CIA and MI-6 specialize in.



Now that's what CIA and MI6 specialized in! Replacing popstars with other guys to let them sing about love&revolution!







posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   
I'm watching the rotten apple series in its entirety and I don't buy into any of the back masking, playing stuff backwards, because I think that would have been too difficult to pull off (I'm not one to really buy into the EVP phenom either).

One thing that's cool is in rotten apple 18, George playing bass on Two Of Us. You know, George's bass playing sure sounds a lot like what we've always assumed was Paul's bass playing on all the post 1966 albums. To me, it is possible that George played bass on many of those recordings. It has also been suggested that Klaus Voorman played bass on some of them.

But it's cool to see George in action playing bass on rotten apple 18. His attitude seems sort of "hey, this is just part of my job." The bass line in Two Of Us sounds classic McCartney (or what we always thought was classic McCartney). So did Paul write that bass line and tell George 'play it exactly like this' or, which seems more likely to me, George was given free reign to craft a bass line. If George wrote that bass line in Two Of Us then it is fair to say he could have written all the bass lines in all the songs post 1966.

George was "the quiet Beatle" but he didn't get that reputation until the psychedelic years. Only post 1966 did everyone say "oh, George is the quiet Beatle"... what was he being quiet about?

George wrote Something, one of the greatest songs ever written. In Beatle lore, we are supposed to believe the innermost circle thought he wasn't such a good songwriter. If Paul was replaced and if there was a coverup, if the popular lore and legend is wrong, then I would take the position that George became John's intimate songwriting partner and was responsible for way more music than he was given credit for. The interview clips of George in Anthology show someone who seems to be hiding some big secret and very annoyed at having to hide it. George seems loathe to participate at all in the Anthology series... perhaps because he knows it is a pack of lies.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki

Again I ask: why do you care so much about this that you feel the need to try to debunk everything about the PID theory?


I'll leave it to a Macca Funhouse member to answer, since he puts it so succinctly:



Are pidders the only one allowed to voice their views?

Back in the summer of 2003, I was reading something about the Beatles and the old PID story was mentioned. I remembered as a kid hearing about the clues and looking at the Abbey Road album. I decided to do research on PID. When I did a search I found the Sun King and Uberkinder's old 60IF site. It intriqued me because it was not the old silly clues stuff, but a more serious study of photos.

I joined 60IF with an open mind. As time went on, members were coming up with more and more outlandish theories. Things that just made no sense and could not be supported. Anyone who challenged what they came up with were ridculed and later banned. Chris and others were claiming to be channeling the spirits of dead Beatles and Chris even claimed that her husband was possessed by the spirit of the dead Paul McCartney.

Chris and Sister Mary Abbey were making nasty accusations that Paul was a pedophile and having inappopriate contact with his own children and that Paul and Yoko had conspired to kill John Lennon. These things were sick. Should we PIA people sit back and say nothing?

In short, the truth is important to us, and someone needs to be presenting that side.

Without us, people searching on the net would only get the PID side. They would only hear that Paul McCartney had brown eyes and that after 1966 the eye color changed to green. That is a lie, but that is all that people would get. We are here to provide documentation that Paul himself stated his eyes were hazel. And we provide the information that hazel eyes shift colors between brown, and green and gray. The pidders do not provide that correct information.

Without us, people would only see 'pre 67 pictures of Paul's height being the same or shorter than George and John. We are here to show that many 'pre '67 pictures of the boys show Paul being taller than George and John. We show fades showing the facial features are the same. Without us, people would only hear the lie that Paul McCartney had no freckles. We are here to show pictures from the pidders own sites that show Paul with freckles.

Let me give a story about Silver Hamer (Larry). Larry recenlty received an email from someone who was doing research on PID. This person told Larry that it took many PID sites to convince him that Paul was indeed dead and had been replaced. But it took only Larry's site to switch him back to PIA. If it were not for us Knights of Macca providing this point of view, this person would have remained PID. But since he had the opportunity to examine both sides of the issue and come to his own conclusion, he became PIA.

That is why we are here. It is important that people are presented with both sides of an issue. They should be able to examine all points of view and see ALL of the evidence, not just the pictures and videos that the pidders want them to see.

We are confident in our evidence and arguments. We do not fear people seeing the PID sites. It was policy at TKIN and NIR that no one could even link to threads here or other PIA sites. On their home pages, they link only to other PID sites, many sharing the same members. It is merley a reverberation of the same tired theories and misrepresentations.

Here, on the PIA Essential Links thread, we link not just to PIA sites, but also TKIN, NIR, PID Miss Him, David Icke and so on. We encourage people to visit the PID sites. We link to their threads all the time. We are not so closed-minded. We don't want to suppress any point of view. People should be able to evaluate all sides. The other sites do not feel that way. We are here to present the other side.
maccafunhouse.proboa...



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki

Originally posted by Dakudo


Yes - properly conducted, UNBIASED forensics using ORIGINAL photos!

The Wired scientists did not use credible, ORIGINAL photos.


If this is your beef with the forensic analysis why don't you send them undoctored pictures. I would but I'm sure that people would question my biases.


And they'd do it for free, would they?


Even better, why don't you ask them to conduct the same research on undoctored pics? That way we can all step away from accusations of bias and see what comes.


See above.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Originally posted by aorAki
Even better, why don't you ask them to conduct the same research on undoctored pics?


The forensics experts can tell when photos have been doctored.


How, precisely?


Scientific technical, or other specialized knowledge isn't required to see that they don't.


LOL!!!! Since when is a lay person's OPINION just as credible as a forensic scientist who has conducted a proper facial analysis on suitable photos?



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   
From rotten apple 27...

Phillip Norman, author of Beatles biography "Shout"...

"The Beatles is not a normal story. It's a supernatural story." He claims there is no one left to tell the story. "'McCartney' won't tell you. Ringo can't tell you. John isn't here. He ("Paul" rewrites history all the time."

This, I think, is a key interview. Norman seems afraid to reveal what he knows about all of this. He hints that Ringo can't reveal anything under penalty of death. He says "Paul" is a liar.

Now, what about the interviews with Heather Mills when she is clearly afraid that her life is in danger because of something about "Paul" that if the world finds out, people would be devastated and "couldn't handle it." What could she be afraid of? Well, I think she's afraid of the same thing that Phillip Norman is afraid to reveal and Ringo is afraid to reveal... Paul died and was replaced. I think for those who were in the inner circle of The Beatles and witnessed the coverup, they were told look, Epstein spilled the beans to some people and we offed him and will do the same to you. To this day, I think certain people are afraid of being assassinated because they've seen that the power behind all of this can and will assassinate people who get out of line.

George Martin, I think, was paid off very handsomely to keep his mouth shut. Same with Derek Taylor, Neil Aspinall and all the rest of them. I think Mal was killed because he wanted to break the story. I think Lennon and Harrison were both killed because they had all the knowledge necessary to break the story wide open if they had wanted to. I think Eric Clapton is afraid to speak out. I believe Eric played guitar (second in the sequence of solos) on The End. C'mon now, that's Eric! Compare that to Eric on his own stuff, that's him I tell ya, same silky arpeggio lead riff style with same Eric vibrato you can hear on countless Eric Clapton recordings. Just listen. That's Eric on The End.

The Beatles' psychedelic years were very, very mysterious. There's never really even been an acceptable explanation as to why they broke up. Some say the dispute over Allen Klein, some say Yoko, some say burn out, some say other reasons. But the album Abey Road was an artistic work of the very pinnacle of Beatles' artistic power. Now why would they quit after that? The breakup itself has never, ever been explained by anyone to my satisfaction.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by SednaSon
Whoever performed the plastic surgery on Faul to make him look like Faul,[sic] well, do you think they would leave out marks like freckles? Come on.


Yet - according to PIDDERS - they had him walking around with fake ears hanging off?!!!



But, according to our resident facial analysis expert Faulcon, the freckles don't match.

So you are also expecting people to believe that these illuminati plastic surgeons were so bumbling and stupid that they couldn't even put the freckles in the right places and never even noticed?

Gimme a break!


[edit on 28-8-2009 by Dakudo]



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by diabolo1

I wonder where you see different people...



That's a great fade diabolo.

So, where's Faulcon's "longer face"?

Where's his different shaped head?

His different chin?

Nose?

Mouth?

Forehead?

Incredible that some people have such poor observational skills that they will insist that that fade shows two different people.

There again, some PIDDERS had never even noticed that Paul had freckles until a PIAer pointed it out to them.....

Right, Faulcon?


[edit on 28-8-2009 by Dakudo]



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Regarding Dakudo's pics:

I reiterate, I am going to question. It is in my mature.

As to the explanation regarding blurred backgrounds, no, the background will not change that much due to just zooming in, unless the man changes positions, which Dakudo later explained, thus the background is shifted, by the subject's movement of the photographer's movement. If trees, which are green, are the predominant background over the shoulder or side of head, zooming in will not change that.

As I have stated before, the arguments on both sides point to doubles being used. That is a practice still commonly carried out. It allows celebrities a chance and leading normal lives for even a few minutes. To have replaced him permanently, with someone who happened to have his same voice, mannerisms, and, arguably, talent without his family, friends, and associates knowing or never speaking about what they knew, is close to impossible.

The changes in features? Plastic surgery. The current Paul McCartney has a face which looks like one which has had structural changes and is falling apart, requiring maintenance. There is also the history of drug abuse and without knowing the depth of the use, the substances abused, and the length of time, the effects can not be quantified. The attempts to rectify the physical damage can not be known either.

[edit on 8/28/2009 by Ethera]



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by SednaSon
For Faul to be Paul he must have been wearing contacts since the late 60's


He must have been wearing brown contacts, b/c his natural eye color is green.


(btw, this may be the same gold jacket as the Aug 22, 1966 NY interview)





And yes, I know that color contacts didn't come onto the market until the early '80's, but that does not mean certain people didn't have access to them earlier than that.

Anyway here's an ex. of how photos are tampered w/ to make Paul look like Faul & vice versa:








posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by magnolia_xx

Faulcon, how can you say that they don't match, when they actually match?

I can see that they don't match. But what's funny is that people latch onto some freckles as "proof," when it's clear that the noses, jawlines, ears, eyebrows, & eyes don't match.


It is sad to see that you still go on posting the same photos (I think you posted some of them at least 10 times, it is quite boring) and go on saying the very same things, even when they are actually confuted by mere observation and good sense.

I guess I'm one of those people who likes to back up what I say w/ some sort of evidence.


By the way, you are saying that the Illuminati doctors would have been reproducing freckles on the fake Paul McCartney, so a very meticulous job... and then they would have put ridiculous fake years, so clearly visible?
Where is the logic in your construction?

Well, obviously, the ears are fake. And since the freckles don't match, I wouldn't call the job "meticulous." I guess they didn't have the CIA disguise master, Robert Barron, working on Faul. lol



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob


Sometimes, you just can't be arsed to go out and take another photo -- just ask Microsoft.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   
I read somewhere Faul said he didn't need glasses until he was middle-aged or something...







And about the ears... I've posted pics of obviously fake Faul ears, plus the findings from forensic scientists that the ears are not the same. If you wish to believe they're "exactly" the same, then I guess no amount of proof will convince you otherwise.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   
I talked about this earlier in the thread. This is the exact same picture of Paul from 1966 that has been doctored & reused in 1967. The mustache looks very fake. This is an example of how they kept the illusion alive that Paul was "still with us."




posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
Anyway here's an ex. of how photos are tampered w/ to make Paul look like Faul & vice versa:



Hey that's pretty good -- keep the face the same but change the clothes and hairstyle and you get pre and post 66 Pauls. The face even seems 'longer' with the later hairstyle -- well done for proving it was just an optical illusion all along.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Here's what I am currently thinking... at a transition point I'm not able to pin it down precisely right now --- still researching) in the timeline of Beatles' history, they were taken over by powers much greater than them.

The Beatles, at some point, became managed as a secret corporation and everything about them was done by a committee of secret agents, with the cooperation of everyone involved. A staff of some of the finest cryptologists in MI-6 and CIA manufactured much of what was put out to the public. Lennon was fed the purest pharmaceutical grade '___' and heroin. The Beatles were control subjects in a Tavistock version of MK-Ultra. There was heavy mind control programming. They experienced greater and greater artistic and financial success outperforming their wildest boyhood dreams "with a little help" from their "friends". Agents and handlers, controllers.

Cryptologists created a whole alternate universe, a parallel reality, creating a Beatles legend that remains in effect today. Myth, legend, lore, they, the secret team, created it.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by switching yard
I'm watching the rotten apple series in its entirety and I don't buy into any of the back masking, playing stuff backwards, because I think that would have been too difficult to pull off...

You don't think they could have placed backwards messages in the songs? This one really sounds like Faul is saying "I'll now be with CIA" to me:




The interview clips of George in Anthology show someone who seems to be hiding some big secret and very annoyed at having to hide it. George seems loathe to participate at all in the Anthology series... perhaps because he knows it is a pack of lies.


He did say 98% of what was written about the Beatles wasn't true... I agree w/ you that George seems to have known something, but wasn't talking. He was spewing venom in "Imagine" about Faul - mocking "Beatle Bill" for being #5 in Sweden. lol



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by switching yard
...I think for those who were in the inner circle of The Beatles and witnessed the coverup, they were told look, Epstein spilled the beans to some people and we offed him and will do the same to you. To this day, I think certain people are afraid of being assassinated because they've seen that the power behind all of this can and will assassinate people who get out of line.

Plus, they'd already proven what they were capable of w/ Paul. Brian, Mal Evans, John, the attack on George. Lots of bodies... wondering if Stu Sutcliffe's death was just a brain aneurism, or if more was going on...


I think Eric Clapton is afraid to speak out. I believe Eric played guitar (second in the sequence of solos) on The End. C'mon now, that's Eric! Compare that to Eric on his own stuff, that's him I tell ya, same silky arpeggio lead riff style with same Eric vibrato you can hear on countless Eric Clapton recordings.

I always thought it was weird that Eric Clapton played lead on "While My Guitar Gently Weeps." If you know any lead guitarists, you'll know how extremely rare that is for one to give up an opportunity to play lead.


The Beatles' psychedelic years were very, very mysterious.

There was such a drastic change suddenly.


There's never really even been an acceptable explanation as to why they broke up.

It didn't seem like they got on too well w/ Faul. Also, it's possible they ran out of Paul's material & didn't need to "honor" him anymore, so there was no point in continuing.


some say Yoko

That was another really bizarre situation...



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by switching yard
... The Beatles, at some point, became managed as a secret corporation and everything about them was done by a committee of secret agents, with the cooperation of everyone involved...


Maybe Paul was given his pink slip in mid-1966. Maybe he didn't fit the "vision" for the future.




top topics



 
33
<< 89  90  91    93  94  95 >>

log in

join