Paul McCartney died in 1966 - replaced by Billy Shepherd

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
Bill says he worked a couple of factory jobs? That's not a part of "official" Beatles history, is it? IAAP is constantly nailing that guy - lol :-P

Bill/Faul is so vague and fake in interviews, and audiences just lap it up.

Everyone cheers and claps "the great icon" of the 60`s. US audiences seem to be the worst - They lick him like an ice-cream cone!

Can western society be so conditioned?? In a word.... Yeshh!

[edit on 30-8-2009 by Uncle Benny]

I would love to know who IAAP is, b/c he's all over Bill like a bad rash. It seems like whenever Bill makes a mistake, IAAP is right on top of it, ready to document it. lol I love it!

Originally posted by Uncle Benny

Can western society be so stupid?? In a word.... Yeshh!

Are you kidding me? How many people buy the "official" JFK assassination story? lol Sorry, but you only need to research that for 15 minutes to figure out what BS it is. Unfortunately, a lot of people can't be bothered to invest those 15 minutes.

Edit: Nothing to see here. Carry on. Be civil

[edit on 30 Aug 2009 by Hellmutt]

Originally posted by aorAki

edited personnal attack

So, just say that what has been proposed has a grain of truth to it...is it not then the ones who are saying PIA that are the weak-minded and easily-led as they are buying the deception hook line and sinker?

There are changes in facial structure, nose shape, eyes (colour and shape) eyebrows (all over the place!) hair part, teeth, lips, cheeks, width of the bridge of the nose, ears and cetera.

Just as they are annoyed because people don't answer their questions specifically or post what they consider to be poor compilations, they are as guilty of this if not more...

Wow, the hypocrisy of your post is unbelievable.
*snip*

Have you not been paying attention? The so-called 'evidence' you speak of have been discussed and in most if not all cases shown up or what they are, complete fabrications and unsubstantiated theory and speculation.
The edited,altered, photoshopped, stretched images which Faulcon favours have been shown up for what they are.
The unaltered images she and other 'pid' users on here have posted in a vain attempt to show up these supposed differences have ailed miserably.
Faulcon was bleating about the height difference malarkey for some time until someone showed her some real photo comparisons and an explanation of how people can be fooled into thinking a person is taller than they seem etc. But did she heed this? No, did she hell, instead this was ignored and no more than two or three pages later, she was back to doing what she does best, re-posting material despite the fact that others had taken it apart and proving that there was nothing in it.
I posted an image of Paul in the late 50's early 60's and a pic of Paul from circa 2002 a few pages back which provided an excellent comparison,
but seeing as Faulcon and her pid buddies are not mature enough to accept that there are
other forum users posting real evidence and discussing it maturely it was overlooked. So you carry on telling me rudely and arrogantly what to do and where to go if you like, good for you but don't accuse me of not contributing or not offering anything, remember that I was accused by one of your 'pid' friends of lying about my background in this thread, despite there being absolutely no proof of this and no reason for this poster to challenge me on my personal details but as has become customary here, you 'pid' lot simply cannot handle the pressure of having your precious theory examined and exposed for what is is, a sham. You can claim all day this rubbish about 'wanting to expose the truth' etc etc. at the end of the day none of you deserve to call yourselves Beatles fans, if you can so unfazingly disrespect Paul McCartney and his loved ones by trying to convince yourselves that he died in the 1960's before the Beatles had released some of the greatest music ever produced.

[edit on 30-8-2009 by pmexplorer]

[edit on 30-8-2009 by pmexplorer]

[edit on 30-8-2009 by pmexplorer]

edited to remove attacks
gallopinghordes
forum mod

[edit on 30-8-2009 by gallopinghordes]

If a mod has to warn people to be civil, I take it we are getting a little too close for comfort for *some* people? How does it feel under that magnifying glass? lol

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
And they're using a comp where Paul's face has been stretched to look like Bill's:

Yeah I noticed that too. But even with stretching you can still see the differences in head shape because not only is Bill's head longer but it is shaped differently.

reply to post by Uncle Benny


Don't be ridiculous, my original post stands.

You are taking the term 'set-up' and misunderstanding the meaning being used.

OK once more for you, he didn't know how to form (set up) a band (cause he'd never done it before) and the band he joined (That became the Beatles) was already formed (set up) before he joined.

Do you get it now? Think about it for a while.

Here are some examples of the term 'set up', used in the same context as Macca, to help you, and a hint; none of them mean what you are implying in Macca's case [except the one about the government and facilities in India lol, never trust the guv. ]. Lord help us all...

search.yahoo.com...

[edit on 8/30/2009 by ANOK]

Seems like if the "Paul" of today is really Paul, then we would have the following...

1. No slip-ups about Beatles history. There should not be mistakes like "The Beatles were already a set-up affair when I joined", but obviously the present guy going around as Paul does slip up from time to time. So he's gotten good at being vague.

2. No questionable photo comparisons at all. We should not be seeing the long face of varied proportion, height difference, shoe size difference, and so forth, but faulcon has readily provided the comps that to my eyes prove there are different men in the photos.

3. If he's really Paul, why not put a stone cold stop to all the rumors and websites by voluntarily submitting to a forensics exam which would include fingerprints, DNA, and cranio-facial measurements and show the evidence (presuming it wouldn't be doctored evidence)? PIAers would say he just doesn't have to prove anything, but consider the amazing P.R. boost he would get from that if he volunteers as a good-natured chap and says, "Allright then, let's prove it once and for all." He would get great P.R. from proving it, however that obviously seems not in the cards at all.

4. If the PID theories are such a joke, why has it been reported that he phoned the radio talk show himself in Cleveland from Scotland "in a rage" about it and why does he seem quite uncomfortable and loathe to talk about it to this day? After all, the "occupational hazard" only exists if your job is to be a double and people are asking you on national TV what's up with stories of you being a double?, then yeah for sure that's an occupational hazard.

5. If the death clues on the albums are really innocent coincidences, why did Beatles and their inner circle who were involved in them either hotly deny it or say things like "Oh, you mean the grave on the cover with flowers on it? There's no particular meaning in that." You get that from Aspinall, Derek Taylor, Beatles, Blake and others, like the attitude is "Oh the obvious death reference? We didn't mean anything by that." I say, well then, what's it doing there? If you were to cross a street tomorrow in a crosswalk in your city and there is a man crossing in an expensive tailored business suit like a bank executive or high powered attorney would wear and he is barefoot, would you think "Oh, that's O.K., it's a hot day, that's all."

6. On separate holiday travels, late '66, all four Beatles grew moustaches for the first time at the same time and they said it wasn't planned, they hadn't discussed it beforehand, just a coincidence. I find the odds of this being a coincidence astronomical.

7. There are ample reasons financially and socially why Great Britain and The Beatles organization would have done anything in their power to prevent a breakup of that band in 1966 for any reason. They had too much riding on the success of The Beatles to allow them to dissolve under traumatic circumstances, reason enough to inject a double to keep it all together.

8. Setting aside the lore retold countless times but not backed up by the very people in question, why did all these women drop out of the whole Beatles scene in a relatively short time span... Jane, Maureen, and Cynthia? What's with the high turnover?

9. Can anyone explain what Heather Mills could be referring to when she says she discovered a devastating problem Paul has that if revealed, most people in the world couldn't handle the truth of it? If not that he's a fake, what else would fit that? I can't think of anything. Interesting how early on in the breakup with Heather, the Macca camp put out this concerted effort, a bullet point professional P.R. blitz that "Heather is a fantasist." Obviously calling her a pathological liar in the worldwide media? Could it be that they were bracing themselves for her to out the double and they wanted a preemptive strike of "You see, she has this mental problem, poor thing, she makes things up." They did try to put that out there. Desperate to keep a secret, are we? The attempt to get her to sign a lifetime non-disclosure contract much like they use in CIA... what's the fear if he's such a nice family man with nothing to hide? What's the fear about?

10. Someone in PIA please explain why respected biographer Philip Norman said we can't get at the truth because John isn't here anymore and "Paul rewrites history all the time" essentially calling Paul either a pathological liar or someone who doesn't know the real history because he wasn't there and has to make things up that are not consistent or accurate? Why would Norman make those comments if he was not alluding to something terribly wrong with common knowledge of what I call Beatles lore? Is the official story put out in the Anthology book not quite right as Norman seems to be strongly suggesting?

[edit on 31-8-2009 by switching yard]

[edit on 31-8-2009 by switching yard]

[edit on 31-8-2009 by switching yard]

[edit on 31-8-2009 by switching yard]

[edit on 31-8-2009 by switching yard]

I would enjoy hearing Sir Paul answer the ten points I've just brought up but it would take an innocent man to adequately and satisfactorily explain them.

However, I'm sure his defenders have explanations at the ready. If so, let's hear them.

Originally posted by switching yard
Seems like if the "Paul" of today is really Paul, then we would have the following...

1. No slip-ups about Beatles history. There should not be mistakes like "The Beatles were already a set-up affair when I joined", but obviously the present guy going around as Paul does slip up from time to time...

Has anyone ever heard of Paul having worked in a factory before? I haven't... & a "couple" of such jobs, no less! Yes, Bill, I guess things could have been much different for you.

3. If he's really Paul, why not put a stone cold stop to all the rumors and websites by voluntarily submitting to a fornsics exam which would include fingerprints, DNA, and cranio-facial measurements and show the evidence (presuming it wouldn't be doctored evidence)?

I bet the real Paul would've been really cool about it. It seems like he had a great sense of humor from the videos, etc. Bill, on the other hand, kind of dickish, imo. I think he's let being Paul go to his head. lol

4. If the PID theories are such a joke, why has it been reported that he phoned the radio talk show himself in Cleveland from Scotland "in a rage" about it and why does he seem quite uncomfortable and loathe to talk about it to this day?

And if there were nothing to it, some people wouldn't have to work so hard to try to debunk all the evidence that supports it.

5. If the death clues on the albums are really innocent coincidences, why did Beatles and their inner circle who were involved in them either hotly deny it or say things like "Oh, you mean the grave on the cover with flowers on it? There's no particular meaning in that."

Yeah... then John says stuff like "here's another clue for you all," then turns around & says stuff like there were no clues. Ok... lol

6. On separate holiday travels, late '66, all four Beatles grew moustaches for the first time at the same time and they said it wasn't planned, they hadn't discussed it beforehand, just a coincidence.

Yes, the bizarre change in style happened quite coincidentally. This was the band that had sketches drawn beforehand for crossing the street for the Abbey Road cover, but this dramatic transformation in "look" was just an "accident."

8. Setting aside the lore retold countless times but not backed up by the very people in question, why did all these women drop out of the whole Beatles scene in a relatively short time span... Jane, Maureen, and Cynthia? What's with the high turnover?

And what was up w/ Yoko? Seriously.

9. ...Interesting how early on in the breakup with Heather, the Macca camp put out this concerted effort, a bullet point professional P.R. blitz that "Heather is a fantasist." Obviously calling her a pathological liar in the worldwide media? Could it be that they were bracing themselves for her to out the double and they wanted a preemptive strike of "You see, she has this mental problem, poor thing, she makes things up."

It seems like they had a 3-prong approach to dealing w/ her:
1 - threats
2 - discrediting campaign
3 - bribery


But if the "Paul" of today had really been Paul, then we would've had tons of great music rather than the (sorry) crap Bill churns out that actually gets ridiculed. Ouch.


[edit on 31-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
So, now the PIA'ers have admitted to using pre-replacement pics of Paul in their comps. I fail to see how this supports their position that Paul wasn't replaced in mid-late 1966. All it does is show that they're not honest & try to trick people.



Dakudo/Focrates:

The 'Bill' pic is from Yesterday and Today:

www.davidicke.com...

That album came out in June 1966.

[edit on 30-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

WHAT?

What do you mean? Now Paul was replaced in June 1966 or what?

OMG, Faulcon, this gets better every day..

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
This one is just plain funny :p

I think this one was also described as funny a few pages ago, no explanation as to why though...

My point about the women exiting the scene is that good women usually will not put up with fakery.

Yoko appears on the scene in the lore and legend as an artist who didn't know who the Beatles were but asked first Paul and then John for donations of their personal, handwritten manuscripts so she can auction them to raise money for an art project. She is avant garde, you see, and that explains why none of this makes any sense.

Wouldn't it be interesting if she had been an intel mind control handler aka "Mother", as John called her? When he took up with her he didn't even go to the toilet without her by his side. But that's not control, is it?

Originally posted by switching yard
My point about the women exiting the scene is that good women usually will not put up with fakery.

Yeah, I totally agree w/ Cynthia & possibly Maureen, but the situation w/ Jane Asher is really bizarre. She was together w/ Paul, then gets engaged to Bill - then they break up? Who knows what these Illuminati-types are up to?

... She is avant garde, you see, and that explains why none of this makes any sense.

Right... It doesn't explain how John went from preferring blondes to being completely infatuated w/ a rather unattractive Asian woman (JMO).

Wouldn't it be interesting if she had been an intel mind control handler aka "Mother", as John called her?

You're not the 1st person to have suggested that... Methinks there's something more going on w/ this story than we've been led to believe.

I admit I haven't read this thread since around page 70 or so, but I'm having a little trouble with this pic. Are you saying that Paul is on the left and Faul is on the right?

If so, why in the heck would Paul's father pose with Faul for a family photo? That makes no sense at all.

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Originally posted by Dakudo
Merely stating your OPINION of these things does not make them facts.

It's a fact that there is a height difference. This can be demonstrated by photographic evidence using other people's heights as reference points. These are straight on shots, so you can't say it's "camera angles" or lighting or any other rationalization. They are simply not the same height.

Maybe Jane was wearing really high heels, but we can see Ringo wasn't, & I doubt Paul's dad was.

Originally posted by seaofgreen
I think this one was also described as funny a few pages ago, no explanation as to why though...

Don't you see how the ears totally don't match up? The cheeks don't match, either. Better do a more thorough job in Photoshop next time. :-P

Originally posted by virraszto
Are you saying that Paul is on the left and Faul is on the right?

Yes

If so, why in the heck would Paul's father pose with Faul for a family photo? That makes no sense at all.

And yet, he's doing it. Don't really know what induced him to go along w/ the charade. Edit: When I first saw the picture, I thought Paul's dad might have been photoshopped into the pic w/ Bill & the family...




[edit on 31-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
the situation w/ Jane Asher is really bizarre. She was together w/ Paul, then gets engaged to Bill - then they break up?

It's not bizarre, it's evidence. It only seems bizarre if you judge it against a foregone conclusion that ignores most of the evidence.

Any serious discussion/argument/investigation ways up both evidence for and against. Where are your lists of evidence for and against? I'm not sure you even understand the concept.

Originally posted by seaofgreen
Any serious discussion/argument/investigation ways up both evidence for and against. Where are your lists of evidence for and against? I'm not sure you even understand the concept.

Was that addressed to me? lol Yeah, I'm a lawyer but I have no concept of evidence. Give me a break. You want a list? Here ya go:

Paul: brown/hazel eyes
Faul: green eyes
Paul’s eyes were set farther apart than Faul's
Paul had thick eyelashes

Faul's head is larger than JPM's
Bill has a larger chin and forehead
Paul's hair grows from left to right and his bangs are very thick
Bill's hair grows from right to left, and his bangs are thin
Bill has a cowlick
Paul was bow-legged
Paul - size 8 shoe, Faul - size 9.5

Bill's natural ears are much smaller than Paul's
Paul's earlobes are attached and his ears stick out far from his head
Bill's natural ears, and even many of his fakes ears have unattached earlobes, and are set closer to his head
Bill's ears vary because he wears prosthetic ears
Faul was caught on film wearing an obviously fake ear, with a wedge missing. Ears are unique identifiers for a person, and it is necessary for a doppleganger to hide or disguise his or her ears in some way. Look at video for “Mary Had a Little Lamb” on YT

Paul had high arching eyebrows
Bill had thick eyebrows with little arch. Fillers are used to pump up his eyebrows, and therefore they've varied over the years
Paul had Bell's Palsy in the left side of his face, which caused it to droop in some pictures
Bill never had this condition and no pictures show signs of Bell's Palsy
Paul always stayed clean shaven and wore short sideburns
Bill has had three moustaches (1966-67, 1974 & early 1976), beards (1969, 1970-72), and various long sideburns
Paul was a legendary bassist and seldom looked down at his fingers while playing
Bill has always needed to look at his fingers while playing guitar, even on simple chord changes. Ditto for bass
Paul was left handed
Bill is right handed and had to learn to play guitar left handed
Paul had more body hair than Faul
Paul rarely stared directly into video cameras while performing
Bill often gazes into video cameras for long periods while performing
Paul was masculine
Bill's portrayal of Paul has been very effeminate
Bill is around 2.5 inches taller than Paul, and has a larger frame
Plastic surgery is most noticeable from 1967-1969
Cheek fillers most noticeable in 1970
Faul’s feet are longer & are shaped differently from Paul’s. For ex: hammer toes
Photo doctoring and retouching has taken place to make Faul look more like Paul and vice versa.
Different hand-writing

Paul's voice was lower register, deeper, and had more resonance and vibrato than Faul's voice
Faul's singing voice is higher and thinner than JPM's, and his Liverpudlian accent is noticeably less thick and consistent than JPM's
Dr. Henry M. Truby of the University of Miami used samples from three Beatles songs sung by Paul McCartney ("Yesterday," "Penny Lane," and "Hey Jude") and produced three very different sonagrams.

Terry Knight’s 1969 single, "Saint Paul” came out in May 1969 - five months before the first article on PID appeared. More mysteriously, "Saint Paul" is the only Knight composition administered by Maclen Music - McCartney and Lennon's exclusive publishing company!

Mal Evans: ...Beatles roadie - knew them since 1963. He wrote an unpublished autobiography; all of this has until now remained unseen, part of an archive that went missing when Mal himself died in bizarre circumstances in 1976. Mal Evans was shot and killed by the police on 5 January 1976, The officers mistakenly believed that the air pistol Evans was holding was a rifle. Before his death Evans was working on a book of memoirs called “Living The Beatles' Legend”, which he was supposed to deliver to publishers Grosset and Dunlap on 12 January 1976...On the night of Evans' death, he was so despondent that Fran Hughes (g/f) phoned his collaborator on his book, John Hoernie, and asked him to visit them. Hoernie said Evans told him to make sure that he finished Living The Beatles' Legend... Evans was cremated on 7 January 1976 in Los Angeles. Evans' ashes were sent by post back to England, but were lost in the postal system... A suitcase that Evans was carrying at the time of his death, which was supposed to contain unreleased recordings, photos and other memorabilia, was lost by the police during the investigation. Portions of the book have been published, but not all.

Bettina Krischbin alleged that "Paul" had sent a double to give blood when her mother (Erika Huebers) commenced a paternity suit against him in Germany in 1983. He looked different, & it was a different signature in the paternity case file from the one in the Hamburg Beatles museum.

Heather Mills interview during divorce: “you know why I’ve left you. Protect me & I will say nothing.” Something so awful happened - beyond belief. Someone she had loved betrayed her immensely, & not infidelity. Says people don’t want to know what the truth is b/c they could never handle it. They would be too devastated. She said in another interview that she'd put evidence in a box & given it to a friend in case anything happened to her.

In the future, if I don't respond to you, seaofgreen, it's b/c you're on my ignore list. Just FYI.