Round 2: semperfortis vs serbsta - "Paul McCartney"

The topic for this debate is "Paul McCartney died in 1966 and was replaced with a look-alike.”

"semperfortis" will be arguing the "Pro" position and begin the debate.
"serbsta" will be arguing the "Con" position.


Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

There is a 10,000 character limit per post.

Any character count in excess of 10,000 will be deleted prior to the judging process.

Editing is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references. Video and audio files are NOT allowed.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources. Be cognizant of what you quote as excess sentences will be removed prior to judging.

Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.

When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.

This Is The Time Limit Policy:

Each debate must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.

Each debater is entitled to one extension of 24 hours. The request should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extension begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extension request.

In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.

Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.

In the Tournament, winners will be awarded 2 points for each debate they win.

All AboveTopSecret.com Terms and Conditions Apply at all times in all debate formats.

“Paul McCartney died in 1966 and was replaced with a look alike”

Presentation:

Hello again judges, readers and interested passers-by; I am Semperfortis and it is good to get back into the debating game.

I would like to take a moment to thank the astonishing Chissler for all of the massive amount of work that he has done in setting this tournament up and in running it as smoothly as he has.

A special thank you to my esteemed opponent for stepping into the ring with me.

I also would like to thank the judges, the readers and all of those that have supported this forum in the past, and in this, it‘s resurrection.

I would ask one favor of the readers and the judges. I would ask that as you read this, judge the debate and not the topic. While it is almost impossible to convince someone of certain topics, ultimately the reward is in the battle, the challenge is the fight, the satisfaction is in the skirmish itself. If you begin reading this, convinced this absolutely never happened, I may never sway you; but perhaps it will become apparent that I presented the best argument. I ask only this.

Opening:


Now on with the debate.

The Beatles. WOW!

Has there ever been a more influential group of individuals that affected the lives of so many people? Perhaps it was their fame that sparks the many and varied urban legends that surround them, maybe it is quite simply our obsession with the ultra famous; or was it just the music?

Perhaps it was the truth.

They made us dance, they made us scream and they make us young again. They have been, they are and they will always be… The Beatles.

Paul McCartney:

Quite simply put, in this debate, it is my intention to attempt to prove to you that Paul McCartney died in 1966 and was replaced with a look alike. Or at the very least to instill in you some small spark of doubt that this could be true. If I can spark that doubt, my job here will be done.

As fantastic and unbelievable as this may initially sound, there are some very interesting and apparently unexplainable facts that surround that period of time in 1966 and Paul McCartney. I will present these facts to you as we progress together through this debate.

We will together examine several instances that can be tied to this allegation that include the newspaper article in the Drake University Paper on 17 September 1969. Also the phone call on 12 October of the same year to a radio DJ in Michigan telling us all that Paul was dead. That which started it all; a decades long search for the truth.

Wiki

We are going to discuss at length replacement subjects, William Shears Campbell, Phil Ackrill and others. We are going to resist using comparison photos as we all know that photos can be manipulated and are subject to the observers interpretation.

Other pertinent subjects that we will address together:

The Timeline
Government Complicity
Facial Features
Hidden Messages in the Music
Possible Connection to Lennon’s Murder
Vocal Voice Analysis
International Involvement

And much, much more.

Summation:

So come along for the ride as we jump right into this most interesting of subjects with both eyes wide open. Our minds will be the sponges of the ages and our hearts prepared for revelations.

For who can say what we will find when our intellect overcomes our perceptions and our fascination triumphs over our normally boring day to day lives.

For in the end I indeed may make you believe that Paul McCartney did die in 1966 and was in fact replaced with a look alike.

Thank you

Semper

Debating Con position of: "Paul McCartney died in 1966 and was replaced with a look-alike.”

INTRO: Big thanks to chissler for organizing this tournament, it has really been a treat so far and I’m sure it will only get better. Best wishes in the debate and some screws for your thinking cap semperfortis. My esteemed opponent is a former champion; this being my first proper debate, you can only begin to understand my hesitance at the sight of our topic. I always knew I should have taken my uncles small collection of Beatles vinyl’s when he offered them to ignorant old me a few years ago. In no way am I playing the ‘sympathy card’, quite the contrary, I welcome this as a great challenge as this seems almost like an anachronistic appointment of my generation, my pop culture into the previous.

BODY: After doing some reading on the topic I can naturally understand my opponent asking for the judges to judge the debate and not the topic. I wholeheartedly respect this as I can now understand the ludicrous ‘evidence’ that supporters of this childish conspiracy claim as their ammo. In what was a great hoax on the music industry, spun out of control by popular culture and mania of fans that the Beatles had acquired with Paul McCartney pre and post 1966.

As expected, my argument, both offensive and defensive in this thread, will aim to cripple what are some fragile theories that alone bring about the disintegration and demise of this conspiracy. It is indeed these ‘clues’ that conspiracy theorists claim were incorporated into the Beatles’ music, etc. that expose the elaborate hoax, a marketing ploy like none other.

Naturally my opponent’s argument will try to prove that the ‘real’ Paul McCartney died in 1966 and was replaced by a look alike, who, according to more extreme theories, even underwent plastic surgery in the 1960’s in order to, perfect the imperfections, so to speak. A logical mind would naturally question how such a hoax could have been pulled on the whole world, to this very day. It brings in to question the important role of family, friends, co-workers, etc. to where it becomes juvenile to assume that such a ploy could have been pulled off on such a large scale.

Our arguments will clash on the issues that my opponent has listed above, but also with the following:

1. - The nature of what was an out of control marketing ploy.
   
2. - The nature of what was a systematic endorsement of the hoax through the radio/newspapers.
   
3. - The mile-wide holes in the conspiracy theories, such as secret ‘clues’ in album art.
   

& much more…

In what will become evident to readers, that ‘Paul is NOT Dead’ (yet, that is) and that the Paul McCartney of today is the same Paul McCartney that was born in Liverpool, England on the 18th of June, 1942. That it was also the same Paul McCartney who wrote All my Loving in 1963 and Junior’s Farm in 1974. The hoax that is ‘Paul is Dead’ will indeed die itself, at least for those who will bear witness to this debate.

I look forward to the debate and the process of dismissing this so called ‘evidence’. In surmise, I will let the one and only Sir James Paul McCartney speak for himself:

"Anyway all of the things that have been, that have made these rumours, to my mind have very ordinary, logical explanations. To the people’s minds who prefer to think of them as rumours, then I am not going to interfere, I am not going to spoil that fantasy. You can think of it like that if you like. However, if the end result, the conclusion you reach is that I am dead, then you are wrong, because I am very much alive, I am alive and living in Scotland.”

-Paul McCartney, 1969

I will be using my 24 Hour Extension

Ok all, I am back, sorry for the delay.

Now on with the debate.

"Paul McCartney died in 1966 and was replaced with a look-alike.”

Let us for a moment, examine what a Conspiracy is; shall we?

Conspiracy:

1. the act of conspiring.
2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

Online Dictionary

Note the “Bolded” sentences. Keep these in mind as we continue.

Now before I get into real “rebuttal mode”, let us look at some comments from my opponent.

the ludicrous ‘evidence’

this childish conspiracy

This saddens me. While this topic may not be of my opponent’s choosing, to belittle it to this extent is nothing short of an insult to this forum and his fellow debaters.

I suppose my opponent considers those that seek answers into the events of 911 to be “Childish”

Perhaps he considers those that have seen UFOs “Ludicrous”

Perhaps we shall see some real debate material from my opponent, but this was sure a rough start on his behalf.

Rebuttal

Naturally my opponent’s argument will try to prove that the ‘real’ Paul McCartney died in 1966 and was replaced by a look alike,

That would be the topic of the debate. Yet I appreciate my opponent telling me where I am going to go.

A logical mind would naturally question how such a hoax could have been pulled on the whole world, to this very day.

In answer to this I pose my first Socratic Question:

Socratic Question #1

“How many years did this picture of “Nessy” fool the world?”

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b13b7edfdf78.jpeg[/atsimg]

(Remember, a direct answer is required)

The nature of what was an out of control marketing ploy.

It would be wonderful if you could possibly prove this was a marketing ploy, much less one out of control. Proof Perhaps?

The nature of what was a systematic endorsement of the hoax through the radio/newspapers.

Again, some proof would be lovely.

the Paul McCartney of today is the same Paul McCartney that was born in Liverpool, England on the 18th of June, 1942.

I really want to see you prove this one. I would like for everyone to take note of my opponents statement here as I will be bringing it back up later on in this debate.

Background:

Facts and Short Timeline:
(Supporting Links to Follow)

1. An article was written by Tim Harper in the Drake University Paper titled, “Is Paul McCartney Dead” on 09/17/69

2. A “Tom” called into WKNR, FM Radio on 10/12/69 and announced that McCartney was dead and asked that the DJ, Russ Gibb play “Revolution 9” backwards. Gibbs heard “Turn Me On, Dead Man”

3. Famous Lawyer F. Lee Bailey produced and hosted an hour long special into Paul’s death.

4. Though scoffed at by my opponent, this conspiracy is listed as number 4 on [I]Times list of the Top Ten All Time Conspiracies[/I]

5. John Lennon: “How Do You Sleep?"; "Those freaks was right when they said you was dead"

6. Two recorded accidents. One in 1966 and one in 1967. One Moped and one Mini. Both “supposedly” when Paul was somewhere else.

7. In 1967 Paul suddenly grows 2 inches

8. In 1967 Paul’s natural left side hair part, jumped to the other side of his head.

9. In 1966 the Beatles suddenly and mysteriously stopped touring.

10. 1967 Breakup with his life long love.

11. Many clues on the albums and within the songs that will be covered at length later on.

12. Paul suddenly becomes right handed.

Link 1
Link 2

These are actual facts as opposed to someone’s revelations about abductions or hologram planes, that many are so apt to believe. These are the things my opponent would ridicule and belittle. And there are more that we will cover as we proceed.

While most things about this conspiracy are “explained” away as “reversed” photos or “Mirrored” Images, is it not the way of debunkers to attempt to laugh their way around what truths we find?

Socratic Question #2

“Is it normal for a grown man to gain 2 inches in height in a year?”

Socratic Question #3

“How common is it for someone who plays guitar left handed, to begin playing right handed?”

Why was McCartney arrested for smuggling drugs in 1980? How is it someone that “uber” rich would be smuggling their own dope, or why would they simply not buy it where ever they were going?

Could this possibly be part of the cover up?

Was there a newspaper article that stated Paul’s fingerprints did not match those he had taken prior to 1967? What was really going on in Japan?

Summation:

So many unanswered questions.

Later on in this debate we will seriously examine some differences in appearance that all began around the same time the double took over. They are, believe it or not, fairly significant and obvious.

For now let us leave it at this collection of facts and questions. I know that I have presented many, many questions and I promise I shall “get busy” answering those questions in my next post. I hope I have managed to pique your interest into this fascinating subject.

We will also get into the serious business of the very obvious and telling clues left within the very music they are famous for.
Let me get this out of the way at the start.

Many will question why clues would be left in the music and the artwork. Well the answer lies not in this conspiracy, but in the art of criminology. It is a simple fact that when humans do something wrong, they have an innate and deep psychological desire to reveal that wrong doing to someone. That is how we get confessions folks. Believe it or not, people want to confess. But much more on that later.

We have presented enough evidence here already for any detective worth his salt to open a case. Yet we are less than half way through.

By the time we conclude, I have no doubt you will be convinced that it is entirely possible that:

"Paul McCartney died in 1966 and was replaced with a look-alike.”

Thank you

Semper

First Rebuttal: Debating Con position of: "Paul McCartney died in 1966 and was replaced with a look-alike.”

I welcome my first chance to directly contradict and refute my opponent. But before I fully commit myself, I need to, hesitantly that is, address some issues that my opponent, for some odd reason, thought were in some way related to our topic at hand.

I suppose my opponent considers those that seek answers into the events of 911 to be “Childish”

In what way my opponent has linked the events of 9/11 and the 'Paul is Dead' hoax, I do not know. It is clear that my opponent has begun his approach by making false assumptions about my persona. This saddens ME, as my opponent is obviously ignorant of my stance on the completely unrelated topic of 9/11.

Perhaps he considers those that have seen UFOs “Ludicrous”

My opponent again, is using these childish tactics of trying to discredit my integrity as a participant in this debate by picking out and twisting what I labeled as the "childish" conspiracy. My stance on the issue is my own and unless my opponent believes the UFO conspiracy to be somehow related to this 'Paul is Dead' farce (which would make my job here easier) I find it unnecessary to mention, let alone use as a silly weapon against my persona, to which you are obviously not acquainted with.

To finish off this 'house keeping' and begin refuting my opponent, I need to clear one more thing out of the way.

...to belittle it to this extent is nothing short of an insult to this forum and his fellow debaters.

To make false assumptions about your fellow member and use it against them is nothing short of an insult to this forum and your fellow debater. If I could kindly ask my respected opponent to stick to the topic at hand and debate the issue of Paul McCartney, it would be greatly appreciated.

Rebuttal #1

Answering: Socratic Question #1

I'm well aware of the 'Surgeon's Photograph' of 1934. It was revealed as a hoax in the Daily Mirror in 1994. This makes it 60 years since the photo was released and was officially called as a hoax. My opponent has asked me this question in order to make me question myself about my claims in regards to Paul McCartney. What my opponent needs to understand in regards to his tactic and how he plans on playing this out is that this is a photograph where as our topic is dealing with a real person, who comes in contact with other people and the media. I'll let my opponent pick up the scraps of this wasted Socratic Question.

It would be wonderful if you could possibly prove this was a marketing ploy, much less one out of control. Proof Perhaps?

Of course it was a marketing ploy when it's clear that it was a hoax. Since 'Paul is Alive', and always has been, then all that's left are the remnants of what was a very successful marketing tactic.

I'm sure my opponent is well aware of who Brian Epstein and the important role of manager that he played. The role of a traditional 'talent manager' such as Brian Epstein includes:

A music manager is hired by a musician or band to help with determining decisions related to career moves, bookings, promotions, business deals, recording contracts, / promotion, etc.

[1]

Promotion, business deals...etc. All these areas of band management revolve around the importance of 'spreading the name', publicity. This was Brian's role with the Beatles. The second person I would like to point my opponents head to is Bruce Spizer, an author and an historian, an authority on the history of Beatles.

I would like to direct my esteemed opponent to an article published on April 1, 2004 in Goldmine Magazine (which can viewed here and here). In it, Spizer interviews the one and only Paul McCartney who let's down his guard and tells him the truth behind the 'Paul is Dead' hoax. Here are some excerpts I would like to point out, but my opponent should read the whole article to get a more comprehensive idea.

"When I told him [Brian Epstein] our future albums would be dominated by songs about interesting people and places, his heart sank. He didn't think people would buy such albums and came up with this great idea to push sales in the event he was right and we were wrong.

The idea was that we would plant clues in our songs and album covers that one of us had died in a car wreck. If after a few albums, our records weren't selling well, we'd leak out word about the clues and let our fans and the press take over. People would buy the albums to see and hear the clues.

We thought, 'Wow, that's an incredible idea!' We realized it would be great fun to have all those clues sitting there undiscovered until people started going nuts looking for them all."

Tony Barrow, a press officer who worked with the Beatles between 1962 and 1968 also thought it was an amazing idea:

"Nothing re-energizes a singer's career like his death... The fact that Brian came up with a car crash shows his genius.

SC #1: In reading Spizer's article, how many 'clues' are left that cannot be viably explained as a product of the genius of Epstein and later the Beatles themselves as a means of promotion in a time of 'crisis'?

Naturally, with the admittance by Paul himself and the respected word of Spizer behind it, it is evident that it was indeed all a marketing ploy. The reason that it went out of control during the time was because of the large fan base that the Beatles had, reflected in record sales. Why is my opponent asking me to point out answers to logical questions which he himself can answer?

The evidence is in the record sales:

* By August 1964, the Beatles had sold approximately 80 million records globally (Variety 235, August 12, 1964).

*By February 1965, their global sales had moved beyond 100 million records (Variety 237, February 3, 1965).

*By August 1966, the Beatles had sold 150 million records worldwide (Variety 243, August 3, 1966).

PAUL IS DEAD HOAX TAKES HOLD

*According to the Guinness Book of Records, the Beatles had topped worldwide sales of 300 million units by 1969.

*By October 1972, the Beatles’ worldwide sales total stood at 545 million units, a world record (Billboard 84, October 21, 1972).
[2]

SC #2: Can my opponent explain this sudden rise in sales in the years following 1966 and what is my opponents view of this in relation to the systematic 'clues' that were incorporated in order to generate sales?

The nature of what was a systematic endorsement of the hoax through the radio/newspapers.

Again, some proof would be lovely.

No one would buy our latest LP or our old records... the clincher was a pair of bad reviews published in 'The New York Times' and 'Rolling Stone.' I thought, oh sh*t, no one likes the long medley on side two so I had Mal [Evans] go to Detroit and tell some college kids about the clues. One of the guys phoned in some of the clues to a radio station there, that was all it took."

[3]

the Paul McCartney of today is the same Paul McCartney that was born in Liverpool, England on the 18th of June, 1942.

I really want to see you prove this one.

This will be proved throughout the debate. I am defining the nature of this hoax first, which is much more elaborate than the scope of this post will allow me to explore.

In 1967 Paul suddenly grows 2 inches

My opponent titled this list as 'Facts', so I would like to see him prove this. The images in the link can be viewed from different angles, with props being used that we are unaware of making a difference.

I would like to make the reader aware of what my opponent stated in his opening statement:

We are going to resist using comparison photos as we all know that photos can be manipulated and are subject to the observers interpretation.

Yet, we are indeed heading into this area for some strange reason. My opponent seems desperate in grasping the little fragments of straw that remain from this childish theory.

In 1967 Paul’s natural left side hair part, jumped to the other side of his head.

A man is not allowed to change his hair style? Surely in such a period of socially and culturally dynamic decades this is to be expected, especially by someone in the spotlight. Once again, grasping at broken straws.

Paul suddenly becomes right handed.

I've failed to find an image that shows this without concluding that it was an effect of a mirror.

These are the things my opponent would ridicule and belittle.

Dont be so quick to assume, again. I don't need to go that far in order to disprove this farce.

Answering: Socratic Question #2

Again. I have yet to see proof that Paul McCartney grew 2 inches. Besides photographs, which I have stated above can are tampered with, where is the proof? But in answering the question, no. This is irrelevant because there is no proof.

Answering: Socratic Question #3

Proof, we need proof. Why is it so unacceptable to conclude that he began practicing with his right? In answering your question, it wouldn't be so uncommon for someone who is in top of their game and wants to go the extra mile.

In disproving the conspiracy theories surrounding the 'Paul is Dead' hoax I will in turn disprove that he died in 1966 and therefore couldn't have been replaced by a look-a-like.

"Paul McCartney died in 1966 and was replaced with a look-alike.”

Well we certainly seem to have either a clarity issue, or perhaps my opponent is confused. I shall endeavor to clarify by simplifying my statements in the rebuttal that follows.

Rebuttal:

In what way my opponent has linked the events of 9/11 and the 'Paul is Dead' hoax, I do not know.

It is apparent that you do not know. Let me introduce you to the awesome grammatical tool called…allegory. Perhaps you know it better as “Example”. You scoff at this conspiracy and call it childish, one can surmise you would scoff at others, calling them childish as well.

I hope that clears that up. If not, feel free to ask for more clarification.

This saddens ME, as my opponent is obviously ignorant of my stance on the completely unrelated topic of 9/11.

Irrelevant, as indicated above. Please follow along now. Remember.. Allegory = Example

using these childish tactics

But it gets you to keep using the word, “Childish”, so my work here is done. Just for curiosity sake, do you consider quoting my quotes of your use of such words as “Childish”, in bold, to be adult?

I find it unnecessary to mention,

And yet, you continue to do so. Interesting…

To make false assumptions

This makes no sense using the English language. An assumption by it’s very nature can not be false or true, it is well… An Assumption. So I shall continue on with my debate style; I suggest you do as well. Isn’t this fun?

this is a photograph where as our topic is dealing with a real person

And Nessy is a real animal, what is your point?

when it's clear that it was a hoax

Patently false statement. If it WAS clear, we would not be here. Come on now, it’s not that difficult to follow along. This is a debate.

This will be proved throughout the debate.

Why not now? Deflect much? You did not use even half of your allotted character count. You had plenty of room to educate us.

viewed from different angles, with props being used

How many times have we all seen this folks? Deflection and obfuscation instead of answers. A ploy I hope our readers and judges do not fall for. Anything can be explained away if ones mind is closed.

A man is not allowed to change his hair style?

You can NOT change your natural part. I will gladly explain the science/genetics of that later on after the debate, if you are still curious.

without concluding that it was an effect of a mirror.

If you will thoroughly read my previous post, you will find I expected that answer from you. It is the answer of someone attempting more deflection and obfuscation.

Answer to my opponents Socratic Questions:

Answer to Socratic Question Number 1
“None of them” The very nature of a conspiracy concludes that there will be people, usually a lot of people that “explain” away inconsistencies. This is nothing new in the world of conspiracies. Once you have been here on ATS a little longer, you will get the hang of this.

Answer to Socratic Question Number 2
“Absolutely I can explain the rise in sales.” The fact that Paul died and was replaced. Simple.. See?

grasping the little fragments of straw that remain from this childish theory.

Can you answer this for the readers and judges? Why did you agree to debate a topic you have no respect for? If Childish is your opinion of this debate, why would you bother?

I have yet to see proof that Paul McCartney grew 2 inches. Besides photographs

Now we are getting somewhere. My opponent agrees that there is photographic evidence of Paul growing 2 inches in a year. He has already stipulated that this is not genetically possible. There you have it folks and early on too; the debate in a nutshell.

Thank you very much.

Aside:


I would appreciate it if my opponent would Directly answer my third Socratic Question as per the rules.

Again, thank you

Continuation:

As an experienced (right handed) guitarist, there is no way I could ever play left handed. Sure I could probably learn to, but if "Paul McCartney" can play both, something's up.

ATS.COM

Something’s up…. Dwell on that for a moment.

In the Reid Interrogation Technique the goal is to give the subject a reason to confess. In the class, it is taught that the psychology of humans is such that when we perform a wrong action, something we know to be against the societal morals, it is imperative that we express that verbally in some way.

You have all heard the old quote: “Given time, all crooks talk?

Well it is true.

Let’s look at some of the more astonishing confessions as it revolves around this conspiracy.

[I]Revolution 9[/I]

At the very beginning of this track, repeating over and over, and heard again many times later in the cut, is the phrase "Number nine" in a very formal British voice.

When played backwards, this phrase sounds like "Turn me on, dead man", repeated over and over.

[I]I'm So Tired/Blackbird[/I]

when played backwards, you can hear John say, "Paul is a dead man. Miss him. Miss him. MISS HIM!"

Link

Confessions people, that is what we have here.

Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band album,

Also noted by Beatle fans was the fact that all the Beatles are standing over an open grave

George Harrison is pointing to a line of music, it says, 'Wednesday morning at five o'clock,' (Schaffner, 1977) this is the, time that Paul McCartney supposedly died.

There are two significant clues shown on the sleeve insert both are directly related to Paul. One of the clues is in regard to a medal that Paul is wearing, it is an English medal only given in time of a heroic death.

link

More confessions.

Guilt is a natural and very powerful human emotion.

The following words are from the song, "'A Day in the Life":
"He blew his mind out in a car,
He didn't notice, that the lights had changed
A crowd of people stood and stared
They'd seen his face before”

We were/are being told, told what happened and all we needed to do, was listen..

Now a moment of your time if you would please readers and judges.

I know I stated I would not pursue the photo aspect of this wonderful conspiracy, but my opponents disrespecting of the topic and continued use of the word childish have somewhat forced my hand. That being said, I would present to you some photographic evidence.

I present for your examination this photo comparison:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/31405936b5c6.jpg[/atsimg]

LOOK AT THE NOSE
LOOK AT THE NOSE

Now let me tell you this….

The picture on the left is Paul from 1965
The picture on the right is the imposter from 1967

How can anyone, with eyes and in their right mind, NOT see the difference?

WOW, Just WOW..

Perhaps I am not wasting my time in a childish debate after all. I do feel better.

Nessy fooled the world for decades, a photo taken by amateurs, only revealed as a hoax on a death bed confession…

What‘s that I just said?

A Confession!!!!

Given the money was no factor, power was in place, we as a people have been fooled by far less.

Let’s look at what we have so far.

1. An accident
2. Two accidents actually
3. Phone calls
4. Radio shows
5. Famous Attorney’s coming out with the conspiracy
6. Confessions within the music
7. Confession within the album art
8. Two pictures of supposedly the same person, that is obviously different people

Socratic Question #1

“Do you have any proof, PROOF mind you, that the subject calling himself Paul McCartney today is the same as the subject in 1965?”

Socratic Question #2

“Do you consider the topic and the conspiracy to be childish?”

Socratic Question #3

“Can you explain how the two subjects in the picture, reportedly the same person, have different noses?”

Socratic Question #4

“Given enough money and power, do you think ANY person could be replaced with a double?”

Socratic Question #5

“Would not the replacement of a Dead Paul cause a rise in record sales, when the conspiracy was revealed as it is now?”

And please, if you can, direct answers to these questions this time. Thank you


Next we will cover vocal voice analysis, international and government complicity and much more.

So far this has been one heck of a ride and it is shaping up to be more of the same.

In the end, it is becoming more and more apparent that:

"Paul McCartney died in 1966 and was replaced with a look-alike.”


Thank you

Semper

Second Rebuttal: Debating Con position of: "Paul McCartney died in 1966 and was replaced with a look-alike.”

You scoff at this conspiracy and call it childish, one can surmise you would scoff at others, calling them childish as well.

I'm well aware of what an allegory is, your attempts to ridicule me and my stance on the issue at hand by addressing petty issues are pointless. Please focus on the topic. The conclusion you have reached there is also false. I will continually refer to this conspiracy as childish because that is what you first attacked in your first rebuttal, obviously this hit a cord within my opponent because my opponent himself knows this to be true. Of course i scoff at other conspiracies, but not all conspiracies, that is why I am on this website, much like you. That is a very silly conclusion that my opponent has reached.

But it gets you to keep using the word, “Childish”, so my work here is done.

If that is how you feel than its fine. This conspiracy is childish as a whole, because for anyone who has examined the evidence, it is clear what has happened, a ploy like none other, only embraced by die hard fans who look for secret 'clues' in all corners.

And yet, you continue to do so. Interesting…

And yet you continually begin your rebuttals by addressing petty issues which are not related to the topic, but your opponent. I therefore find myself opening each rebuttal in defense of myself.

An assumption by it’s very nature can not be false or true, it is well… An Assumption.

- You made an assumption about your opponent. Correct? Yes.
- I (your opponent) have stated that this claim is false. Correct? Yes.
- Therefore the assumption that you initially stated is false.

And Nessy is a real animal, what is your point?

My point is that you attempted to use the issue of the 'surgeon's photograph' as an offensive platform for the topic at hand. It has obviously failed, since you have not addressed it since.

If it WAS clear, we would not be here. Come on now, it’s not that difficult to follow along. This is a debate.

I am merely debating my side. To me it is clear that this is a hoax, am I not allowed to express my opinion?

Why not now? Deflect much? You did not use even half of your allotted character count. You had plenty of room to educate us.

Not deflecting at all. As I have proved with the admittance of Paul McCartney himself through the written word of an historian, Spizer, I have proved that he could not have died and that it was the same Paul McCartney all along.

If my opponent would be kind enough to copy/paste my last post into the ATS editor, including all formatting, he would find that only a measly 5 characters remain.

How many times have we all seen this folks? Deflection and obfuscation instead of answers.

But it was an answer sir, in fact, you answered this yourself in your own opening statement. Need i remind you?

We are going to resist using comparison photos as we all know that photos can be manipulated and are subject to the observers interpretation.

Anything can be explained away if ones mind is closed.

Indeed, keep the logical side of your mind open.

Can you answer this for the readers and judges? Why did you agree to debate a topic you have no respect for? If Childish is your opinion of this debate, why would you bother?

Because I chose to participate in the tournament? You would naturally expect to have to argue sides which you not only are in conflict with, but wholeheartedly reject. Its part of the fun, is it not? I don't see how this in any way detracts from my argument.

Now we are getting somewhere. My opponent agrees that there is photographic evidence of Paul growing 2 inches in a year. He has already stipulated that this is not genetically possible. There you have it folks and early on too; the debate in a nutshell.

Dirty... dirty move. My opponent has resorted to taking my posts out of context, even worse, only quoting half of my statement making it sound as I if I was saying the complete opposite. Please review my post, here is the WHOLE statement:

Again. I have yet to see proof that Paul McCartney grew 2 inches. Besides photographs, which I have stated above can be tampered with, where is the proof?

In other words, these photographs that are being used as 'proof' are useless. What OTHER 'proof' of this does my opponent have?

NOTE: I did answer your third question in my prior post.

"In answering your question, it wouldn't be so uncommon for someone who is in top of their game and wants to go the extra mile. " i.e Learning to play with both hands. You still though, have not proved that he was indeed playing with his right.

but my opponents disrespecting of the topic and continued use of the word childish have somewhat forced my hand.

In what way did i disrespect it? I do think it is childish, i stand by my word, but that does not mean i disrespect it.

LOOK AT THE NOSE
LOOK AT THE NOSE

LOOK AT THE CHIN. LOOK AT THE CHIN. Clearly in the 1967 photograph the face is looking up on a greater angle than the 1965 photo. The chin shows this, hence giving you a different angle of the nose. While we're on this set of photos, look at the eyes, they speak a thousand words, slanting downwards exactly the same.

See how useless this is? Please don't continue to use facial photo's as your ammo, it is pointless.

WOW, Just WOW..

Indeed.

What‘s that I just said?

A Confession!!!!

Yes, a confession. Just as Paul McCartney himself confessed to Spizer that it was all indeed a marketing ploy orchestrated by Brian Epstein and as it begun to work its magic through record sales, the 'Paul is dead' hoax was perpetuated by the Beatles themselves, playing on the public's need for more and more material.

A: SC 1:

I have proved, and will continue to prove, that this was a marketing ploy, that Paul was never replaced. This is the proof that it was the same Paul all along.

A: SC: 2:

Yes I do, I will stand by my word. Looking through albums and albums, songs and songs, for 'secret messages' left behind is childish and in its self makes evident that it was orchestrated.

A: SC: 3:

They do not have different noses. It is the camera angle and the facial angle. I have answered this above.

A: SC: 4:

No one can be perfectly replaced by a double, especially someone who is continually in the spotlight.

A: SC: 5:

No. If Paul was really replaced, sales would go down, as a reflection of the anger of the fans. Paul was not replaced, the rise in record sales is attributed to their great music and use of a fantastic marketing ploy.

Before I get to my questions, I would like to point out further evidence for my opponent that this was all a hoax and therefore Paul was never replaced. This will in turn address some of the silly song verses that my opponent has posted as evidence.

I would like to refer to the article by Bruce Spizer, here:

He [Tony Barrow] was terrified that Sgt. Pepper would be viewed as pretentious nonsense! He told the boys to throw in a bunch of clues on that one!" The first song recorded for "Sgt. Pepper" was "Strawberry Fields Forever," though it ended up being used as a single. At the end of the song, John was supposed to repeat "I buried Paul" several times, but that was too obvious, so instead he said "Cranberry sauce" and then slurred his words so that "I buried Paul" sounded like "I'm very bored."

Here is just one of many examples in which clues were systematically inserted as part of a marketing ploy. Further, it shows involvement by a direct member of the press.

There are two significant clues shown on the sleeve insert both are directly related to Paul. One of the clues is in regard to a medal that Paul is wearing, it is an English medal only given in time of a heroic death.

My opponent is referring to the infamous O.P.D. (officially pronounced dead) badge. But once again, my opponent has dug himself a hole, Spizer and McCartney have the answer for this aswell:

"We had to work hard on that one. Someone told John that in America the letters OPD stood for 'Officially Pronounced Dead.' I remembered I had this patch with the letters "OPP," which I got in Canada, I think it stands for Ontario Police Precinct or something like that. So I got the idea to put the patch on my uniform's sleeve and shoot the picture so that the lower part of the second 'P' would not be visible, thus making it look like 'OPD.' I was quite pleased with the way it came out."

Example from album cover, believed to say O.P.D.: www.turnmeondeadman.com...

Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) badge:
www.turnmeondeadman.com...

This was systematically done, another 'clue' for the masses who are blind enough to follow the paper trial, buy more albums, more records and contribute to increasingly growing sale numbers.

When played backwards, this phrase sounds like "Turn me on, dead man", repeated over and over.

The trick is to do trial and error tests. Alan Parsons, who is an audio engineer who worked with the Beatles came up with 'turn me on dead man', when reversed it sounds like 'number 9, number 9.' Technology is awesome, isn't it?

SC1: In reference to the O.P.D. hoax, does it not put all other 'clues' into question as being deliberately inserted?

SC2: If you were famous like McCartney, and you did die (knock on wood), would your family not speak out about it in anger, not even once?

My opponent has resolved to using photos and lyrics when I have shown proof, confession, as my opponent calls it, that this was all a farce.

Thankyou.

"Paul McCartney died in 1966 and was replaced with a look-alike.”

Semper’s Post #3

Now the fun starts.

Commentary:

This is a debate. As such, we are debating each other as much as the topic. This is the very nature of debate and can not be denied in any debate worth a dog gone.

While my opponent may cry foul over my recognition and discussion of his consideration of the topic to be childish, it is imperative that the judges know the mind set of each of the fighters in this contention. When answering an opponent, there is no such thing as Off Topic.

This is a serious debate, on a serious topic in which, as with many previous debates, I have learned much I did not already know. So I hope the readers and judges look at this debate for the contemplative and thoughtful issue that it is; as I have.

Rebuttal:

your attempts to ridicule me and my stance on the issue at hand

Who first described this debate topic as childish? I’ll answer that, you did.

Therefore the assumption that you initially stated is false.

Only by your stance on this debate which you have already made clear you think is childish. I hope the judges don’t feel childish judging it.

you attempted to use the issue of the 'surgeon's photograph' as an offensive platform for the topic at hand.

You never did get it, did you?

with the admittance of Paul McCartney himself

Did you expect him to say he was a double? It would be truly silly to expect him to admit he is a double.

copy/paste my last post into the ATS editor, including all formatting, he would find that only a measly 5 characters remain.

Wrong again, like so many other things on here. You had 920 characters left. Text Talley is your friend.

You would naturally expect to have to argue sides which you not only are in conflict with, but wholeheartedly reject.

So you reject your side of the debate? Would you like to concede now? That would be OK, but I would as soon finish and win that way.

My opponent has resorted to taking my posts out of context

They are your words. Again, looks like support for my position. Still want to concede?

I did answer your third question in my prior post.

No you did not. Check the rules again. A DIRECT ANSWER is REQUIRED.

Question you never answered:

“How common is it for someone who plays guitar left handed, to begin playing right handed?”

How common? Very, Not very, Rare? I answered it with a quote from a guitar player myself, but you are still obligated to answer as per the rules my opponent.

I do think it is childish

but that does not mean i disrespect it.

What? WOW. I had hoped for a more serious attitude for our debate.

the face is looking up on a greater angle than the 1965 photo.

What does that have to do with the shape of the nose? I have been in dozens of debates, that may be the biggest stretch I have ever had presented to me.

This is the proof that it was the same Paul all along.

Where is your proof? Marketing ploy? What?

A: SC: 2:

Yes I do,

Again: I hope everyone does not think it is childish. May be difficult to find judges for a childish debate.

They do not have different noses. It is the camera angle and the facial angle. I have answered this above.

Another deflection and refusal to make a direct answer. Judges please note the rules violation. Thank you

No one can be perfectly replaced by a double

So wrong again.

Hampton assumed the identity of Sidney Poitier's son and was suddenly ushered in as celebrity.

Milli Vanilli started to grow worldwide as of 1988 and won the Grammy Award for Best New Artist on 1990

Cassie Chadwick began her largest, most successful con game: that of establishing herself as Andrew Carnegie's daughter.

Famous Imposters

If Paul was really replaced, sales would go down,

So very wrong. If and when it is established that Paul died, his sales will go through the roof. Anyone knows that. Michael Jackson ring a bell?
His last album, unwrapped, was for sale on eBay for 35million. A tad more than it cost when he was alive.

My opponent is referring to the infamous O.P.D

It also means Other Pickle Delayed, or Often Parental Deeps or anything else you care to make up. I have used OPD many times, MANY and it means “Officially Pronounced Dead”

Alan Parsons, who is an audio engineer who worked with the Beatles came up with 'turn me on dead man', when reversed it sounds like 'number 9, number 9.

You have any proof of that? Not commentary from the obvious Debunker you have continually used, but real proof?

Answers to Socratic Questions:

SC1: In reference to the O.P.D. hoax, does it not put all other 'clues' into question as being deliberately inserted?

No. Explained above. I am VERY familiar, too much so in fact, with that combination of letters.

SC2: If you were famous like McCartney, and you did die (knock on wood), would your family not speak out about it in anger, not even once?

Are you knocking on wood hoping I die? I hope not.

To answer your question, I have no family. I was raised in an orphanage.

when I have shown proof,

I would like to see where? Except for comments from an obvious Debunker, you have shown nothing.

Continuation:

Smoking Gun:

I saved this for the last post as it is clear in it’s simplicity and clarity.

Ear Lobes:

Attached Earlobes: Have a partner examine your earlobes. If they hang free at the bottom, you are dominant (E-). If they are attached, you are recessive (ee).

Gentics

I think we can all agree that your ear lobe, whether attached or unattached, is a genetic trait and can not be altered.

Now view these two photos of “Paul”

Original Paul with ATTACHED lobes

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8cf44bdd4f36.jpg[/atsimg]

Replaced Paul with UNATTACHED lobes

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f3577f51b653.jpg[/atsimg]

There it is folks. Genetic PROOF. Whoever this is, it is not the same person in the second photo, as in the first. Impossible for it to be as it is clear one has attached lobes, the other has unattached.

That should settle this debate once and for all. But for the fun of it, I shall continue.

Vocal Voice Analysis:

Paul McCartney wrote some very classical-sounding songs ("Eleanor Rigby," "Love in the Open Air," etc), but then the sound changed to songs like "Helter Skelter."

Link

There is more, but this should suffice. Any fan of, and I have been listening to Beatles music for decades, can recognize the massive change in vocals when Paul died and was replaced.

International and Governmental Connections:

Drugs, Spies and Rock and Roll. This gets really interesting and ties a lot of what I have already presented together.

According to William Colby, former Director of the CIA, "The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media."

Everyone…. The Director…. Hang on now, this gets exciting.

Lyndon LaRouche said that
"The Beatles ... were a product shaped according to British Psychological Warfare Division (Tavistock) specifications, and promoted in Britain by agencies which are controlled by British intelligence." .

Still find it difficult to believe that Paul died/was Murdered and was replaced? Not so hard now is it.

During this interview, Joe asked Paul what career he thought he would have been doing if he didn't become a Beatle. Whilst thinking, John jumps in with the answer "a policeman"

Links for Above

The Beatles were undoubtedly tied into the, then current issue of '___', in ways that are not entirely clear. Were they getting ready to out some people, or come out in a lack of support for the government side of the issue? We may perhaps never know. Was the drug arrest of “Faul” a warning?

Side Note:

The actual Ontario Police Patch says.. OPP… NOT OPD
Link

Just to clarify that little tid-bit

Socratic Question #1
(I hope he answers it directly, but don’t hold your breath)

“Is it possible for an adult male to alter his genetic profile?”

Continuation:

So much information, so many sites and links and all my opponent has are the comments from one DEBUNKER. We all know debunkers here at ATS, we are sadly accustomed to their antics. Heck you can see the same antics here. Use of the word childish etc; all intended to deflect you from the real issue. That Paul died and was replaced; perhaps by the government.

I have some more very astonishing revelations that I will present in my closing. For now, let us contemplate the information that has been given in this post.

Regardless of what may be presented or debunked, the genetics wont lie, conspiracies always come out and those with an open mind, can learn that even what may be considered a childish debate, can be revealed to be the truth.

In the end, it is now clear that:

"Paul McCartney died in 1966 and was replaced with a look-alike.”

Thank you

Semper

Final Rebuttal: Debating Con position of: "Paul McCartney died in 1966 and was replaced with a look-alike.”

A: SC: 1:

(I hope he answers it directly, but don’t hold your breath)

“Is it possible for an adult male to alter his genetic profile?”

No, not as far as I'm aware.

If you would be so kind as to DIRECTLY tell me which questions I didn't answer, that would be great. As far as I'm aware I've answered them all.

it is imperative that the judges know the mind set of each of the fighters in this contention.

My mindset in no way detracts from my debate. If I had not revealed my stance on the issues, my debate thus far would have still been conducted in the same manner. I would like the judges to take note of my opponent's constant divergence of the topic at the beginning of ALL his rebuttals.

I hope the judges don’t feel childish judging it.

I will stand by what I said, the side that my opponent is defending is indeed a childish conspiracy, as I have already proved this to be a marketing ploy. I'm sure the judges will be fine, you seem to worry about them a lot.

You never did get it, did you?

No, please explain. Take note that this is a photograph, which means the hoax is easier to uphold than the life of a real person.

Did you expect him to say he was a double?

No, of course not, because he is not one. There are many names mentioned throughout that piece, adding credibility, as it can be supported.

Wrong again, like so many other things on here. You had 920 characters left. Text Talley is your friend.

Unless my opponent is not willing to copy/paste the post in question, include ALL formatting and hyperlinks and find he is left with a measly 5 characters, I suggest he move away from this petty issue. I'm well aware of what and how much I posted sir, no need to mock me in such a way.

So you reject your side of the debate? Would you like to concede now? That would be OK, but I would as soon finish and win that way.

No. You really do have trouble reading some things dont you? What I was saying was that you will come across topics you don't agree with but have to debate, naturally I was referring to my opponent here, and not my side of the debate.

They are your words. Again, looks like support for my position. Still want to concede?

Wrong. They are words which YOU have misconstrued.

What? WOW. I had hoped for a more serious attitude for our debate.

Nawww... too hard to understand? YOUR side of the debate is childish. Please keep up.

What does that have to do with the shape of the nose?

Everything. Just as the chin is elevated and you can see a shadow, we look at the nose from a different angle, giving you a different perception of its shape, etc. I would like the judges to remember that my opponent initially declared that he would not use photographs, because as you have seen, they have not been productive for him so far.

Where is your proof? Marketing ploy? What?

My opponent is so concerned with how simple the answer is to this conspiracy that he has resorted to skipping all my mentions of the words 'marketing ploy'. Hence his seeming ignorance of the words now.

May be difficult to find judges for a childish debate.

I do not see how my opponent's debate can be taken seriously when there are 'secret clues' being used and I'm sure the judges will be fine and judge the debate only on the topic at hand.

Another deflection and refusal to make a direct answer. Judges please note the rules violation. Thank you

Wrong. You asked how they had different noses, I told you they didn't and I explained myself.

I have used OPD many times, MANY and it means “Officially Pronounced Dead”

The badge USED ON THE BEATLES ALBUM, is not Officially. Pronounced. Dead. I have proven this, exemplifying the marketing tactic.

Not commentary from the obvious Debunker you have continually used, but real proof?

No, one CONFESSION is enough. But I'll have you know that Parsons was a professional at back masking:

Another lesser-known example is in the Alan Parsons Project album The Turn of a Friendly Card: at the very end of the first track "May be a price to pay," a backward message is inserted, constructed by the words "something's been going on, there may be a price to pay" played in reverse. The message, in clear Spanish, is "Escucha, baby, al Demonio, es bien fácil"[citation needed] (Listen, baby, to the Demon, it's so easy).

1

Are you knocking on wood hoping I die? I hope not.

To answer your question, I have no family. I was raised in an orphanage.

Apologies. No, it means I do not want you to die. Let me rephrase that question:

SC 1: If you were famous like McCartney, and you did die (knock on wood), would your close friends and/or relatives not speak out about it in anger, not even once?

I would like to see where?

Let's look at some more examples of how fragile this theory is.

I'm sure my opponent is aware of the college student Fred LaBour. He posted an article in the Michigan Daily, it was the main vehicle for the spread of the rumor. He claimed that a Scottish orphan called William Campbell was the initial person to replace McCartney.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2875a98973d7.jpg[/atsimg]
*The infamous article.

In an interview he admitted to fraud:

"I made the guy up. It was originally going to be 'Glenn Campbell,' with two Ns and then I said 'that's too close, nobody'll buy that,' so I made it William Campbell."

2

Andru J. Reeve even stated that the story that LaBour published was "the single most significant factor in the breadth of the rumor's spread."
Rolling Stone interview

I would like to also point my opponent to the song that fueled the rumor the most. The song by Terry Knight, called "Saint Paul", was published by none other than MacLen publishing. This was the publishing company established in 1963 by Lennon and McCartney to publish their own music. Is it no wonder that this was pushed by the Beatles themselves and was one of the original instigators of the rumors that 'Paul was Dead'?

Reeve also questions this suspicious detail: "Was the song instigated by none other than Paul McCartney himself?"

Further, the hoax is fundamentally a fallacy and therefore meaning Paul was never replaced, since Paul was not even in the country 'to die' on November 9, 1966:

If McCartney didn't die on November 9, 1966, what was he doing on that day? It turns out that he was on vacation with his girlfriend Jane Asher. From November 6 through the 19th they were traveling through France and Kenya.

Andru J. Reeve. Turn Me On, Dead Man: The Beatles and the "Paul-Is-Dead" Hoax. AuthorHouse. 2004.

I would like the judges to note the evidence that is being presented here, that this was all indeed a staged hoax, used by the Beatles with support from Capitol Records, who never questioned to stop it due to rising record sales.

Genetic PROOF. Whoever this is, it is not the same person in the second photo, as in the first. Impossible for it to be as it is clear one has attached lobes, the other has unattached.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b1088c0b1780.jpg[/atsimg]

Yet here he is again, MANY years later, with an ATTACHED ear lobe. Do you see how silly this photo comparison is?

That should settle this debate once and for all.

You must have read my mind.

Lyndon LaRouche said that
"The Beatles ... were a product shaped according to British Psychological Warfare Division (Tavistock) specifications, and promoted in Britain by agencies which are controlled by British intelligence." .

This is the same LaRouche who claimed that Hitler was brought to power by the British? The same LaRouche who attributes many conspiracies to the Jews? While my opponent may take this anti-semitic Marxist' view as truth, I will not. At least supply some scholarly proof. I have provided you with a few historians and some respected sources such as Rolling Stone.

The actual Ontario Police Patch says.. OPP… NOT OPD

I never said that it was OPD, please keep up. It stands for ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE, and was used as a marketing ploy. If I could kindly ask my opponent to read my WHOLE last post, it would be great, he seems to have missed this detail.

So much information, so many sites and links and all my opponent has are the comments from one DEBUNKER.

Hardly. Even that one debunker though, should be enough to bring this rumor to rest. I have provided more for your enjoyment though.

SC 2: If Paul McCartney was not even in the country on November 9, how could he have died in a car crash heading home from EMI studios?

SC 3: What reason did McCartney and Lennon have to publish 'Saint Paul', a song which initially helped spark the rumors and one they didn't write themselves, through their own publishing company?

SC 4: IF (hypothetical) you were perpetuating your own death hoax as a famous musician, WHAT REASONS WOULD YOU HAVE to insert 'clues' throughout your songs?

Similar question now, but NOT the same.

SC 5: WHAT REASONS do you think the Beatles had to insert 'clues' into their songs?

Remember direct answers are required.

Thankyou.

Semper’s Closing:

"Paul McCartney died in 1966 and was replaced with a look-alike.”

A Quick Rebuttal: Then On To The Closing:

“Is it possible for an adult male to alter his genetic profile?”


No, not as far as I'm aware.

Excellent!!!!

Thank you

Did you expect him to say he was a double?


No, of course not,

Again: Excellent!!!

Thank you

naturally I was referring to my opponent here, and not my side of the debate.

That is what I would say.. Now …. In your position….

giving you a different perception of its shape

Typical Debunker BUNK.

But the truth is clear and I have presented it for all to see.

skipping all my mentions of the words 'marketing ploy'

Why would I include that?

As I have stated before, it is expected that you would use all of the old and tired methods to debunk a conspiracy that sharp, intellectual minds look intensely at. This is just one more method.

Let’s look at some of your claims and the pattern they present:

Market Ploy
Altered Photos
Camera Angle
Shadows

These are all just excuses; attempts to explain away the truth. Debunker material.

He claimed that a Scottish orphan called William Campbell was the initial person to replace McCartney.

You are probably not aware of this, most people out of the “business” are not; but almost one dozen people confessed to the Murder of John Lennon, DOZENS to the Green River Killer etc…

Claimed is your key word here.

Now that the murder of Paul is coming more and more to light; look for more of these.

Thank you for posting it though!!!

since Paul was not even in the country 'to die'

Did you expect Replacement Paul to admit he was there? This is real life Dude; not TV. Rockford is not going to come in and solve this for you in the “Nick of Time”..

Let me take a moment and educate you a little bit. It is the least I can do. Working ‘Undercover’ requires much the same thing that we have here: A Cover Story.

Now a Cover Story will be a tightly woven story, containing as many ‘facts’ as possible, that explain to people in a way that they “want” to understand a certain set of circumstances, that fit as closely as possible without revealing the truth.

For make no mistake about it; that is exactly what we have here.

You WANT to believe the official story because that is what makes your mind; the world you understand; most comfortable. You are not at fault, it is a very basic psychology and one more common than those that will open minds and reveal the truth.

This is very “akin” to what Combat Vets experience. They don’t want to remember what they experienced, so for them, psychologically, it never happened.

You don’t want to believe that Paul died and was replaced, even though it is easily apparent that he did, so you choose to NOT see the truth. Nothing to be ashamed of, simple psychology.

Yet here he is again

Which “Double” is that? In fact… Who is that?

This is the same LaRouche who claimed that

I would invite you to compare your life to his.

Life Of LaRouche

Tell me who walks behind? I compared mine and I am sadly lacking. This is a great man, who has done great things in his life. Have you?

It stands for ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE

No it does not. That is simply something you and other people have made up to explain away a truth that makes you uncomfortable.

Again, I have been in the ‘business’ for well over 20 years. OPD means exactly what I stated it does.

Answer to Socratic Question #1
“Not if they were paid enough, or threatened enough. No one would.

Answer to Socratic Question #2
“Paul was in country, died and was replaced.”

Answer to Socratic Question #3
“That is how Conspiracies work. I told you I would educate you. That was done exactly for the same reason you feel it necessary to ask me about it. To feed people like you, that don’t want to “see” the truth, just enough that you are comfortable in believing the lie.”

Answer to Socratic Question #4
“Asked and Answered”.. But I shall indulge. “Reid Interrogation Techniques. Perhaps the premier police school for interrogation has clearly shown man’s need to confess, to relieve their psychological burden in some small way” I am a graduate of all their courses.

Answer to Socratic Question #5
“ Again: “Reid Interrogation Techniques. Perhaps the premier police school for interrogation has clearly shown man’s need to confess, to relieve their psychological burden in some small way” I am a graduate of all their courses.””

Closing:

Let’s look closely at what we have here, what has transpired.

I have present to you PROOF

My opponent has rebutted with comments from the Replaced Paul as his proof..

I have presented pictures that are simple and clearly show the replacement; my opponent states the “angle is different”

I have presented to you genetic proof including links. My opponent presents a picture with no reference link. We have no idea where he got it.

I have given you my years of experience in confessions and clearly shown you where the Beatles have confessed in their music and their album art. My opponent says because the replaced Paul “says” he was not replaced; that is proof.

My opponent has rested his entire case on the Replaced Paul saying he was not replaced.

I have shown you a world class Attorney that thought there was enough to this to host a show on it.

I have given you governmental conspiracies and probable narcotics connections.

I have continued to debate this topic, professionally, while my opponent considers the whole thing childish.

Remember:

The Timeline
Government Complicity
Facial Features
Hidden Messages in the Music
Possible Connection to Lennon’s Murder
Vocal Voice Analysis
International Involvement

Remember:

Famous Lawyer F. Lee Bailey produced and hosted an hour long special into Paul’s death.

this conspiracy is listed as number 4 on [I]Times[/I] list of the Top Ten All Time Conspiracies

John Lennon: “How Do You Sleep?"; "Those freaks was right when they said you was dead"

In 1967 Paul suddenly grows 2 inches

In 1967 Paul’s natural left side hair part, jumped to the other side of his head.

In 1966 the Beatles suddenly and mysteriously stopped touring.

Paul suddenly becomes right handed.

Confessions within the music

Confession within the album art

Two pictures of supposedly the same person, that is obviously different people

Also keep in mind the “Smoking Gun”

There it is folks. Genetic PROOF. Whoever this is, it is not the same person in the second photo, as in the first. Impossible for it to be as it is clear one has attached lobes, the other has unattached.

WAY TOO MUCH FOLKS

Way too much here to call this childish.

This is a conspiracy for the ages people. One I stepped into not knowing the full extent of what I would find. Yet I was astonished at the amount of material that.. Well just doesn’t “Add Up” and what else is a conspiracy, if not that?

Most of us are here at ATS for the very material that has been outlined for you, here, by me, in this debate. Most of us here “WANT” to step out of our comfort zone and find the truth behind the lies the government and those in power tell us. That is what makes us different from the “Normals”…

Here is your chance to validate our beliefs; our open mindedness and our commitment to seeing the truth no matter how uncomfortable it may make us.

Look at all I have posted.

Look at the massive amount of information available to you here and in the links I have provided.

Open your mind and there is no doubt that you will conclude that:

"Paul McCartney died in 1966 and was replaced with a look-alike.”

Thank you

Semper

Closing: Debating Con position of: "Paul McCartney died in 1966 and was replaced with a look-alike.”

Excellent!!!! Thank you

You have not provided any genetic proof what so ever. You have supplied photographs, like I have. You have no case here, don't get too excited.

Again: Excellent!!!

Once again, manipulating my own posts. Here is my whole statement:

"No, of course not, because he is not one. "

I would like the judges to take note of my opponents cheap tactics. Desperate times call for desperate action.

That is what I would say.. Now …. In your position….

It's quite clear what I meant all along, you just failed to see it.

But the truth is clear and I have presented it for all to see.

Ludicrous! You have shown no genetic proof what so ever. Where did you get those photos? Who is that? We need medical documents/reports to constitute genetic proof, not photos. I have debunked your earlobe theory easily.

As I have stated before, it is expected that you would use all of the old and tired methods to debunk a conspiracy...

It is also expected, semper, that you would use all of the old and tired methods in order to espouse this bunk conspiracy. Your 'clues' may need refining with each decade in order to suck some poor sucker into this hoax with each passing decade, but the logical, cohesive argument that I have used is TIMELESS in putting to rest this conspiracy.

Altered Photos

I never claimed any photo was manipulated, simply that it can be subject to this. If we are to take the photos that you posted as legit/unaltered and take the photo that i posted as legit/unaltered, then we are left with a clear conclusion. It is the same Paul all along.

Now that the murder of Paul is coming more and more to light; look for more of these.

And yet we have FAILED TO SEE ONE SINGLE CONFESSION OF THIS SO FAR. Look for more of these you say? There have been no confessions of anyone killing McCartney.

Did you expect Replacement Paul to admit he was there?

Since there was no 'replacement Paul', it is only a matter of the only Paul revealing the details behind the hoax.

This is real life Dude; not TV.

Indeed. My opponent needs to get back down to Earth.

You WANT to believe the official story because that is what makes your mind; the world you understand; most comfortable.

You WANT to believe that it all isn't a perpetuated hoax because reality is so boring; that is what makes the world you understand, most comfortable.

You don’t want to believe that Paul died and was replaced, even though it is easily apparent that he did, so you choose to NOT see the truth.

You don't want to believe that Paul never died because you will feel betrayed by your music idols if you accepted reality. How could they do that to you, after all these years, spit out rumors of a 'fake Paul' and even insert little Easter eggs for you to go and buy more records. So you choose not to see the truth, when the evidence is right in front of your eyes.

Judges. This is a prime case of the rabbit chasing the carrot mechanism. They will chase and chase, seek and seek, but they will never see the truth they want, because it doesn't exist. All they need to do is to stop and realize that they don't need the carrot, because the carrot is a lie, the truth reveals itself as the carrot disappears behind the corner of racetrack and sanity prevails.

Which “Double” is that? In fact… Who is that?

Not a double, the real deal. I forgot to ask my opponent about why he has posted two images of the same person and asked me to notice a difference.

Tell me who walks behind? I compared mine and I am sadly lacking. This is a great man, who has done great things in his life. Have you?

LaRouche's theories speak for themselves, he is his own downfall and holds no credence for the topic at hand. I am much too young, much younger than you think, to have accomplished greatness in my life. But when I do, and I plan too, you will be the first person I call.

No it does not. That is simply something you and other people have made up to explain away a truth that makes you uncomfortable.

Must I embed the images for my opponent. This evidence should have been reviewed 2 posts ago, yet I have to do this.

The image used on an album cover in order to make people believe it could possibly say O.P.D. as the P, believed to be a D, is not visible.

(Image Removed)

This is the complete image of the exact same badge. It says O.P.P. (ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE), not O.P.D.

(Image Removed)

Again, I have been in the ‘business’ for well over 20 years. OPD means exactly what I stated it does.

Thats fair enough. But there IS NO O.P.D. mentioned anywhere. It is an example of how easily the public can be manipulated into believing this hoax.

I have present to you PROOF

Everything you have posted has been debunked.

I have presented pictures that are simple and clearly show the replacement; my opponent states the “angle is different”

Your pictures show nothing. I would like the judges to clearly read what I said about these pictures in an above post, and use your own discretion. This is all perception, anyone can look different from various angles.

I have presented to you genetic proof including links. My opponent presents a picture with no reference link.

You have provided NO genetic proof. This would require genetic tests, clearly which are out of the scope of this debate. You're pictures have no reference link either.

My opponent says because the replaced Paul “says” he was not replaced; that is proof.

Have you read ALL of what I have posted? It can't be possible if you've come up with the above conclusion.

My opponent has rested his entire case on the Replaced Paul saying he was not replaced.

Again, you are ignoring a large majority of my posts in making this ignorant statement.

Conclusion and the Smoking Gun:

My opponent has done the following in order to try and prove that Paul was replaced:

- Used image comparisons, which backfired, and showed proof of nothing.
- For some odd reason decided to mention Nessie, and not bring it up again, even after I asked for an explanation.
- Posted 'secret clues' in songs.

... and some other tidbits which did him no more justice than the above.

Meanwhile, I have shown proof that Paul was never replaced:

- Confession by the one and only Paul McCartney which was an interview with a very wide scope, incorporating many individuals, adding credence to his word which my opponent failed to refute.
- Confessions by instigators of the initial elements of the hoax.
- Examples of the systematic insertion of 'clues' such as the "O.P.D." hoax.
- Proof that the Beatles were working with professional audio engineering staff who helped back mask some of the 'clues'.
- Evidence that there was close cooperation with the press, i.e. Tony Burrows, and the input they had in perpetuating the hoax.
- Evidence that Paul was not even in the country on the night he supposedly died.

... and much more.

After examining ALL this evidence, it is plainly obvious that Paul McCartney did not die in 1966 and therefore could not and would not have had to have been replaced.

In order to unleash my simple, yet effective 'smoking gun', I would like to remind the judges of my opponents answer to one of my Socratic Questions.

Q: If you were famous like McCartney, and you did die (knock on wood), would your close friends and/or relatives not speak out about it in anger, not even once?

Friends, meaning any business associates who may have worked and or in any way come in 'deep' contact with Sir Paul McCartney.

A: “Not if they were paid enough, or threatened enough. No one would."

Keep this in mind when remembering that Paul McCartney was knighted on Tuesday, 11th March, 1997.
www.london-gazette.co.uk...

Becoming of course, SIR Paul McCartney. Remeber some of the famous names who have been knighted, such as Marconi (1914) or Spielberg in 2001.
en.wikipedia.org...

The Honours system is a way to recognise outstanding merit and service to the nation. It's been around for centuries but only since 1993 has the public been able to make nominations themselves.

www.dcsf.gov.uk...

"Outstanding merit and service". What reason would the Queen have to knight Paul McCartney if he were replaced in 1966, when so much of his greatest work was achieved prior to this? Surely my opponent does not suggest that the Queen was also involved in this conspiracy and was 'paid off' to follow along?

I have nothing left to prove.

I have made clear that Paul McCartney did not die in 1966 and therefore was not replaced by a double. Anyone who examines the evidence I have posted with an open and balanced mind would find that their reason prevails and the evidence begins to speak for itself, unlike the evidence that has been presented by my opponent, song lyrics and fake badges.

Sir Paul McCartney has been the one and only Paul all along, I have shown proof of how the hoax that arose in '66 was perpetuated by the Beatles themselves and their staff/press.

It is now completely clear, as it has been all along.

Paul did not die in 1966 and was therefore never replaced.

Thankyou.




Edit: Images can not be used in opening/closing statements.

[edit on 12-19-2009 by chissler]

We're off to the judges.

Results...

This was an interesting debate and an excellent example in the use of rhetoric. While I was a bit disappointed to see the two competitors focus too much on the term "childish", there was some really good points brought up in sequence by each.

In the end, I have to give the nod to serbsta. He consistently showed support for the marketing ploy while semperfortis struggled to show that Paul was replaced. Serbsta controlled this debate, despite a few rule violations including excessive links and sentences, and despite semperfortis' masterful provacations. In the end, though, serbsta's background on the marketing and backmasking is the stronger arguement.

Congratulations to both for a very enjoyable read.

It is a shame to see two great competitors go head to head so early in a tournament. Both of these guys could have won this tournament! semperfortis started strong early and I thought took the early lead. However, his opponent responded quick and heavy. It was disappointing to see so much time spent on petty, off-topic and personal commentary. semperfortis is the reason behind all of this and initially it was a wise strategy to get his opponent off-topic. However, as it continued it just seemed to come across as grasping at straws. serbsta could have seriously taken over this debate had he ignored these attempts and allowed his opponent to waste his character limit. So I took points away from both for these efforts.

Through half of this debate, it was dead even. As a judge I was growing nervous about having to make a decision on such a close debate. By the end of it though, a victor had stood clear. serbsta's picture of a senior McCartney weighed heavily and really under minded semperfortis's "ace in the hole". To respond to this, semperfortis seemed to conveniently ignore it. And while serbsta seemed to refute or at least attempt to refute the biggest parts of his position, semperfortis seemed to conveniently ignore or mock what serbsta presented.

A win for serbsta here.

serbsta wins and moves to the next round.




This thread is now open to comments from other debaters.

Congratulations to my opponent and may he fair well in the rest of the tournament..



Semper

Great debate semper, eagerly looking forward to our next meeting.