Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Did Paul Mcartney Die And Was He Replaced?

page: 1
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 5 2006 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Greetings all, i hope you are well.

When your one of the worlds most famous musicians that ever lived and your name is known by everyone that has ever listened to music, you really cant be too taken back when strange rumours start to rise up all around you, As this in itself is in the very nature of a modern famous celebrity.

In the late sixites there was a rumour that was going around the world and the media plus the rest of the people that loved the music from this great band The Beatles , That Paul Mccartney was actually killed in a car crash involving his ashton martin wich is alledged to have lost controll and killed the musical genious instantly. He apparently had a few drinks and after a rather heated argument with another band member left the recording studio,got in his car and sped off into the night where this alledged incident is said to have happend.

But then whos the Paul Mccartney we see all over tv today?? you may ask.
It is said that there was a lookalike contest held and a man named William Campbell won this competitiion and is said to have went through vast ammounts of plastic surgery to look like the realy Paul Mccartney.
Later on it was said that the man was named William Shepbard who won the contest.
This got me thinking....William Campbell........ William Shepbard................................................Hmmmm BILLY ( a short version of william) SHEERS (a tool that shepbards use) ??? This is really very interesting to me as the conspiracy around the beatles just keeps growing and growing.
The Beatles are said to reference the fact that the real paulmccartney was replaced such in songs like Glass Onion,Revelution Number 9,Come Together,I am the walrus
and many others.
Some Beatles albums even have messages secretly recorded on them that you have to reverse play on the record to here them some which include.
"Paul is dead miss him miss him miss him" and "Turn Me On Deadman" which you can here when you play the white album song Revolution number 9 backwoods.
There are also alot of clues on the Beatles albums themselves including pictures and acronmyms. One such Example is that in the Majical Mysteri Tour album there is a picture of "Paul" standing there in a army suit with a patch on his arm that reads
"OPD" which means in england Officially Pronounced Dead, This is the equivelent to
the united states "DOA" which means dead on arrival.
It is also strange that when they were questiond about this patch on pauls arm they simply replied that it was from canada and means "Ontario police department"
Except.........there is no such thing.VERY STRANGE I THINK.
other clues included are on the covers of there Abbey Road album in which paul is dressed like a corpse in a coffin,he is out of step with the others,and he has a ciggie in his right hand when every beatles fan knows paul was left handed.
There are also so many other clues everywhere.
I would just like to hear your thoughts on this subject, Is he Dead , Has he been replaced? or is this all something cooked up by some crackpot???

This is the abbey road cover. see what i mean?? there are so many clues throughout there works its not funny .even this cover has lots in it.

Many thank and i look forward to your thoughts.
Omega85




posted on May, 5 2006 @ 11:14 PM
link   
Err No total tosh I'm afraid

Sir Thumbsaloft is still alive and was recently seen bothering seal-clubbers with Lady Heather Mills-McCartney




[edit on 5-5-2006 by Strangerous]



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Strangerous
Err No total tosh I'm afraid

Sir Thumbsaloft is still alive and was recently seen bothering seal-clubbers with Lady Heather Mills-McCartney




[edit on 5-5-2006 by Strangerous]


err ummm aaahhh tosh?
perhaps but not proven.
thats what we are here for.
to find the truth.
And so what if he was seen doing whatever with Lady Heather Mills-Mccartney??
This really doesnt mean anything technicly.



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Nonsense. It's just as likely that John's not really dead and there's some impersonator lying in a casket somewhere... or was he cremated?

mod edit: typo correction

[edit on 6-5-2006 by sanctum]



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 03:04 AM
link   
I found a really well put together site that covers alot of this theory
www.turnmeondeadman.net...
Top left is the site menu, well worth reading through for sure.



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 03:29 AM
link   
Paul & Brian Epstein were killed by the KKK and John Lennon was killed by the CIA . Yoko Ono was a CIA agent & Paul was replaced by Billy Shears aka Billy Shepherd aka Neil Aspinall who also inpersonated someone called Vivian Stanshall.

Hope that clears things up.

Have a look here if you dont believe me - Paul is dead

It's on the net so it MUST be true!!



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 05:11 AM
link   
Three points need answering.

1.) Why is the new Paul (after September 1966) taller that the original Paul?

2.) How do deep brown eyes turn green?

3.) Why is the original Paul found with a wider proportional chin, and the new Paul has a sharper more pointed chin?

None of the clues prove anything in the albums, just look at Paul, not all the silly lyrics. The site in the previous post Paul is Dead makes a very strong case. Even the Sgt Pepper album is obvious with the taller Paul McCartney, when Paul is about the same height as John Lennon. By the time you get to the pictures before and after with Paul's father, you get that sinking feeling, like why didn't anyone look before?

Now don't get me wrong, the new Paul has been great both for the Beatles and his own subsequent bands. He is a superb musician, but he is not the same man, at least until the above questions find adequate responses.



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkipShipman
Three points need answering.

1.) Why is the new Paul (after September 1966) taller that the original Paul?

2.) How do deep brown eyes turn green?

3.) Why is the original Paul found with a wider proportional chin, and the new Paul has a sharper more pointed chin?

None of the clues prove anything in the albums, just look at Paul, not all the silly lyrics. The site in the previous post Paul is Dead makes a very strong case. Even the Sgt Pepper album is obvious with the taller Paul McCartney, when Paul is about the same height as John Lennon. By the time you get to the pictures before and after with Paul's father, you get that sinking feeling, like why didn't anyone look before?

Now don't get me wrong, the new Paul has been great both for the Beatles and his own subsequent bands. He is a superb musician, but he is not the same man, at least until the above questions find adequate responses.


Agreed,great post

i will find some points on this and i will post them
many thanks

Omega85



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 09:25 AM
link   
This topic has already been covered:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Excitable_Boy
This topic has already been covered:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



Not this topic specifically no.
Keep posting people and keep up the good work


Omega



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Everyone BUT Paul is Dead

In an interesting juxtaposition, the author uses the clues to "prove" that Paul was the only Beatle who didn't die.



During the most recent "Paul is dead" thread, philllll noted that if the clues were merely the result of coincidence, one would expect that there would be about as many death clues for the other three Beatles as there are for Paul. Hoping to prove that just such a situation exists, I checked my CDs and stumbled across evidence of a much bigger conspiracy: all the Beatles except Paul died and were replaced by doubles. More specifically, in 1963 Ringo died and was replaced; George died and was replaced in 1964; John died and was replaced in 1965; and RIngo's replacement died in a car crash in November of 1966 and was re-replaced. Of course, the clues about the '66 car crash of "Ringo2" were what produced the Paul is dead rumors.


This just proves that figures don't lie, but liars can figure.

(edit typo)


[edit on 5/10/2006 by darkelf]



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 08:46 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 10:17 AM
link   
i have one??
how else am i posting here lol?
keep up the posting people!!
Has anyone heared of peppertown?



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 10:43 AM
link   
.

Fact remains: today's Paul (referred to apparently as 'Faul' .. meaning False Paul) is several inches taller than the original Paul McCartney. Sure, some people have a late growth spurt, but several inches ... when in their twenties ?

Further, on one of the 'Paul is Dead' sites, they have superimposed a photo of the alleged Faul over that of original Paul. And as the results show, there's wide discrepancy. Original Paul's face was wider and shorter. So in addition to being required to believe that Paul grew several inches, are we also supposed to accept that his face became narrower and longer ... that the gap between his eyes narrowed measurably?

Are we supposed to accept that original Paul's strong Lancashire accent (one of the hardest to eradicate) began slipping and sliding all over the place at the same time he both supposedly grew in height and suffered migration and lengthening of the bones in his face?

Then there are the old black and white interviews with the Fab Four, which show a guy purporting to be McCartney smoking with his right hand and then jumping guiltily like a startled cat before swiftly and surreptitiously switching his cigarette to his left hand. Ever been left-handed yourself, or known a 'lefty'. If so, you'd be aware of just how difficult it is to 'convert' an established left-hander, especially after infancy.

Photos of a supposed McCartney on 'holiday' (sporting marks that appear suspiciously like plastic surgery scars) are depressing to see, because they make it clear that this is NOT the original Paul McCarney. Instead, the False Paul is of completely different build, height and appearance. He is someone else. He possesses non of the characteristic Paul McCartney mannerisms. He doesn't even begin to look like Paul McCartney. After his 'holiday' (surgical make-over) the False Paul grew a convenient beard and moustache and was hurriedly married to 'minder' Linda. But Jane Asher initially went along with the farce. So who can blame Linda; who can blame any of them? The money-men weren't about to let go of the gold-laying goose. Nor were the other three Beatles, apparently. They told themselves they couldn't break the hearts of the adoring fans. But it was money.

In fact, I do buy the theory that Paul was murdered. And strangely, Paul was the only member of the Fab Four who was genuinely of British Isles stock. The other three had Anglicised surnames and invented family histories, as did the Ashers. In fact, it doesn't take a lot of detection to uncover the fact that all those who surrounded, controlled and profited from the Beatles were members of that group who have always been characterised as worshipping money before all; be it 'manager' Epstein or the eventual wives of the remaining (and compliant) Beatles; the movers and shakers and accountants ... all of them. All except the original Paul McCartney.

Informed sources suggest Paul McCartney was murdered in France; was having an affair with a French singer and was father to her child. Others claim McCartney was killed in a vehicle accident. But I've always believed Paul was murdered because he alone refused to submit himself, his creative talents and the Beatles portfilio to the total and ruthless control of those London 'money men' whose true murky origins lay in the back-alleys and money-lending shops of certain Quarters in old Europe.

Lennon (Lenin? Lenewsky?) had no loyalty to anyone. He was a hard-eyed, hard-faced, callous opportunist; a neurotic who was placed under the control of a 'minder' so vile that everyone still detests her, even today. ' Lennon' was a useful 'tool'; in exchange for fame and fortune and the opportunity to vent his spleen, he willingly played a role in the Zionists' well-planned 'youth revolution' and drug culture. His 'Imagine' was always far from being the wistful utopian anthem it portrayed itself as being; it was / is the soft-sell anthem of the NWO.



posted on May, 13 2006 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Great posts people!!

i thank you for them as i respect all of them .
Keep up the good work.

yours faithfully

Omega85



posted on May, 13 2006 @ 11:09 AM
link   
Paul is not dead. This was a marketing "genious" ploy by John Lennon in order to keep selling $$$/

I have to admit, this was brilliant!



posted on May, 13 2006 @ 11:09 AM
link   
Very interesting theory. What would the reason br for doing this? Plain and simple..........money. Can you the imagine the "cash-cow" that the Beatles were? Phenomenal amounts of cash. Just a thought.



posted on May, 13 2006 @ 11:54 AM
link   
thats nothing, bill gates is dead !!!!!



www.billgatesisdead.com...



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 10:22 PM
link   
The one thing that really gets me is that while I was looking at the clues for all these years, I was distracted from simply looking at Paul before September 1966 and after. When you look at how the photographs line up, and do some simple comparisons, never mind the extensive biometrics software we have today, then you can see what is different. A makeup artist can do a great deal for a face, and we were convinced nothing was amiss, and then came the plastic surgery. None of that helps the taller Paul the Second, nor his green eyes, nor some other biometrics you can review on the above cited web link. Maybe the Beatles were ready to announce it as early as Sgt. Pepper, but the public was so silly it did not care enough to follow up on the "clues," in the albums. I cannot get enough of saying "Just look at Paul," before and after, instead of those clues.

Later research convinced me that the Beatles were pumped even more by such organizations as the Tavistock Institute for several reasons. This is on topic, because apparently they were not done with the Beatles legend in 1966. That would make plausible the direction to proceed, since it was not on a government agenda for Paul to leave us. We know that the Beatles were still fulfilling a mission of transference, to fill the "charisma gap," from November 22, 1963 in Dallas. Instead of people working and hoping for genuine political change through real efforts, many young people just grew their hair long hoping to be rock stars on the top of the pyramid. Such is futility when you add up the number, not impossible, but offering far less than genuine and lasting political change for the better. When was the last time you heard any parent suggesting their kid would be President of the United States one day?

There was big money involved in this psychological operation. All anyone can say is only touching the surface; however I am recovering from overly consenting to any heroes in this world. Still with all the anti-heroes today in popular culture, they did a great job, and as I said before I even like the replacement Paul very much as I also did the original. Their music was genuine, but all told time will tell.

[edit on 14-5-2006 by SkipShipman]



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 03:25 PM
link   
I think this dude really has the definitive study of the question, along with a lot of fun images to look at:

Paul McCartney Replaced





new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join