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.

 

Did Paul Mcartney Die And Was He Replaced?

page: 6
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Since I'm only after posting vids highlighting the links between the Illuminati and the music industry, it's important for people to check out this guys you tube channel and forum -

www.youtube.com...




Definately worth a look and if some of his vids can't be played on you tube due to stricter copyright applications, then just visit his main website -
theindustryexposed.com...




posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Benny

Wasn't it Kissinger who said "power is the ultimate aphrodisiac."

Yes, it was. And ewww :-P lol


I've pondered the question recently, if Paul McCartney had lived and wasn't replaced would he be as famous and successful today?


As usual, you make an excellent point. I had just assumed Paul would have kept writing/singing & that there would have been all these awesome songs that we never got to hear, so I was feeling kind of robbed. But if Paul wasn't a team-player, then it's likely he would've been side-lined at some point. It's sort of like those one-hit wonders who are talented but disappear very quickly. IMO, a lot of them are people who wouldn't play ball, thinking they could go to another label, only to find that all are controlled by the same people.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Benny

It took me a number of months Tappy researching this area to fully convince myself that the original McCartney was replaced in late 1966 and never came back into the fold.

It took me about 2 days of intensively researching PID & scrutinizing photos & videos before I could actually see the physical differences. I knew right away that PID was true, though, b/c my heart fell into my stomach pretty much as soon as I started looking into it.


The CIA have been using doubles for decades but few look into it. Do people really know the Bob Dillions, Elvis and McCartneys of this world, no! But they'll believe what they see on tv and read in the newspaper.


If you know doubles are used & that people are assassinated, then it's not a big leap to assassinated people are replaced w/ doubles, right? Most people don't pay attention, don't know the people personally, & are far too trusting of mainstream media, so they don't catch on.

Background information on doubles



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Benny

A shill is someone who consistantly debunks a certain topic (usually under different names), twists what people say and spreads lies about a subject in order to put other people off investigating it.


PID Truthers are targeted an inordinate amount by shills/disinformation agents, which should prove in and of itself that there is something to it. The problem w/ PID is that it opens up a whole can of worms. For example, it exposes the fact that people are replaCIAed. This particular tactic has remained largely hidden, & people have been replaCIAed right under the unsuspecting public's nose. So, it's important for certain interests to make people think PID is "ridiculous" so that people won't look into it & find out what is going on both in terms of replaCIAments, but also how much the entertainment industry & celebrities are used to further the agenda. I think a lot of people consider celebrities to be inconsequential, but they are used to manipulate the masses just like anything else. They are exploited & if they won't play ball, they're disposed of.

Tavistock Institute & social conditioning

MK-ULTRA & the '60's "counter-culture"

Entertainment industry & mass manipulation



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by someotherguy
I had just assumed Paul would have kept writing/singing & that there would have been all these awesome songs that we never got to hear, so I was feeling kind of robbed. But if Paul wasn't a team-player, then it's likely he would've been side-lined at some point. It's sort of like those one-hit wonders who are talented but disappear very quickly. IMO, a lot of them are people who wouldn't play ball, thinking they could go to another label, only to find that all are controlled by the same people.


No doubt he would have gone on to have much more success with the Beatles, and if he went solo I'm sure he would have done very well. But then maybe in his late 20's early 30's he might have taken an entirely different direction, who knows.


The thing is today people are so conditioned by Faul/Bill that they don't realise Paul was actually more like John and a bit of a rebel. He may have gone on to be viewed in the same light as Lennon in his later solo career writing songs similar to "Working Class Hero," a Phil Ochs type of songwriter. Why wouldn't he.... Lennon and himself came from similar Liverpudlian, working class backgrounds. It would depend on how savy he became to what was really going on in the music and entertainment industry. He wouldn't have penned anything like that "Live and Let Die" muck. Not saying Bill/Faul didn't write a few tunes but he is an insider YES man, a tool of the establishment. However we can also take someone like Bono from U2 who wrote the songs "Sunday Bloody Sunday" and "Pride," if he had to have died in the late 80's he'd be a national treasure in Ireland. Now look at him, an NWO stooge shaking hands with Al Gore and eating breakfast with the Blairs. So it all depends how much somebody wakes up and how far they're prepared to go.



Originally posted by someotherguy
It took me about 2 days of intensively researching PID & scrutinizing photos & videos before I could actually see the physical differences. I knew right away that PID was true, though, b/c my heart fell into my stomach pretty much as soon as I started looking into it.


It's different with everyone isn't it, you were no doubt quick off the mark Someotherguy. For me I'd go away, leave it and then come back and see something else. Eventually it started to add up and I couldn't ignore what I was seeing.




[edit on 11-1-2010 by Uncle Benny]



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   
It's interesting to note when looking at "Paul McCartneys" solo material, his third album is actually titled McCartney II (the first being McCartney and the second, Ram).


I posted the video "Coming Up" on the previous page where Faul/Bill dresses up as a number of different artists (among them Hank Marvin of "The Shadows"). Note.... "The Plastic Macs" written across the bass drum.




www.youtube.com...


^ Also there are four musicians behind Faul/Bill as he sings, and one of these (the guy on the left as we ook at the vid) is completely out of sync with the other three - look at the way he's dressed and how he moves, indicative of how Faul/Bill was the odd man out in the Beatles when he replaced Paul.


On the same album as a bonus song is another strange track called "Check My Machine," here's the lyrics -

Check My Machine
Check Check Check Check Check My Machine
Check My Machine
Check Check Check Check Check My Machine

(Repeat) -

I Got A Woman A Long Time Ago
I Had Trouble
I Want You To See What You Can See

Check My Machine
Check Check Check Check Check My Machine
Check My Machine
Check Check Check Check Check My Machine

(Ad Lib)

I Want You To Check Check
Check Check Check My Machine
Check Check Check Check Check
My Machine

(Ad Lib)
Check Check Check Check Check My Machine





Imo Bill/Faul here is indirectly pointing out to people that he is not who he seems -


"I Want You To See What You Can See - Check My Machine."




[edit on 11-1-2010 by Uncle Benny]



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Benny

It's interesting to note when looking at "Paul McCartneys" solo material, his third album is actually titled McCartney II


From "Sir Paul McCartney confronts the ghosts of his past": "People who know him say there is the real McCartney and there is Beatle Paul. 'I’ve learnt to compartmentalise,' he says. 'There’s me and there’s famous Him. I don’t want to sound schizophrenic, but probably I’m two people.'"



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Benny
No doubt he would have gone on to have much more success with the Beatles, and if he went solo I'm sure he would have done very well.

Well, he was super-talented, as far as I'm concerned.


The thing is today people are so conditioned by Faul/Bill that they don't realise Paul was actually more like John and a bit of a rebel.

Yes, he was!


Not saying Bill/Faul didn't write a few tunes but he is an insider YES man, a tool of the establishment.

It goes without saying that *Sir* Paul is pro-establishment. He's been richly rewarded for his service to the Queen.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by someotherguy

Originally posted by Uncle Benny

It's interesting to note when looking at "Paul McCartneys" solo material, his third album is actually titled McCartney II


From "Sir Paul McCartney confronts the ghosts of his past": "People who know him say there is the real McCartney and there is Beatle Paul. 'I’ve learnt to compartmentalise,' he says. 'There’s me and there’s famous Him. I don’t want to sound schizophrenic, but probably I’m two people.'"



^ Well that says it all really, great find Someotherguy.


In the video above, "Coming Up," we see there are these two Pauls represented (Faul/Bill playing both) - There's Faul singing out front, and the younger Beatle Paul on bass up the back. Like I've said, the album was also named "McCartney II" even though it was actually his third solo album.


In this next vid, "Ever Present Past" the two Pauls again pop up -





^ We can see, at 25 seconds in, a second Paul enters and walks across the floor.

At 41 seconds he sings, "I think of everything to be discovered, I hope there's something to find." - another reference to the fact that one man replaced another.

Note that throughout this video Fauls female backing dancers all look the same - same attire, same hair, same moves.

All the way through the video there is the constant theme of one Paul walking past the other and taking over from where the last Paul left off.




[edit on 11-1-2010 by Uncle Benny]



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   



Bill/Fauls reaction to the death of John Lennon. Why does it look as if all his Christmases have come together?


Lennons final album had been titled "Double Fantasy"... and was released only a few months after Fauls... McCartney II.



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Have to love this guy Stevie Riks who portrays the animosity between John and Faul (Bill) so well. Most Beatles fans think John and Paul had a big falling out, not realising that John was dealing with a pretentious double who was using the identity of his departed friend.




posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 12:18 PM
link   
I once spoke to Cilla Black about this,She was an iconic star known as being one of the best singers of all time in the uk,for thoese who dont know.

Instead of laughing an saying it was all rubbish,her answer was quite telling.She said "no comment".

[edit on 14-1-2010 by KANDINSKI]



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by KANDINSKI
I once spoke to Cilla Black about this...


That reminds me of something "Sonikdave" wrote on the Icke forum a while back:


My friends and I are all music buffs, I'm not really huge on the beatles and I don't know an awful lot about them, but my best friend is a huge Beatles fan and I first got into this paul is dead business when I read a book about it on his bookshelf. My friend doesn't think Paul was replaced he just collects Beatles stuff, but I was fascinated with it. I am however a huge fan of The Smiths, Morrissey and Johnny Marr.. Well I had an opportunity to meet Johnny Marr at a major record store here in Toronto Ontario(HMV). I was very nervous in meeting him and wasn't sure what to say, but when we had concluded our talk in which I got a picture with him he introduced me to Zak, Ringo's son who plays drums in Johnny's new band at the time, the Healers. Well after talking to him about 5 mins I remembered the whole deal with Paul is dead so I asked him about it, can't remember exactly what I said, but he said "definitely something there isn't there? There will always be a Paul McCartney" then proceeded to change the subject quite quickly...

Also my brother's friend owns a bar in Brantford Ontario where I was living last year and Pete Best was performing there one night. I had no idea he was coming I was there watching a hockey game (typical canadian) He actually sat down next to me and my brother and had a drink with us, I also asked him about the whole Paul is dead theories and what he thought, and his entire demenour changed and he looked like he was stressed out about something and he said "Such a sad story, I wish I had time to properly discuss my feelings about it but either nobody cares anymore or nobody asks." I was pretty buzzed as I was drinking quite a bit (my team was losing) when I was talking to him and I asked him straight up if Paul was dead in his opinion and he just shook his head and kept drinking staring at his beer and left within a few mins into the back...

www.davidicke.com...



posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 05:47 AM
link   
I'm not sure if Paul was replaced. However, I am 100% sure he changed almost completely in 1967. How come his cheeks got thinner and not as bulbous as they were? Was he on diet? I don't think he would get such a result in such a short period of time. Did he have some kind of cheek reduction surgery done? Even more improbable, since that was not possible back then I guess. And why would he do that in the first place?! In addition, his mouth seemed different. I think the 'cheeky' Paul looked different than the post-1967 one. I'm not saying he was replaced by an impostor, but he changed considerably almost overnight. In addition his behavior in interviews changed from that point. How could someone change this much is beyond me.



posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 06:34 AM
link   
Now I am gonna try to be gentle here, being a newbie and all, plus....I dont want another slap on the wrist by the mods but..

Are you all crazy?? Paul McCartney replaced? Dont know about you, but I have listened to The Beatles since their day one almost and can tell you he aint been replaced. Nope and No!! Good Lord, even thinking about it cracks me up no end! And do you all think John, George and Ringo didnt notice, or if they did ' we wont say a word, not tell anyone that our loved colleague had been replaced'? Family did not notice? Song writing style changed? The imposter had a voicebox operation to talk just like Paul?

I am open to lots of conspiracy stuff, but Paul McCartney being ' replaced' is waaaaaaaaay out there babies! And then some.

ETA: If I put a 1/2 and 1/2 photo up of me 20 years apart you would get a very different look. I swear! Mama mia!
edit on 11-11-2010 by annella because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by troyj88
I'm not sure if Paul was replaced. However, I am 100% sure he changed almost completely in 1967. How come his cheeks got thinner and not as bulbous as they were? Was he on diet? I don't think he would get such a result in such a short period of time. Did he have some kind of cheek reduction surgery done? Even more improbable, since that was not possible back then I guess. And why would he do that in the first place?! In addition, his mouth seemed different. I think the 'cheeky' Paul looked different than the post-1967 one. I'm not saying he was replaced by an impostor, but he changed considerably almost overnight. In addition his behavior in interviews changed from that point. How could someone change this much is beyond me.


Paul was definitely replaced. You mentioned the cheeks & the personality. Other things that changed were the jawline, tragus, earlobes, nasal spine, lips, eye color, eyebrows, head shape, palate, teeth, feet & shoe size, voiceprints, height, & body hair. There might even be other differences I've forgotten. It doesn't take a genius to figure out it's not the same guy. And there are forensics experts that agree, btw.

Check out www.plasticmacca.blogspot.com. There's also going to be a PID show on Axxiom radio tomorrow.
edit on 11-11-2010 by someotherguy because: b/c



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 02:15 AM
link   
Now I am gonna try to be gentle here, I am not a newbie and all, plus....I dont want another slap on the wrist by the mods but..

Are you all crazy?? Paul McCartney replaced? Dont know about you, but I have listened to The Beatles since their day one almost and can tell you he has been replaced. Yup and Yes!! Good Lord, even thinking about it upsets me to no end! And John, George and Ringo noticed, and although they did they couldn't say a word, tell anyone that their loved colleague had been replaced or their goose was cooked. Family noticed. Paul's brother Mike was himself also replaced, that's how deep the rabbit hole goes. Song writing style changed.Faul so nicknamed by John to signify Fake Paul had no voicebox operation and does not talk like Paul, laboratory voice spectrum analysis proves Faul to be an impostor.

I am open to lots of conspiracy stuff, and Paul McCartney being ' replaced' is waaaaaaaaay more upsetting than most! And then some.

ETA: If I put a 1/2 and 1/2 photo up of me 20 years apart you would get a slightly different look. But my head shape and size would be identical, my bone structure, jawline, eye placement and slanting, ear shape and placement and eye color would be a close match. I swear! Mama mia!



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 02:58 AM
link   
A lot of people figured out back in 1967 that Paul had been replaced. Faul has got to be the world's worst double. I'm really not sure how TPTB managed to condition the masses to see Faul as Paul. It would be funny if it weren't so tragic.

And this conspiracy theory is not highly speculative at all. It's been proven by forensic science that Paul was replaced. Granted that what happened to him ultimately is speculative.

edit on 23-11-2010 by someotherguy because: b/c



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 09:24 PM
link   
Considering how horrific "Faul's" music is I can believe this. Honestly, his music is so stupid and simplistic he couldn't possibly be a great artist, Simply having a wonderful Christmas time anyone? You say goodbye, I say hello? Ugg.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 02:07 AM
link   
CB328,

You said it but aren't about to make yourself any friends as most people who lurk in Beatles threads are fans, and more often than not they are fans of the Featles and not the original Beatles. Sure the dribble that is emitted from Faul's flaccid face is a far cry from the compelling plea of Paul's original songs. But those who were weaned on Madonna and today Lady Gaga cannot tell the difference between a Tuba and Bagpipes.

GS



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join