Paul McCartney died in 1966 - replaced by Billy Shepherd

Originally posted by Uncle Benny

There`s a strong possibility McCartney died in the States.

He went off the radar in late August 1966 (not long after the Memphis interview)

Yeah, I agree. Nailing down the date of Paul's last appearance is difficult, though. I happen to believe it all went down sometime around the Memphis interview, which was Aug 19, 1966. Like I said before, the KKK was making threats for John's "Jesus statement," so it would have been a good time to take him out b/c it could've been pinned on KKK if the "car crash" story didn't pan out.

Aug 19, 1966 Memphis v. Aug 29, 1966, San Francisco


Aug 19 v. Aug 28, LA




Aug 22, 1966 NY v. Paul (not sure of date)


One thing is for sure, though. Paul was gone by Nov. 1966. Faul in Kenya:




[edit on 24-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Originally posted by brocket99
I get that Billy Shepherd = Faul, but it would seem relatively easy to track down Billy Shepherds relatives and say WTF?

If Faul has an intell background, or if this is linked to intell in any way, it would be virtually impossible to track down his previous identity. Perhaps he "died" before becoming Paul, or perhaps he never "officially" existed at all. All we know is that the guy prancing around calling himself "Paul McCartney" isn't the same lovable mop-top in AHDN & Help!

Originally posted by brocket99
Paul might have hated how he looked, and continued to have plastic surgery to remain looking younger or "ideal."

Paul would have had to have undergone a series of extensive & painful surgeries to account for the physical changes that have been documented, yet the requisite scars are not present, neither was his singing career negatively impacted. This isn't just my opinion. This is the opinion of forensic experts:

... After the publication of Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, however, the palates of McCartney widens considerably, to the point that the front teeth does not rotate on its axis more as before. With the only on, than the usual canine. "A change of the shape of the palate, Carlesi concludes, 'in the Sixties was not impossible but would be very traumatic, the result of an actual intervention maxillo-facial. In practice McCartney should have been subjected to an operation that would involve the opening of the suture palate, broken bone and then a long prosthetic and orthodontic treatment. In other words, for a change so sensitive in the sixties to McCartney would be required not only a particularly painful and bloody, but also the use of a fixed orthodontic multiband then, for over a year. Which would not have been possible to hide and would be obvious repercussions on the performance of a vocal professional singer...

ASK WHO WAS THE "BEATLE"
/mw83db

Apparently, the difference in the width of the mouths can't even be explained by surgery:

..."Compared to the previous picture, that of Sgt Pepper's show clearly that the commessura lip, that is the line formed by the lips of the two, it was suddenly stretched. Which obviously is not possible and that the whiskers can not camouflage. In other words, the phenomenon is all too frequently these days, the lips can be inflated and increased in volume, but the width of the lip commessura can not vary that much. May be slight, but this is not the case for the photos examined: here the difference between the before and after is too strong to have been caused by any surgery...

ASK WHO WAS THE "BEATLE"
/mw83db

Photos can make people look different.

Paul looks like Paul & Faul looks like Faul, they just don't look like each other that much.

My photos of when I was 17-19 bare almost no resemblance to me now

Ok, but Paul underwent a remarkable transformation in a matter of months (Aug. - Nov. 1966).

Originally posted by Strictsum

posted on 12-8-2009 @ 13:24

Where is the shadow on the gravestone ? I don't see it.

Never answered. Just throw up pics and make claims but never respond to questions.

Perhaps this will help. The word "memory" goes right through the head. See it now?

Originally posted by Strictsum
I've asked questions over the last week or so that go completely ignored. I don't know why, all I can assume is there are no answers for them that fits into the PID belief.

I'm really sorry we don't have all the answers for you. Whatever happened happened before I was even born. Trying to piece it all together is rather difficult at this late stage. We can't be expected to have all the answers, & it is not necessary to completely resolve everything in order to examine this issue.

You mentioned the hand-writing. I'm not a graphologist, but this hand-writing does not look the same to me. Note the signature in particular (no doubt practiced)





[edit on 24-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Originally posted by Strictsum
reply to post by berenike

 

I think PID believers are afraid to admit they could be wrong about anything because they think it will make their whole argument null and void. People can change their mind and get things wrong without the whole argument being thrown out. It would make it more credible if they would say, ok I got this or that wrong. It shows a willingness to think critically.

Strictsum I for one will admit I`m wrong if I feel I`m wrong about anything. Regarding critical thinking and belief systems - throw out what you think you know about them. Good observational skills are all thats required here. If you make this "PID" thing into a belief system then you`ll be going over and back for weeks if not months. Once you see that the man claiming to be Paul McCartney today isn`t him then there`s no internal conflict. It just "is." It`s interesting to note that children are the best at seeing the differences as they haven`t been conditioned into believing "Faul" (Bill) is Paul.

If his son had been killed after he revealed something like this. People would have known he was telling the truth. Of course TPTB would have said Lennon was insane but if his family was murdered, that would have sealed the deal. They wouldn't have been able to murder anyone after he told something like this without showing themselves IMO.

Why do you believe John Lennon would have told the world about Faul? Indirectly he told of Pauls death through hundreds of album/song clues. There may have been many reasons for him not to speak out.

Sednason answered your question about this previously saying Lennon may have been about to spill the beans, his last album was entitled "Double Fantasy." I advise you to read the book "The Murder of John Lennon" by Fenton Bresler (a respected writer and barrister from the UK) who spent much time researching the Beatles death.

When Paul died and was replaced in the band John was well used to death himself. His mother died when he was in his teens, and he also lost his best friend in the group Stuart Sutcliffe, who died suddenly. The remaining three may have been told that many fans would have commited suicide if the truth became public about Pauls death. The Beatles were living in a surreal world as they later admitted - Everywhere they went they were followed by screaming, delirious fans. Of course keeping this "Beatlemania" circus going a few more years kept the money-men behind the group happy.

The darker elements behind the group would also have wanted them to continue. Timothy Leary, who later admitted being a CIA asset was reponsible for pushing hard drugs like lsd. As Faulcon has said previously once Faul came on board he started to talk about lsd.

There are many, many reasons why the Bealtes band-wagon, the first of its kind in sheer scale and size, continued and no-one "directly" told the fans.



[edit on 24-8-2009 by Uncle Benny]

Originally posted by brocket99
reply to post by Uncle Benny

 

Uncle Benny,

Although it doesn't help your interests in the topic, have you ever tried researching the whereabouts of Billy Shepherd?

I get that Billy Shepherd = Faul, but it would seem relatively easy to track down Billy Shepherds relatives and say WTF? Where's Billy? Did he die? Did he have kids? Did he quit playing music?

I say tracking more info down about Billy Shepherd is the way to go.

I believe Pauls replacement is named Bill brocket99. It`s a good point you`re made - It would make things so much easier if someone could find out exactly who this man is (Campbell, Shepherd or whoever) and where he`s from, talk to family etc.

This is a high level cover-up, where to start is anyones guess and frankly just getting through to people that this actually happened in the first place takes time.





[edit on 24-8-2009 by Uncle Benny]

Originally posted by SednaSon

Perhaps this will help. The word "memory" goes right through the head. See it now?

Nice one SednaSon



[edit on 24-8-2009 by Uncle Benny]

Originally posted by SednaSon
The word "memory" goes right through the head. See it now?

Subtle & kind of creepy clue.

Here's the signature comp again. The top one is from Klaus Voormann's book, so I'm pretty confident it's Paul's. The bottom one looks "practiced" to me.

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
Here's the signature comp again. The top one is from Klaus Voormann's book, so I'm pretty confident it's Paul's. The bottom one looks "practiced" to me.

Here are things that I have noticed with much of the comparisons:

The signatures of many sports stars change over time depending on the amount of signing they do. Typically the earlier in the career, the better the autograph. The auto you show here doesn't specify the date, and one is done in a pencil, the other a pen.

There is a chance that Paul chose to have plastic surgery, ala Michael Jackson, over the years to fix things he didn't like about himself.

I am not against the idea of PID, but much of the evidence is so inconclusive, subjective, and there are roads the "researchers" are avoiding.

There is speculation of who replaced Paul, so where did FAUL come from? If there are suspicions follow up on it. Travel there, call people. Post your answers.

Just my opinion after getting heavily into this thread and coming in a complete skeptic just days ago... what changed my mind is the photographic evidence (I, for one, think faulcon has posted photographic evidence that's just plain to see it isn't the same guy).

I have lived through the entire Beatles history, becoming aware of them when I saw them on their first appearance on Ed Sullivan. I've always been a huge fan. But you know, things have bothered me over the years about "Paul" and through the years it's just been a nagging feeling that I wasn't able to explain or describe. What happened was that Paul's personality changed at the end of 1966. He began to come off as egotistical. I don't mean flippant because all the Beatles had snappy anwers to stupid questions and made a game of that when they became famous, so I don't mean he became flippant. What I detected (in late 1966 onward in loads of television interviews and appearances in the press) was that Paul became noticeably arrogant and this, to me, was new because he had not come across that way previously.

MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR was such a disaster, when I first saw it in the sixties I was shocked at how amateur it is and it was well known at the time that Paul was basically the director and producer. I can't believe to this day that Original Paul would've made that and put that out. It's garbage. I knew that something was terribly wrong with The Beatles for MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR to have ever seen the light of day it's so awful.

"Paul" continued to get more and more arrogant until his ego seemed to be just insufferable. But the other Beatles, although scousers to the core, didn't seem to acquire such arrogance and overbearing at all. Then comes the LET IT BE film and "Paul" comes off as a jerk while you can plainly see in the film that the others seem to regard him as somebody they are obligated to put up with but they can hardly stand to be in the same room with let alone have any deep rooted friendship with from way back. In fact, John and George seem to not want to associate with "Paul" but just go through the motions. At the time of the theatrical release of LET IT BE, I was there in the movie theater just shattered with disbelief that "Paul" could seem so rotten.

After The Beatles broke up or about that same time, I remember well the LIFE magazine cover story going on about Paul not being dead and you know, here he is on the farm in Scotland and so forth. I don't know, but it just seemed weird like "Paul" was putting on some kind of act you know, now he's a farmer living in a shack. After the album "Ram" when Lennon put out his album and there was the little postcard picture of Lennon hunching over a pig, I think I never laughed so hard because in that one bit of satire it was like Lennon was saying "Hey, this Paul on the farm bit is phony rubbish!"

Then came all the excesses in the solo career of "Paul" and there are so many egotistical projects that seemed disgusting, especially GIVE MY REGARDS TO BROADSTREET", which to me is the most self-serving, egomaniacal piece of trash to have ever been released by anyone. I sat in the theater watching that cringing with disbelief because "Paul" had put out this self-promotional excess that was embarrassing to watch. I was sorry for Ringo for appearing in it. Once again, I thought it's too bad that the lad from Liverpool I admired so much in the early sixties has an ego so out-of-bounds that it's unbearable to watch. Whatever happened to the young man who was so refreshingly NOT an egomaniac at the height of Beatlemania in '64-'65, I wondered.

Another thing is that I've always puzzled over the obvious resentment Harrison had for "Paul" from late '66 up until Harrison died. It always seemed as if Harrison despised the guy and I never could reconcile that with the fact that Paul and George were very tight pals at the very start of the band. Paul got George in the band. That's how close they were in the beginning. But obviously something really ate at George about "Paul" starting in late 1966 into 1967. It's been explained as Paul and John didn't give George enough songs on albums but I never thought that was the real reason. I always thought that George began to loathe "Paul" because "Paul" became an insufferable egomaniac.

There have been lots of other nagging doubts about the history of The Beatles from late '66 to the present and I'm going to be trying to recall the troubling things and write them down. I remember hearing about all the death clues in 1969 when it came out and was popular on radio talk shows. At the time, I thought 'Oh that's really interesting but obviously it's just a game because there "Paul" is alive on the cover of LIFE and everything" so I haven't thought about it all these years. But since 1969, I've tried to like "Paul" and collected his solo albums on vinyl, cassettes and CD and all. I went to see him in concert during the Wings Over America tour and had a great time. I went to see him again during the Back In The USA tour and again had great fun seeing him.

One thing that really, really bothered me when I saw "Paul" live and in concert during the Back In The USA tour was that I had seen short, promo video clips of him performing and chatting with the audience taken at previous shows at other previous venues and what struck me when I saw him live was that he and his backup guys had the show memorized precisely and he gave word-for-word the same show at every venue. Exact same banter and chat and jokes with the audience. Exact same line up of songs. Exact same everything to the point of Zero Spontaneity. I thought WTF? Why can't he be relaxed enough to be a down to earth fellow instead of this cardboard cut-out repeating the same show verbatim at every venue? I got the DVD and it's the exact same show I saw live and this DVD was shot in other or different venues and it's the exact same memorized, over-rehearsed performance absolutely verbatim, same timing and everything. I thought wow he seems to have no soul.

I could have gone to see him again last week in Dallas but I just can't stomach the egomania of this guy and the fact that he really seems totally incapable of being spontaneous.

Does anyone relate to anything I've said in this post? Sorry to ramble on so. Things have bothered me for all these years about "Paul", a guy I really looked up to in the early sixties but have grown to dislike.

[edit on 25-8-2009 by switching yard]

Originally posted by brocket99

The auto you show here doesn't specify the date

The top one is from early '60's. Faul signature on official documents:

There is a chance that Paul chose to have plastic surgery, ala Michael Jackson, over the years to fix things he didn't like about himself.

The plastic surgery that would have been required would have put him out of commission for at least a year, & would have left more scarring than is evident - more than could be covered w/ a mustache, according to the experts.

I am not against the idea of PID, but much of the evidence is so inconclusive, subjective,

Please go back & read what I posted about evidence.

It is not "subjective" that the measurements of the facial features don't match up, that the eye color changed, or that he grew 2+ inches in his mid-20's.

there are roads the "researchers" are avoiding.

Such as?

There is speculation of who replaced Paul, so where did FAUL come from? If there are suspicions follow up on it.

Who knows where Faul came from. He could've come from the ranks of intelligence, or been talent-scouted like one of Gen. Montgomery's official doubles was. What do you propose we do? Call up the CIA or MI6 & ask if they've imposter-replaced Paul McCartney, & if so, could they please give us Faul's true identity?

switching yard's post reminded me of this video. It is the fan's opinion of the Beatles' videos Strawberry Fields Forever and Penny Lane and their new 'look' for 1967. Dick Clark with Beatles' fans on American Bandstand:


www.jojoplace.org...





[edit on 25-8-2009 by SednaSon]

If Paul died, or was replaced it more then likely had ZERO to do with MI6 CIA or the men in black.

They didnt want to lose their money or fame, and neither did their handlers...managers etc.

Also...who really cares?

I am waiting for the day that someone replace Britney Spears, Justin Timberlake, or any pop culture icon.

The Beatles were the 60's version of NKOTB.

Originally posted by brocket99
If Paul died, or was replaced it more then likely had ZERO to do with MI6 CIA or the men in black.

Why do you say this?

Also...who really cares?

If someone kills a famous musician and then replaces him with a double, then that is significant.

The Beatles were the 60's version of NKOTB.

Except that the Beatles had musical talent.

Originally posted by switching yard
Just my opinion after getting heavily into this thread and coming in a complete skeptic just days ago...

I'm kind of shocked (& impressed) at how fast you saw it :-)

what changed my mind is the photographic evidence.

I totally agree! :-)

I've always been a huge fan. But you know, things have bothered me over the years about "Paul" and through the years it's just been a nagging feeling that I wasn't able to explain or describe. What happened was that Paul's personality changed at the end of 1966.

Personality changed & he lost his looks (something a chick would notice - lol)

What I detected (in late 1966 onward in loads of television interviews and appearances in the press) was that Paul became noticeably arrogant and this, to me, was new because he had not come across that way previously.

Paul was definitely not arrogant. OK, John could be kind of mean sometimes, but Paul always seemed polite.

I knew that something was terribly wrong with The Beatles for MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR to have ever seen the light of day it's so awful.

MMT had tons of clues, too.

I don't know, but it just seemed weird like "Paul" was putting on some kind of act you know, now he's a farmer living in a shack.

It is odd that Paul would go live in such a desolate place. It makes sense, tho, that they'd want to get Faul out of the public eye as much as possible.

Another thing is that I've always puzzled over the obvious resentment Harrison had for "Paul" from late '66 up until Harrison died.

He slammed him pretty hard in "Imagine" & here:

One thing that really, really bothered me when I saw "Paul" live and in concert during the Back In The USA tour was that I had seen short, promo video clips of him performing and chatting with the audience taken at previous shows at other previous venues and what struck me when I saw him live was that he and his backup guys had the show memorized precisely and he gave word-for-word the same show at every venue.

Interesting. Maybe he is afraid he'll mess up if he doesn't do everything exactly as practiced/choreographed, so there's no room for improvisation. And if that's the case, then he's probably not the musician Paul was.

I could have gone to see him again last week in Dallas but I just can't stomach the egomania of this guy and the fact that he really seems totally incapable of being spontaneous.

One of my friends drove up from Houston. This friend really can't afford it, & it irks me that he's been taken advantage of by Faul.

Does anyone relate to anything I've said in this post?

Yes, of course! I've had the same nagging doubts over the years - that some things just didn't add up. Now, in the PID context, those things start making sense.

Originally posted by brocket99
If Paul died, or was replaced it more then likely had ZERO to do with MI6 CIA or the men in black.

They didnt want to lose their money or fame, and neither did their handlers...managers etc.

And you *know* this after looking into it for one day?

Also...who really cares?

I really care, for one. If you don't care that someone was likely murdered & replaced, & that someone else has been pretending to be him for over 40 yrs, tricking the public, then that's fine, but why are you bothering to post if it's so unimportant to you?

[edit on 25-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

I think the coverup of Paul being replaced had everything to do with Mi6 and CIA. Of course they got it smoothed over and I believe CIA/Mi6 are not above taking someone out who spilled or came too close to spilling the beans.

Seems to me, Lennon and Harrison were afraid they too might meet untimely deaths if they spoke out and look what happened... they DID meet untimely deaths.

Jack Ruby, before he died, claimed that "they" spiked his food which sedated him limp at which time "they" injected him with something that caused cancer. So-called experts laughed it off in the press saying it is impossible to inject anyone with cancer. So, Ruby was convinced "they" gave him cancer. Harrison was attacked, stabbed, by a "lone nut" who tried to kill him and the only thing stopping that assassination was Olivia bashing the "lone nut" over the head with a heavy table lamp. Then the next thing you know, Harrison is diagnosed with terminal cancer.

It's pretty obvious Lennon was rubbed out by a programmed, mind control "lone nut" and just before Lennon was about to most likely embark upon a world tour and frequent interviews. Bottom line --- Lennon was silenced.

If Paul was replaced --- and I believe he was, just from reading this thread --- CIA and Mi6 were most definitely involved and continue their "support" to this very day. Original Paul disappeared sometime in late '66. That certainly is not Original Paul in Kenya with Mal Evans. That's New Paul, or you might say Bungalow Bill.

[edit on 25-8-2009 by switching yard]

Originally posted by switching yard
I think the coverup of Paul being replaced had everything to do with Mi6 and CIA. Of course they got it smoothed over and I believe CIA/Mi6 are not above taking someone out who spilled or came too close to spilling the beans.

I agree. Oh, & they're definitely not above assassination.

Jack Ruby, before he died, claimed that "they" spiked his food which sedated him limp at which time "they" injected him with something that caused cancer... Then the next thing you know, Harrison is diagnosed with terminal cancer.

In "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" (I believe), there was a woman cancer-researcher interviewed who claimed she had an affair w/ Lee H. Oswald. She said CIA had her working on a fast-growing cancer to inject Castro w/ (that's what the mice were about in "JFK.") That's a good connection you've made to George's cancer.

It's pretty obvious Lennon was rubbed out by a programmed, mind control "lone nut" and just before Lennon was about to most like embark upon a world tour and frequent interviews.

Good old MK-ULTRA delta programming...

If Paul was replaced --- and I believe he was, just from reading this thread --- CIA and Mi6 were most definitely involved and continue their "support" to this very day.

There's no way Faul would have been able to get away w/ this w/out the support of the media. It kills me people *almost* figured it out in 1969. *smacks head*

That's New Paul, or you might say Bungalow Bill.

Who did you kill?