It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Paul McCartney 1966 and after

page: 3
17
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by InfaRedMan

Originally posted by dashen

Originally posted by Swills
reply to post by Uncle Benny
 


I think I've heard of this conspiracy before, but why would Paul be replaced?


He died, they held a look alike contest in england and replaced him before there were mass suicides of crazed girls and tons of money lost from the band breaking up


Wow.. and the look alike just happened to be a left handed bassist too! Amazing!

IRM


Hey listen, that's the legend, and I am just re-spewing it. The ears are a mystery to me, but if it is the real Paul or not, it changes nothing for me, I like the rolling stones better anyway.




posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   
There was a documentary (mockumentary?) done on this that was released in 2010 titled "Paul McCartney Really Is Dead: The Last Testament of George Harrison".

Paul McCartney Really Is Dead

This "conspiracy" fascinated me in my youth because I was a huge Beatles fan and stumbled upon the Life magazine cover story purporting that Paul was alive and well enjoying some necessary seclusion. Up until then I'd never known about the belief that Paul had actually died.

The evidence in the documentary (yes, I've seen it and it is available on Netflix) is weak to say the least. Many believe the documentary is in actuality intended as "tongue-in-cheek".

Still, some of the "evidence" presented is a bit weird. An example is all the backwards tracks. First of all there were many more of these than I thought existed. Secondly, wouldn't such a joke among the members grow a little stale and a lot less funny the twentieth time around?

I guess never say never, but if I was in Vegas I'd take some pretty short odds on all of this being baloney.

But hey, it's definitely fun to talk about.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Big Trouble in Little Chi
 


Yes, that was a fascinating bit of very scientific evidence that Paul Mccartney was not the same man after 1966.


www.erichufschmid.net...

Read this first before jumping to the 'hoax' conclusion.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncle Benny
 


ok guys... the beatles fessed up years after they broke up... Paul is not dead. It was a marketing ploy.... George martin thought it would raise sales if they dropped hints that one of the members was dead and got replaced with a look alike....

John wanted to be the one who "died" but George thought it would hurt sales if the rumor was John died.

The beatles settled on Paul...

They loved playing into it and even put little "clues" into songs....

it was just a marketing thing guys.... and it worked. 40 years later and here we are.... talking about the beatles right now.

and before you say "link?"


www.google.com...

That is my link... Feel free to double check me.

edit on 23-8-2011 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   
When I see a lot of these early and later pictures of Paul and the differences people are talking about in his face, a lot has to do with the size and shape of the nose and ears, it seems. Are people forgetting that ears and noses of men continue to grow throughout their lives? Yes, as you go through his life the older he is in his pictures, the larger his nose seems to be - it has changed shape, but so has mine (I'm 39 now). Same with his ears, no doubt. Those earlobes sure look different, as they should. Near as I can tell, the other shapes in his ear look the same to me in the pictures.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
ahahaha. Of all the things to believe..

Honestly, the ears... He probably had surgery to pin them back. My cousin had the same, very simple procedure, basically the backside of the ear is attached to the skin behind the ear to make them stick out less, cartilage is cut as needed (which could explain the difference in looks; you need to cut that extra stuff so the ears don't have a fold). Simple experiment.. if you have ears that stick out, press them back and see/feel how weird your ear looks in places that bend-- that is what would be cut off. Few stitches, little scarring.

And I agree with one of the posters (far too lazy to press the back button and check exactly whom, so sorry to miscredit
) who explains the position of the camera changes facial structure.. If you take two of the photos that are beside each other showing "proof", there is an OBVIOUS tilt of the head... either he is tilting his chin up (WHILE SINGING???!!) or slightly down... His nose looks "longer" because you're seeing the 3-dimensional nose in a 2 dimensional picture... The tip of his nose makes it appear his nose continues on, same goes for the latter, where it looks shorter.

I will take myself for example... I do not have an overly large nose, however I have inherited my grandmother's more defined bohemian nose. Having broken it a few times being a kid, it most certainly is crooked a bit on one side. When I take a picture, a slight angle of my face downward will have me looking like the wicked witch of the west. Alternatively, when I angle it up, I appear to have a cutesy little girly nose, as well as a smaller chin. If I take a picture with the right side of my face, my nose looks COMPLETELY different than if I take one with the left... If I take a straight on shot and mirror those sides together to form two faces, you will certainly see two distinct people. I hate taking pictures for this reason, I can't stand how much my face changes just from a tilt of the head.

My point is: Pictures can be reversed, pictures can be manipulated. Also, a lot of the "original photos" have most likely been mirrored for their publishing purpose (many in books are). If you have a sharp eye, you can see that there is One Paul. I do believe that they did use this to give themselves a mystical aura, they were all about the "art." What better to add to the art than a huge conspired backstory?? They couldn't be just any band. They were all brilliant minds, and they took it to a legendary level. Bravo to them for giving enough "evidence" that 40+ years later there are still die-hards..

Another note: Saw Sir Paul on his tour a few weeks ago. Absolutely amazing. How a 69 year old man can rock a crowd of 55,000 for three hours without a break, damn...

Oh, and the teeth, retainer anyone? heehe.

Tootles. xox
edit on 23-8-2011 by PrincessofSwords because: illiterate chica



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by antoinemarionette
reply to post by Big Trouble in Little Chi
 


Yes, that was a fascinating bit of very scientific evidence that Paul Mccartney was not the same man after 1966.


www.erichufschmid.net...

Read this first before jumping to the 'hoax' conclusion.


Holy crap man!!! did you read that link?!
And I quote


How many more times will we allow the Jews to perpetrate these type of crimes?


Now, what would the Jews have done with Faul if his surgery to resemble Paul ended up terribly wrong?

Or, if we can find enough people to stand up to the Jewish crime network, will he find the courage to be honest with us?

This may be one of the tricks the Jews are using to control people in leadership positions. Specifically, the Jews can threaten people:



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Okie dokie, here is a link to an ATS thread that translates an article in Wired magazine from italy where two forensic pathologist examined the cranial structures of Paul trying to put the rumor to rest, instead proving the legend to be true.
Posts by ATS member falconandsnowjob
Paul McCartney died in 1966 - replaced by Billy Shepherd



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ItsEvolutionBaby
 


this is not a conspiracy , it is total ballony .
being a teenager in the sixties and following the beatles i can assure you that really is paul mcCartney
and as for his ex, heather i would not believe a word that came out of her mouth .
and what about his daughter stella , do you really think that she would go along with this sham if it was not her father .



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by tom.farnhill
 


Do you know Heather Mills or Stella McCartney?

Probably not.

Yet you are certain Heather is mad and Stella would never lie.

Please tell me what makes you jump to such irrational conclusions?

I personally find it odd that none of McCartney's children look anything like him...



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by antoinemarionette
 


can you tell me as to where in my post , i said that Heather mills was mad ?

i said that i would not believe anything that came out of her mouth .



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncle Benny
 


Simple question. If McCartney had died in '66 how have they kept it covered up? The Police, The Medical Staff, The Morgue, The Inquest (If there had been one) The Coroner. The Press. Not a single person from those establishments has ever uttered a word that they knew he had died.

End of story.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join